Clarification: Specifically if he says precisely that, but if he inverts the phrases and says 'on condition that I will be Yotzei with my Chagigah, I undertake to bring a Todah', not (i.e. he will indeed be Yotzei with it). And the same applies to the case of Nazir.

Proof: This is also implied shortly, when the Gemara says 'Give so-and-so four hundred Zuz and he will marry my daughter ... '.

Rashi: Rashi also holds like this, when he explains that 'The reason is because he said "Harei alai", he became Chayav', since saying with regard to Hekdesh is like handing over to a Hedyot. And when he then said 'on condition', it has no validity'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to the Olah of Aharon, which is mentioned in Parshas Shemini.

Refutation: But this is not correct, since, bearing in mind that immediately after "Se'ir la'Am", the Pasuk writes "Vayakrev es ha'Olah" ...

Refutation (cont.): And Aharon's Olah is mentioned elsewhere in the Parshah.

Explanation #2: Therefore it seems that it does indeed refer to the Olah of the Tzibur.

Question: The Gemara says in Menachos (92.) that 'there are only two Korb'nos Tzibur that require Semichah', and this is not one of them.

Answer #1: This is not difficult according to Rashi (See previous Dibur), who establishes the Olah here as the Korban of Aharon.

Answer #2: Gemara in Menachos is referring specifically to the ongoing Korbanos 'of the generations', whereas here the Gemara is talking about a Korban of the Milu'im, which was brought only then.

Question #1: The question remains however, how one can learn ongoing Korbanos from a momentary one, since it then learns that the Olas Chovah requires Semichah?

Question #2: Moreover, how can one learn a Korban Yachid from a Korban Tzibur, since, as we explained, the Pasuk "Vaya'ashah ka'Mishpat" refers to a Korban Tzibur?

Answer #1: Once again, this is not a problem according to Rashi.

Answer #2: Another answer that goes according to both explanations - that since the Pasuk writes "Vayakrev es ha'Olah" this teaches us that we do learn a momentary Korban from an ongoing one and Korban Tzibur from a Korban Yachid, since the Torah writes "Adam ki Yakriv" for generations to come.

Answer #2 (cont.): By the same token therefore, we can also learn ongoing Korbanos from momentary ones and Yachid from Tzibur.

Answer #3: Furthermore says the Ram, it is possible to resolve the the problem with Rashi's explanation, in that "Vayakrev ha'Olah" is indeed speaking about a Korban Tzibur ...

Question: And if you deign to ask that a Korban Tzibur does not require Semichah, as we explained (that 'there are only two Korb'nos Tzibur that require Semichah')?

Answer: That is correct. Consequently, if the Pasuk is not needed for Korb'nos Tzibur (since we hold that only two Korb'nos Tzibur require Semichah, and this is not one of them ...

Answer (concl.): We must therefore establish it by the Korban of Aharon, which is a Korban Yachid.

Explanation #1: Now Rebbi Yitzchak bar Aba establishes the reason of Beis Shamai that 'Ein Somchin' because they do not require Semichah.

Explanation #2: And not like Rebbi Yossi, who says shortly that they are arguing over 'Teikef ... '.

Explanation #3: Rashi in the Mishnah however, cites the reason as being because of the Sh'vus (de'Rabanan) of not using animals.

Support: And this is a good explanation, since in Perek Ein Dorshin (Chagigah, Daf 16:) it implies that this is in fact, what they are arguing about according to Rebbi Yochanan.

Question: But this is something that is learned from a Hekesh, since Olas Chovah itself we only know from an Olas Nedavah from the word "ka'Mishpat" ...

Question (cont.): And something that is learned from a Hekesh cannot then be passed on via a Binyan Av?

Answer: Whether one can then pass it on via a Binyan Av is actually a She'eilah in Zevachim (Daf 50.) ...

Conclusion: And what the Gemara is saying here is that, in the event that one can, we will learn it from Olas Chovah, since one then learns a Chovah from a Chovah.

Question: bringing Chulin into the Azarah is prohibitted?

Answer: The Gemara does not mean Davka 'in the Azarah', but in the Har ha'Bayis.

Explanation: Rashi translates the word literally (See Rashi DH 'Kirah') ...

Support: Presumably, he is referring to the Pasuk in Melachim (2, 6) "And he prepared them a large meal".

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'In a place where it is permitted to a Hedyot' - to do all one's needs, such as on Yom-Tov, yet they may not be brought la'Gavohah, even as a Shelamim, and certainly as an Olah.

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'What is the basis of their Machlokes?' Rashi explains 'One holds' (the Tana Kama, who states 'Nedarim u'Nedavos Yochichu') 'Nedarim u'Nedavos Ein K'reivin'.

Explanation #1 (concl.): 'And the other one holds' (Aba Shaul) 'Nedarim u'Nedavos K'reivin be'Yom-Tov' (since he does not say 'Nedarim u'Nedavos Yochichu').

Explanation #2: R. Shmuel explains the Sugya differently: 'Nedarim u'Nedavos Yochichu' - with reference to there where the Hedyot has a portion, refers to Shelamim ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Whereas 'They are forbidden to Gavohah' refers to Olos.

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'What is the basis of their Machlokes?'

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Tana Kama holds 'Nedarim u'Nedavos K'reivin be'Yom-Tov' - Since he says 'There where they are permitted to a Hedyot' with reference to Shelamim, which are Nedarim and Nedavos, we see that he holds 'Nedarim u'Nedavos K'reivin be'Yom-Tov', but are forbidden to Gavohah, with reference to an Olah.

Explanation #1 (concl.): Whereas Aba Shaul, who says 'If already where your oven is closed ... ', implies even a Shelamim, an indication that he holds 'Nedarim u'Nedavos Ein K'reivin be'Yom-Tov'.

Refutation: The problem with this explanation however, is that in Perek Eilu Ovrin (Pesachim, Daf 47. & 47:) says 'And he holds like Aba Shaul, who learns "Lachem", 've'Lo le'Nochrim'. (This implies that 'Nedarim u'Nedavos K'reivin Yom-Tov').

Refutation (cont.): Since the Gemara did not establish the D'rashah "Lachem", 've'Lo li'Gevohah', we see that Aba Shaul holds that 'Nedarim u'Nedavos K'reivin Yom-Tov'.

Conclusion: Therefore the first explanation is the correct one.

Implied Question: Beis Hillel also Darshen "Lachem", 've'Lo li'Gavohah', to preclude Nedarim and Nedavos.

Answer: And it only mentions Kutim and dogs, because he is sure of it (i.e. it leaves no room for doubt).

Question: Why can we not establish the difference where the Emurim became Tamei or got lost, in which case according to Rava, the Kohen performs the Z'rikah, seeing as the Basar is intact, whereas according to Rabah bar Rav Huna, he does not, since the Emurim became Tamei.

Answer: R. Shimshon from Coucy therefore explains that Rabah bar Rav Huna concedes to Rava, that one sprinkles the blood in order to permit eating it - seeing as it is Ochel Nefesh and Simchas Yom-Tov ...

Answer (cont.): Only he goes further, and says that even if the Basar became Tamei, the Kohen is permitted sprinkle the blood in order to burn the Emurim after nightfall.

Question: On what grounds may the Basar be eaten, seeing as the Gemara there forbids eating it as long as the Emurim have not been burned.

Refuted Answer: Because even though the burning of the Emurim is not crucial (to the eating of the Basar) ...

Refutation: That is only if they are not there - if they became Tamei or they got lost; but as long as they are intact, they are crucial!

Answer: Some commentaries answer that the Gemara is speaking where the Emurim became Tamei or got lost.

Refutation #1: But this is not correct, because then the Gemara ought to have established the difference between them where the Emurim are intact, in which case according to Rava, one may not sprinkle the blood, and according to Rabah bar Rav Huna, one may?

Refutation #2: Moreover, the Gemara will shortly imply that it is speaking even there the Emurim are intact, when it says with regard to the lambs of Shavu'os - 'the blood should be sprinkled and the Basar eaten; and if it is Shabbos, he should not sprinkle, though if he did, it is Kasher with regard to burning the Emurim after night fall' ...

Refutation #2 (concl.): A clear indication that it speaks where the Emurim are intact.

Answer: In this case, seeing as one is forbidden to burn the Emurim during the day, it is as if they were lost or they became Tamei.