(Gemara) Question: What is R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah's reason?

Answer: "Yihyeh Kodesh" includes Shogeg like Mezid.

Question: In what case is Shogeg like Mezid?

Answer #1 (Chizkiyah): He thought that it is permitted to make Temurah;

Version #1: He is lashed for Temurah, but he is not lashed for such a case of Hekdesh (e.g. he thought that it is permitted to be Makdish a Ba'al Mum).

Version #2: Temurah takes effect, but a similar case of Hekdesh (he thought that one may be Makdish a Ba'al Mum) does not take effect. (We adopt Shitah's text.)

Version #1 - Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): He intended to say "Temuras Olah," and mistakenly said "Temuras Shelamim". Temurah takes effect, but such a case of Hekdesh does not take effect.

Version #2 - Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): He intended to say "the black animal should be Temurah," and mistakenly said "the white animal". He is lashed for Temurah, but he is not lashed for such a case of Hekdesh (since it would not take effect).

Answer #3 (Reish Lakish): He said (Bach - thought) "This animal should leave (its Kedushah, i.e. become Chulin), and this should enter (become Hekdesh in place of it)."

Regarding Kodshim, if one ate a Ba'al Mum without Pidyon (because he believed this is permitted), he is not lashed. For Temurah, he is lashed.

Answer #4 (Rav Sheshes): He said "I will enter my house, be Makdish and make Temurah"; he entered, and mistakenly made Temurah before Hekdesh;

He is lashed for Temurah, but he is not lashed for Hekdesh.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): The following do not become Kadosh...

(Shmuel): They do not become Kadosh through Temurah, and (even if they are Kedoshim) they are not Mekadesh other animals through Temurah:

(Beraisa - R. Meir) Question: Since they are not Kedoshim, how could they make Temurah?

Answer: The case is, he was Makdish an animal, and it became Tereifah. He was Makdish a fetus, and then it was born Yotzei Dofen.

The only case of Kil'ayim, Tumtum and Androginus is Vlados Kodshim, according to R. Yehudah, who says that (normal) Vlados Kodshim make Temurah.

Question (Rava (Shitah's text)): What is R. Eliezer's reason?

Answer #1 (Rava): These Pesulim are like a Tamei (species of) Behemah. Just like a Tamei may not be offered and it cannot get Kedushas ha'Guf, also these Pesulim.

Objection (Rav Papa): A Ba'al Mum may not be offered, yet it can get Kedushas ha'Guf!

Answer (Rava): A Ba'al Mum is different, for others of its Min (e.g. purebred males or females) may be offered (if they are Tamim)!

Objection (Rav Papa): Tereifah does not get Kedushas ha'Guf, even though others of its Min may be offered (if they are healthy)!

Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, they are like a Tamei Behemah, which may not be offered because it is intrinsically Pasul. A Ba'al Mum is not intrinsically Pasul, it is just lacking.

Objection (Rav Ada): The Torah lists "Saru'a (a pair of limbs are different sizes) v'Kalut (uncloven hooves)" among Mumim, even though nothing is lacking!

Answer #3 (Rava): Rather, they are like a Tamei Behemah. Nothing of its Min (species) may be offered. A Ba'al Mum may not be offered, but others of its Min (Tamim) may be offered!

Suggestion: The same should apply to Tereifah, for others of its kind (Kesherim) may be offered!

Rejection: A Ba'al Mum is unlike a Tereifah. A Tereifah may not be eaten, like a Tamei, but a Ba'al Mum may be eaten.

(Shmuel): If one was Makdish a Tereifah, it may not be redeemed until it gets a Mum.

Question: (Yisraelim may not eat Terefos.) This redemption is in order to feed it to dogs! (The Halachah forbids this)!

Correction: Rather, if one was Makdish a Tereifah, it becomes Kodesh (and cannot be redeemed). It must die.

(R. Oshaya): This is like Hekdesh of wood and rocks (Kedushas Damim, it may be redeemed for any purpose). (Rashi switches the order of the next two questions.)

Question (Mishnah): If any Kodshim became Tereifah, it may not be redeemed, for we may not redeem Kodshim to feed to dogs.

Inference: It may not be redeemed because it became Tereifah after it was Kodesh. However, if it was Tereifah before it was Kodesh, we may redeem it. (This is like R. Oshaya. It refutes Shmuel!)

Answer: This Tana holds that something that may not be offered does not get Kedushas ha'Guf (like R. Eliezer. Shmuel holds like Chachamim, who argue).

Question (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): The following do not become Kadosh and are not Mekadesh others - Tereifah, Kil'ayim, Yotzei Dofen, Tumtum and Androginus.

(Shmuel): They do not become Kadosh through Temurah, and (even if they are Kedoshim) they are not Mekadesh other animals through Temurah:

(Beraisa - R. Meir) Question: Since they are not Kedoshim, how could they make Temurah?

Answer: The case is, he was Makdish an animal, and then it became Tereifah. He was Makdish a fetus, and then it was born Yotzei Dofen.

Inference: If it was Tereifah before he was Makdish it, it would not get Kedushas ha'Guf!

Answer: R. Eliezer (and R. Meir) hold(s) that something that may not be offered does not get Kedushas ha'Guf. Shmuel holds like Chachamim.

(Mishnah): Vlados and Temuros of the following Kodshim (in this and subsequent Mishnayos) are like the Kodshim themselves:

Vlad or Temurah of Shelamim, and their Vlados, and their Vlados for all generations are like Shelamim;

They require Semichah, Nesachim, and Tenufah of Chazeh v'Shok.

(Gemara) Question: Since it taught Vlados and Vladei Vlados (we understand that the same applies to all generations), why must it say "for all generations"?

Answer: Our Tana heard R. Eliezer say (like he says in the next Mishnah) that Vlad Shelamim may not be offered for a Shelamim. Our Tana countered that not only the Vlados are like Shelamim, rather, even Vladei Vlados for all generations are like Shelamim.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer #1 (Beraisa #1): (Shelamim can be a) "Zachar" includes Vlad Shelamim (it is like Shelamim);

Question: A Kal va'Chomer should teach this! Temuras Shelamim is like Shelamim, even though it was not Kadosh from its inception. Vlad Shelamim was Kadosh from its inception, all the more so it should be like Shelamim!

Answer: We cannot learn from Temurah, for it applies to all Korbanos (Yachid), unlike Vlados (which do not apply to Korbanos that are only males, e.g. Olah). Therefore, we need "Zachar."

"Nekevah" includes Temuras Shelamim (it is like Shelamim).

Question: Perhaps we include only Vlad and Temurah of a Tam. What is the source to include Vlad and Temurah of a Ba'al Mum?

Answer: "Im Zachar" includes Vlad Ba'al Mum. "Im Nekevah" includes Temuras Ba'al Mum.

Question (Rav Safra): Why don't we learn oppositely?

Answer (Abaye): Since "Zachar" taught Vlad Tam, it is more reasonable that "Im Zachar" includes Vlad Ba'al Mum, and "Im Nekevah" teaches about Temurah, which is learned from "Nekevah."

Clarification (Rav Safra): I meant, why don't we learn Temuras Shelamim from "Zachar," and Vlad Shelamim from "Nekevah"?

Answer (Abaye): The word "Vlad" is masculine, so it is more reasonable to learn it from "Zachar". Temurah is feminine, so we learn it from "Nekevah."

Question: In what sense are Vlados of a Ba'al Mum Kodesh?

Answer #1 (Shmuel and Rava): They may be offered, according to R. Eliezer (18b, who says that the Vlad of (a female Hukdash for) an Olah is offered for an Olah);

One might have thought that Vlad Olah is offered, for Shem Olah Al Imo (Rashi - female Olos (ha'Of) can be offered; Tosfos - the mother cannot be redeemed until it gets a Mum), but not Vlad Ba'al Mum (for a Ba'al Mum is never offered, or because it may be redeemed immediately). The Beraisa teaches that even Vlad Ba'al Mum is offered.

Answer #2 (Bar Pada and Rav Papa): All agree that it gets (Rashi - at least enough) Kedushah to necessitate that it is Ro'eh.

Answer #2 (Rava): It can be brought as a Korban according to R. Eliezer.

Answer #2 (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "Rak Kodoshecha" refers to Temuros. "Asher Yihyu Lecha" refers to Vlados (Kodshim) (these must be brought to Yerushalayim);

Suggestion: Perhaps "Tisa u'Vasa" teaches that one must bring them to the Beis ha'Mikdash and let them starve to death!

Rejection: "V'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam" commands to treat Temuras Olah like Olah (offer it), and to treat Vlad and Temuras Shelamim like Shelamim.

Suggestion: Perhaps this applies to (Rashi - Temuros and) (Vlados of) all Korbanos!

Rejection: It says "Rak".

R. Akiva says, we need not learn from there. "Asham Hu" teaches that it is offered, but its Temurah is not offered.

Question: The Beraisa suggested that "Tisa u'Vasa" teaches that one must bring them to the Beis ha'Mikdash and starve them to death? Why would we think so?

Since tradition teaches that five Chata'os must die, we infer that everything else may be offered!

Answer: One might have thought that five Chata'os may die anywhere, but these (Temurah and Vlados) must die in the Beis ha'Mikdash.