Shitat Rabbi Yossi Haglili is that kodoshim kalim are mommon baalim. Can anybody please let me know if we go by the makdish or by the miskaper(if it's not the same person)?

I imagine you are refering to, in Daf Yomi, to Temurah 2b that the Mischaper can make the Temurah, and the Rambam says because it's considered Korbono, so the same in the Shita of R"Y Haglili, that it's considered his korbon.

I think that since in Kiddushin 52b says that R"Y Haglili is only when the animal is alive, but not after it's death, that the whole use is for it's eventual Kaparah, thus it would seem also it would belong to the Mischaper

But , Through Haskachas Prutios, I was Chazaring Sotah, and in Tos. D"h Hakometz on 23a says that our gemarah in temurah is talking about if the Makdish is Makneh the whole Korbon to the Mischaper, but over there in Soteh, that the wife's Korbon is considered as the Husband's (and if he's a Kohein, the Mincha is totally burnt), because he buys it for her, is in the case that he hadn't Makneh to her, thus his name is on it.

Thank you for your reply. To me it also seems like this bec. it's evident from the gemoro that the criteria for making temura is kind of baalus. The gemoro 8b wants to say that if a Cohen can make temura in a bechor that was given to him depends if he has in it a zechus mommon.But look in Chdushei Moron Hagriz on Hilchos Korban Pesach where you see that the mis'kaper differs from the baalim (in the case that shor toda tam she'hizik if we say yuchlat hashor ,the nizek eats the meat and the mis'kaper brings the lechomim).It would be interesting to know if the mis'kaper sold the meat or was mekadesh a woman with it ,who makes temura. We also have to understand, how was he kone the zechus mommon in the animal.The fact that it's only oimesd for his hakrovo lechura is not suficient of a reason that he should get a kinyan. We see by chatas not like that. The Tosofos in Sota is a big metzia.It would answer my lst question. However, if you learn that the case of mis'kaper oseh temura speaks whe the makdish was makne the animal to the mis'kaper first, then we have to understand,how does he has the power to be makdish it ;it's not his animal anymore.If you tell me it works with zechiyea, thanif zechie mitaam shlichus why should I say makdish mosif chomesh and not the baal habe'hema?
Me'inyan le'inyan I have another haara. The gemoro says 8B in Temura that a bbchor bebeis baalim (Yisroel) the baalim makes temura. If I say Tovas hanoah aina mommon, comes out he has no ownership in the be'chor (like R" Yehoshua says in Pesochim 46A chalas chometz the Yisroel isn't oiver bal yiraeh bec. t"h aina mommon)how can he make temura? And even inf t"h mommon very well according to the Ritva in Kiddushin 56B that it's completely his money in makes sense but according to Tosfos Baba meTziah 6B that he only has a zechus mommon for the value it's worth to give then the very bechor doesn't belong to him , how can he make temura?

First, I think there is a difference between our Gemarah and the Gemarah of the Gri"z. Our Gemarah is talking about in a case where their is a Shutfus between the Makdish and
Mischaper, so the question is who owns it when you have such a relationship. But the Gemarah of the Gri"z where the Mischaper originally owns it completely, but has it taken away from him because of his obligations to the Nizik. So I think, and Tos. in Sotah is Mashma this way, that it's not a automatic relationship that Mischaper has to be the
owner, but rather that in a regular Korbon, the Mischaper is the owner, and then let the chips fall where they may (If he's Michayiv to someone, so it goes to the Nizik like anything else he owns)

I also think that the way the Mischaper is Koneh that the Makdish is Makdish for his sake. Thus making the Hekdesh and Mizakeh the Mischaper with the Korbon at the same time.. But you didn't Makneh the animal first to the Mischaper and then Makdish the animal as a Shliach of the Mischaper to say the Mischaper was the Makdish because Zechiah Mitam Shlichus. Rather you are the Makdish and therefore you pat the Chomesh.

We find a similar concept even by Kinyon Hedyot that I can sell something to Ruvain so that Shimon should get the object (Mitam Eved like we see in Kiddushin)

L'inyon that a Yisroel can make the Temurah on a B'chor, even though he really only have Tovas Hanoah. You can say that since the Bechor is completely yours, you just have a Chiyuv to give it to a Kohain, so your the owner that can make the T'murah. Even though, Linyin Momonos, since you are limited in what you can do with the animal it's not considered yours, like Isser Hannah, the Guf is yours, and that's why you can write a Get on it, but you just can't use it, so Linyin Momonos it's not considered yours.

It could be compared also to R' Yochanon's rule that a stolen object neither owner or robber could be Makdish, since the robber doesn't own it, and the owner, even though he
owns it, it's not in his possession, so he can't be Makdish. So it seems, that even though owning the Guf, as long as there are restrictions in the use, whether it's physical like by
Ganuv or Isser (which is compared to a physical restraint,Aryeh Ravya Alav) Linyin Mommon he's considered if it's not his.

I also thought that the reason the miskaper is kone the korban is similar to the din of eved knaani which you refer to the gemoro in kiddushin. I understood ,however,that you learned pshat in Tosfos in Sotah that the gemoro is speaking that he is makne it to the miskaper whereas by the mincha the husband is not makne.Otherwise,how are you masbir the tosfos.(maybe you can say that the hakdosha is just a mean to make it mommon hamiskaper but if the makdish doesn't want it, he retains the baalus.This would make sense if the money is from the husband tha he retains to himself the baalus)
Re: tovas hanoa. From tosfos in bava metzia 6B is mashma that if the cohein is tofes it, he's only obligated to pay the value of the t.h. ,but he can keep the matnas kehuna.This reduces the baalus of the Yisroel to a very weak zechus in the matnas kehuna. Maybe ,since nobody else has any zechsim in the animal before it's given to the cohein,therefore even a weak baalus is sufficient to make him the oise temura

I thought about the Tosfos in Sota and realize that I have no understanding of it at all.Firstly,we're talking about a mincha which is kodshai kodoshim and nobody has baalus in it. It's strictly only shayach for kapporo.Therefore ,as Tosfos points out before ,the mis'kaper is only the woman bec. shutfus is impossible in a mincha .It needs hesber.

A few haoros on yesterday's and today's daf .Raish Lakish says that mukze for avoda zara (according to the first pshat in Rashi) is only if the animal was mukze for 7 years. This would only fit with shitas R' Meir in beginning of maseches poro that (at least) a oks can be older than three years.According to the other Tanoim it's posul because it's age. I also wonder at what age would an animal become possul as a "zoken"?
On the second pshat in Rashi I also have a question.Rashi learns (in Raish Lakish)that the psul mukze is only for seven years.Afrewards it's not oimed for hakrovo anymore and therefore the psul mukze goes away. Problem # 1, if so ,anytime one wants to use it le'shomayim it should cease to be mukze and #2 why isn't this depending in baalei chaim nidochim?
Rava on beginning of daf 29 says that this maase a chiddush .eight things they were mattir then.One of them was (besides the forgoing of klai shores) ,they used klay avoda zara. What exactely is the problem with klay a"z? mitzvos lav lihenos nitnu? unless it will be a question of ketusay michtas shiuray ( which is hard to understand by firewood)

About Tovas Hanah: I think even Tosfos would agree with my Shtikel Torah that the Guf belongs to the Yisrael. Only after the Kohein grabs it, and since it must go to the Kohein anyhow, the Kohein then is Koneh the Guf and doesn't have to return only the Momanos that belong to the Yisrael, which is Tovas Hannah.

On Kodshei Kodshim: even though even R"Y HAglili will agree it's not Mommon Baalim, but it still has the "Name of the owner on it" (SHem Balim Aluv). Like in Bava Kama that being Makdish a Korbon is not Shinui Rishus, since it always called Korbon of Ruivein

L'inyin todays Daf, I hate admitting it in public, but I fell VERY behind during Yom Tov, but I'm not Miyayish on catching up. B'ezras Hashem when the Z'man starts I'll catch up and get back to you on it

On a b'chor there is no me'ilah (it's kodoshim kalim) there is an issur of giza va'avoda. Is ther an issur hanoah as well?

from Mishecta M'elah 7b seems that there is no Isser.