Question: How can the purchaser sacrifice an Olah that is missing a limb - seeing as the limb in question does not belong to him?

Answer: The Gemara in Temurah (Daf 11b) asks this question; it answers that it speaks in a case where he (the purchaser) declared 'I am going to bring an Olah in its life' - meaning an Olah that is able to live ...

Answer (cont.): Because an even though an animal's leg below the knee has been severed , it is able to live.

Implied Question: And the reason that it does not answer by establishing it where the owner initially declared 'this animal's leg is an Olah - to cover the Olah of P'loni (the purchaser)

Precedent: As the Gemara says in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 23b) 'We must establish the case where he said "I undertake to bring a Chalah to cover the Todah of P'loni" ' ...

Answer: That answer was said with regard to the statement of an Amora, but the current Beraisa is not talking about such a case.

Clarifying Text: his implies that the correct tet is 'Rabah' ...

Reason: As Abaye would not refer to his colleague Rava as 'Mar'.

Implied Question: And although we find in Perek Kodshei Kodshim (Zevachim, Daf 62a) that Rav Yosef said to his Talmid 'Mar who is a great man knows what I am saying' ...

Answer: That is different - since Abaye understood something that nobody else did.

Clarification: This is before he heard the above Beraisa, as the Gemara concludes.

Question: we need to examine as to why Rabah did not ask from 'Erech Roshi Legabei Mizbe'ach' like he does in the following She'eilah.

Observation: If the text in all the cases is Rabah, we can explain them with a Lashon of 'Im Timtzi Lomar' (in which case they are all inter-connected [See Sgitah Mekubetzes 18]).

Qualification: Even if he does not know, he nevertheless relies on the Lashon that the Chachamim fixed.

Question: Why is this any different than the Gemara in Perek Tamid Nishchat (Pesachim, Daf 63a) - 'If someone intends to say 'T'rumah' but says 'Ma'aser' instead, or vice-versa, what he said is invalid?

Answer #1: His words are invalid regarding what he said, but what he intended to say is valid.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is different there, since what he said he did not mean to say, and regarding what he had in mind to say, he erred (See Shitah Mekubetzes 19).

Implied question: Even though "Ish" is written in connection with Ma'arich ...

Answer: "Ish is written twice in the Parshah (See Shitah Mekubetzes 14), and since it is not needed for Ma'arich, we apply it to Ne'erach.

Question: In the first Perek of Temurah (Daf 3a) the Gemara learns from the current word "Ish" to preclude Nochrim from Temurah?

Answer: In Perek Beis Shamai (Zevachim, Daf 45a) we preclude Nochrim from Temurah via a different Pasuk, and it is on that Pasuk that we rely ...

Answer (cont.): We learn it from Ma'aser Beheimah which is an obligation that is not bound by time, and Yisrael bring it but not Nochrim.

Explaining the Other Opinion: Rebbi Meir however, who learns from them, holds that, since they are both Ne'erachin, they are slightly similar, even though they cannot be Ma'arich ...

Explaining the Other Opinion (cont.): So we ought to say the same by Nochrim (See Avodah Berurah).

Clarification: According to Rebbi Yehudah - Then why does the Beraisa say 'Aval be'Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, Mo'alin bo'? to which Tana will you ascribe it? ...

Clarification (cont.): Because it certainly does not go like Rebbi Meir, who bases his opinion on "Lo lacdhem ve'Lanu", from which we see that Nochrim are not permitted to be Makdish to Bedek ha'Bayis under any circumstances? ...

Clarification (concl.): Nor does it go like Rebbi Yehudah?

Refuted Answer: Nor can one answer that according to the Maskana 'because of Rifyon Yadayim' it can go like Rebbi Meir; this is not the case ...

Refutation: Since Rebbi Meir does not hold of that reason, because if he did, from where does Rava know that his ruling that Nochrim cannot be Ma'arich is based on he Pasuk "Lo lachem ve'Lanu"? (See Avodah Berurah)

Question: This needs to be examined however, because, since Rebi Meir holds that Nochrim may not donate to Bedek ha'Bayis, how can the Mishnah state 'Zeh ve'Zeh Modim she'Nodrim' ...

Question (cont.): Now that according to Rebbi Meir, Nochrim are not permitted to donate to Bedek ha'Bayis?

Refuted Answer: And to answer that 'Nodrin' means to the Mizbe'ach is a Dochek ...

Refutation: Since it seems obvious that, in line with Erchin, the Mishnah is referring to Bedek ha'Bayis (See Tosfos Yom-Tov).

Answer: Perhaps it is correct to explain that, according to this Maskana, Rava retracts from what he initially said that the Halachah s like Rebbi Meir based on the Pasuk "Lo lachem ve'Lanu" (See Shitah Mekubetzes 18).