1)HALACHAH 4: ONE WHO IS MAKDISH HIS PROPERTY
(a)(R. Akiva): If, among that which one is Makdish, there are items which are suited for public Korbanos, they are given as pay to the Mikdash workers.
(b)(Ben Azai):There must be a Chilul process (as above, 11b).
(c)(R. Eliezer): If there are animals which are suited to be brought on the Mizbeach then:
1.The male animals are sold to those who need Olos;
2.The females are sold to those who need Shelamim animals,
3.The funds of both are used for Bedek ha'Bayis.
(d)(R. Yehoshua): In that case:
1.The males are offered as Olos.
2.The females are sold to those who need Shelamim animals,
3.Those funds are used for Olos.
4.All remaining funds are given to Bedek ha'Bayis.
(e)(R. Akiva): R. Eliezer seems more correct since he creates more consistency.
(f)(R. Papayis): They both seem correct such that:
1.If one specifies the animals in his Hekdesh, then they are to be given to Bedek ha'Bayis as indicated by R. Eliezer.
2.If the Hekdesh is unspecified, then it is divided as R. Yehoshua indicated.
(g)(R. Elazar): If there are items (such as wine and oil) which can be brought onto the Mizbeach:
1.They should be sold to those who are bringing such Korbanos.
2.These funds are used to purchase Olos.
2)RATIONALE FOR THE MISHNAH
(a)(R. Yochanan): "Suited for public Korbanos" refers to Ketores.
(b)(R. Hoshayah): Since the Mishnah can be speaking of Ketores workers, we may not infer that Ketores may be prepared in Chulin vessels.
(c)Ben Azai holds that Hekdesh may be Mechulal only on coins, and not on payroll.
3)RATIONALE FOR R. ELIEZER
(a)(R. Chananyah): The Mishnah in Temurah is the opinion of R. Eliezer in our Mishnah (and Hekdesh goes to Bedek ha'Bayis).
(b)(R. Yochanan): R. Eliezer basis himself on the Pasuk in Vayikra 27:14 which must be speaking of one who is Makdish his general property, and it teaches that such property goes to Bedek ha'Bayis.
4)THREE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MACHLOKES
(a)(R. Zeira citing R. Chunah): The dispute is only in a case where he was Makdish property and there were animals among that property, but if he was Makdish his flock, all would agree that it goes to the Mizbeach.
(b)(R. Ba citing R. Chunah): The argument is when he was Makdish his flock, but all agree when he is Makdish general property that it all goes to Bedek Ha'Bayis.
1.Question: But what else could he have meant when he was Makdish his flock, if not to the Mizbeach!?
2.Answer: His not having mentioned the Mizbeach is an indication that he did not want it to go there.
(c)(R. Yochanan): The dispute is in all instances.
5)IF THE ANIMALS WERE SOLD
(a)(R. Yochanan): If an animal (which was to have been sold as an Olah and the funds given to Bedek ha'Bayis) was redeemed, it becomes Chulin (unlike an animal which was Kadosh as a Korban and redeemed).
(b)This seems supported by the Mishnah in Chulin.
(c)(R. Chizkiyah citing R. Chisda): They got a blemish and were then redeemed.
1.(R. Yosah citing R. Chisda): The Mishnah in Temurah seems to support this Din (that if he redeemed a Tamim animal it remains Asur, unlike Bedek Ha'Bayis).
2.(R. Chizkiyah citing R. Yosah): It is logical, since otherwise how could our Mishnah teach that the males are sold for Olos!?
3.No, the blemished animals do receive Kedushas Mizbeach.
6)INAPPLICABLE KEDUSHAH AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
(a)If one attempted to place a Kedushah upon an animal which could not receive it (i.e. a female as an Olah, Pesach or Asham) it can still create a Temurah.
(b)(R. Shimon): There is a difference between an Olah (the female would create a Temurah) and the Pesach and Asham (it would not).
(c)(R. Shimon b. Yehudah): None will create a Temurah.
1.R. Yochanan explained R. Shimon since the Pesach and Asham are never brought as Nekeivos but there is a Nekeivah Olah (by birds, where Tamus and Zachrus do not invalidate).
2.R. Yochanan explained R. Shimon b. Yehudah that it is a Kal VaChomer from Min b'Mino where the wrong (aged) animal does not take Kedushah (as shown) all the more so the wrong Min.
(d)(R. Yochanan): R. Shimon and R. Yehoshua both maintain that no Kedushah is created when one is Makdish an animal which is unfit.
1.R. Yehoshua holds that a female for an Olah can only receive Kedushas Damim (but they do not have Kedushas ha'Guf).
2.R. Shimon would say the same.
3.If R. Yehoshua held they received Kedushas ha'Guf, they would need to pasture (and could not be redeemed until they became blemished).
(e)(Rebbi): R. Shimon does not seem correct regarding a Pesach, since there is a Kedushah for a Pesach which is not offered as a Pesach (it can be brought as a Shelamim).
(f)Question: Then say the same regarding Asham (since surplus Asham is brought as an Olah, and see b.1. above)?!
(g)Answer: Pesach is only one step away from being Shelamim, whereas an Asham only becomes an Olah through its value, not itself.
(h)Question: What is the dispute (between Rebbi and R. Shimon)?
(i)Answer: R. Shimon holds that since a female may not be brought as a Pesach, it cannot receive more than Kedushas Damim; whereas Rebbi holds that since the surplus becomes Shelamim, the animal itself receives Kedushas Ha'Guf. [NOTE: FOLLOWING THE GR"A (AS BROUGHT IN THE T.CH.), WE ADVANCE THE DISCUSSION FROM 13A (FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE 6TH LINE UNTIL HALACHAH 5) INTO THE TEXT HERE.]
(j)(Others citing R. Yochanan): The opinion of R. Shimon b. Yehudah (see 6.c.2. above) is derived from the words Temeiah and ve'He'emid ve'He'erich in Vayikra 27:11 that a female for an Olah receives only Kedushas Damim (not Kedushas Ha'Guf).
(k)(R. Zeira citing R. Elazar): We can garner support for R. Shimon from the Pasuk!
1.Only that which cannot be offered under any conditions cannot create a Temurah.
2.An Olah therefore would receive Kedushas ha'Guf.
(l)Question: But we find the Rova and Nirva which cannot be offered under any conditions and yet they create Temurah!?
(m)Answer (R. Zeira): My rule only applies to a Tamei (or otherwise completely precluded) animal.
(n)Question: Would the Torah have instructed the whole procedure of assessment if the animal was entirely precluded?! [BACK TO 12B]
(o)R. Zeira citing Resh Lakish): gave the rationale of R. Yehoshua (based on the Pasuk [Vayikra 22:18]) that everything is brought as an Olah, even the females (are sold and brought as Olos).
(p)Question: But the Pasuk says "males" and how is that different than "Tamim" referring even to Ba'alei Mumin!?
(q)Answer: The difference between them is obvious.
7)THE RATIONALE FOR R. ELAZAR
(a)(R. Elazar): Let them (the items fitting for Nesachim) be sold for those who need those items (and the funds are used for Olos).
(b)(R. Avahu citing Resh Lakish or R. Yochanan): His rationale is the Pasuk (Vayikra 22:18) that all of his property is brought as Olos (meaning the animals which can serve as Olos) but not the birds (which are sold for Olos).
(c)Question: By the rationale for R. Shimon, R. Yochanan said that females can be included in Olos since birds are brought as Olos, and now you are saying that birds are not brought!?
(d)Answer (R. Yosah): According to my explanation for R. Elazar (as to why the birds do not get Kedushas Ha'Guf) the matter of R. Yochanan will also be understood.
(e)The principle is: Whatever cannot be offered, nor its redemption money offered, can only get Kedushas Damim (hence the Halachah regarding birds).