Rebbi Yochanan explains the reason of Rebbi Shimon. He says that when one is
Makdish a female animal to be an Olah, it becomes Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf (and can make a Temurah), because a female animal *can* become an
Olah in one instance; a bird which is a female can be made into an Olas
ha'Of, a bird-Olah. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah argues and says that it is not
Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf since it cannot become an Olas-Behemah, an
animal-Olah.
At the end of the Daf, the Gemara asks that Rebbi Yochanan contradicts
himself. In one statement, he explains Rebbi Shimon's opinion and says that
a female animal could be used as an Olas ha'Of, and that is why a female is
Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf when one is Makdish it as an Olah. "Here,
though," says the Gemara, "Rebbi Yochanan says differently." Where? What
other statement is the Gemara referring to in which Rebbi Yochanan
contradicts his earlier statement? There is no other statement from Rebbi
Yochanan!
(a) The TALMID RABEINU SHMUEL BAR SHNEUR suggests that the Gemara is asking
about the contradiction between the statement of Rebbi Yochanan (which he
said in explaining Rebbi Shimon) and the statement of *Reish Lakish*, which
the Gemara quoted a few lines earlier. (The YEFEI EINAYIM suggests that in
the Gemara a few lines earlier, the quote should be in the name of Rebbi
Yochanan instead of Reish Lakish. According to the Talmid Rabeinu Shmuel bar
Shneur, who does not change the Girsa, the Gemara assumes that Rebbi
Yochanan agrees with Reish Lakish's statement there.)
Reish Lakish is explaining the third opinion in the Mishnah (on 12a), that
of Rebbi Elazar, who says that if someone is Makdish all of his possessions
and among them there are birds which are fit for Korbanos, then the birds
must be sold to be used as Korbanos, and the money one receives in return
for them are used to bring Olos of animals. Reish Lakish explains that Rebbi
Elazar's reason is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv which states that when a person makes
something Hekdesh without specifying what type of Hekdesh, that item must be
used for a Korban Behemah (an animal offering) and not for a bird offering.
This contradicts Rebbi Yochanan, who said that a female animal is Kadosh
with Kedushas ha'Guf when one is Makdish it as an Olah, since a female could
be used for an Olah when it comes to bird offerings. From this statement, we
see that Rebbi Yochanan *equates birds with animals*. However, from Rebbi
Elazar in the Mishnah, we see that when a person is Makdish his possessions
without specifying for what type of Hekdesh, he is *not Makdish his birds*
with Kedushas ha'Guf, while he *is Makdish his animals* with Kedushas ha'Guf
(that is, Rebbi Elazar distinguishes between birds and animals).
How do we see that from the words of Rebbi Elazar (as interpreted by Reish
Lakish)? If the person intended to be Makdish his birds with Kedushas
ha'Guf, then he would not be able to sell them to be used as Olos (for items
which are Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf which are disqualified from being
offered on the Mizbe'ach cannot be offered on the Mizbe'ach even if they are
sold). The birds would be "Dachuy" (pushed-off, or invalidated) from being
used as a Korban. Since Rebbi Elazar says that the birds *may* be sold and
offered on the Mizbe'ach, it must be that the person was never Makdish the
birds with Kedushas ha'Guf, but only with Kedushas Damim, not like his other
animals, and thus they may be sold and brought as a Korban. We see, then,
that Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah, based on Reish Lakish's explanation of his
opinion, contradicts the statement of Rebbi Yochanan.
The Gemara answers that normally, a person *does* consider birds and animals
to be in the same category. Only a person who is Makdish all his possessions
is not Makdish his birds with Kedushas ha'Guf. The reason for this is
because he knows that the Torah says that his birds will become Pasul if he
gives them Kedushas ha'Guf and they will not be able to be brought as bird-
offerings, nor can they be redeemed, because they have Kedushas ha'Guf.
Therefore, he is Makdish them only with Kedushas Damim.
(b) RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY also explains that the Gemara, when it asks the
contradiction on Rebbi Yochanan's statement, is referring to Rebbi
Yochanan's explanation of Rebbi Shimon, and is asking from the opinion of
Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah. Rebbi Yochanan says that since a female animal
is fit for an Olah offering when it is a bird, it is therefore considered
Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf even when it is sanctified to be an Olas-
Behemah. That is, Rebbi Yochanan holds that when an animal is fit to be
brought as a different type of Korban, it is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf
even though it is not fit to be brought as the Korban for which it was now
designated.
Rav Kanievsky asserts that Rebbi Yochanan would maintain that even Rebbi
Shimon ben Yehudah, who argues with Rebbi Shimon, would agree, in principle,
to this concept. Although Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah argues with Rebbi Shimon
and says that such an animal does not become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf,
that is only because a female animal is only fit for a *different* type of
Olah but it is never fit for *this* type of Olah. In a case where the animal
would be fit for this particular type of Olah, but would be disqualified for
a tangential reason that applies only in this case, then even Rebbi Shimon
ben Yehudah would agree that it is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf. This is
exactly the case in which Rebbi Elazar says that the bird is *not* Kadosh
with Kedushas ha'Guf.
Thus, the question on Rebbi Yochanan's statement is from Rebbi Elazar's
opinion in the Mishnah. Rebbi Elazar says that if someone is Makdish his
possessions and there are birds among them, those birds are not Kadosh with
Kedushas ha'Guf and therefore they are to be sold to be used as Olos, and
the money received for them is to be used for Olos. Even though a bird
normally may be brought as an Olah, the person who was Makdish his
possessions may not bring it as an Olah because now it is disqualified (for
a tangential reason) due to the Gezeras ha'Kasuv which teaches that one who
is Makdish his possessions "Stam" must bring them as an Olas Behemah. The
birds, rather, are Kadosh with Kedushas Damim. This is clearly the opinion
of Rebbi Elazar, because if he held that the birds were Kadosh with Kedushas
ha'Guf, then they would not be fit to be used for *anything* -- they could
not be brought as an Olah themselves, nor could they be redeemed. Since they
can be bought by someone else and used as an Olah, it must be that they
never had Kedushas ha'Guf and never became disqualified with that Pesul. We
see, then, that Rebbi Elazar maintains that an animal which is not fit to be
brought for the Korban for which it was designated but is only disqualified
for a side reason, and *is* fit to be brought as another Korban, is *not*
Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf. This contradicts Rebbi Yochanan.
The answer of the Gemara is that Rebbi Yochanan's rule that an animal which
is fit to be brought as another Korban is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf only
applies if another condition is met. Not only must the animal be fit to be
brought as another Korban, but it must be able to be redeemed, and to have
its value (the money paid for it) brought as the type of Korban for which it
was initially designated. Only when this second condition -- the ability to
be redeemed -- is met, does the item attain a status of Kedushas ha'Guf. A
bird, which cannot be redeemed, will never become Kadosh with Kedushas
ha'Guf (when sanctified for a Korban for which it is unfit) even though it
is fit to be brought as a Korban under other circumstances, *since it cannot
be redeemed*.
(c) The TIKLIN CHADETIN explains that the contradiction is between Rebbi
Yochanan's original statement explaining the opinion of Rebbi Shimon and his
statement in the Gemara *which follows* (13a) in which Rebbi Yochanan
explains the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah who argues with Rebbi
Shimon (the Tiklin Chadetin asserts that his statement there should actually
be placed here on 12b, right before to Reish Lakish's statement). In that
Gemara, Rebbi Yochanan states that an animal which is unfit to be brought as
the Korban for which it was sanctified, but is fit to be brought as another
type of Korban ("Teme'ah b'Oso Shem"), is Kadosh with Kedushas Damim and
*not* Kedushas ha'Guf. This contradicts his own statement in explaining
Rebbi Shimon.
The Tiklin Chadetin explains the Gemara's answer similar to the way it was
explained above (by Rav Chaim Kanievsky). Perhaps in the Gemara on 13a,
Rebbi Yochanan was not giving a blanket statement that whenever an animal is
not fit for the Korban for which it was designated it is Kedushas Damim.
Rather, he was saying that it is Kedushas Damim *sometimes* when it is not
fit, such as in the case of Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah, when a person was
Makdish his possessions without specifying for what type of Hekdesh. In that
case it is Kadosh with Kedushas Damim, because otherwise it would not be fit
at all to be brought as an Olah; not only could it not be brought as an Olah
itself (because of the Gezeras ha'Kasuv), but even its value could be
brought as an Olah (since a bird sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf cannot be
redeemed). However, in the case of a female animal sanctified as an Olah,
where its value *can* be brought as an Olah, Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi
Shimon that it is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf since it is a type of animal
which is still fit to be brought as another type of Olah.