WHO TAUGHT THE MISHNAH?
Answer - part 1: This is not difficult for Rav Huna;
(Rav Huna citing Rav): All agree that if the owner (without asking Beis Din) took one of the animals and offered it, the other must die (because he showed that he is not concerned about Dichuy of the other).
According to Rav Huna, (the Seifa is even like Chachamim;) if he would offer from one of the monies, all agree that the other money is Nidcheh.
Question: According to R. Aba, how can we answer?
(R. Aba): All agree that if he offered the replacement animal, the Chatas that was lost (and found) must die;
They argue about when he offered the lost Chatas;
Rebbi holds that the replacement is like the lost animal (Yamus);
Chachamim hold that the replacement is unlike the lost animal. (The replacement was never Nidcheh, therefore it is Ro'eh.)
Answer: We must say that (even though) the Reisha is Stam (anonymous, aa it is) like Rebbi, the Seifa is Stam, like Chachamim.
Question: Was the Mishnah written this way to teach that Rebbi and Chachamim argue about this?! Their argument is explicit in the Seifa (case 6)!
(Seifa): If a Chatas was lost, another was Hukdash, and before Kaparah the Chatas was found:
Rebbi says, if both are Tamim, one is offered, and the other must die;
Chachamim say, a Chatas does not die, and Demei Chatas are not cast to Yam ha'Melach, unless they were found after Kaparah.
Answer: The Seifa reveals that Cases 1 and 3 are like Chachamim and Rebbi, respectively.
THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN REBBI AND CHACHAMIM
(Rav Huna citing Rav): All agree that if the owner took one of the animals and offered it, the other must die. They argue about one who asks Beis Din what to do:
Chachamim enact to offer the lost Chatas, in order that the other will not have to die;
Rebbi does not enact regarding Kodshim (Tosfos - if the replacement is better than the lost animal). Rather, we offer the replacement, and the lost Chatas must die.
Question (Rav Mesharshiya): (All agree that) we make enactments regarding Kodshim!
(Beraisa): "Yochlu" (is extra. It) teaches that if Kohanim receive a small amount of Menachos to eat, they eat Chulin and Terumah first, in order to eat Kodshim when they are satiated.
(Beraisa): "Yochluha" (with an extra Hei) teaches that if they have much Menachos to eat, they do not eat Chulin and Terumah with them, lest they gorge themselves to eat Kodshim when they are stuffed (Rashi - lest the Kodshim be left over).
Suggestion: Even Rebbi agrees with this enactment!
Answer: No, only Chachamim enact about Kodshim.
(R. Aba citing Rav): All agree that if he offered the replacement animal, the lost Chatas must die;
They argue about when the lost Chatas was offered. Rebbi holds that an animal Hukdash l'Ibud (to replace a lost Chatas) is like a lost Chatas (it must die if the other animal is offered). Chachamim hold that it is unlike a lost Chatas.
Question (Mishnah): (If the goat chosen for Azazel died, we take two other goats and do another lottery; the new goat chosen for Azazel replaces the dead goat;)
The second grazes until it gets a blemish. The money goes to Nedavah, because Chatas Tzibur need not die.
Inference: Such a case of a Korban Yachid would have to die!
(Rav): Living animals cannot become Nidchim. The goat chosen for Hash-m from the first pair is offered, and the goat (for Hash-m) from the second pair is like an an animal Hukdash l'Ibud;
Inference: It does not die because it is a Korban Tzibur, but such a case of a Korban Yachid would die!
Suggestion: Even Chachamim agree with this!
Answer: No, it is like Rebbi.
Question (Mishnah): If a Chatas was lost, a replacement was offered, and then the Chatas was found, Yamus.
Inference: It must die because the replacement was offered. After Hafrashah and before Kaparah, it would be Ro'eh.
Whether the lost Chatas or replacement was offered, whether or not he consulted with Beis Din, the other would be Ro'eh.
This refutes Rav Huna and R. Aba!
Answer (for both of them): No, the Mishnah says only a clearcut law. (We may not make inferences. The Tana did not discuss before Kaparah, for that law depends on whether or not he consulted with Beis Din, or which animal was offered.)
Question (Mishnah): If Demei Chatas was lost and money was Hukdash in its place, and the first money was found before a Chatas was bought, we buy a Chatas from both monies, and the excess goes to Nedavah.
Inference: The excess goes to Nedavah because a Chatas was bought from both monies. Had it been bought from one of them, the excess would go to Yam ha'Melach;
Whether the lost or replacement money was offered, whether or not he consulted with Beis Din, the other money would go to Yam ha'Melach!
This refutes Rav Huna and R. Aba!
Answer (for both of them): No, the Mishnah teaches only a clearcut law.
MONEY HUKDASH FOR ACHARAYUS
(R. Ami): If one was Makdish two piles of money for Acharayus, he brings his Chatas from one, and the other goes to Nedavah.
Question: Like which Tana is this?
Suggestion: It is like Rebbi.
Rejection: According to Rebbi, this is obvious! Rebbi said Yamus only regarding a Chatas Hukdash l'Ibud. He agrees about Acharayus (that the extra money goes to Nedavah)!
Answer #1: It is like Chachamim.
Rejection: According to Chachamim, this is obvious! They hold that Hekdesh l'Ibud is not like the lost Chatas (it is Ro'eh). All the more so, Hekdesh l'Acharayus (is for Nedavah)!
Answer #2: It is like R. Shimon (on 15a, who says that five Chata'os always die, even b'Tzibur);
One might have thought that R. Shimon holds that Mosar Chatas never goes to Nedavah. R. Ami teaches that this is not so.
Question: One could not think that R. Shimon argues about Nedavah!
(Mishnah) There were 13 Shofaros (to hold coins) in the Mikdash;
One was for new (half-)Shekalim (i.e. of this year). One was for old Shekalim (from last year). The other 11 were for the following --
Kinim (a Mechusar Kipurim puts in a fixed amount of money for two birds. We buy birds with the money. Half are offered like Chatas ha'Of, and half like Olas ha'Of);
Gozlei Olos (Olos ha'Of);
Wood (Rashi - Nedavah; R Gershom - for the Ma'arachah), Levonah, gold for Klei Shares (some say - for Bedek ha'Bayis);
There were six for Nedavah (Nidvos Tzibur).
(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): The six for Nedavah are Olos from Mosaros. The skin is not given to Kohanim (like skin of regular Olas Nedavah, rather, it is sold to buy Olos Nedavah).
R. Nechemyah (or R. Shimon): Yehoyada ha'Kohen refutes you!
(Mishnah - Yehoyada ha'Kohen): (Another verse teaches that Asham belongs to the Kohen.) "Asham Hu Asham Asham la'Shem" teaches that any Mosar of Chatas or Asham is used to buy Olos. The meat goes to Hash-m (the Mizbe'ach), and the skin goes to Kohanim.
Summation of question: This shows that R. Shimon agrees that Mosaros go to Nedavah!
Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: One might have thought that he agrees only when two piles (of money) were Hukdash to buy one animal, and the price went down, but if they were Hukdash to buy two animals (one for Acharayus), he would argue. R. Ami teaches that this is not so.
Version #2 (R. Gershom) Answer: One might have thought that he agrees only when one pile was Hukdash to buy a Chatas, and some was left over, but if two piles were Hukdash, he would argue. R. Ami teaches that this is not so.