1) THE OPINION OF REBBI ELIEZER
OPINIONS: The Mishnah (18b) quotes Rebbi Eliezer who maintains that when one consecrates a female animal to be a Korban Olah (even though an Olah must be a male animal), the child of that an animal is also offered as an Olah. The Gemara asks that this ruling seems to contradict another ruling of Rebbi Eliezer. With regard to the Temurah of the child of an Asham, Rebbi Eliezer rules that one should sell the animal after it receives a Mum, and the money should be used to buy a Korban Olah (like the law regarding all "leftover" Korbenos Asham). The Gemara asks that the leftover Asham itself should be offered as a Korban, just as the child of an Olah is offered! Rava answers that only when the mother had the status of an Olah does Rebbi Eliezer say that the child also has that status. When the mother was an Asham, its child cannot be offered as an Asham, since offering it as an Asham would serve no purpose (because the sin for which the Asham was designated has already been atoned for by the bringing of the mother animal). This is why the child should now become an Olah. Rava explains that Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the Kedushah of a Korban passes directly to its offspring only when the offspring can become the same type of Korban, such as a "mother Olah" passing her Kedushah as an Olah to her child. In this case, since the mother was an Asham, its child does not become an Olah.
The Gemara then asks that this ruling seems to contradict a third statement of Rebbi Eliezer. In a case similar to the case of an Olah, Rebbi Eliezer discusses one who dedicated a "female Korban Pesach" (the Korban Pesach must be a male). The female animal must be left to graze until she becomes blemished and can be sold for money, with which one should buy a proper Korban Pesach. The same Halachah applies to any child born to the animal before Pesach. If these animals are still present after Pesach, both the mother and child themselves are brought as Shelamim, according to Rebbi Eliezer (unlike the Tana Kama, who says that they are sold and a Shelamim is brought with the proceeds). This ruling is based on the Halachah that a Korban Pesach that was not offered on Pesach becomes a Shelamim. The question is clear: If Rebbi Eliezer maintains that a child of an Asham cannot be brought as an Olah because its mother was not an Olah, then why does he say that the child of a Korban that was originally a Pesach is now brought as a Shelamim?
Abaye answers with the rule that "wherever the extras go, that is where the child goes." Abaye explains that Rebbi Eliezer agrees that before Pesach the child cannot be brought as a Korban Pesach itself, because its own mother cannot be brought as a Korban Pesach (because she is female). Therefore, both are sold and the proceeds are used to buy a proper Korban Pesach. Once Pesach has passed and the mother becomes a Shelamim, the child also becomes a Shelamim. The mother may be offered as a Shelamim, and therefore both she and her offspring are offered as such.
Abaye seems to be introducing two separate ideas in his answer. He first states that "wherever the extras go, the child goes." He then states that the child attains whatever status the mother has at that moment. What exactly is Abaye's answer?
(a) RASHI (DH Abaye Amar) explains that, according to Abaye, Rebbi Eliezer determines what is done with the child of a Korban based on what is done with a "leftover" animal in a case in which two animals were set aside for a Korban, and only one was used (making the other one "leftover"). The same Halachah that applies to the leftover animal applies to the child of a Korban. Accordingly, once Pesach has passed and the mother becomes a "leftover Korban Pesach" which becomes a Shelamim, the child also becomes a Shelamim. Similarly, just as a leftover Asham is left to graze and sold after it gets a Mum so that an Olah can be brought with the proceeds, the Temurah of the child of an Asham is left to graze until it gets a Mum, and its proceeds are used to bring an Olah.
Rashi also uses this method of determining the status of a child of a Korban with regard to the child of a "female Pesach" before Pesach. Since one might have thought that this animal should be a Shelamim, Rashi explains that when two animals were separated for one's Korban Pesach, only one can become a Shelamim, but not both. This is because only one animal will be used as the Korban Pesach, and thus the other animal cannot become a Korban Pesach that can then become a Shelamim. Rather, its dedication as a Korban Pesach is viewed merely as though it has been set aside so that its value should be used to buy a Korban Pesach. This is certainly how we determine the status of the mother, the "female Pesach." Since it was never fit to be a Korban Pesach, and only its value is Kadosh for a Korban Pesach, it does not become a Shelamim.
(b) TOSFOS (DH Abaye) quotes another explanation of Abaye's words. Abaye understands that according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Halachah depends on what would happen if the child was brought as a Korban before the mother. In the cases of a Korban Olah and Korban Pesach brought after Pesach, it is clear that if the child would be brought as a Korban first, the mother would retain her Kedushah of an Olah and Shelamim (after Pesach) respectively. However, if the child of a Korban Asham or Korban Pesach before Pesach would be brought, the mother would lose her status of a Korban, because only one of these Korbanos can be brought by each person (unlike an Olah and Shelamim). In such a case, Rebbi Eliezer says that the child cannot be brought as a Korban, because the Kedushah of the mother takes precedence.
According to this explanation, Abaye maintains that whatever normally would happen with a mother Korban and a child determines whether or not the child retains its status. The novelty of this approach is that even though the "mother Korban Pesach" cannot be brought because she is a female, we still say that the child cannot be brought as well before Pesach because it would deflect the Kedushah from the mother.
Tosfos agrees that this explanation does not fit well with the wording of the Gemara, which says that the child goes "wherever the leftover animal goes." (It is important to note that Rashi and Tosfos agree that Abaye categorically rejects Rava's understanding of Rebbi Eliezer, that everything simply follows the status of the mother.) (Y. MONTROSE)
2) SINCE "KEDUSHAS DAMIM" TAKES EFFECT, "KEDUSHAS HA'GUF" ALSO TAKES EFFECT
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that when one sanctifies a female animal to be an Asham (which may be brought only from a male animal), the animal is left to graze until it develops a Mum and then is sold. The proceeds are used to buy a Korban Asham. The Gemara asks that this Halachah normally applies to an animal that received a Mum after it was sanctified as Hekdesh. In this case, however, the female animal was never eligible to become an Asham, and thus it should be considered as though it had a Mum before it was sanctified. Accordingly, the animal should be able to be sold immediately, even before she develops a Mum.
Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav answers that there is a principle that once an object becomes Kadosh with Kedushas Damim, it also can become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf -- "Migu d'Nachsa Lei Kedushas Damim, Nachsa Lei Kedushas ha'Guf."
As the SEFAS EMES explains, this does not mean that Kedushas ha'Guf applies to every object that becomes Hekdesh. It means merely that anything that could be brought as a different type of Korban other than the Korban for which it was sanctified is not considered unfit (as a Ba'al Mum) before it was sanctified (as the type of Korban for which it cannot be brought). (See Sefas Emes at length.)
TOSFOS (DH Zos Omeres) asks that the Gemara here seems to contradict the Gemara in Shevuos (11a). The Gemara there states explicitly that the principle of "Migu d'Nachsa..." does not apply when one sanctifies the value of his animal to be used to buy Nesachim; the animal is Kadosh only with Kedushas Damim and not with Kedushas ha'Guf. Why, though, should it not become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf? Even though the animal itself cannot be used for Nesachim, it can be used for other Korbanos, and thus the principle of "Migu d'Nachsa" should apply!
(a) TOSFOS suggests that the Gemara in Shevuos follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who does not agree with this principle (as mentioned later in the Gemara here).
The Acharonim, however, reject this answer. The CHOK NASAN and others ask that the Gemara itself (in Shevuos) explicitly asks this question, and it differentiates between Korbanos and Nesachim. How, then, can Tosfos say that this principle is a law that must apply (or not apply) equally to Korbanos and Nesachim?
(b) The SEFAS EMES explains that the point of Tosfos is to explain why there is such a difference between Korbanos and Nesachim. Just as a female animal is not fit to be an Asham, an animal is not fit to be Nesachim. Why should there be a difference between Korbanos and Nesachim?
Tosfos answers this question by saying that the Tana Kama of the Mishnah here does not agree with the Gemara's conclusion in Shevuos that this principle applies only to Korbanos and not to Nesachim. Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah here states that the female animal does have Kedushas ha'Guf and yet it may be sold to buy an Asham, even before it gets a Mum. Rebbi Shimon apparently learns that only an object that is fit to be offered as the Korban for which it was dedicated becomes Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf (even when only its value was sanctified). This indeed is the case mentioned in Shevuos. The Gemara in Shevuos answers that this case is different, because the animal was fit to be brought as a Korban. However, in the cases of a female Asham and an animal sanctified for Nesachim, neither animal can be brought for the Korban for which it was sanctified. In those cases, Rebbi Shimon -- unlike the Tana Kama -- does not apply the principle that the animal also has Kedushas ha'Guf.
The Sefas Emes has difficulty with this answer. Although the logic is tenable, the Gemara there seems to conclude that the Halachah is that this principle applies only to Korbanos, not to Nesachim. Accordingly, the conclusion of the Gemara in Shevuos is contrary to the Halachah, which follows the Tana Kama here.
(c) The Sefas Emes gives his own answer to this question. According to his answer, the Gemara in Shevuos is consistent with the view of the Tana Kama here. He explains that "Migu d'Nachsa" applies only when the animal was dedicated to be the actual Korban but it cannot be brought, or when the animal was dedicated for its monetary value, even though it is fit to be brought itself as the Korban for which its value was designated. This is the case of the Mishnah here (a female animal itself was dedicated to be a Korban), and the case in Shevuos (an animal was dedicated for its monetary value). However, when the value of an animal was dedicated to be Nesachim, neither of these conditions apply (the animal was neither dedicated to be the actual Korban, nor was it fit to be the type of Korban for which its monetary value was designated). Therefore, the Gemara in Shevuos concludes that in such a case even the Tana Kama here does not apply "Migu d'Nachsa." (Y. MONTROSE)