(Rav Sheshes): R. Meir agrees that if one designated two Ashamos for Acharayus (if one of them will become blemished or lost, the other will be offered), the second is left to graze.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: R. Meir argues only about someone who did not show that he is worried. Since only one animal is needed, if one designated two, this shows that he is worried, so R. Meir agrees that he is Makdish absolutely.

(Rav Yehudah): Chachamim agree that if two witnesses told Ploni that he must bring an Asham Taluy (e.g. they testified that he ate Safek Chelev) and they were Huzmu, the animal returns to the flock.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Chachamim argue only about one who himself decided to be Makdish an Asham, for he is worried;

Here, witnesses forced him to bring it. (He knows that they are lying, so) he anticipates that they will be Huzmu, so he is not Makdish absolutely.

Question (Rava - Mishnah): Shor ha'Niskal is different. If we find out before stoning, (all agree that) he returns it to his flock.

Question: What is the case?

If two witnesses testified that it killed, and later two witnesses testified that it did not kill, why should we believe the latter more than the former?!

Answer #1: The case is, the witnesses who testified that it killed were Huzmu.

Inference: The case of Asham Taluy in the Mishnah is the same, and they argue about it!

Answer (and Answer #2 to Question (1) - Abaye): The case of Shor ha'Niskal is when the person it allegedly killed walked into Beis Din. (This proves that it did not kill);

The corresponding case of Asham Taluy is that the remaining piece (that he did not eat) was found to be Chelev. (This shows that he ate Heter.)

The Mishnah does not discuss when witnesses obligated Ploni to bring an Asham Taluy and they were Huzmu. (Then, all agree that the animal is Chulin!)

R. Elazar and R. Yochanan argue as Rav Yehudah and Rava do;

(R. Elazar): If witnesses obligated Ploni to bring an Asham Taluy and they were Huzmu, the law is like the corresponding case of Minchas Sotah (which a man brings due to his wife):

(Beraisa): If witnesses testified that Reuven's wife was secluded (forbidding her to him until she drinks, and he was Makdish a Minchah), and they were Huzmu, the Minchah is Chulin.

(R. Yochanan): No, the Asham grazes.

Question: Why doesn't R. Yochanan equate Asham Taluy to Minchas Sotah?

Answer: Minchas Sotah is not for Kaparah, rather, to test whether or not she is guilty. He is not so anxious to bring it;

Asham Taluy is for Kaparah. He is worried, so he is Makdish it absolutely.

(Rav Kruspedai citing R. Yochanan): If witnesses testified that an ox must be stoned (due to bestiality) and they were Huzmu, (the owner already despaired, so the ox is Hefker;) whoever takes it (to acquire it) keeps it.

(Rava): Presumably, this is only if they testified that someone else was Rove'a (had relations with) it. However, if they testified that the owner was Rove'a it, he knows that they are lying. He is not Mafkir it. He will toil to be Mezim the witnesses.

Question: Why is this different than Rabah's law?

(Rabah bar Isi): If witnesses caused a city to be declared an Ir ha'Nidachas (the majority of its residents were convicted for serving idolatry, all property in the city is forbidden) and they were Huzmu, whoever takes property keeps it.

Answer: There, everyone reasons "even though I know that I am innocent (the witnesses who testified against me lied), even without me the majority of residents are guilty, so even my property is forbidden";

Here, the owner knows that he was not Rove'a it. He is not Mafkir it. He will toil to be Mezim the witnesses.

(Reish Lakish): If Reuven gave a gift to Levi, and Levi said "I do not want it," whoever takes it keeps it.

Question: Why is this different than Rav Sheshes' law?

(Rav Sheshes): If after Levi received from Reuven, he said "it should be Batel," it is Batel;

If he said "I do not want it," his words take effect;

If he said "it is Batel," or "it is not a gift," his words do not take effect.

Suggestion: "His words take effect" in the middle clause mean that it reverts to Reuven.

Answer: No, it means that also Levi does not get it. Whoever takes it keeps it.

Question (Beraisa): If one said to his partner "I have no claims on this field", "I have no involvement with it", (or) "my hand is withdrawn from it," his words are void.

"My hand is withdrawn from it" is like saying "I do not want it," and the Beraisa says that his words are void!

Answer: The case is, he said all three things ("I have no claims... I have no involvement... my hand is withdrawn"). He withdrew from debating (the ownership, for he is Muchzak), but he did not withdraw from the field itself!

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven wrote his property, which included slaves, to Levi, and Levi said "I do not want it" (the case is, Shimon acquired on behalf of Levi, and Levi was initially quiet and later protested - Bava Basra 138a):

If Levi is a Kohen, the slaves may eat Terumah. (They are his slaves);

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, since he said "I do not want it," it reverts to (Reuven, and if Reuven died, to) his heirs.

Question: We understand R. Shimon. He holds that a gift is given on condition that the receiver accept it. If not, it reverts to the giver;

According to the first Tana, if saying "I do not want it" makes Hefker, the slaves are (free) Zarim. Why may they eat Terumah?!

Answer: He holds that if one is Mafkir his slave, he goes free and needs a Get Shichrur (of freedom), and that such a slave mat eat Terumah (if his master is a Kohen. Even though he need not serve his master, he still belongs to him..)

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): He offers it (... it can be for another sin).

Question: Why does R. Eliezer require it to be for another sin? He holds that one may bring an Asham Taluy for a Nedavah! (He should say it is a Nedavah.)

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): One may bring an Asham Taluy for a Nedavah every day.

Answer (Rav Ashi): He holds like Bava ben Buta's colleagues:

(Mishnah): They told Bava ben Buta "do not bring an Asham Taluy (today, Motza'ei Yom Kipur) until you have a (more reasonable) doubt that you might have sinned!"

(Mishnah): If he found out after Shechitah... (the meat is burned in Beis ha'Sereifah).

Inference: The Tana holds that Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah are burned.

Contradiction (Seifa): Asham Vadai is different. If one found out before Shechitah, it returns to the flock. If he found out after Shechitah, it is buried. (Tosfos - we assume that both clauses are like R. Meir. According to Chachamim, surely an Asham Taluy is burned. It was Hukdash absolutely. It is a not Chulin, rather, a Pasul Korban! Rashi - we assume that both clauses are like Chachamim. We do not (yet) distinguish Hekdesh of Asham Taluy from that of Asham Vadai.)

Resolution #1 (R. Elazar): We are forced to say that different Tana'im taught these two clauses!

Resolution #2 (Rabah): Asham Taluy and Asham Vadai are different:

He was Makdish Asham Vadai only if he will need it. Since he does not, it was Chulin. (The Tana holds that Chulin ba'Azarah is buried);

Regarding Asham Taluy, since he was worried, (Tosfos - at the time of Shechitah) he was Makdish it absolutely. (It is a Pasul Korban, so it is burned.)

Contradiction (Rabah): The Mishnah contradicts itself regarding Asham Vadai!

If he found out after Shechitah, it is buried. If the blood was thrown, the meat is burned in Beis ha'Sereifah!

Resolution (#1) (Rabah): We are forced to say that different Tana'im taught these two clauses!

Version #1 (Rashi) Resolution #2 (Rav Ashi): (Letter of the law, in both cases it should be buried. After Zerikah) it is a decree to burn the meat, for it looks like a Pasul Korban (which is burned).

Version #2 (R. Gershom) Resolution #3 (to Contradiction (f) - Rav Ashi): (R. Meir need not agree that one is Makdish absolutely at the time of Shechitah. Rather,) he decrees to burn Asham Taluy, for if it would be buried, onlookers might think that it is Chulin even if one found out after Zerikah. (end of Version #2)

(Mishnah): If the blood (of Asham Taluy) was thrown (before he found out), the meat is eaten.

Question: It should be Pasul, for (it is brought only b'Safek, and) now we know!

Answer (Rava): It is Kosher, for (the Torah says to bring it when) "v'Hu Lo Yoda v'Nislach Lo", i.e. he did not know at (Zerikah,) the time of Selichah (forgiveness).

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): Even if the blood is in a bucket (we do Zerikah and eat the meat).

Question: Why do we do Zerikah? He knew at the time of Selichah!

Answer #1 (Rava): R. Yosi holds like R. Shimon, who considers blood ready for Zerikah as if it was already thrown.

Objection: R. Shimon says this about blood that should be thrown. Here, (since he did not sin, and he will find out before Zerikah,) the blood was never meant to be thrown!

Answer #2 (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): R. Yosi holds that Klei Shares are Mekadesh what is put inside them. This allows offering the contents l'Chatchilah.