Question: (We did not answer that the Chachamim in that Mishnah argue with R. Shimon about a Ba'al Mum me'Ikara.) We assume that Chachamim agree that it may be redeemed if it died. If so, Rav should have said that our Mishnah is like R. Shimon and his opponent (the Chachamim who argue with him)!

Answer #1: Rav holds like Reish Lakish, who says that Chachamim require Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, but not for Kodshei Mizbe'ach;

Our Mishnah cannot be Chachamim due to the Seifa.

(Seifa): If it (a Ba'al Mum me'Ikara) died, it is buried.

Question: Perhaps the reason they are buried is not because Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah is impossible, rather, because we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs!

Answer: If so, they should have taught (a bigger Chidush,) that if an animal became Terefah, it must be buried.

Answer #2: Rav holds like R. Yochanan (who says that Chachamim require Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis and Kodshei Mizbe'ach);

Indeed, the correct text of Rav's teaching should say 'our Mishnah is like R. Shimon and his opponent.'

(Mishnah): If one was Makdish an animal (and later it became a Ba'al Mum... )

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): (One eats Pesulei ha'Mukdashim like a) "Tzvi". Just like a deer is exempt from Bechorah, also Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is exempt from Bechorah, but not from Matanos!

Rejection: "Ayal" - just like a wild goat is exempt from Bechorah and Matanos, also Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.

Suggestion: We should permit Chelev of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, just like that of Tzvi and Ayal (they are Chayos)!

Rejection: "Ach" (Devarim 12:22) limits (the similarity to Tzvi and Ayal).

Question: The Beraisa suggested that Pesulei ha'Mukdashim would be exempt from Bechorah, but not from Matanos. Why would we distinguish them?

Answer: It is more reasonable to exempt from Bechorah, for it does not apply to all animals (i.e. females), but Matanos apply to all animals.

Question (Rav Papa): We should say that Oso v'Es Beno does not apply to Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, just like it does not apply to Tzvi and Ayal!

Answer (Abaye): Whether you consider Pesulei ha'Mukdashim like Chulin or like Kodshim, Oso v'Es Beno applies!

Question (Rav Papa): If so, why is a verse needed to forbid the Chelev? Whether we consider Pesulei ha'Mukdashim like Chulin or like Kodshim, the Chelev is forbidden!

Answer #1 (Abaye): Just like "Ach" teaches that we do not equate Pesulei ha'Mukdashim to Tzvi va'Ayal regarding Chelev, it also teaches not to equate them regarding Oso v'Es Beno.

Answer #2 (Rava): "Ach" teaches only about Oso v'Es Beno. A different verse forbids Chelev;

Question: What does "Rak Es Damo Lo Sochel" refer to?

Suggestion: It forbids the blood.

Rejection: There is no need to forbid blood. Also the blood of Tzvi va'Ayal is forbidden!

Answer: It refers to Chelev.

Question: The verse should explicitly say Chelev!

Answer: Had it said Chelev, one might have thought that we learn from both the verse and the Hekesh (to Tzvi va'Ayal);

The Hekesh would exempt from Kares, for Kares is only for Chelev Behemah, but Pesulei ha'Mukdashim are equated to Chayos;

The verse would teach that there is a Lav.

Therefore, the Torah says "Dam" instead, to teach that there is Kares, just like for blood.

Question: The Tana says that "Ach" forbids Chelev. This is unlike Rava (who says that it teaches about Oso v'Es Beno)!

Answer: The Tana teaches that had we not had the verse "Rak Es Damo... " (to forbid the Chelev), we would have learned this from "Ach";

Since it says also "Rak Es Damo... ," "Ach" teaches about Oso v'Es Beno.

(Mishnah): It does not become Chulin...

Question: What is the source of this?

Version #1 - Answer (Beraisa): "Tizbach" teaches that (you may slaughter Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, but) you may not shear them. "(You may eat the) Vasar" (meat, but) not the milk. "V'Achalta" -- (you may eat it), but not for your dogs;

This is the source that we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs.

Version #2 - Answer (Beraisa): "Tizbach v'Achalta" - you may eat only after Shechitah.

This version permits redeeming Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs.

(Mishnah): Its offspring and milk are forbidden after it is redeemed.

Question: What is the case?

If the mother became pregnant and gave birth after redemption, the child would be fully Chulin!

Answer: The mother became pregnant before redemption and gave birth after redemption.

Inference: Had the mother given birth before redemption, the child would be Kodesh.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): (Had the Torah not specified, we would have assumed that a Shelamim can be male or female. Therefore, "Zachar" and "Nekevah" (in Vayikra 3:1) are extra, to be expounded.) "Zachar" includes Vlad Shelamim. "Nekevah" includes Temuras Shelamim;

Question: This includes only the child and Temurah of a Tam. What is the source for a child and Temurah of a Ba'al Mum?

Answer: "Im Zachar" includes Vlad Ba'al Mum. "Im Nekevah" includes Temuras Ba'al Mum.

Question: What is the law of offspring born after redemption?

Amora'im argue about a child born before redemption. One opinion says that it is offered. The other opinion requires Re'iyah (it grazes until it gets a Mum. It is redeemed, and the money goes for Nedavah (voluntary Olos of the Tzibur).)

Answer #1 (Rav Huna): We lock it up and leave it to starve, for there is no other solution:

It cannot be offered, for it comes from a Kedushah Dechuyah. (Its mother was Nir'eh v'Nidcheh, i.e. it was Kosher to be offered, and then disqualified);

It cannot be redeemed, for it does not have the Kedushah needed to be Matpis Pidyono (to be Mekadesh the redemption money).

Answer #2 (R. Chanina): Shortly before they are redeemed, we are Matpis (Makdish) the fetus with the same Kedushah (as its mother, e.g. Shelamim).

Objection: "Before they are redeemed" implies that also the child can be redeemed! (Rav Huna taught that it lacks the Kedushah needed to be Matpis Pidyono.)

Correction: Rather, shortly before the mother is redeemed, we are Matpis the fetus with the same Kedushah. (After it is born, it is Ro'eh. When it gets a Mum, it is redeemed, and a new Korban is brought.)

Version #1 - Question: What is the reason (why Rav Huna does not allow R. Chanina's solution)?

Answer (R. Levi): This is a decree, lest one delay redeeming (and eating) the mother, in order to raise flocks. (Perhaps he will come to eat the mother before redemption.)

Version #2 - Question: Why are Chachamim so stringent about the offspring (that one must let them die, or be Matpis them)?

Answer (R. Levi): This is a decree, lest one leave the offspring around to raise flocks. (Perhaps someone will eat them. This is forbidden, for they have Kedushah.)

Version #3 - Question: Why does the Mishnah forbid the offspring after redemption?

Answer (R. Levi): This is a decree, lest one delay eating the mother, in order to raise flocks. (One may come to shear or work with the mother.)

Question (Ravina): May one be Matpis the fetus with Kedushah of a different Korban?

Answer (Rav Sheshes): One may not.

Question (Ravina): What is the reason?

Answer (Rav Sheshes): We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "bi'Sh'arecha-bi'Sh'arecha" from Bechor;

One may not be Matpis a Bechor (after it was born) with a different Kedushah - "Ach Bechor Asher Yevukar... Lo Yakdish Ish Oso." The same applies to Vlados Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.

Support (for Answer (b) - Beraisa): If one was Makdish a Ba'al Mum Kavu'a, and it was redeemed, Bechorah and Matanos apply to it.

The following laws apply both before and after Pidyon:

One who shears it or works with it is not lashed;

It does not make Temurah.

Me'ilah applies before Pidyon; not after Pidyon;

(Even if it became pregnant before Pidyon,) its offspring (born after Pidyon) are Chulin.

Its offspring (born before Pidyon) may be redeemed Tam (without a Mum), one may Matfis them for any Korban;

The general rule is, it is Chulin in every way, there is just a Mitzvah (R. Gershom - stringency) to "redeem" it (to be Makdish money equal to its value for the same Korban).

If one was Makdish a Tam or a Ba'al Mum Over, and later a Mum Kavu'a developed:

After it is redeemed, it is exempt from Bechorah and Matanos;

Both before and after Pidyon, one who shears it or works with it is lashed, and it makes Temurah;

Me'ilah applies before Pidyon, but not after Pidyon.

(If it became pregnant before Pidyon,) its offspring (even if born after Pidyon) are Kodesh. They may not be redeemed Tam. One may not be Matfis them for another Korban;

The general rule is, it is Kodesh in every way. The only Heter to people is to eat it (after redemption).

Question: What do we learn from "the general rule" in the Reisha?

Answer: This teaches that one who slaughters it outside (the Mikdash) is exempt.

Question: What do we learn from "the general rule" in the Seifa?

Answer: This forbids its milk.