(Mishnah): We cannot change Kodshei Mizbe'ach or Bedek ha'Bayis from their Kedushah;

One can be Makdish (Kodshei Mizbe'ach) for Hekdesh Iluy (his Tovas Hana'ah) or be Macharim them;

If they died, they are buried.

R. Shimon says, if Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis die, they are redeemed.

(Gemara - Rav Huna): If one was Matfis Kodshei Mizbe'ach for Chermei Kohanim, it does not take effect;

We learn from "Kol Cherem Kodesh Kodashim Hu la'Shem" - every Cherem that was once Kodesh is la'Shem. Kohanim have no share in it.

Question (Beraisa): If one was Matfis Bedek ha'Bayis for Kodshei Mizbe'ach or Chermei Kohanim, it does not take effect;

If one was Matfis Chermei Kohanim for Kodshei Mizbe'ach or Bedek ha'Bayis, it does not take effect.

Inference: If one was Matfis Kodshei Mizbe'ach for Chermei Kohanim, it takes effect! (This is why the Beraisa omitted this case.)

Answer (for Rav Huna): It did not mention Hatpasah of Kodshei Mizbe'ach, because when one is Matfis them for Bedek ha'Bayis it takes effect.

Question: If Hatpasah of Kodshei Mizbe'ach for Chermei Kohanim does not take effect, the Tana should have taught this!

Answer: The Tana teaches only things for which neither Hatpasah works.

Question (Mishnah): One can be Makdish (Kodshei Mizbe'ach) for Hekdesh Iluy or be Macharim them.

Suggestion: Hekdesh Iluy is for Bedek ha'Bayis, and Macharim is to Kohanim!

Answer: No, both are for Bedek ha'Bayis. (The Mishnah teaches that) it does not matter whether he said "Hekdesh" or "Cherem".

Objection #1 (Beraisa): (In the Mishnah,) Hekdesh Iluy is for Bedek ha'Bayis, and Macharim is to Kohanim.

Objection #2 (Beraisa): If one was Matfis Kodshei Mizbe'ach for Chermei Kohanim, it takes effect.

Rav Huna is refuted.

Question: A verse supports him!

Answer (Ula): Had the verse said just "Cherem (Kodesh Kodashim Hu la'Shem)", we would expound like Rav Huna;

However, it says "Kol Cherem", to teach that Chermei Kohanim take effect on all Kodshim.

Question: Ula contradicts himself!

(Ula): If one was Matfis an Olah for Bedek ha'Bayis, Bedek ha'Bayis does not receive anything, just it is not offered until the Gizbar is there. (One should oversee Hakravah of his Korban.)

Answer: Mid'Rabanan, Chermei Kohanim take effect on all Kodshim. The verse teaches that Me'ilah applies to Chermei Kohanim (before they are given to a Kohen).

Question: Why do we need a verse? Chermei Kohanim are called Kodshei Kodashim!

Counter-question: R. Yanai taught that the Torah explicitly teaches about Me'ilah only in an Olah - "Nefel Ki Sim'ol... mi'Kodshei Hash-m" discusses matters that are only for Hash-m;

We learn about Chatas and Asham (which Kohanim eat) from Rebbi's teaching;

(Beraisa - Rebbi): "Kol Chelev la'Shem" includes Chelev of Kodshim Kalim. Me'ilah applies to them.

Question: Why do we need a verse? They are called Kodshei Kodashim!

Answer: Even though they are called Kodshei Kodashim, we need a verse.

Answer: Similarly, even though Chermei Kohanim are called Kodshei Kodashim, we need a verse.

(Ula): If one was Matfis an Olah for Bedek ha'Bayis, Bedek ha'Bayis does not receive anything, just it is not offered until the Gizbar is there.

Question (Beraisa): If one was Matfis an Olah for Bedek ha'Bayis, one may not slaughter it before redeeming it.

Answer: That is mid'Rabanan. (Mid'Oraisa, nothing took effect.)

Support (Seifa): If one slaughtered it, it is Kosher. (If mid'Oraisa it became Kodesh, it would be Pasul. The Griz asks why this is so.)

Objection (Seifa): (If one benefits from it) he transgresses Me'ilah twice. (Tosfos - since mid'Oraisa it is Hekdesh, people are careful not to benefit from it. Chachamim would not need to enact a second Me'ilah mid'Rabanan!)

Answer: It means that if the Hatpasah would work mid'Oraisa, he would transgress Me'ilah twice.

(Mishnah): If they died, they are buried.

(R. Yochanan): Chachamim require Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah (to stand up the Hekdesh and evaluate it for redemption) for both Bedek ha'Bayis and Kodshei Mizbe'ach;

(Reish Lakish): They require it only for Bedek ha'Bayis, but not for Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish agree that R. Shimon requires it only for Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but not for Bedek ha'Bayis;

All agree that a Ba'al Mum me'Ikaro (it was blemished before it was Hukdash) does not need Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah.

Question (Mishnah - R. Shimon): If Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis die, they are redeemed.

We understand this according to R. Yochanan. Because Chachamim require Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah for both kinds of Hekdesh, R. Shimon had to specify that Bedek ha'Bayis does not require it;

According to Reish Lakish, Chachamim discussed only Bedek ha'Bayis. R. Shimon should have said only "if they die, they are redeemed"!

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer (Reish Lakish): R. Shimon did not understand Chachamim. (He assumed that they discuss both);

He says, regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach, I agree (that Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah is required);

Regarding Bedek ha'Bayis, (I disagree;) if they died, they are redeemed.

Answer (Reish Lakish): R. Shimon did not know what Chachamim discuss;

He says, if you discuss Kodshei Mizbe'ach, I agree (that Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah is required);

If you discuss Bedek ha'Bayis, (I disagree;) if they died, they are redeemed.

Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): "V'Im Kol Behemah Teme'ah Asher Lo Yakrivu Mimenu Korban la'Shem" refers to a Ba'al Mum that was redeemed. (We adopt the text of Shitah Mekubetzes. It is like the Gemara in Bechoros.)

Suggestion: Perhaps it truly refers to a Tamei (species of) Behemah!

Rejection: "V'Im ba'Behemah ha'Teme'ah u'Fadah v'Erkecha" discusses Teme'im, so "v'Im Kol Behemah Teme'ah" must refer to a Ba'al Mum that was redeemed.

Suggestion: Perhaps a Korban may be redeemed if it has a Mum Over (a temporary Mum)!

Rejection: "Asher Lo Yakrivu Mimenu Korban la'Shem" refers to something that can never be offered. This excludes a Ba'al Mum Over, for it may be offered later.

Conclusion: It refers to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and it requires Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah!