Explanation: This is because you consider an animal like Mefurash in a mixture, lest he decided to make one the Chatas;

If so, also regarding birds, we should be concerned for this, if he did not specify at the time of purchase, perhaps between purchase and offering he decided and resolved in his heart that one is the Chatas and one is the Olah...

[If so,] the Kohen may not offer whichever he wants for Chatas, and whichever he wants for Olah! (Even though between purchase and offering he cannot make one a Chatas or Olah, his intent can make them Mefurashim in a mixture, like the coming Tosfos says.)

Question: What was the question? This is that he said "coins, and not a Behemah", is because there is a delay, because it needs a Mum, like I explained;

However, these birds may be offered. He need not delay. Therefore, we need not be concerned lest he decided to specify in his heart that this one is the Chatas and this one is the Olah, that they would be like Mefurashim!

Answer: Also here, since the owner did not specify at the time of purchase, he cannot specify, for they must be specified at the time the Kohen offers them, and this is not in the owner's power;

Therefore, we can say that after purchase, perhaps he put his heart to specify them amidst the mixture.

Note: Above (26b Sof DH Aval Behemah), Tosfos said that we are not concerned lest he put his heart to specify in a case when he can clarify immediately, through buying the needed Korbanos. Therefore, here that he cannot clarify them, there is concern lest he put his heart to specify them!

Question: The owner's specification after purchase does not help!

Answer: Granted, the owner's specification after purchase does not help to clarify which will be offered for the Chatas and which for the Olah. In any case, specifying helps (it makes them Mefurashim) in a mixture;

There is concern lest after purchase, he put to his heart to specify which is the Chatas and which is the Olah, that they are Mefurashim in a mixture;

Now, the Kohen may not offer like he pleases, whichever he wants for Chatas, and whichever he wants for Olah.

Therefore, we ask "if you will say that indeed, [also Kinim are Mefurashim,] behold, Rav Chisda taught... only through the Kohen's Hakravah." I.e. it becomes Mefurash through the Kohen, when the owner did not specify and clarify at the time of purchase";

Perhaps [the owner] intended to clarify them, and they are like Mefurashim in a mixture. How do we find that they are specified at the time of Hakravah of the Kohen, when the owner is alive?

Just the contrary! The Kohen may not offer one for a Chatas and one for an Olah according to his whim, unless he asks the owner if he ever intended for the birds, which is for Olah and which is for Chatas;

If he does not ask him, perhaps he will do opposite of the owner's intent!

Conclusion: Rather, surely since Rav Chisda said that they are specified through Hakravah of the Kohen, this shows that we are not concerned lest the owner ever put his eyes on them;

Or, even if he put his eyes on them, this does not change anything, since he did not explicitly say it with his mouth;

The same applies to an animal or beams. They are like absolute Stumim for their law, that they go to Nedavah. We do not say that only coins [get the law of Stumim]...

Just like birds are Stumim for their law, that the Kohen offers whichever he wants for Chatas, and whichever he wants for Olah. Until here is Tosfos' opinion.

Question #1 (Maharam): Since we ask from Hakravah of the Kohen, like I explained, if so, why did he ask from Rav Chisda's teaching?

He should ask from [any of] several Mishnayos in Maseches Kinim, which discuss Kinim Stumim; i.e. the owner did not specify at the time of purchase. They connote that the Kohen clarifies through his Hakravah!

Question #2: What was the question? Why should we be concerned lest the owner clarified them opposite to how the Kohen offers them?

[The owner] brings them to the Kohen to offer like he pleases, whichever he wants for Olah, and whichever he wants for Chatas! If so, he did not specify them at all! (Had he specified, he would tell the Kohen.)

Really, I can say that when [the owner] does not bring them in the end to the Kohen, they are like Mefurashim in a mixture, just like ingots or beams. What was the question?!

Question #3: How does it work for the owner to make them Mefurashim in a mixture after the purchase, that we are concerned lest he put to his heart to specify, and afterwards the Kohen cannot change them...

[How can this work] more than if he explicitly said "this is the Chatas, and this is the Olah"? This does not work after purchase, like [Rav Chisda] said, [it works only] at the time of purchase, or through Hakravah of the Kohen!

Answer (to all the questions - Maharam): We challenge what we said above "coins, and not an animal." I.e. because there is a delay, and perhaps he intended to specify in the mixture during the days of delay, i.e. the days between the time of purchase and the time of Hakravah...

And even in a mixture, it connotes that when he explicitly mentions which is the Chatas and which is the Olah, his specification helps to fix this to be the Chatas, and this to be the Olah.

[Against this,] we ask that Rav Chisda said... I.e. specification of the owner does not help to fix this to be the Chatas, and this to be the Olah regarding Kinim, and presumably the same applies to other Korbanos. Until here is from Maharam.

Question #1: Rav Chisda said "Kinim are clarified only..." This implies that this is only for Kinim, since he did not say "Korbanos..."

Question #2: Even if you will say that he learns other Korbanos from Kinim, in any case, it is reasonable to compare Kinim only to a Korban that itself is proper to be offered, like Kinim, but not ingots and beams;

Also bulls and goats themselves are not proper to be offered regarding a Nazir. We cannot learn them from Kinim!

Question #3: Why does he elaborate so much, and say "what is the reason of Rabanan, who say "coins, and not an animal..."?

Above, immediately he should have asked against Rav Huna, who said "but an animal is like Mefurash." [He should have asked] "Rav Chisda said..." to prove that the owner's specification does not help in the interim! [This is difficult] according to Maharam!

Question #4: The wording is difficult for his Perush. [Rav Simi] concludes [his question] and says "the tradition is about coins"! (According to Maharam, he should conclude "and the same applies to animals!")

Question #5: Tosfos (26b DH Aval Behemah) explained the reason we say "coins, and not an animal or ingot" is since there is a delay, we are concerned lest he put to his heart to specify amidst the mixture during that time and delay;

This is very difficult. There is no hint to this reason at all in the text! (This question does not depend on Maharam's explanation.)

Answer (to all the questions): Rather, we explain the Sugya like Rashi. We say "coins, and not an animal or ingot..." The reason is due to delay;

However, the reason is not due to concern lest in his heart he made them Mefurashim in a mixture. Rather, you may learn only like the text of the tradition. We learned in the Mishnah that Ma'os Stumim go to Nedavah;

Regarding this he says that we learned only coins, but not an animal, i.e. not a Tamim animal that is not proper to offer for a Nazir, such as bulls or goats, and the same applies to an ingot or beams;

The Amora'im teach us this Chidush. Do not say that the Halachah was received about everything that cannot be offered, like money, e.g. an ingot or beams, or bulls for a Nazir;

Do not say so. The tradition is only that coins go to Nedavah. You have only the tradition. (You may not extrapolate.)

Distinction: However, a blemished animal is included in "coins", since it proper [to be sold] for money immediately, just like coins. Even if the tradition explicitly said coins, a Behemah Ba'al Mum is included, for it is totally like coins. It is it proper [to be sold] for money immediately.

Support: We say like this above (26a). "He taught Nazir, and everything that resembles [Nazir]."

Distinction: However, an ingot or beams, which are not proper [to be sold] for money immediately, like the first Perush explained, surely this is excluded from the Halachah, which taught "coins".

Support: Now, it is a proper question. He said "what is the reason for Rabanan, who say "coins, and not an animal..."? If so, that the tradition is only for coins, will you say "coins and not birds"?!

Explanation: If one who was obligated Kinim, or a Nazir Tamei, separated Turim or Bnei Yonah Stumim, which he did not specify at the time of purchase, and he died, will you say that they do not go to Nedavah, and they are not considered like Ma'os Stumim?!

If you will say "yes indeed!", Rav Chisda taught...

Explanation: When the owner did not specify at the time of purchase, they are specified only through Hakravah of the Kohen. I.e. there is no law of specification on them. Rather, they are Stumim in every way;

This is both regarding that the Kohen may offer whichever he wants for Chatas, and whichever he wants for Olah...

And also that they go to Nedavah, like Ma'os Stumim, if the owner died before Hakravah.

Explanation (cont.): So we explain the question from Rav Chisda's teaching according to Rashi. We do not ask from Hakravah of the Kohen, like according to the first Perush;

Rather, it is like I explained. It connotes to him (Rav Simi) that if they were not specified at the time of purchase, afterwards they are not considered Mefurashim, rather Stumim, in every way;

They are like Stumim even in this way, that they go to Nedavah.

Question: Still, what was the question from Rav Chisda, according to this Perush? Perhaps Rav Chisda discusses only that the owner cannot specify after purchase, which is the Chatas and which is the Olah;

He does not discuss going to Nedavah at all!

Answer #1: It connotes to [Rav Simi] that regarding everything, he (Rav Chisda) said that they are like Stumim.

Answer #2: If so (Rav Chisda does not discuss going to Nedavah), he should have said "Kinim are Kavu'os (specified) only...", which connotes specifically regarding determining which is the Chatas and which is the Olah, the owner's Kevi'us does not help. If he did not specify at the time of purchase, afterwards he cannot specify;

Also elsewhere, it is normal to mention "Kevi'us" regarding Korbanos.

Inference: Since [instead, Rav Chisda] said "become Mefurashim [only]", this connotes that for all matters, they do not become specified. Rather, they have the law of Stumim, even to be considered Stumim to go to Nedavah.

Support: Now, the wording is fine. We conclude "the tradition is about coins!" Rather, you are forced to say that say that it is not only coins. The same applies to birds;

Similarly, it is not only coins, rather, even an animal, ingot or beams!

Question: Rashi explains the question "coins, and not birds" that the Makshan wants to say that Stumim birds go to Nedavah;

We say in Shevuos (12b) that we do not offer Olas ha'Of for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach (Nedavah)!

Answer #1: That refers only to excess Nesachim and other excesses. I.e. if coins remained, we do not use them to buy birds for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach;

However, if the birds themselves remained, e.g. the owner died before the Kohen offered them, we properly offer birds for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach.

Answer #2: The Makshan here argues with the teaching in Shevu'os. There, it is a teaching of Amora'im.

Explanation: Based on what we want to prove from Rav Chisda, that birds are like Stumim, and likewise we should say that an animal is like Stumim, and not Mefurashim, if so, it is difficult for you. Why does R. Shimon ben Gamliel consider them Mefurashim?

Question: These are different! Above, an animal is considered like Stumim. This refers to a case like three bulls. Surely they are like Stumim;

However, these animals that R. Shimon ben Gamliel discusses are proper for a Nazir. Therefore, they are considered like Mefurashim.

Answer: The question means "it is fine if you say like Rav Huna said about animals, i.e. three bulls, that they are considered somewhat Mefurashim, and at the least Mefurashim in a mixture";

R. Shimon ben Gamliel's teaching here is fine. He considers three animals proper for Nazir like totally Mefurashim, as if he specified with his mouth "this is the Chatas, this is the Olah, and this is the Shelamim";

However, if you will say that three bulls are like totally Stumim, also here, just because they are proper for Nazir, we should not consider them like totally Mefurashim!

Question: Still, what was the question? Perhaps R. Shimon ben Gamliel discusses when the Nazir returned and explicitly specified at the time of Hakravah which is the Chatas, which is the Olah, and which is the Shelamim!

Answer: Firstly, the words connote unlike this. It says "he brought three animals and did not specify..."

[Also, the Makshan] understands "what is proper for Olah is offered for an Olah", that from now, even before Hakravah, it is called an Olah, even for Me'ilah, and [the Chatas] is called a Chatas, that even if the owner died, it must die.

Also, if we discuss when he explicitly specified at the time of Hakravah, need this be taught?! What is R. Shimon ben Gamliel's Chidush?

Question: What was Rav Papa's Havah Amina? It is proven from Rav Chisda that birds are like Stumim, and the same applies to animals!

Poor Answer #1: Some say that holds that Rav Chisda's teaching is totally wrong.

Rejection: We bring Rav Chisda's teaching in several places!

Answer #2: Rather, Rav Papa surely held that even if you will say that birds are like Stumim, and we do not exclude them from "coins", this is because we exclude only something that resembles coins and cannot be offered, such as bulls, which a Nazir cannot offer;

However, birds, which they themselves can be offered, we do not exclude them from a tradition that specified that Ma'os Stumim go to Nedavah, and also these Stumim [birds] go to Nedavah.

Explanation: Rav Simi answered him, and said 'the Torah said "v'Lakach v'Asah" - it refers to the owner's purchase.'

I.e. if the owner did not specify at the time of purchase, they are like Stumim, because it is not proven from the Turim themselves which is the Chatas and which is the Olah;

Similarly, when he separated three bulls, it is not proven from the bodies of the animals themselves which is the Chatas and which is the Olah. Therefore, we can say that they are like totally Stumim.

Distinction: However, here in our Mishnah of R. Shimon ben Gamliel, which teaches "if he brought three animals proper [for Nezirus], it is proven from the animal's body which is the Chatas, which is the Olah and which is the Shelamim;

The female lamb is for the Chatas, for a Chatas is a female. You cannot say that it should be offered for the Olah, for an Olah is a male, i.e. a lamb;

Similarly, it is explicit in the verses that the ram is offered for Shelamim, and similarly the female lamb for the Chatas, and the male lamb for the Olah.

Therefore they are like Mefurashim. There is no greater clarification than this!

However, 3bu are like Stumim. We do not say that if three bulls are like Stumim, also here (three animals proper for Nezirus) are like Stumim, like the Makshan held.

Explanation: You said that a Ba'al Mum is like [Ma'os] Stumim. We challenge Rav Nachman, who said so above (26b).

Citation of Gemara: A Beraisa teaches "what is the case in which a man is Megale'ach [with the Korbanos of] his father's Nezirus?" The text says "this is when his father was a Nazir and separated coins for his Nezirus."

Explanation: [He separated Ma'os] Stumim.

Citation of Gemara: [His father] died, and the son said "I am a Nazir on condition that I will shave using my father's coins." This is the case of one who is Megale'ach with his father's coins.

Implied question: Below, we bring that if his father separated coins for his Chatas, for he ate Chelev, and he died, and the son was also obligated a Chatas for Chelev, he may not bring his Chatas from coins that his father separated for a Chatas!

Answer: Here, it is a tradition [from Moshe from Sinai] that a Nazir may shave using coins that his father separated for his [own] Nezirus.

Limitation: This is only if the son did not vow in his father's lifetime, like we proceed to conclude. However, if he vowed in his father's lifetime, he may not;

This is like it teaches "however, if he and his father were Nezirim, and his father separated coins", i.e. Stumim, and [his father] died, and the son said "I will shave using my father's coins", he may not use them to shave;

Rather, they go to Nedavah. This is the tradition. Some texts say oppositely; this text (that I wrote) is primary.

Explanation: We ask why the Reisha taught coins. The Reisha should have taught one who had a Behemah Ba'al Mum. It could have properly taught the laws of Stumim and Mefurash, all regarding animals.

Question: Why don't we ask from our Mishnah, which teaches that Ma'os Stumim go to Nedavah? If a Behemah Ba'al Mum is like Ma'os Stumim, it should teach an animal Ba'al Mum!

Answer: We ask properly from the Beraisa. The Seifa of the Beraisa discusses an animal. If so, the entire Beraisa should teach about and distinguish within animals, between a Ba'al Mum and a Tamim;

However, our Mishnah taught Ma'os Mefurashim. Therefore, it taught in the Reisha, Ma'os Stumim, and distinguishes totally within coins;

Therefore, we cannot ask that it should teach an animal Ba'al Mum, which is like Stumim, in place of coins.

Question: Why do we need the verse? Surely, a Chatas whose owner died, it must die!

Also, why do we say below "[perhaps] he is Yotzei with his father's Korban that he separated for a light Aveirah, for a light Aveirah [of the son]!"?

Note: The Shitah Mekubetzes answers that when his son needs a Chatas, one might have thought that his son may atone with his father's Korban, so it need not die.

Explanation: This is like it says below (30b), that one may not shave using his father's Nezirus, only with Ma'os Stumim. The Mishnah mentions only Ma'os Stumim. The tradition was taught only with Ma'os Stumim.

Note: The end of this Tosfos pertains to the end of Tosfos DH she'Harei on Daf 28a (Maharav Ransborg). We bring it and explain it there.