1)

(a)In refuting Rava's proof (that T'chilas ha'Tzihuv is an independent species), we establish the D'rashah from "min ha'Torim" and "min b'nei Yonah" to preclude Nirva and Ne'evad (a bird that was raped or worshipped respectively). The Tana says Nirva and not Ro've'a - because there is no such thing as Rove'a by a bird.

(b)Even though the Tana means to preclude Nirva and Ne'evad because of the Safek, he nevertheless cites the Pasuk - by way of Asmachta (aa support from a Pasuk).

(c)Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in No'ach "ki *Hishchis* Kol Basar es Darko al ha'Aretz" that - Hashchasah refers to immoral acts.

2. ... in Va'eschanan "Pen *Tashchisun* Va'asisem lachem Pesel" that - it also refers to Avodah-Zarah.

(d)Mar said that - there is no Tamus ve'Zachrus by a Korban Of (a Ba'al-Mum and a female bird are Kasher, the latter, even for an Olah).

2)

(a)We now try to learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Korbanos) "ki Moshchasam bahem Mum bam" that - since a blemish does not invalidate a bird, neither will Ervah and Avodas-Kochavim (since they are both included in "Moshchasam").

(b)We reject this Limud however - due to the D'rashah "min ha'Torim" and "min b'nei ha'Yonah", which preludes them, as we already explained.

3)

(a)A Palgas is - a lamb in its thirteenth month ...

(b)... which is neither considered a lamb nor a ram.

(c)Rebbi Zeira asks - whether someone who initially undertakes to bring a lamb or an ram, and then brings a Palgas, is Yotzei or not.

(d)The She'eilah is confined to the opinion of bar Pada - who holds that a Palgas is a Safek, but does not to that of Rebbi Yochanan - who holds that it is an independent species.

4)

(a)The Mishnah in Parah rules that someone who undertakes to bring a lamb or a ram and brings a Palgas - must bring the Nesech of a ram (a third of a Hin of wine [four Lugin]), though he has not fulfilled his obligation.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "O la'Ayil" (in connection with the Nesachim) - Lerabos es ha'Palgas (that someone who brings a Palgas is obligated to bring the Nesech of a ram), the source for the current ruling).

(c)This a proof that - Rebbi Yochanan must consider a Palgas an independent species (which is also the reason for the Mishnah's second ruling). Otherwise, why would he need a Pasuk to obligate the Nesachim of an Ayil, seeing as we have a principle S'feika d'Oraysa le'Chumra.

(d)If it had been a Safek (bearing in mind that a Palgas might be a lamb) - the Noder would have had to stipulate that if it was a lamb, the difference between a third of a Hin of wine and oil and a quarter, will be a Nedavah (even though less than a quarter of a Hin on its own cannot be brought as a Nedavah).

5)

(a)bar Pada disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan's D'rashah from "O la'Ayil" - from which he learns something else, as we learned in Menachos).

(b)According to him, the additional Safek that the Mishnah might have (other than whether a Palgas is a lamb or a ram) is - whether it might not also be an independent species ...

(c)... in which case, besides the possibility that the balance between a third of a Hin of wine and oil and a quarter should be a Nedavah, he would also have to stipulate that - if it is an independent species, the entire Nesech will be a Nedavah.

(d)The outcome of Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah is - Teiku.

6)

(a)Rebbi Zeira asked what the Din will be if someone who undertakes to bring ten Chametz Chalos or ten Matzah Chalos, for a Korban Todah, brings Chalos that are Si'ur - which is a stage in the dough that is no longer Chametz but not yet Matzah.

(b)Rebbi Meir defines Si'ur as when the dough turns pale. Rebbi Yehudah - as when cracks like grasshopper's antenna appear in it.

(c)The She'eilah cannot pertain to the Si'ur of ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir, according to Rebbi Yehudah - which is proper Matzah.

2. ... Rebbi Yehudah, according to Rebbi Meir - which is proper Chametz.

3. ... Rebbi Meir, according to Rebbi Meir - which is also Chametz (seeing as in his opinion, someone who eats it on Pesach is subject to Malkos).

7)

(a)The She'eilah then, pertains to the Si'ur of Rebbi Yehudah, according to Rebbi Yehudah who rules that - Si'ur on Pesach must be burned, but that it is not subject to Malkos.

(b)The problem that we had with establishing it according to Rebbi Meir, does not apply to Rebbi Yehudah - because, seeing as he exempts the eater from Malkos, he clearly does not consider it Vaday Chametz.

(c)The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether Rebbi considers Si'ur Safek Chametz, Safek Matzah (in which case the Noder is Yotzei Mah Nafshach), or whether it is an independent species (in which case he is not Yotzei).

8)

(a)Rav Huna ruled that someone who undertakes to bring Lachmei Todah - must bring a Korban together with the loaves.

(b)Rebbi Zeira must therefore be referring to a case - where Reuven undertakes to bring ten loaves to cover Shimon's Todah.

(c)The problem still remains however that - even if Si'ur is a Safek, it will leave Shimon in a dilemma what to do, seeing as he has no way of knowing whether he is still obligated to bring the ten Chametz loaves, or twenty of the thirty remaining Matzah loaves.

(d)So we establish the case where he declared 'Harei alai Eser Chalos le'Todaso shel P'loni' - in which case Shimon is certainly not Yotzei, yet because Reuven said 'le'Todaso shel P'loni', he is not obligated to bring a Korban Todah together with the loaves that he brings.

9)

(a)When, in the current case, Reuven made the undertaking, he had in mind - to bring his Chalos together with those of Shimon.

(b)And the She'eilah is - whether Si'ur is a Safek (in which case he has fulfilled his obligation mi'Mah Nafshach) or an independent species (in which case he has not).

(c)Assuming that Si'ur is a Safek, and Reuven has indeed fulfilled his obligation - he must redeem the Chalos. The money, which goes to Nedavah, is used to purchase Chalos for another Todah.

(d)The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.

10)

(a)The Beraisa explains our Mishnah 'Kasher be'Parah, Pasul be'Eglah; Kasher be'Eglah, Pasul be'Parah' - with regard to the way they are killed. The Parah Adumah requires Davka Shechitah, and the Eglah Arufah, Arifah' (breaking its neck).

(b)We try to prove that Arifah should be eligible by a Parah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Eglah - which is Kasher through Arifah, even though it is not Kasher through Shechitah. If so, Parah, which is Kasher through Shechitah, how much more so through Arifah.

(c)We refute this Kal va'Chomer however, by citing the Pasuk in Chukas (in connection with the Parah Adumah) "Veshachat" and "Chukah", from which we learn that - Shechitah is crucial to the Parah (as implied by the word "Chukah").