1)

(a)We query Rebbi Asi Amar Resh Lakish (who restricts Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah to where the Chacham had examined the B'chor before the wool fell out) from a Beraisa. The Tana there rules that if someone detaches the wool from a B'chor Tam, and subsequently Shechts it after it obtains a blemish - the wool is forbidden.

(b)From the fact that the Tana refers specifically to a B'chor Tam, we extrapolate that - if it was a Ba'al-Mum, the wool would be permitted, even if a Chacham had not yet declared it so.

(c)The author of this Beraisa could even be - the Chachamim, according to Rebbi Yossi, in whose opinion they agree by Shachto or Akavya ben Mahalalel (even where a Chacham did not yet permit it).

(d)We reconcile this with Rebbi Asi - by equating Tam with any animal that a Chacham has not yet permitted.

2)

(a)We cite a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama maintains that the Machlokes between Akavya and the Rabbanan concerns the wool of a B'chor Ba'al-Mum that died (but agree that it is permitted in a case where it was Shechted [like Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah). According to Rebbi Yehudah - they argue over a B'chor Ba'al-Mum that was Shechted (Rebbi Yehudah).

(b)Rebbi Yossi states in the name of his father (Aba Chalafta) that be'Yichud the Chachamim said to place it on the windows-sill (perhaps there is hope), by which he means that - he said so with certainty.

(c)He then adds that - if they Shechted it, everyone would agree that it is permitted, and they argue over where the animal died.

(d)The problem with Rebbi Yossi is that - he seems to be merely reiterating the words of the Tana Kama.

(e)We suggest that they are arguing over where the Chacham had not yet permitted it, and establish ...

1. ... the Tana Kama Lehachmir - because that is how we just established the previous Beraisa (which appears to be the Reisha of the current one).

2. ... Rebbi Yossi Lehakel - because his words 'perhaps there is hope' implies that we anticipate the Chacham permitting it.

3)

(a)Rava rejects this explanation however, inasmuch as according to him, they are all arguing about the corollary between Meis and Shachto. If, as we already learned in our Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah establishes the Machlokes specifically by Shachto, and Rebbi Yossi, by Meis (as we already learned in our Mishnah), the Tana Kama establishes it - by both Shachto and Meis ...

(b)... and the reason that he cites it specifically by Meis - is to teach us how far Akavya's Heter extends.

(c)Rav Nachman rules like Rebbi Yehudah (despite the fact that he is arguing with the Chachamim [a majority opinion], and with Rebbi Yossi [like whom we generally rule]) - because Masheses Iduyos (which is referred to as Bechirta, the chosen Masechta, because it is all Halachah) cites his opinion.

4)

(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak supports Rava's explanation and Rav Nachman's ruling from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Tzemer ha'Meduvlal bi'Vechor, es she'Nir'eh im ha'Gizah, Mutar ...'. The author cannot be Rebbi Yossi ...

1. ... assuming that they Shechted the B'chor - because then it would be permitted either way, both according to the Rabbanan and according to Akavya.

2. ... assuming it died, according to the Rabbanan - because then it would be forbidden either way.

3. ... assuming it died, according to Akavya - because then, the Tana should have said the opposite, forbidding where it looks like it is part of the wool that was shorn after it died (because then it would be forbidden due to the animal's death), and permitting where it does not.

(b)So the author must be Rebbi Yehudah. He cannot be speaking where the B'chor ...

1. ... died - in which case it would be Asur in any case, both according to the Rabbanan and according to Akavya.

2. ... was Shechted, according to Akavya - because then it would be permitted either way.

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore establishes the Mishnah - by Shachto, like Rebbi Yehudah and according to the Rabbanan ...

(d)... a proof that - a. the Machlokes between the Chachamim and Akavya ben Mahalalel by Shachto, and b. that - since the S'tam Mishnah goes according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Halachah is like him.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yanai asked what the Din will be if someone detaches (Tolesh) wool from an Olah Temimah. We amend the She'eilah to wool of an Olah that became detached (Nislash) - because someone who does so is a Rasha (according to the Rabbanan, see Tosfos DH 'Tolesh').

(b)The case is - where the wool became detached during the animal's lifetime and then the animal obtained a Mum and was redeemed.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yanai asks specifically about wool of an Olah Temimah - because that of a Ba'al-Mum is certainly Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, in case one comes to take advantage of the situation and keep the Olah alive for its wool (as we learned earlier).

(b)Neither did he ask about a Chatas or an Asham - whose wool (under the same circumstances) is definitely permitted, because seeing as they come to atone, we are not afraid that he will delay bringing the Korban in order to obtain the wool.

(c)The She'eilah is that - even though an Olah does not come for a Kaparah, (there is no obligation to bring it), it might nevertheless be permitted - seeing as it does atone for an Asei (or for a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei), in which case, it ought to be no different than the wool of a Chatas.

7)

(a)We extrapolate from the Beraisa, which forbids wool of a B'chor Tam that became detached (Tolesh), even though it obtained a Mum and was Shechted - that by Nislash it will be permitted ...

(b)... in which case, the wool of an Olah will certainly be permitted (since it also atones for an Asei, as we just explained)

(c)We refute this proof however, by establishing the Beraisa even by Nislash, and the reason that the Tana mentions specifically Tolesh - is to stress that even there, Akavya ben Mahalalel permits the wool of a B'chor Ba'al-Mum.

(d)And the reason that in our Mishnah, the Tana mentions specifically Nashar (which is synonymous with Nislash) is - to stress that even there, the Chachamim forbid it.

8)

(a)Rebbi Elazar Amar Resh Lakish defines Eino Nir'eh im ha'Gizah (the Tzemer ha'Meduvlal which is Asur) as the strands of wool that are folded and it is evident that they were detached when the animal was still alive. According to Nasan bar Oshaya it is - any strands of wool that are not level with the wool that is subsequently shorn.

(b)Rebbi Ila'a explains that Resh Lakish disagrees with Rav Nasan bar Oshaya - because there are always odd strands that look as if they were not shorn with the rest of the wool, even though they were.

9)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, a Yisrael nowadays is obligated to look after the B'chor of a Beheimah Dakah (a small-type animal) for thirty days, and that of a Beheimah Gasah - for fifty days.

(b)Rebbi Yossi holds that a Beheimah Dakah requires - three months attention.

(c)The owner is permitted to give the B'chor to a Kohen before this time, should he ask for it - if it has a blemish, and the Kohen claims that he wants to Shecht it and eat it ...

(d)... and the same will apply if, in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash, the Kohen asks for the B'chor before the above times, in order to bring it on the Mizbe'ach.

10)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha Sochlenu Shanah be'Shanah" that - one is permitted to keep a B'chor Tam for up to a year before bringing it as a Korban (in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash) and a Ba'al-Mum even nowadays, before eating it.

(b)If it obtains a Mum within the year, the Tana permits retaining it until the end of the year; after it has already entered its second year - only for thirty days.

11)

(a)One brings Bikurim - fifty days after the produce ripens (from the day that the Omer is brought until Shavu'os).

(b)The Pasuk writes "Mele'ascha ve'Dim'acha Lo Se'acher, B'chor Banecha Titen Li. Kein Ta'aseh le'Shorcha le'Tzoncha ... ", from which Rav Kahana (according to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah) learns that - one only gives a Beheimah Dakah ("Tzoncha") to the Kohen after thirty days (like B'chor Adam), and a Beheimah Gasah after fifty (like Bikurim).

(c)He compares a Beheimah Gasah to Bikurim and a Beheimah Dakah to B'chor, and not vice-versa - because it is logical to compare the first-mentioned to the first-mentioned and the last-mentioned to the last-mentioned.

(d)We query this explanation however - by countering that, on the other hand, it would be more logical to compare a Beheimah Gasah to a B'chor - since "Shorcha" follows "B'chor Banecha" in the Pasuk.

12)

(a)Rava therefore learns "Tzonecha" (Beheimah Dakah) from B'chor Adam, which it follows in the Pasuk. The Chachamim fixed fifty days by Beheimah Gasah - because the Torah adds the word "Ta'aseh" by "Shorcha".

(b)By leaving no indication of how many days "Ta'aseh" incorporates - the Torah leaves it to the Chachamim as to how many days to add.

(c)We know that Rava's explanation is correct - because both points that he raises have the support of a Beraisa.

(d)Rebbi Yossi requires three months in the case of a Beheimah Dakah, because he claims, it needs more attention - since its teeth are small and it has difficulty in eating on its own.

13)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah, that if the Kohen asks for a B'chor Beheimah before the time of Tipul (looking after) is up, one is not permitted to give it to him. Rav Sheishes attributes this to the fact that - since there is nothing he can do with it anyway, it looks as if he is helping to look after the animal to encourage the owner to give it to him (rather than to another Kohen).

(b)The source for this lies in a Beraisa - where the Tana forbids paying Kohanim and Levi'im who help with the shepherding, in the granary or in the slaughterhouse, with T'rumos and Ma'asros.

(c)When the Tana mentions the shepherding, in the granary or in the slaughterhouse, he is referring to - paying the Kohen with Bechoros, the Kohen and the Levi with Terumos and Ma'asros and the Kohen with Matanos, respectively.

(d)In fact, the Tana adds - Aniyim to the list (with regard to Ma'aser Ani).

14)

(a)The Tana rules that a Yisrael who contravenes one of the above has desecrated the Kedushas Kehunah and Leviyah, as the Pasuk writes in Malachi "Shichatem B'ris ha'Levi". The Tana sees fit to also quote the Pasuk "ve'es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael Lo Sechalelu ... " - because it concludes "ve'Lo Samusu" (that he is Chayav Misah for transgressing it), which we would not know from the previous Pasuk.

(b)The Chachamim would have liked to penalize the transgressor - by making him separate T'rumos and Ma'asros again.

(c)The reason that they didn't is - because they were afraid that the Yisrael, thinking that his first Terumah was not effective, will take Terumah again from the same batch (which is really a K'nas, and not Tevel), to cover real Tevel, and someone who takes from 'P'tur' on 'Chiyuv' has achieved nothing, and his Tevel remains Tevel.