Previous daf

1)

(a) 'Hamakdish Nechasav, ve'Hayu Bahen Devarim Re'uyin le'Korbenos Tzibur, Yinasnu le'Umnin bi'Secharan, Divrei Rebbi Akiva'. 'Devarim Re'uyin le'Korbenos' refers to Ketores.

(b) The Ketores goes out to Chulin by being transferred on to the completed work of the workers (exactly how, will be discussed later).

(c) According to Ben Azai, they would transfer the Ketores on to money that was paid to the workers (as will be discussed later), before giving it to the workers.

(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, if, among his property, there were male animals, they are sold as Olos, and female animals, as Shelamim. The proceeds go, together with all his other property, to Bedek ha'Bayis.

(b) The reason that the animals are not brought directly on the Mizbe'ach according to Rebbi Eliezer, is because he holds that S'tam Hekdesh goes to Bedek ha'Bayis. In fact, this is why they are sold - for the proceeds to go to Bedek ha'Bayis.

(c) However, because whatever is fit for the Mizbe'ach must go on the Mizbe'ach, they have to be sold as Korbanos.

(d) According to Rebbi Yehoshua ...

1. ... the male animals - go directly on the Mizbe'ach as Olos.
2. ... the female animals and their proceeds - are sold as Shelamim, and with their proceeds, one buys Olos.

(a) In the previous Halachah, Rebbi Akiva preferred the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer - because he was consistent (inasmuch as *all* the property goes to Bedek ha'Bayis), to that of Rebbi Yehoshua, who is *not* (because he rules that whereas most of the property goes to Bedek ha'Bayis, the animals go on the Mizbe'ach).

(b) Rebbi Papayus heard - that if the owner mentioned the animals and the rest of his property, but without specifying that the one goes to the Mizbe'ach, and the other, to Bedek ha'Bayis - then he clearly intended everything to go to the same place (and they all go to Bedek ha'Bayis - like Rebbi Eliezer); whereas if he just said his property, without distinguishing between the animals and the rest of his property, then we assume that he meant each section to go where it belongs, the animals to the Mizbe'ach, and the rest of the property, to Bedek ha'Bayis (like Rebbi Yehoshua).

(c) If, among his property, there was flour, wine, oil or birds that were fit to go on the Mizbei'ach - then they must be sold as such, and the proceeds are used to buy Olos.

(a) According to Rebbi Hoshaya - a private individual cannot donate the Ketores for the Tzibur. Consequently, our Mishnah must be speaking about a worker who received the Mosar ha'Ketores as remuneration for his work, as we learnt above - and that is the Korbenos Tzibur referred to in the Reisha.

(b) In addition to the fact that 'S'tam Hekdesh le'Bedek ha'Bayis' and that Bedek ha'Bayis also takes effect on anything (which Kodshei Mizbei'ach does not) - Me'ilah also applies to the Gidulin (whatever grows on Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - such as the milk of Bedek ha'Bayis animals), nor may the Kohanim receive any benefit from it (which is not the case by Kodshei Mizbe'ach, whose Gidulin are permitted, and from which the Kohanim may receive benefit (e.g. the flesh and the skin).

(c) The author of this Mishnah that holds 'S'tam Hekdesh le'Bedek ha'Bayis' - is Rebbi Eliezer (of our Mishnah). Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees with him, as we saw there.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer learns that from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Ish Ki Yakdish es Beiso Kodesh" - which cannot be speaking about a person declaring his *house* Hekdesh, because that, we already know from another Pasuk. So it must be referring to someone who declares his property Hekdesh, to teach us that it goes to Bedek ha'Bayis.

(a) According to Rebbi Zeira quoting Rav, if someone were to declare his flocks Hekdesh - they would all go directly on the Mizbe'ach (Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah only says that they go to Bedek ha'Bayis in order not to differentiate between the animals and the rest of the property. That reason is not applicable however, when he declares only his animals Hekdesh. There, whatever is fit for the Mizbe'ach, goes directly on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Rebbi Ba in the name of Rav says the reverse. According to him, it is when the owner declared *the animals only* Hekdesh that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue. When he declared *all his property* Hekdesh, even Rebbi Yehoshua agrees that, since the rest of his property goes to Bedek ha'Bayis, so do the animals.

(c) The Gemara asks on Rebbi Ba 'Beheimah Lo la'Mizbei'ach Hi' - How does Rebbi Ba know that it is the *animals* which follow the *rest of the property* to Bedek ha'Bayis (Lekula)? Perhaps it is the *rest of the property* which follows the animals for their proceeds to go on the Mizbe'ach (Lechumra)?

(d) The reason that the animals follow the rest of the property (and not vice-versa) answers the Gemara - is because we are speaking when he declared his *property* Hekdesh, and not the *animals*.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan - Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue in all cases, whether the owner declared his property Hekdesh, or his flocks. Neither of them differentiates between the two.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan says that animals that are fit to go on the Mizbei'ach, and that one (wrongly) declared Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - may be redeemed as they are (without sending them into the field to become blemished).

(c) The Gemara answers that Rebbi Yochanan did not declare a Bedek ha'Bayis animal that was redeemed Chulin - unless it is has a blemish. His Chidush is that even if it became blemished only *after* it was redeemed, it still goes out to Chulin.

(d) The Gemara proves Rebbi Yochanan's ammended statement, from the Mishnah in Temurah: 'V'ladan ve'Chelban (of Kodshei Mizbei'ach) Asur le'Achar Pidyonan *Mah she'Ein Kein be'Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis* - which is permitted even though its Hekdesh preceded its blemish (in any event, we see that even Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis require a blemish before they can go out to Chulin - like we just explained in Rebbi Yochanan).

7) We prove from Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, who permits animals that were declared Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis to be sold as Kodshei Mizbe'ach - that animals of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are not bound to Bedek ha'Bayis permanently, but can be redeemed (even without a blemish) - to be used as Kodshei Mizbe'ach even though they are still unblemished, and if they subsequently become blemished, even to go out to Chulin.

8)

(a) Someone who declares Ba'lei Mumin Kodshei Mizbei'ach - transgresses five La'vin.

(b) His declaration is nevertheless effective - with regard to the prohibition of shearing its wool and working with it after it is redeemed (neither of which applies to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis).

(c) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if someone declares a female animal an Olah, a Pesach or an Asham, they are nevertheless subject to Temurah. Rebbi Shimon agrees by an Olah - because there is such a thing as a female Olah i.e. by a bird-offering.

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah quoting Rebbi Shimon - none of the three (a female Olah, Pesach or Asham) will make a Temurah.

(b) His reason, explains Rebbi Yochanan, is because 'Im Min be'Mino Chaluk Alav, Kol Shekein Min be'she'Eino Mino'. This means that if, in the case of a change from one kind of animal to another of the *same* species (i.e. if one declares a *sheep* which is two years old as an Asham instead of a *ram*), it is not Kadosh, then how much more so when one changes to another species altogether (i.e. from a *male* to a *female*).

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua says that if one declared a female animal an Olah, it is not Kadosh.

(d) Besides the Din of whether Temurah is effective or not - whether it is Kedushas ha'Guf or Kedushas Damim will also determine whether it can be redeemed immediately, or whether it needs to be sent to graze or whether it can be redeemed immediately.

(a) According to Rebbi, if someone declares a female lamb a Pesach, it adopts Kedushas ha'Guf to make a Temurah etc. (unlike Rebbi Shimon) because after Pesach, it is brought as a Shelamim.

(b) He agrees with him in the case of an Asham however, even though a Mosar Asham is brought as an Olah - because it is not brought directly, but needs first to graze, and only with its proceeds does one bring a Shelamim (in which case it is no more than Kedushas Damim, whereas a female Pesach, which will itself be brought as a Shelamim, is Kedushas ha'Guf).

(c) The Tana Kama, who holds that even a female Pesach and Asham can make a Temurah - holds that even if only a Kedushas Damim takes effect, it will still make a Temurah, because since Kedushas Damim takes effect, so does Kedushas ha'Guf.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Daber el Aharon ... Ish Ish mi'Beis Yisrael ... *le'Chol Nidreihem u'le'Chol Nidvosam Asher Yakriv la'Hashem le'Olah*" that whatever one declares Hekdesh Stam - of things that are fit to be brought to Hashem (e.g. as male animals) - are brought directly as Olos.
2. ... "ba'Bakar" - to include females (which must therefore be sold and the proceeds used to buy Olos - as he said in our Mishnah).

(b) 'Shivta de'Kadkada Beinieihen' means that the difference between a female animal that is declared Hekdesh (which we just included in Kedushas Olah from "ba'Bakar") and a blemished one (which we did *not*) - is as obvious as a weaver's stick (which can clearly be seen by everyone). The difference is that, whereas a female animal is fit to be brought as a Korban (e.g. as a Shelamim), a blemished one is *not*.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer learns from "ba'Bakar" that birds are not brought as Olos (not even with their proceeds), but go together with the rest of the property to Bedek ha'Bayis.

(d) Since we now see that there is no Kedushas ha'Guf on birds, how can Rebbi Yochanan explain that Kedushas ha'Guf will take effect on a female Olah - because we find a female Olah by birds. (Note: This statement is virtually incomprehensible. It is only by Stam property that birds go to Bedek ha'bayis, but not if one declares a bird an Olah, which is what Rebbi Yochanan is referring to).