Question (Rami bar Chama): If Reuven was Makdish an animal for Shimon to bring, which of them adds a Chomesh (if he redeems it)?

Answer (Rava): "V'Im ha'Makdish Yig'al Es Beiso (v'Yosaf Chamishis)" teaches that the Makdish (Reuven) adds a Chomesh, not the Miskaper (Shimon, for whom the Korban atones).

Question (Rami bar Chama): Can the Makdish make Temurah, or the Miskaper?

Answer (Rava): It must be the Miskaper. If it were the Makdish, Temurah could apply to a Korban of the Tzibur or partners, e.g., if they made a Shali'ach to be Makdish the animal! (The Hekesh to Ma'aser teaches that Temurah applies only to a Korban of an individual.)

Support (Rava): We learn this also from Rav Nachman:

Question (Rav Nachman): Why does it say "Korbano la'Shem Al Nizro Milvad Asher Tasig Yado"? Heseg Yad does not apply to Nezirus! (Rich and poor bring the same Korbanos.)

Answer: "Korbano la'Shem Al Nizro" refers to Korbanos that he (the Nazir) himself was Makdish. "Milvad Asher Tasig Yado" refers to Korbanos that others were Makdish for him.

Question: What does the verse teach?

It need not teach that he can be Yotzei with others' Korbanos. This is obvious! (They are mere gifts.)

Answer: It teaches that he can make Temurah on them.

Summation of answer: This shows that the Miskaper can make Temurah.

Rejection: Really, it teaches that he can be Yotzei with others' Korbanos;

One might have thought that a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv requires him to bring his own Korbanos. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Question: What was the conclusion? (Shitah - also Answer #1 is not conclusive. Even if normally the Makdish can make Temurah, we would know that this does not apply to Korbanos Tzibur.)

Answer: R. Avahu taught that the Makdish adds a Chomesh, and the Miskaper can make Temurah;

He also taught that if Reuven makes his produce Terumah to exempt Shimon's, Reuven has Tovas Hana'ah (the right to give it to any Kohen he wants).

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: "Es Kol Ma'asar Tevu'ascha... v'Nasatah" (the one whose produce it is gives it, to whom he wants).

(Mishnah): Temurah does not take effect in the following cases:

Limbs on fetuses, fetuses on limbs, limbs or fetuses on whole animals or vice-versa;

R. Yosi says, fetuses on whole animals takes effect, but not vice-versa.

R. Yosi: If one says "the leg of this (Chulin) animal is an Olah", the entire animal becomes an Olah - also here, if he says "the leg of this (Chulin) animalo is Tachas this (Korban)," the entire Chulin animal becomes Temurah!

(Gemara - Bar Pada): Kedushah does not take effect on fetuses;

(R. Yochanan): It takes effect on fetuses.

This is like R. Yochanan taught elsewhere:

(R. Yochanan): If one was Makdish a pregnant animal for a Chatas and it gave birth, he may bring either of them for his Chatas. (It is as if he was Makdish two animals for Acharayus, i.e. if one of them will become blemished or lost, the other will be offered).

Version #1: He needed to teach both laws:

Had he taught only the first law, one might have thought that this is only when he is Makdish the fetus by itself, but when he is Makdish the mother, the fetus is Kodesh only like part of the mother (and he cannot get Kaparah through it);

Had he taught only the second law, one might have thought that this is only when he is Makdish the whole animal, but when he is Makdish only the fetus, since it is not here (outside), it is not Kodesh.

Version #2 - Question: What is the Chidush (of R. Yochanan's second teaching)?

Answer: It teaches that one can (be Makdish a pregnant mother and) be Meshayer (stipulate that the fetus be Chulin or a different Korban), and that Ubar Lav Yerech Imo. (A fetus is considered an independent animal. It is not just a part of the mother.)

Question: Why do we need both teachings?

Answer: Both of them are needed:

Had he taught only the second law, one might have thought that when the mother gets Kedushas ha'Guf (to be offered), the fetus is Hukdash with it, but when he is Makdish the fetus by itself, it is not Kodesh;

Had he taught only the first law, one might have thought that this is only when he specifies that the fetus be Kodesh, but when he is Makdish the mother, the fetus is Kodesh only like part of the mother. (end of Version #2)

Question (against Bar Pada - R. Yirmeyah - Mishnah): A ruse to uproot Kedushas Bechor is that one may say about a pregnant Mevakeres (animal that has not given birth before) "the fetus inside is an Olah." If it gives birth to a male, it is an Olah.

This shows that Hekdesh of a fetus takes effect!

Answer (R. Zeira): That is when he was Mekadesh the fetus Kedushas Damim to buy an Olah.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): Is Kedushas Damim strong enough to inhibit Kedushas Bechor?

Answer (R. Zeira): Yes!

(Mishnah): If one was Makdish an animal with a Mum Kavu'a for any Korban (except for Bechor or Ma'aser), and it was redeemed, (if it will have a firstborn male,) Kedushas Bechor applies to it, Matanos must be given (when it is slaughtered)...

Inference: Before it was redeemed, Kedushas Bechor does not apply, i.e. Kedushas Damim inhibits Kedushas Bechor.

Question (R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa): If one said "the fetus inside this animal is an Olah"; the mother may be sheared. One may not work with it, for this weakens the fetus.

Answer (R. Zeira): There also, he was Mekadesh the fetus with Kedushas Damim.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): Is Kedushas Damim strong enough to forbid working with it?

Answer (R. Zeira): Yes!

(The above Mishnah):... It becomes Chulin regarding shearing it and working with it.

Inference: Before it was redeemed, these were forbidden!

Question (R. Yirmeyah - our Mishnah (7a)): Temurah does not take effect in the following cases -- limbs on fetuses, fetuses on limbs...

Inference: We must say that fetuses can become Kodesh. If not, there would be no need to say that Temurah of whole animals on fetuses does not take effect, for the latter would be Chulin!

Answer (R. Zeira): The Mishnah teaches about fetuses inside Kodshim. They are automatically Kodesh. (One need not be Makdish them separately.)

Question - Inference: Temurah of animals on fetuses inside Kodshim does not take effect, but if Temurah was done after they are born, it would take effect (but this is not true)!

(Mishnah): Temurah does not take effect on Velados Kodshim.

Answer: Our Mishnah is like R. Yehudah, who says that Temurah takes effect on Velados Kodshim.

Question: If our Mishnah is R. Yehudah, can we say that Temurah of limbs on whole animals does not take effect, but (if one is Makdish a limb), it (the entire animal) becomes Kodesh?! (From R. Yosi's question, we infer that the Stam Tana of our Mishnah agrees that Hekdesh of a limb is Mekadesh the entire animal. They argue only about Temurah.)

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If one is Makdish a limb, the entire animal does not become Kodesh.

Answer: The Mishnah refers to a limb vital to life. (R. Yehudah agrees that Hekdesh of such a limb is Mekadesh the entire animal.)