The Gemara questions why we assume that a lost male animal is an Olah.
However, the text of the Gemara is unclear, and the VILNA GA'ON makes
extensive changes in the Girsa. The key to understanding the Sugya is to
learn the complementary Sugya in Kidushin (55a) which discusses this Mishnah
and deals with much of the same issues as our Sugya. The Vilna Gaon's
changes are based on the Gemara in Kidushin, and after analyzing his
approach, it becomes apparent that we can understand our Sugya the way the
Vilna Ga'on understands it, but without the changes in the Girsa that he
makes. (Talmidim of the Gaon, such as the "Bnei Moshe," write in numerous
places that the Gaon taught them Sugyos in the Yerushalmi with the original
Girsa, but explained them in such a way that the explanation matched his
suggested Girsa changes. This may be an important rule for understanding how
the Gaon made such numerous and extensive emendations in the Masoretic text
of the Mishnah and Yerushalmi -M. Kornfeld.)
[Step 1] After the Mishnah states that a male animal is assumed to be an
Olah, the Gemara is immediately bothered by a question. Why do we assume
that a male animal is an Olah? A male animal can also be a Shelamim, and
perhaps this animal was sanctified to be brought as a Shelamim and not as an
Olah! The Gemara, therefore, assumes that the Mishnah does not mean that the
animal is brought as an Olah; rather, the Mishnah means that the animal is
brought as *both* an Olah and a Shelamim.
However, how can one animal be used for two Korbanos? It must be that the
person transfers the Kedushah of the animal onto two new animals, one to be
brought as an Olah and the other to be brought as a Shelamim. He stipulates,
"If the original animal is an Olah, then I hereby am Mechalel it onto the
first new animal; if it is a Shelamim, then I hereby am Mechalel it onto the
second new animal, and whichever one of the two animals animal is left
without being sanctified, will be brought as a Nedavah."
This is what Rav Hoshiyah means when he says, "la'Vo b'Demeihen Shanu." He
is saying that one does not bring the animal itself that was found, but
rather one brings other animals equal in value to the original one, bringing
one as an Olah and the other as a Shelamim.
(Of course, the finder is not *obligated* to do this, for it involves
donating a second animal on his own. If he wants, he may leave the animal to
graze until it becomes blemished and then redeem it. However, if he wants to
avoid any doubt and bring the correct Korban with this animal, this is the
procedure that he should do.)
[Step 2] The Gemara questions this procedure. We never find that one may be
Mechalel a perfect, unblemished animal onto another animal. Why, then, in
this case does the Mishnah suggest that one can be Mechalel this unblemished
animal and bring two animals in its place according to its value?
The Gemara in Kidushin explains that indeed, there is no act of Chilul
(removal of Kedushah) being done here. Rather, the original animal is losing
its Kedushah through *Me'ilah* (misuse of Kodshim, such as using it to
purchase another animal). Me'ilah, like Chilul, removes Kedushah from an
object, and it works even for an unblemished animal. (Although it was said
that the Kedushah of Kodshei Mizbe'ach, such as Korbanos, cannot be removed,
that is only when one does not intend to remove the Kedushah. If one intends
to remove the Kedushah, then the Kedushah can be effectively removed.)
Therefore, if one has intention to remove the Kedushah from the animal, it
is like he is performing Me'ilah which removes its Kedushah. This, however,
is only according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir in Kidushin (54b) who says
that Me'ilah committed *intentionally* (b'Mezid) is able to remove the
Kedushah of an object. Rebbi Yehudah argues and says that the Kedushah only
leaves the object if Me'ilah was committed unintentionally (b'Shogeg).
The problem now, however, is why is this person being told to commit Me'ilah
("Tzei u'Me'ol b'Kodshim") in order to remove the animal's Kedushah? Me'ilah
is forbidden! The answer is that the Mishnah is referring to a case when he
did it already (b'Di'eved), and not that we tell him to do it (Tosfos,
Kidushin 55a). Alternatively, the Mishnah means that since he is doing it in
order to bring a Korban, which is something positive and desirable, it is
However, Rebbi Yochanan rejects these two answers and says that this case is
no different than a normal case of Me'ilah, which is forbidden. The Mishnah
implies that it is *permitted* (l'Chatchilah) to make the animal into an
Olah, and therefore Rav Hoshiyah must be incorrect.
[Step 3] The Gemara therefore returns to the beginning of the discussion and
says that the reason one brings the animal as an Olah (even though a male
animal can also be brought as a Shelamim) is because *most* male animals are
brought as Olos, because an Olah can only be brought from a male animal.
The Gemara was unaware of the implied question which Rav Hoshiyah was
answering, and thus it is now bothered by that question -- how can this
animal be brought as an Olah, if male animals can also be brought as
Shelamim, and it is not logical to say that "most male animals are brought
Rather, it must be that the Kedushah of the animal is transferred to two
other animals, and one is brought as an Olah and one as a Shelamim, exactly
as Rav Hoshiyah had suggested. (The Gemara did not know *why* Rebbi Hoshiyah
was saying that one transfers the Kedushah from the original animal and
brings two new animals, one as an Olah and one as a Shelamim. It was not
aware of the question that he was addressing, until this point when it runs
into that question itself.)
Consequently, the Gemara is bothered by the same question that was asked on
Rav Hoshiyah -- how is one permitted to remove the Kedushah from an
unblemished animal, and to transfer it onto another animal? The Gemara asks,
"Keitzad Hu Oseh, Motzi'in l'Chulin v'Chozer v'Oseh Osan Olos?" "What should
he do -- redeem the animal and bring with its value Olos [and Shelamim]?"
One is not permitted to redeem an unblemished animal!
[Step 4] The Gemara answers ("Amar Rebbi Ze'eira") that it is not always
true that one may not redeem an unblemished animal. We find that a "Tenai
Beis Din" is able to make a Chatas into an Olah (11b), and so, too, it can
make a (Safek) Shelamim into an Olah.
[Step 5] Then, Rebbi Yosi asks one final question and says that "this is
Mezid" and how can one intentionally remove the Kedushah from an animal?
What is he asking? We just said that it is a Tenai Beis Din, and thus there
is no transgression being committed when he removes the Kedushah!
It must be that Rebbi Yosi is referring back to Rav Hoshiyah's statement and
is asking a question on that original statement. Rav Hoshiyah stated that
one may commit Me'ilah and remove the Kedushah from an animal. Rebbi
Yochanan asked that it should not be permitted to do such a thing
l'Chatchilah. Rebbi Yosi is asking another question on Rav Hoshiyah. Me'ilah
removes the Kedushah from an object only when it is done b'Shogeg (according
to Rebbi Yehudah). True, Rebbi Meir holds that Me'ilah removes the Kedushah
even when it is done b'Mezid, but the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah. How,
then, can Rav Hoshiyah explain the Mishnah according to the non-Halachic
opinion of Rebbi Meir, asks Rebbi Yosi.
The Gemara comes to the same conclusion as it concluded earlier. It is a
Tenai Beis Din that allows the animal to be brought as an Olah even if it
was originally set aside as a Shelamim.