1)

(a)Our Mishnah includes the Parah Adumah among the things Rebbi Shim'on considers an unfit Shechitah. We query this however, from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon declares that a Parah is Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin. The problem with this is that - Rebbi Shimon himself clearly states (in the first Perek of Bechoros) that Isurei Hana'ah are not subject to Tum'as Ochlin.

(b)And we answer that it nevertheless is, because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, which Resh Lakish explains to mean that - at any time prior to the Parah's Shechitah (even as it is being placed on its Ma'arachah [the pile of wood on which it is to be burned]) it may be exchanged for a better cow, should they find one, during which time it is fit to be become food ...

(c)... and Rebbi Shimon himself holds Kol ha'Omed Lipados ke'Paduy Dami (anything that stands to be redeemed, it is as if it has already been redeemed).

(d)Even though the Parah Adumah is an Av ha'Tum'ah in its own right, it nevertheless needs to adopt Tum'as Ochlin - in a case where a piece of the cow is covered with dough that is less than a k'Beitzah, which it will only complement to make up the Shi'ur k'Beitzah if it is considered food, but not if it is not (even though it is an Av ha'Tum'ah).

2)

(a)Based on the fact that the Shechitah of a Parah Adumah is potentially a Kasher Shechitah, even according to Rebbi Shimon (as we just explained), Rav Sh'man bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan concludes that - we must erase Paras Chatas from the list of things in the Mishnah which the Tana considers Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah.

(b)The Mishnah in Sotah rules that in a case where the murderer is found before the Eglah Arufah's neck is broken - 'Teitzei ve'Tir'eh be'Eider' (it is permitted to re-join its herd).

(c)Based on the fact that the Shechitah of an Eglah Arufah is potentially a Kasher Shechitah no less than that of a Parah Adumah, Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Yanai concludes that - we need to erase Eglah Arufah from the Mishnah as well.

3)

(a)In another statement, Rebbi Yanai said that he had forgotten which stage renders the Eglah Arufah forbidden. His colleagues however, reminded him that - it is being taken down to the valley of virgin soil prior to its being killed.

(b)The problem this creates with our previous answer is that - Rebbi Yanai (whom Resh Lakish quoted), could then have left Eglah intact in our Mishnah, and established it after it has been taken down to the valley, in which case it is indeed Asur be'Hana'ah.

(c)Rebbi Pinchas b'rei de'Rav Ami tries to resolve the problem - by establishing the author of this answer as Resh Lakish in his own name (and not in the name of Rebbi Yanai).

4)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, the bird that is used for the purification of the Metzora too, is Asur be'Hana'ah from the time of Shechitah; but the bird that is sent alive into the fields - remains Mutar.

(b)Resh Lakish forbids both birds already from the time that they are designated, both of which are Asur until the moment that the one bird is sent away - when it becomes permitted (because otherwise, how will anyone know that it is Asur be'Hana'ah?)

(c)Resh Lakish's source for the prohibition from such an early stage is - from a Gezeirah-Shavah from Eglah Arufah, a proof that even Resh Lakish forbids an Eglah Arufah during its lifetime.

(d)So Rebbi Chiya bar Aba finally establishes Eglah Arufah Einah Mishnah - like Rebbi Yochanan (who also erased Parah Adumah from the Mishnah).

(e)And we reconcile Resh Lakish with the Mishnah in Sotah (which we quoted earlier) 'Nimtza ha'Horeg ad she'Lo Te'aref ha'Eglah, Teitzei ve'Tir'eh be'Eider' - by turning it into a Machlokes Tana'im.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if two people purchase a cow and its baby - then whoever made the first purchase has the first right to Shecht.

(b)Nevertheless, if the second purchaser Shechts his animal first - his Shechitah is valid, and the first purchaser is forbidden to Shecht his animal on the same day.

(c)When Rav Yosef says that our Mishnah is written le'Inyan Dina, he means that - the Tana is merely stating that (based on the fact that the first purchaser would have definitely had the right to Shecht before the owner, had the latter not sold the second animal) this is what Beis-Din would rule should they come to ask a She'eilah. However, the second purchaser has done nothing wrong by Shechting first.

(d)In fact, when the Beraisa states ...

1. ... 'Zariz', it means that - he (the second purchaser) is perfectly entitled to take the initiative and Shecht first.

2. ... 've'Niskar' - that he has gained fresh meat for that day.

6)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if someone first Shechts ...

1. ... a cow and then its two babies - he receives two sets of Malkos.

2. ... the two babies and then the cow - he receives only one.

(b)The Tana Kama also rules that in a case where one first Shechts a cow, then its ...

1. ... daughter, and then its grandchild - he receives two sets of Malkos.

2. ... grandchild and then its daughter - he receives only one.

(c)Sumchus rules that even in the latter case - he receives two sets of Malkos.

(d)The Beraisa learns from the fact that the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with Oso v'es B'no) "Lo Sishchatu be'Yom Echad" uses the plural form that - one is Chayav, not only for Oso ve'es B'no, but also for B'no ve'Oso.

7)

(a)The case is equivalent to the third case in our Mishnah, where - one Shechted a cow, its daughter and its grandchild on the same day (since there is no way that they will both be Chayav, if there are only two animals).

(b)We know that it is speaking about three generations and not about a mother and its two babies, where each person Shechted one of the children - because that would be obvious.

(c)We query this latter statement however - in that the Torah needs to use the plural form (even in a case of a mother and its two babies), because had it used the singular, we would have thought that it is only the same person who transgresses two La'avin when he Shechts both babies, but not if two people Shecht them.

(d)And we answer that - to teach us that, the Torah could have written 'Lo Yishacheitu'. "Lo Sishchatu" therefore, teaches us that both the person who Shechts the animal's mother and the one who Shechts its baby, are Chayav.

8)

(a)Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether the reason of Sumchus in our Mishnah (for sentencing someone who Shechts the daughter after the mother and the grandchild to two sets of Malkos) is perhaps because he holds that someone who eats two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one He'elam - without remembering in between, must bring two Chata'os.

(b)The connection between a Chiyuv Chatas and a Chiyuv Malkos lies in the fact that - a Chatas comes for transgressing be'Shogeg a Chiyuv Kareis, and a Chiyuv Kareis is subject to Malkos (there where there are witnesses).

(c)If that is indeed Sumchus' reason, the Tana presents his Machlokes with the Rabbanan in our Mishnah (where the Chiyuv comes from two different bodies) - to teach us that even there, the Rabbanan sentence him to only one set of Malkos.

(d)In fact, in the Reisha too, where one Shechted the cow after its two babies - Sumchus argues with the Tana Kama.

9)

(a)Alternatively, Sumchus only sentences the perpetrator in our Mishnah to two sets of Malkos - because the Chiyuv comes from two different bodies ...

(b)... but in the case of two k'Zeisim of Cheilev - he concedes that one is Chayav only one.

(c)Rav Yosef replied - like the first side of the She'eilah (that Sumchus sentences the perpetrator to two Chata'os/sets of Malkos) even in the case of two k'Zeisim of Cheilev ...

(d)And to prove it, he cited a Beraisa 'ha'Zore'a Kil'ayim Kil'ayim, Lokeh'. Apart from the fact that it would otherwise be obvious, the Tana must mean that he is Chayav two sets of Malkos - because seeing as for one planting of Kil'ayim one will already receive Malkos, why does the Tana then write Kil'ayim, Kil'ayim, implying that he is only Chayav for planting twice?

(e)Neither can the Tana be referring to a case where he transgresses on two occasions after two separate warnings - because that we already know from the Mishnah in Nazir, which sentences a Nazir, who drinks wine after being warned to desist and who continues to drink after receiving a second warning, to two sets of Malkos.

10)

(a)Rav Yosef then tries to prove that the author of the Beraisa of Kil'ayim must be Sumchus - because if the Rabbanan argue with Sumchus in our Mishnah, where the Isurin come from two separate bodies, then they will certainly argue there, where they come from the same body.

(b)We refute Rav Yosef's proof however, by establishing the Beraisa like the Rabbanan, and in a case where there were two warnings. And the Chidush is that - if one plants first wheat together with grape seeds, and barley only after a second warning, one is Chayav two sets of Malkos.

(c)And the Beraisa is coming to preclude from a ruling by Rebbi Yashiyah - who maintains that one is only Chayav for planting wheat, barley and grape seeds all with one throw of the hand.

11)

(a)So Rav Yosef tries to prove his point from a Mishnah in Gid ha'Nasheh, where the Tana Kama sentences someone who eats a k'Zayis from both the right Gid ha'Nasheh and the left one, to two sets of Malkos. According to Rebbi Yehudah however - he is only Chayav one.

(b)The Mishnah cannot be speaking where someone ate them one after the other, with a separate warning for each one - because then, according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds Hasra'as Safek lo Sh'mah Hasra'ah, why would be then Chayav Malkos at all?

(c)What makes it a Hasra'as Safeik is the fact that - Rebbi Yehudah holds that one is only for eating one of the animals two Gidin, but he doesn't know which one. Consequently, each warning is a Safeik.

(d)We learn Rebbi Yehudah's opinion in this regard from his ruling in a Beraisa, in a case where someone strikes or curses two men, each one of whom might be his father. This occurs in a case - where his mother married again within three months of her first husband's death, and he was born nine months after her first husband's death (in which case we do not know whether he is a ninth month baby from her first husband, or a seventh month baby from her second one.

12)

(a)The Tana Kama rules there - that he is Chayav Misah.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah - concedes that he is Chayav, but only if he struck or cursed them both simultaneously, not if he did so one after the other.

(c)We therefore conclude that the Mishnah in Gid ha'Nasheh must be speaking where he eats the two Gidin in one go and with one warning. Rav Yosef therefore thinks that the author must be Sumchus - because according to the Rabbanan, if one is Patur from a second set of Malkos even where the Isur stems from two bodies, then how much more so will he be Patur by a Safek, where it does not.

(d)We refute this proof too, however, by establishing the Mishnah where he ate one Gid after the other, in which case the author can even be the Rabbanan of Sumchus. And we will reconcile Rebbi Yehudah's opinion with his opinion in Nazir (Hasra'as Safek Lo Sh'mah Hasra'ah) by establishing him like the other opinion there cited in his name, where he holds Hasra'as Safek Sh'mah Hasra'ah.

13)

(a)The source for that is another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah exempts from Malkos, someone who leaves over from the Korban Pesach until the morning, because it is a La'av she'Nitak la'Asei - since it is followed by an Asei to burn it in the event that one did leave over part of it.

(b)According to Rebbi Ya'akov - he is Patur due to the fact that leaving over is a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh.

(c)We can extrapolate that both Tana'im hold Hasra'as Safek Sh'mah Hasra'ah - bearing in mind that the La'av of Bal Tosiru is always a Has'ra'as Safek (since whenever one warns the sinner to eat his Korban, he can say that he still has time to eat it (in which case, he may well not transgress), and once the last moment arrives, it is too late to warn him).