Question (against Rava): The Torah forbids being Makdish a Tam to Bedek ha'Bayis, yet it takes effect!

(Mishnah): If one was Makdish a Tam to Bedek ha'Bayis, even though he transgressed a Lav, it takes effect.

Answer: The same source that teaches that Hekdesh of a Ba'al Mum for the Mizbe'ach takes effect teaches also about Hekdesh of a Tam to Bedek ha'Bayis.

Question (against Rava): Theft is forbidden, yet the thief can acquire the stolen object!

(Mishnah): If one stole wood and made Kelim, (or) wool and he made garments, he pays the value at the time he stole it;

Answer: "Asher Gazal" teaches that the Mitzvah to return theft applies only if it is like the object he stole.

Counter-question: According to Abaye, why is the verse needed?

Answer: It teaches that one adds a Chomesh only for what he stole (and swore falsely about), but not for what his father stole.

Question (against Rava): One may not enter the borrower's house to take a security, but if one did so, it is like a properly obtained security!

(Mishnah): One must return a pillow before night, and a plow before day.

Answer: "Hashev Tashiv" teaches that it is a proper security.

Counter-question: According to Abaye, why is the verse needed?

Answer: Without it, one might have thought that he transgressed, and need not return it at all. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Question (against Abaye): One may not harvest one's entire field. If one did so, he must give Pe'ah!

(Mishnah): Pe'ah should be designated and not harvested. If it was harvested, one separates (the amount that should have been left) from the sheaves (and gives it to the poor). If this was not done, he separates from the stack before Miru'ach (final processing);

If Miru'ach was already done, he separates the proper amount, tithes it, and gives it to the poor.

R. Yishmael says, even if he made a dough, he separates from the dough and gives to the poor. (He still did not acquire it.)

Answer: The repetition "Azov Ta'azov" teaches that he does not acquire.

Counter-question: According to Rava, why is the verse needed?

Answer: It teaches about a similar case in which one must leave for the poor;

(Beraisa): If one declared his vineyard Hefker, and promptly harvests it, he must leave Peret (grapes that fall during harvesting), Olelos (deficient clusters), Shikchah and Pe'ah for the poor, but he is exempt from Ma'aseros.

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): We answered every question against Rava and Abaye. What do they argue about?

Version #1 - Answer #1 (Rav Ashi): They argue about whether or not Beis Din forces the lender to return Ribis Ketzutzah (contracted interest):

(R. Elazar): Beis Din forces the lender to return Ribis Ketzutzah, but not Avak Ribis (that comes through a sale).

(R. Yochanan): Beis Din does not force the lender to return even Ribis Ketzutzah.

Objection (Rav Acha): That argument is not based on whether or not transgressions accomplish something, rather, on verses!

Question (R. Yitzchak): What is R. Yochanan's reason?

Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): He learns from "ba'Neshech Nasan v'Tarbis Lakach va'Chai Lo Yichyeh." He will die (at the hands of Heaven); it will not help to return the Ribis.

Answer #2 (Rav Acha bar Ada): He learns from "... v'Yaresa me'Elokecha" - one returns usury because he fears Hash-m, but Beis Din does not force him.

Answer #3 (Rava): He learns from the end of the first verse, "(Lo Yichyeh) Mos Yumas Damav Bo" - those who lend on usury are compared to murderers;

Just like one cannot undo murder, one cannot undo Ribis by returning it.

(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): R. Elazar learns from "v'Chei Achicha Imach" - return it, in order that the borrower will live.

Question: Our question remains! What do Rava and Abaye argue about?

Answer #2: They argue about whether or not Shinuy acquires. (This is unlike we said on Amud A. Rather, Rava holds like the opinion that a stolen object must be returned, even if it was irreversibly changed. Alternatively, they argue about whether a deviation from Torah law would take effect if there were no verses to this effect. However, in every case there are verses, and they argue about how to expound them. They always agree whether or not the transgression accomplished anything. Shitah - when Abaye expounds to teach that it does not accomplish anything, he exempts from lashes, and Rava obligates. The question was if they ever argue about whether he accomplished anything.)

Version #2 - Answer #1 (Rav Ashi): They argue about Ribis Ketzutzah. Abaye exempts from returning it, and Rava obligates returning it.

Rejection: Abaye does not exempt!

(Abaye): One who agreed to give Ribis of four Zuz and gave him a shirt worth five Zuz, we make him return only four and the fifth is a gift;

(Rava): We make him return five since it was given as Ribis.

Answer #2: Rather, they argue about whether Shinuy acquires.

(Beraisa) Question: What do we learn from "Kol Asher Bo Mum Lo Sakrivu"?

It need not forbid slaughtering a Ba'al Mum (in the Mikdash). Another verse forbids this!

Answer: Rather, it forbids being Makdish a Ba'al Mum for a Korban.

This is the source that one who is Makdish (and offers) a Ba'al Mum transgresses five Lavim - for making it Hekdesh, Shechitah, Zerikah (throwing the blood on the Mizbe'ach), total Haktarah (burning all of it on the Mizbe'ach), and partial Haktarah. (We shall conclude that there are separate lashes for total and partial Haktarah.)

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, he transgresses even for Kabalah (receiving the blood in a Kli).

(Beraisa): It need not forbid Shechitah. Another verse forbids this!

Question: Which verse forbids this?

Answer (Beraisa): Question: What do we learn from "Averes Oh Shavur... Lo Sakrivu"?

It need not forbid being Makdish a Ba'al Mum for a Korban. A previous verse forbids this!

Answer: Rather, it forbids slaughtering a Ba'al Mum.

"V'Isheh Lo Sitnu Mehem" refers to things burned on the Mizbe'ach;

Suggestion: Perhaps only total Haktarah is forbidden!

Rejection: Even "Mehem" is forbidden.

Question: What is the source to forbid Zerikah?

Answer: We learn from "Al ha'Mizbe'ach".

"La'Shem" includes Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kipur).

Question: "La'Shem" excludes. It does not include!

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "Oh Korban" obligates (for Shechutei Chutz) even for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, for they are called Korban - "va'Nakrev Es Korban Hash-m"!

Rejection: "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" teaches that it applies only to what may be offered in the Mikdash. This excludes Bedek ha'Bayis. (They are normally Ba'alei Mumim, for one may not be Makdish a Tam animal to Bedek ha'Bayis.)

Suggestion: Perhaps we exclude Bedek ha'Bayis, but not Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (and Parah Adumah; some say to omit this - see Tosfos DH v'), which is (are) fit for the Mikdash!

Rejection: "La'Shem" excludes the Se'ir (and Parah), which is (are) not exclusively for Hash-m. (The Se'ir is sent to Azazel).

Answer (Rava): In each case we learn from the context:

There, "v'El Pesach... " includes all animals Kosher for Korbanos (i.e. Temimim), so "la'Shem" excludes;

Here, "v'Isheh" excludes things not burned on the Mizbe'ach, so "la'Shem" includes.

Inference: If not for "la'Shem" it would be permitted to be Makdish a Ba'al Mum for Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. (We take two goats, and a lottery determines which will be a Chatas and which the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.)

Question: The lottery is valid only if both goats were Kesherim to be the Chatas!

Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): The Beraisa is like Chanan ha'Mitzri, who says that even if the blood of the Chatas is in a Kli and the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach died, we bring another goat (for Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, and the blood in the Kli is valid).

Objection: Granted, Chanan says that Ein Dichuy. However, we need not say that he does not require a new lottery. Perhaps two new goats must be taken, and a lottery determines which will be the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (and the other will graze until it gets a Mum!)

Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): Rather, the Beraisa is like R. Shimon;

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): If one of the goats died, we take a replacement for it. We do not require a new lottery.

Answer #3 (Rava): The case is, the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach got a Mum, and it was redeemed onto another goat. ("La'Shem" forbids redeeming it onto a Ba'al Mum);

Suggestion: Perhaps Tam goats are required when taking two goats for the lottery, for both of them must be Kesherim to be the Chatas, for we do not know which will become the Chatas. Here, the goat will definitely be the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, so one is not lashed for a Ba'al Mum!

Rejection: The verse teaches that this is not so.