Observation: We cannot find a case of Esnan and Mechir [even] with Kodshim Kalim, even according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili, and even though [he holds that] it is the property of [the owner of the Korban, the Isur] does not take effect on it.

This is like we expound in Temurah (30b) "l'Chol Neder", to exclude something already Nadur (made Hekdesh, i.e. Kodshim).

Question: Why do we need a verse to exclude? They are absolute Chulin, and their law is like other Chulin, to be slaughtered outside!

They do not require even redemption, for Kedushah does not take effect on them at all, like is proven in Temurah (24b)!

The Mishnah teaches [that if one wants to prevent Kedushas Bechor from taking effect, he says about the fetus] "if is a male, it is an Olah. If it is a female, it is a Shelamim." The Gemara asks 'why does he say "if it is a female, it is a Shelamim"? A female would not get Kedushas Bechor!', and answers that the Seifa teaches about a [pregnant] animal of Hekdesh;

The Seifa teaches, if it gave birth to a Tumtum or Androginus, R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that Kedushah does not take effect on it.

The Gemara explains that he holds that Vlados Kodshim become Kodesh when they are born, and Kedushah does not take effect on something not proper to offer.

Summation of question: If so, also here it should not take effect on Esnan, Mechir Kil'ayim and Yotzei Dofen!

Answer: R. Shimon ben Gamliel said that Kedushah does not take effect on it, i.e. Kedushas ha'Guf and to be forbidden to shear it or work with it. However, it has Kedushas Damim, to redeem it without a Mum;

Therefore, we need this verse, for we do not exclude them from Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, like [we exclude] Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

And according to the opinion that [Vlados Kodshim] become Kodesh, even Kedushas ha'Guf takes effect on them, for their mother's Kedushah takes effect on them.

Question: Also according to the opinion that they become Kodesh when they are born, we should say that since they get Kedushas Damim, they get Kedushas ha'Guf!

This is like it says in Temurah (19b) about one who separates a female for an Asham.

[Poor] Answer #1: R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds like R. Shimon, who does not apply the Migo, for [R. Shimon] says that it may be sold without a Mum.

Further, if he held like R. Shimon, even if he held that they are Kodesh in the womb, Kedushas ha'Guf would not take effect on them!

This is like it explains there that R. Shimon taught like he taught elsewhere, that anything that is not itself proper [for Hakravah] does not get Kedushas ha'Guf.

Implied suggestion: We can say that one who separates a female is different, for it is proper for other Korbanos, and the Migo applies more.

Rejection: Even regarding a Tereifah, we find that we say Migo, in Temurah (17a)!

Answer #2: It seems that here we discuss when after it became an Esnan or Mechir, he was Makdish it, or when it was still in its mother's womb, or after it was born. Since he was explicitly Makdish it, it gets Kedushah.

Question: We should establish it here also like the opinion that they get Kedushah in its mother's womb, e.g. he was Makdish a pregnant animal and was Meshayer (left to be Chulin) the fetus, like R. Yochanan, who said in Temurah (25a) that if he was Meshayer, it did not get Kedushah, and he made the fetus an Esnan or Mechir, and afterwards was Makdish it!

Implied question: [We cannot, because] R. Yochanan was refuted there!

Answer #1: At the end we conclude that Tana'im argue about this.

Answer #2: Also, we can establish it to discuss a pregnant Chulin animal, and he made the fetus an Esnan or Mechir, and afterwards he was Makdish it!

Answer: He prefers to establish it simply, like the opinion that they are Kodesh when they are born, and he was Makdish it and afterwards it became pregnant.

Question: In the case in Temurah (25a), we infer that R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that [Vlados Kodshim] are Kodesh when they are born. We could have inferred so also from the Reisha "if it is a female, it is a Shelamim!" We establish it to discuss a [mother] of Hekdesh;

If [Vlados Kodshim] are Kodesh in the womb, he could not uproot the Kedushah of the fetus!

Answer: He waited until the Seifa and explains it, and the same applies to the Reisha.

Question: In Chulin (77a), a Mishnah teaches that if an animal giving birth for the first time miscarried a fetal sac, we cast it to dogs. If a Korban miscarried, we bury it. The Gemara explains that that the majority [of possibilities of what it miscarried] get Kedushah;

Since it says that it is buried, you are forced to say that [Vlados Kodshim] are Kodesh in the womb. If it were when they are born, why is it buried? Kedushah takes effect only on what is proper for Hakravah, like I explained!

If so, all [possibilities of what it miscarried] get Kedushah. Why did it mention the majority? Even Kil'ayim or Nidmeh gets the Kedushah of its mother, if [Vlados Kodshim] are Kodesh in the womb!

This is like we find in Temurah (17a). We say about Kil'ayim, Tumtum and Androginus that you find [that they are Kodesh] only through Vlados Kodshim;

At least, this is like the opinion that says that they are Kodesh in the womb.

Answer: He mentions the majority and not all, because there is what appears like a dove or its hooves are not cloven, according to R. Shimon;

Since it is forbidden to eat it, it is unreasonable that it gets the mother's Kedushah, even though [Vlados Kodshim] are Kodesh in the womb.

Observation: Everywhere, it connotes that Pesul ha'Guf is more stringent than a Pesul that comes from elsewhere, like we said above (4a) "you cannot learn from Shinuy Kodesh, for it is Pesul ha'Guf";

Also in Pesachim (73b) we say that anything that is Pesulo b'Gufo is burned immediately.

Implied question: Here it connotes oppositely!

Answer: This is not because Pesul ha'Guf is more lenient. Rather, it means as follows. A temporary Mum, and turtledoves whose time [to be Kosher for Hakravah] did not come, the Pesul depends on Gufo (the Korban itself), and if the Mum passed or the bird matured, immediately it would be proper;

However, Oso v'Es Beno, the Pesul does not depend on Gufo, that any remedy would help it. The entire day it is not proper.

Explanation #1: This is not like other cases of Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh in Chulin (141a) and Makos (14a,15a,16a), e.g. the Lav of Gezel, Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah, Nosar, and [a rapist or Motzi Shem Ra] who can never divorce his wife.

Proof: If it were, what was the question 'he should be lashed for the Lav "Lo Sa'asun"!'? It is Nitak l'Aseh!

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rather, it is like "the Torah Nitko (uprooted it) from severe Tum'ah to light Tum'ah."

In Chulin (80b), we expound "ul'Neder Lo Yeratzeh" to teach that all Pesulim in an ox or Seh, Lo Yeratzeh applies to them.

The Torah wrote about Mechusar Zman "mi'Yom ha'Shemini v'Halah Yeratzeh" to remove it from the Klal of other Pesulim, to which Lo Yeratzeh applies, to teach that this (Mechusar Zman) has only an Aseh.

This is like something that was in a Klal and left to get a new law, in Temurah (13b).

Support: We find like this regarding Badad Yeshev of a Metzora, in Pesachim (67a). We say that the Torah Nitko (uprooted it, from a Lav) to an Aseh, and removed it from the category of other Temei'im, who have a Lav "Lo Yetam'u Es Machaneihem."

Explanation #1 (cont.): Therefore, we ask that he should be lashed, since there is an explicit Lav, like we expound from "Lo Sa'asun." Also Rashi explained like this.

Explanation #2: However, in Chulin (81a), Rashi explained that this is like other cases of Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh. "Mi'Yom ha'Shemini v'Halah Yeratzeh" connotes that before the time, Lo Yeratzeh, and leave it until the time passes.

Question: Our Sugya opposes this!

Suggestion: We ask as follows. Because there is also a Lav "Lo Sa'asun" we do not say that one Aseh uproots two Lavim, like we say in Temurah (4b).

Rejection #1: These are different. There, the Lavim are next to the Aseh.

Support (for rejection #1): In Makos (15a), it considers "Lo Yetam'u Es Machaneihem" Nitak l'Aseh, if not that the Aseh came first, even though there is also a Lav "v'El ha'Mikdash Lo Savo."

Rebuttal (of Support): There, we can say that it is because there are two Mitzvos Aseh, for it says "mi'Chutz l'Machaneh Teshlachum."

Rejection #2: However, we find that there are two Lavim of Gezeilah - Lo Sa'ashok and Lo Sigzol, for in Bava Metzi'a (111a), Rava said that Oshek is Gezel, and it is considered Nitak l'Aseh in Makos (14b) and Chulin (80b)!

Conclusion: One must distinguish about the case in Temurah (4b) like I explained. The Torah wrote the two Lavim next to the Aseh to teach that the Aseh is not Menatek [both of] them. (We must explain like Explanation #1.)

Version #1: This is an answer, that even according to R. Shimon he is not lashed for Mechusar Zman inside, only outside, like Rashi explained.

Version #2: There is a text in Seforim "according to R. Shimon, indeed (he is lashed! What is the reason?) Gilgal is inside (it was permitted to offer there)! Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said, inside Gilgal (is considered outside regarding Shilo. This refers to obligatory Korbanos, which may be offered in Shilo, but not in Gilgal.)

[The Makshan] challenged Reish Lakish, who learns from Lo Sa'asun a Lav for Mechusar Zman, for this verse discusses Gilgal, and it is inside!

Suggestion: All the more so, one is liable outside!

Rejection: We do not warn based on a Kal v'Chomer.

[Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak] answers that Gilgal is considered outside regarding Shilo.

Implied question: They are Kosher to be offered inside Lo Lishmah!

Answer: [Even so], he is not Chayav Kares outside, because they are lacking Akirah (to designate it to be a different Korban), and it is not destined for Akirah before its time.

Explanation: [The Mishnah] taught "a time when there is a Heter Bamos", i.e. before midday, when it is Kosher on a Bamah, Lo Lishmah.

Question: Here it connotes that turtledoves whose time did not come, according to R. Shimon, Kedushah takes effect on it, and one who slaughters them outside transgresses a Lav;

Also in Me'ilah (12a), R. Shimon said that Me'ilah applies to them, for they will be proper [to offer] later;

And in Temurah (19b), regarding an Asham that must be two years old, and he brought a yearling, R. Shimon said that it is not Kodesh, because anything that it itself is not proper [to be offered], it does not get Kedushas ha'Guf;

[The Gemara] asks why this is different than Mechusar Zman, which is not proper itself, and it gets Kedushas ha'Guf, for R. Shimon said that it is Kadosh;

Explanation: In our Mishnah here, it teaches that R. Shimon says that there is a Lo Sa'aseh for Mechusar Zman.

[The Gemara] answers that [Mechusar Zman] is equated to Bechor, which is Kodesh before its time and it is offered later.

Summation of question: Granted, (this answers for) Mechusar Zman. What is the reason for turtledoves whose time did not come?

Answer: Something that is not proper for any Korban, we learn from Mechusar Zman, which is not proper for any Korban;

However, something that is proper for another Korban, and it is not proper for this Korban for which he is Makdish it, does not get Kedushas ha'Guf.

Implied question: Pesach before midday is Kadosh according to R. Shimon, and similarly Chatas or Asham of a Zav, Zavah, Yoledes or Metzora is Kadosh before its time, like the Mishnah taught above (112a), and R. Shimon does not argue...

And also in Toras Kohanim in Parshas Acharei Mos, R. Shimon said that one who slaughters them outside transgresses a Lav!

Answer: These are not Mechusar Zman b'Gufan (the animal is not too young). They are unlike an Asham that must be a yearling, and he brought a two-year old, or it must be two years old, and he brought a yearling, which is Mechusar Zman b'Gufan. (The former case is not Mechusar Zman, rather, its time passed - Ayeles ha'Shachar.)

Question: How does Mechusar Zman become Kadosh? We said above (12a) that the night (before an animals' eighth day) is proper for Kedushah, and [the following] day for offering, but the seventh day is not [proper to get Kedushah]!

Strengthening of question: In Bechoros (21a), R. Shimon says that Mechusar Zman enters the pen to be tithed. He learns from Bechor that it is Kadosh before its time. [The Gemara] asks that rather than learning from Bechor, he should learn from Kodshim!

Inference: Kodshim do not become Kadosh before their time!

Answer: It is forbidden to be Makdish them before their time, but if he was, they are Kedoshim, but he transgressed, for the Torah said mi'Yom ha'Shemini yes (it is permitted), but not before;

However, according to R. Shimon, it is permitted to enter Ma'aser into the pen within the time, like he learns there Ma'aser from Bechor through "Ha'avarah- Ha'avarah."

Implied question: Why doesn't he want to learn "Tachas-Tachas" from Kodshim (to forbid entering Ma'aser into the pen within the time)?

Answer: He prefers to learn from "Ha'avarah", because both occurrences of the word discuss making it pass in order to be Makdish it.

Implied question: We should find a reason why Mechusar Zman get Kedushas ha'Guf according to Rava, who holds that in Temurah (4b) that whenever the Torah said not to do something, if he did it, it does not take effect!

Answer #1: Perhaps regarding this he learns "Tachas-Tachas" from Ma'aser.

Answer #2: Perhaps there is another reason.

Explanation: This is because a Metzora has Tum'ah like that of a Zav, Zavah and Yoledes (Tum'ah exudes from their bodies), but a Nazir, who is unlike them, [the Tana] omitted.

Also in Kerisus (8b) we find that it taught Zav, Zavah, Yoledes and Metzora, and there it explains why it did not teach Metzora and Metzora'as, like it taught Zav and Zavah.

Support: Now it is fine for Ze'iri [why he adds Metzora and not Nazir]. It would suffice to add Nazir without Metzora, for there are both [Shelamim and Asham] in a Nazir, for a Tamei Nazir brings an Asham! (The Tana omitted Nazir, because his Tum'ah is unlike the others'.)