Question: This is difficult. In the beginning of Kesuvos (5a), the Gemara asks that we should push aside a Yom Kippur that falls on a Monday due to a decree that one might slaughter a chicken on Shabbos (being that he must get ready for Erev Yom Kippur when it is a Mitzvah to eat).

Question (cont.): Why doesn't the Gemara ask its question from other Yomim Tovim which fall on Sunday, as everyone agrees it is a Mitzvah to eat on such days? (Why only ask according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili?)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that on other days that are Erev Yom Tov they used to slaughter animals, as stated here. However, on Erev Yom Kippur they only used to eat chicken and fish, as stated in Medrash Rabah regarding the person who bought a fish. (Being that the Gemara already discussed a possible Gezeirah due to the possibility of slaughtering a chicken, the comparable question asked by the Gemara is regarding slaughtering a chicken.)

Implied Question: The Mishnah here does not discuss Erev Sukkos. (Why not?)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that this is because everyone is busy with Sukah and Lulav, and they do not have a lot of time to slaughter animals.

Question: This is difficult. Who is Rebbi Yehudah admitting to? Whenever Rebbi Yehudah says, "Aimasai" he is explaining the previous opinion, as stated in Sanhedrin (25a). (Accordingly, he is not arguing at all on any previous opinion.)

Explanation: This excludes a domesticated animal, in order that you should not say it is included (as it often is) in the law of an undomesticated animal.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that this had to be said due to Shiluach ha'Ken, as the Mishnah later states that it does not apply to birds unless they are inaccessible (i.e. they are now owned by him).

Question: There is a difficulty with his explanation. If so, it should have stated this in all of the Mishnayos that have similar listings (78a, 89b, and 103b)!

Opinion #2: It appears that the explanation is that the Mishnah needed to specifically say this here (regarding Kisuy ha'Dam) because the Pasuk states, "that he will capture" (Vayikra 17:13). One should not think that this indicates that Kisuy ha'Dam only applies to a previously inaccessible animal.

Explanation: The Gemara is also asking its question regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach (i.e. animals brought as Korbanos), as is apparent from our Gemara.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that one who rips open an animal and one who uproots its Simanim is exempt from doing Kisuy ha'Dam. (Accordingly, it seems obvious why a bird sacrifice does not have Kisuy, as Melikah is done to it, which is not a way that normally makes a bird permitted to be eaten. Why is the Gemara bothered why we do not do Kisuy to bird sacrifices?)

Answer: This is because regular (non Korban) birds that have Melikah done to them are forbidden to be eaten. However, a Chatas ha'Of is permitted to be eaten after Melikah.

Answer (cont.): Regarding Kisuy ha'Dam, the Pasuk does not say it applies to birds/animals that were slaughtered, but rather whose blood was spilled (one would therefore think that it could apply to a bird sacrifice where Melikah, not Shechitah, was done).

Opinion #1: It is a Mitzvah that he should put on the top layer of earth, as the Mishnah states later (87a) that if he covered the blood and it became revealed again, he is exempt from covering it again. If the wind covered it and it became uncovered, the Mishnah (ibid.) states he is obligated to cover it.

Opinion #1 (cont.): However, he is not obligated to put down the bottom layer of earth. If there is earth already there, it is as if he put it down.

Implied Question: We said earlier (31a) that one can designate the entire valley as earth for Kisuy ha'Dam. (This indicates that one does need to physically put down earth for the bottom layer of Kisuy ha'Dam!)

Answer: This is referring to someone digging into land that was hard due to the fact that the earth used for Kisuy must be comprised of soft earth.

Opinion #2: However, the Gemara earlier says that he would verbally designate the earth for Kisuy (unlike Tosfos' previous statement that this is unnecessary).

Implied Question: The Gemara states in Zevachim (61b) that when the people from the exiles came to Eretz Yisrael, they added four cubits to the south of the altar. (How could they have added to the dimensions of the altar?)

Answer #1: They found a Pasuk there and derived from it that just as the Bayis was sixty (cubits long), so too the altar could be (up to) sixty (cubits long).

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara's question that they are adding onto the building is that the altar is no longer square (not that it is not the right amount of cubits), and the Gemara in Zevachim (62a) teaches us that the altar must be square.

Question #1: This does not appear correct, as even so when one is coming to cover the blood, he could stick earth around the altar until it is square.

Question #2: Additionally, our Gemara should have quoted the Pasuk "it should be square" (if the problem was indeed that the Mizbe'ach would not be square) and not the Pasuk, "Everything was written etc."

Question: This is difficult, as one should drag the blood of the Beheimah off and cover the blood of the Chayah! Similarly, in the case of the Beheimah slaughtered before the Chayah, why not drag the blood of the Chayah off and cover it just as we do regarding blood that splatters or that remains on the knife?

Observation: Rebbi Zeira's statement was said in Menachos (103b) regarding the Mishnah where someone pledges to bring a Minchah of sixty-one Esronim etc., as explained by Rashi.

Question: What is the Gemara's question (in Menachos 103b on Rebbi Zeira)? The Gemara asks, doesn't the Mishnah say that if he does not mix it, the Minchah is valid? Even though the Minchah is valid, it is a Mitzvah to mix it! This is why he should specifically bring the Minchah in two vessels.

Question (cont.): This is because when he says that he must bring it in one vessel, the Mishnah earlier states that he should not bring it in two vessels. However, if he makes a pledge that does not discuss the amount of vessels, he may bring it is as he wishes (as long as it is not in one vessel). (Why, then, does the Gemara ask that it should be valid anyway? Why not say instead that he should merely have to bring it in more than one vessel?)

Answer: The end of the Mishnah regarding the sixty one Esronim is addressing the first part of the Mishnah that says that a person can donate a Minchah of sixty Isaron and bring it in one vessel.

Answer (cont.): If he says that he must bring sixty one etc. This refers to a Minchah of sixty one Esronim. Being that he is saying he wants to bring a Minchah, he is clearly referring to bringing a massive Korban, and it is therefore as if he said he is bringing it in one vessel. This is why the Gemara asks, being that if he does not mix it is valid he should have to bring it in one vessel (two vessels would not fulfill his vow).

Question: This is difficult. The Pasuk discusses mixing a Minchah in many places, and it mentions it twelve times when discussing the twelve offerings of the Nesi'im (in Parshas Naso).

Question (cont.): The Gemara says in Menachos (19a) that whenever the Torah reiterates doing something to a Minchah, it means that if one does not do so the Minchah is invalid!

Answer #1: Perhaps there is a Pasuk that teaches us that mixing the Minchah does not cause the Minchah to be invalid.

Answer #2: Alternatively, perhaps all of the Pesukim discussing mixing the Minchah are needed to teach various lessons (and not to state that the lack of mixing causes a Minchah to be invalid).

Answer #2 (cont.): Even though the lack of mixing does not cause a Minchah to be invalid, it is logical that it must at least be able to be done, being that the Pasuk does not mention mixing the Minchah.

Observation: The same (logic) applies to Kisuy ha'Dam, the reading of Chalitzah (Yevamos 104a), and the reading of Bikurim (Bava Basra 81b).

Observation (cont.): The Gemara in Nedarim (73a) says that a deaf-mute cannot be Meifer a vow even if the Pasuk, "And her husband will hear" is not literal. This is because he must be able to hear, as it is logical in all of these cases (listed above) that there is a derivation (in the Torah stated by each topic) teaching us that while certain details of the Mitzvah are not literally required and do not invalidate the Mitzvah, the person must be able to do these details.

Observation (cont.): The same applies in Kidushin (25a) where the Gemara says regarding water of a Mikvah reaching hidden areas of one's body that as long as the water could enter these areas when one immerses, there is no problem if they do not.

Observation: The Pasuk mentions water getting to his entire body, as it states "all of his flesh." However, it excludes hidden places, as we derive, "Just as his flesh is from the outside (surface) of his body etc." Even so, being that the word "all" is used that seemingly includes even hidden areas, we will at least understand that it means that water must be able to get to these areas (as long as this is the case, the immersion is valid even if it does not get to these areas).

Implied Question: We say that impure people can send their Korbanos to be sacrificed even though they do not do Semichah, and we do not say that we require that they be able to do Semichah (which they are unable to do as they are impure). (Doesn't this go against Rebbi Zeira's rule?)

Answer #1: Perhaps there is a Pasuk that teaches that we do not even require a person to be able to do Semichah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, they are able to do Semichah when they are pure.

Implied Question: There are sometimes when we see the Rabbis did not allow sending a Korban due to the lack of Semichah, and sometimes when we see they did not mind the lack of Semichah. (What are the guidelines for when a lack of doing Semichah causes one to be unable to send a Korban to the Beis Hamikdash?)

Answer: These guidelines are explained in Gitin (28b, DH "v'Ha").

Implied Question: However, in Sanhedrin (45b) regarding witnesses whose hands are cut off (in a case where they are supposed to kill the perpetrator, as the Pasuk says, "The hands of the witnesses should be first to kill him"), we say the perpetrator goes free. Another opinion says he is liable, as we do not need to literally fulfill the Pasuk. This opinion, however, requires a reason (why it should not be like all of the laws stated above where we require that the person by at least able to fulfill the words of the Pasuk, even if he does not actually do so).