Question: Why do Rabanan say "a Chatas dies only if it was found after Kaparah?" They hold that even if it was found before Kaparah, the lost animal dies...

Why do they discuss when it was found specifically after Kaparah, i.e. [if] it was lost, they offered another in place of it, and the first animal was found, it dies?

Strengthening of question: The Gemara asks like this in Temurah (23b). A Mishnah says that if one separated his Chatas, and it was lost, they offered another in place of it, and the first animal was found, it dies;

Citation (23b) Question: This is only because they already offered [the replacement]. If not, not (the first animal would not die)! This is difficult for both opinions.

Explanation: [It is difficult for both] R. Aba and Rav Huna, who says there that all agree that if he took one of them and offered it, the other dies. They argue only if he asks what to do...

Citation (cont.) Answer: The Tana taught a simple matter, but not something that is not simple.

Explanation: The Tana taught a simple matter, when it was found after Kaparah. Then he need not elaborate to explain anything. (In every case it dies);

However, when it was found before Kaparah, sometimes it dies and sometimes it grazes;

If he atones with the one that was not lost, the second (i.e. the other, which was lost,) dies. If he atones with the one that was lost, the one that was not lost grazes according to Rabanan.

Observation: [There, the Makshan] could have asked from Rabanan's own words, like I explained.

Note: The Gemara asked from the Stam Reisha. It could have asked from the Seifa, in which Chachamim say that a Chatas dies only if it was found after Kaparah.

Rather, he preferred to ask from the case when he already offered, which was taught in the Reisha, and it is like Rabanan.

Question: The Gemara could have said that it is like R. Shimon, who holds that an individual's Chatas never grazes!

This is even if he separated two Chata'os for Acharayus (in case one of them will get lost or blemished), like Temurah 15b, Menachos 80a and Pesachim 97b connote.

Answer: We cannot establish our Mishnah like him, because it says that if one of them died, he brings two others and casts a lottery;

Above, R. Shimon said that he brings its counterpart without a lottery.

Question: Why don't we bring the Beraisa above (40b), which explicitly teaches so according to R. Yehudah?

Answer: From that Beraisa, one might have thought that if it died before Matan Dam of its counterpart, we bring another, but we do not spill the blood;

R. Yanai teaches that we even spill the blood.

Rashi's opinion: A Mishnah teaches that we take Terumah (from the chamber of Shekalim for Korbanos Tzibur) on (with intent for) what was lost...

In Bava Metzi'a (58a), Rashi explained that "what was lost" means that the Shali'ach received it, and it was lost, and the owners did not know before Terumah was taken;

"What was collected" means that it is still in the Shali'ach's hand, and it was not lost.

Question: If so, once we taught the former, there is no need to teach the latter!

Since he taught that Terumah is with intent for what was lost, [so the owner] has a share even though it was lost and will never reach the chamber, even so he has a share in [the Shekalim the in] the boxes...

All the more so [he has a share] in what was collected, and will later reach the chamber!

Ri's opinion: "What was lost" means what came to the chamber and was lost before Terumah was taken;

[They take Terumah with intent] not only for this, which already came to the chamber, rather, even for what was collected, and at the time of Terumah it is in the Shali'ach's hand;

This is even if it was lost in the end and never reached the chamber.

In these two cases, the owners have no Acharayus.

"What will be collected" is what was not yet given to a Shali'ach.

Citation (Kesuvos 108a): If Ploni is Mudar Hana'ah (may not benefit) from David, he (David) may give the [half-]Shekel for him (Ploni), since a Mishnah teaches that they take Terumah [with intent] for what was lost...

Explanation: This shows that (David) does not benefit him (Ploni) at all, for even without this (David's Shekel), Ploni would not need to give.

This is when [Ploni already gave, and it was] lost or collected, for there is no Chiyuv Acharayus;

However, we do not discuss what will be collected, for Ploni must give it. If so, if David gives for him, he benefits him!

Question: Why doesn't it mention also Par Helam Davar Shel Tzibur?

Answer: This is because there is not a uniform law [about Par Helam Davar]. There is Par Helam Davar of a Kohen Mashi'ach who erred and transgressed through his own [mistaken] ruling;

The ruling of a Kohen Mashi'ach for himself is like Beis Din's ruling for the Tzibur. (Also it can be called Par Helam Davar.) R. Eliezer and R. Shimon would not argue [with R. Yehudah] about it. (Since it is a Chatas Yachid, it must die.)

Question: A Mishnah (Kinim 2:3) says "if this had one, this had two, this had three, this had four, this had five, this had six, this had seven..."

Explanation: There are seven women. One has one Ken Stumah, i.e. she did not specify which [bird] will be her Chatas and which will be her Olah. One woman has two Kinim (Stumim), one has three...

A bird flew from the lone Ken to the second [woman's two Kinin], and we do not know which it is. A bird flew from the second to the third, and [one] from the third to the fourth, and to the fifth, sixth and seventh, and returned [one from the seventh to the sixth, one from the sixth to the fifth... to the first];

Note: We do not know whether or not it is the same bird. For brevity, we discuss it as if it is the same bird.

It (the bird) is Pasul (we may not offer it), and it forbids one (this will be explained) in going [to the other Kinin, until reaching the seventh], and forbids [another] one when returning.

We may not offer anything from the first and second.

"It is Pasul and forbids one", it forbids its "mate" (the bird it was initially with). Once it flew from the first to the second, there are now five birds in the second;

We can offer only four, two Chata'os and two Olos. (We explain why below.)

It forbids one, i.e. its mate left in the first Ken. If we would offer the remaining bird for a Chatas, its mate [which flew] would be fixed to be an Olah;

We would then have an Olah mixed with four birds [for Kinim] Stumim. We could offer from it only two Olos, but not even one Chatas, lest he offer that bird [fixed to be an Olah] below (like Chatas ha'Of).

We cannot offer three above, lest three Olos are from the four birds of the second [woman], and only two of them should be Olos.

Similarly, when it flew from the second to the third, and similarly all of them, it and its remaining mate are disqualified for the reason given.

Similarly, when it returned and flew from the seventh to the sixth, and from the sixth to the fifth, fourth, third, second and first, it is Pasul and it disqualifies.

We may not offer anything from the first and second. We may offer one from the third, two from the fourth, three from the fifth...

Question #1: Since it disqualified its mate remaining in the first once it flew from the first to the second, when it returned and flew from the seventh to the sixth, fifth, fourth, third, second and first, why does it disqualify the entire second [group of Kinim]?

We should be able to offer two birds from it. When a bird first flew from the second to the third, that bird is Pasul, and it disqualifies its mate remaining in the second. Only one pair in the second, one Chatas and one Olah, is Kosher;

Also when it returns from the second to the first, why does it disqualify its remaining mate?

Suggestion: It is because if we would offer it for a Chatas, it will fix the bird that flew to the first to be an Olah, and if we would offer [its mate left in the second] for an Olah, it will fix the bird that flew to the first to be a Chatas.

Rejection: This is not a problem. In any case we do not offer anything from the first!

Why do we care if the mate (that flew to the first) is fixed to be a Chatas or Olah, and we could offer from the first only one Chatas if the mate that flew were fixed to be a Chatas, or only one Olah if the mate that flew were fixed to be a Olah?

Question #2: Why may we offer only one Ken from the third, two from the fourth, three from the fifth, four from the sixth [due to] its return, and six from the seventh, because each loses one in the bird's going [from the first to the seventh] and one in its return?

Since we do not offer anything from the second, the third should not lose anything through the return! It should have two Kosher Kinim.

Citation (Seifa): If again a bird flew [from the third to the seventh] and flew back [to the third], we do not offer anything from the third and fourth. We offer one from the fifth.

Note: The Mishnah permits offering two from the sixth, and five from the seventh. We cannot say that also the second time a bird flew from the first to the seventh and back, for then the sixth [or seventh] could contain both birds from the first, and we could not offer more than one Kan from it.

Question #3: We should be able to offer one from the fourth, since we do not offer anything from the third! Since we do not offer anything from the fourth, we should be able to offer two from the fifth!

Question #4: The [very] Seifa says that if a bird flew again [from the fifth... to the seventh] and flew back [to the fifth], we do not offer anything from the fifth and sixth. We offer one from the seventh. We can ask similarly! (We should be able to offer one from the sixth, since we do not offer anything from the fifth! Since we do not offer anything from the sixth, all should agree that the seventh does not lose at all.)

Answer (to all four questions): This is a decree. We decree about birds that flew into Kinim from which we may not offer anything - which according to letter of the law, they should not disqualify [what they left] -- due to birds that flew into Kinim from which we may offer.

Summation (of Question (a) - R. Yakov of Orlins): They die, due to a decree. Our Sugya asked that this is unreasonable!

Answer (R. Yakov): Only regarding an animal, which has a solution through grazing, we ask this. We should have found a solution through grazing [rather than decree that it die];

However, there no solution through grazing for birds, for they cannot be redeemed. Therefore, we cannot ask this.

Question (Ri): Also regarding animals, we decree that they die, in Zevachim (73b)!

Citation (73b): All Korbanos in which a Shor ha'Niskal became mixed, even one in 10,000, all of them must die.

Citation (cont.) Question: We should cause animals to go away (so animals will separate from the mixture elsewhere, not in front of us), and we can say that each that separates is from the majority!

Citation (cont.) Answer: This is a decree, lest one take [from the mixture, i.e. in a way that is like] from Kavu'a.

Answer #1 (Ri): We ask this here because we decree the bull due to the goat, and the goat itself is merely a Mitzvah [l'Chatchilah] to take it from the new Terumah. Should it die [for such a decree]?!

Also below we ask because we decree the bull due to the goat, and the goat itself is a decree lest people say that the lottery fixes from one year to another. Should it die [for such a decree]?!

Answer #2 (Tosfos): We ask because a decree like this, of the bull due to the goat, which are not so similar to each other. One is a bull, and one is a goat. One is a Korban Yachid, and one is a Korban Tzibur. Should it die [for such a decree]?!

Birds resemble each other in every respect. They can be confused. There, it is proper to decree death.

Explanation: Perhaps one of the Kohanim [for whom the Par atones] will die.

Even if you will say that the Par atones for them mi'Kufya (only along with the Kohen Gadol, so this is not a Chatas whose owner died), it is proper to decree when one of the Kohanim dies due to a Chatas whose owner died.

Rashi's opinion: Perhaps the Kohen Gadol will die. (Therefore, we decree not to use it.)

Rejection: This is wrong. This is blatant. It is easy to know whether or not he died! (We need not be stringent if he is alive.)

However, we are concerned lest one of the Kohanim die, for it is impossible to know for sure whether or not one of them died.

Question: What was the question? Also the bull must three years, and no more. If it is too old, it is Pasul, and it cannot be offered!

Citation (Parah 1:2 - Mishnah - R. Yosi ha'Glili): "Parim" must be two years old.

Citation (cont.): Chachamim say, they can even be three years.

Citation (cont.): R. Meir says, they can even be four or five, just we do not bring old ones, for it is not honorable.

Inference: Rabanan do not allow more than three years old.

Answer #1: Even though one may not offer it, we should not have said that they die. Perhaps the tradition that a Chatas whose years passed must die applies only to a female lamb or goat or a male goat, which must be in the first year;

Therefore, it is proper to decree due to when the year passed, for the tradition teaches that it must die;

However, regarding bulls, which are three years old, there is no tradition that they must die after three years pass. Therefore, it is not proper to decree about them. We should say that they graze!

Answer #2: We ask according to R. Meir. You (the Tartzan) gave a [weak] answer that it is a decree due to when the year passed;

You could have answered without a decree according to Rabanan of Rebbi, that it is truly a Chatas whose year passed. Rather, you answered [that it is a decree] in order to establish it like everyone, even according to Rebbi;

If so, according to R. Meir, who says that a Par can be even four or five, or even more, how did you answer?