1)

2)

(a)When bar Kapara asked Rebbi Hoshaya what the Bavli - Rebbi Chiya, said about it, he replied with silence.

(b)Rebbi Chiya was called by that name - because a. he arrived in Eretz Yisrael from Bavel, and b. because his sons Yehudah and Chizkiyah, subsequently saved Torah from being forgotten, like Hillel ha'Bavli had done many years earlier).

(c)To solve the She'eilah, bar Kapara said 'Tzerichim le'Divrei Iya' (with disdainful reference to Rebbi Chiya), by which he meant that - it is from Rebbi Chiya's earlier Beraisa that we ascribe Beis Hillel's reason to the Pasuk "O le'Bas".

(d)One Beraisa says 'Zav she'Ra'ah Sheloshah Re'iyos be'Leil Shemini, Meivi', whereas another Beraisa says ' ... Eino Meivi'. Initially, we try to establish ...

1. ... the two Beraisos - by a Zav who already had three sightings when, on the night of the eighth day after the third sighting, he sees Zivus again.

2. ... the basis of their Machlokes as being - whether we say Laylah Ein Mechusar Z'man (the night of the eighth day is like the eighth day regarding a Korban [the first Beraisa]), or Laylah Mechusar Z'man (the second Beraisa, and Beis Hillel's reason for his ruling by a Yoledes is because of the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv "O Bas").

(e)Rav Acha bar Huna Amar Rebbi Elazar establishes both Beraisos as holding Laylah Mechusar Z'man - and the Beraisa which rules Meivi is speaking about a Zav who had had (not three, but) two sightings, in which case the third sighting, which was seen after M'los, combines with the two to make him a Zav.

3)

(a)To answer the Kashya If that is so what is the Chidush of the Beraisa that holds Meivi we answer that - it comes to preclude where the third sighting took place on the seventh day ...

(b)... because it negates the seven days of Taharah - and any sighting that negates the current Taharah does not obligate a Korban.

(c)Rava asked that, according to Rav Acha bar Huna, the Tana in the second Perek ought to have included the case of the Beraisa of three Re'iyos in the Mishnah 'Chamishah Mevi'in Korban Echad al Aveiros Harbeh', by which he means that - Re'iyas Laylah, which is considered Mechusar Z'man, seems to be a sixth case where many sins require only one Korban.

(d)And we answer that this is not possible, because based on a statement of Rebbi Yochanan, there are times where Re'iyas Laylah does require a Korban. Rebbi Yochanan rules that a Zav who sees ...

1. ... one sighting at night followed by two in the day - requires a Korban.

2. ... two sightings at night followed by one in the day - does not.

4)

(a)Rav Yosef supports Rebbi Yochanan's first statement from every regular Zivus - where the Zav becomes Tamei even though his first sighting is not considered Zivus, only Keri (which is only Tamei for one day), yet it combines with the two subsequent sightings to transform him into a Zav.

(b)Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi rejects Rav Yosef's proof (even though he does not argue with Rebbi Yochanan's ruling) however - on the grounds that the first sighting of Keri at least takes place at a time of Chiyuv (when he could have become a Zav), which is not the case regarding that of the night of the eighth day (as we will now see).

5)

(a)The basis of Rebbi Yochanan's second ruling ('Shenayim ba'Laylah ve'Achas ba'Yom, Eino Meivi') is - the principle Laylah Mechusar Z'man.

(b)We query Rebbi Yochanan from another statement of his, where he argues with Chizkiyah, who says (with regard to a Nazir on the eighth day of Taharah) 'Nitma ba'Yom Meivi, ba'Laylah Eino Meivi', whereas Rebbi Yochanan holds that even 'Nitma ba'Laylah - Meivi', because he holds Laylah La'av Mechusar Z'man.

(c)The problem with the answer to the discrepancy, that he issued his previous ruling according to those who hold Laylah Mechusar Z'man (though he himself does not hold like that) is - that this is then obvious, and does need Rebbi Yochanan to teach it to us.

(d)Bearing in mind that his previous statement comprised two parts, we solve the problem by attributing the Chidush to Rebbi Yochanan's first part of the statement 'Ra'ah Achas ba'Laylah ... Meivi' (even according to those who hold Laylah Mechusar Z'man), despite the fact that the first Re'iyah took place not at the time of Chiyuv (as we just explained).

6)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a woman who has ...

1. ... a Safek Zivah or a Safek Leidah - brings a Korban, but it is not eaten.

2. ... five Vaday Leidos or five Vaday Zivos - brings one of them, permitting her to eat Kodshim, after which she remains obligated to bring the remainder of the Korbanos.

3. ... five Safek Leidos or five Safek Zivos - brings one of them permitting her to eat Kodshim, and she is exempt from bringing the rest.

(b)The reason for ...

1. ... this latter ruling is - because, if not for the fact that the woman would remain permanently forbidden to eat Kodshim, the Chachamim would not even have permitted her to bring one of the Korbanos, because it entails bringing Safek Melikas Chulin to the Mizbe'ach (as we have already explained). In other words, they only permitted her to bring what is absolutely necessary for her Kaparah.

2. ... the earlier ruling is - because in this regard, bringing her Korban is compared to Tevilah (as we woll see later), in which case after bringing one of them, she is Tahor, and the remaining Korbanos can no longer prevent her from eating Kodshim.

(c)We learn from the word "Zos"(in the Pasuk in Tazri'a "Zos Toras ha'Yoledes") that - a Leidah after M'los requires a second Korban.

7)

(a)Originally, the bird-dealers were selling a pair of birds in Yerushalayim - for a golden Dinar (twenty-five Dinrim).

(b)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forced them to drop their prices - by threatening that, if they did not do so, he would issue a ruling exempting a woman from having to bring the remainder of the birds, even in a case of five Vaday Leidos (and he swore that he would achieve this by the time he went to bed [though he did not reveal at that stage how he would set about doing it]).

8)

(a)In a case where a woman has five Leidos Vaday and five Zivos Safek, or five Zivos Vaday and five Leidos Safek, the Beraisa rules that - she must bring two pairs of birds, one for the cases of Vaday, and one for the cases of Safek (because the Korban for Zivus will not cover the Leidah, and vice-versa).

(b)The Tana rules that - the pair that she brings for the Vaday is eaten and the remainder remain a Chiyuv, whilst the one for the Safek is not, and she is exempt from the remaining four.

(c)In the case of Vaday - Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri only permits the woman to eat Kodshim if she brings the Korban specifically on the last Leidah (or Zivus, leaving the remainder for afterwards [but not vice-versa]), whereas by Safek it makes no difference which one she specifies.

(d)And in a case where the Vaday and the Safek are the same kind (both Leidos or both Zivos) - he requires her to bring the Chatas for the Vaday (which will cover the Safek as well).

(e)Rebbi Akiva holds that - even as regards the Vaday, she can bring the Korban of whichever one of the five she wants.

9)

(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak citing Rava, explains ...

1. ... that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri requires the Korban permitting the woman to eat Kodshim to be specifically the last one - because he compares these five Chata'os to someone who is Chayav five independent Chata'os, who must bring all five before he is permitted to eat Kodshim (because it is the final one that atones).

2. ... that Rebbi Akiva does not differentiate - because he compares it to someone who is Chayav five Tevilos, where any Tevilah will suffice to render him Tahor.

(b)Rav Papa queried Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's explanation (from the Seifa from the Din of Safek) - which should then be no different than the Reisha (and should require her to bring the Korban for the last one (see Shitah Mekubetzes 22).

(c)And he proves that there is no difference between Vaday and Safek in this regard, from a Beraisa, which rules that - under whichever circumstances one is obligated to bring a number of Chata'os (and not just one) one is also Chayav to bring a number of Asham Teluyos.

10)

(a)Rav Papa therefore gives Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's reason as 'Chosh'shin li'Peshi'ah' - unless we make her say that she is bringing the Chatas for the last Leidah ... , we are afraid that she will not bring the remaining four Korbanos, which is not relevant in the Seifa, where she is not Chayav to bring it anyway.

(b)Rebbi Akiva - is not worried that she will not bring the remaining Chata'os.

(c)Others explain Chosh'shin li'Peshi'ah to mean that we are afraid that because she ate Kodshim before having brought the other four Korbanos, following subsequent births, she will not bring a Korban at all, and eat Kodshim whilst she is Tamei. The problem with Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's ruling in ...

1. ... the Reisha then is that - seeing as she did bring one Korban, why should we be afraid that she will not bring subsequent Korbanos at all.

2. ... the Seifa then is that - by a Safek, there is even more reason to suspect that she will not bring subsequent Korbanos. So why is Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri more lenient there than by a Vadai?

11)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses the Mechusrei Kaparah and those who bring a Korban Chatas on both Meizid and Shogeg - both of which there are four.

(b)The basic difference between a regular Chatas and that of the Mechusrei Kaparah is that - the latter come, not to atone, but to permit the owner to eat Kodshim (and enter the Beis-Hamikdash).

(c)The four Mechusrei Kaparah are a Zav, a Zavah and a Yoledes - and a Metzora.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov adds two more cases to the Mechusrei Kaparah. He rules that ...

1. ... a Ger Mechusar Kaparah - is only permitted to eat Kodshim once the blood of his Korban has been sprinkled (as we will see shortly).

2. ... a Nazir Mechusar Kaparah - may only drink wine, shave and become Tamei Meis, once he has brought his Korban.

12)

(a)The problem with the Tana's inclusion of Zav and Zavah is - why our Mishnah chooses to make two cases out of them (and not of the other three Mechusrei Kaparah.

(b)And we ascribe it to the fact that the Din of a Zav differs from that of a Zavah in two respects; one of them is based on the word "mi'Besaro" (in the Pasuk in Metzora "Ish Ish ki Yih'yeh Zav mi'Besaro"), from which we learn - that - it is only if the Zivus flows from his Eiver naturally, but not if he is an Oneis (if it flows as a result of something that he did) whereas by a Zavah there is no difference.

(c)The other distinction is based on a Beraisa, where the Tana differentiates between a Zav and a Zavah concerning the inception of the two respective Tum'os - where a Zav becomes Chayav a Korban, even via three sightings on the same day), but not a Zavah (whose sightings must occur on three different days).

13)

(a)We query the above from Metzora. "ve'ha'Tzaru'a" teaches us that a woman is subject to Tzara'as just like a man, and "Ish Tzaru'a hu" that - she is not subject to P'ri'ah and P'rimah (not cutting her hair and tearing her clothes).

(b)Besides entering the camp of Yisrael, the other prohibition that pertains to a Metzora is - Tashmish ha'Mitah.

(c)We also learn from the word "le'Ohalo" (in the Pasuk there "ve'Yashav mi'Chutz le'Ohalo Shiv'as Yamim") that - a Metzora'as is precluded from that prohibition too.

(d)Despite the fact that a Metzora and a Metzora'as too, have different Dinim, the Tana does not list them as two (like he does a Zav and a Zavah) - because whereas a Zav and Zavah differ in their basic Tum'os, as we just explained, a Metzora and a Metzora'as both take effect via the Shi'ur of a ki'G'ris (half a bean) of Tzara'as on the skin.

14)

(a)As we just learned, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov adds a Ger to the list of Mechusrei Kaparah. The Tana Kama precludes him - because the Korban comes to permit him to enter the Kahal, and not to eat Kodshim (even though eating Kodshim automatically becomes permitted).

(b)Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov argues that - it also comes to permit him to eat Kodshim.

(c)The Rabbanan do not include Nazir in the Mishnah - because even though it permits him to drink wine, they only include in the list Korbanos which permit one to eat Kodshim (and not Chulin).

(d)In spite of the fact that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov does insert Nazir in the Mishnah (even though his Korban only permits him to drink Chulin wine), he declines to insert Nazir de'Tum'ah - whose Korban merely enables the Nazir to resume his Nezirus, but does not permit anything factual.

15)

(a)The Beraisa discusses the initiation Korban of a Ger, who has the option of bringing two birds should he so wish. The basic difference between these two birds and the two birds of a Mechusar Kaparah is that - the former are both Olos, whereas the latter comprises an Olah and a Chatas.

(b)The Beraisa is - unanimous, since the Rabbanan agree that once the Korban has permitted the Ger to enter the community, he becomes permitted to eat Kodshim too (as we already intimated).

(c)The Tana rules that a Ger who brings one of the birds in the morning - may eat Kodshim in the evening, though this does not exempt him from bringing the second bird later.

16)

(a)The Ger's minimum obligation, should he decide to bring a Korban Beheimah is - one lamb as an Olah.

(b)The Tana rules that if a Ger brings ...

1. ... a Minchah and a Shelamim - he has not fulfilled his obligation.

2. ... an Olah and Shelamim - he has (though it only mentions this case as a contrast to the previous one).

(c)We learn from the Pasuk in Sh'lach-l'cha "Ka'asher Ta'asu Kein Ya'aseh" that - just as Yisrael entered into the B'ris at Har Sinai with an Olah (besides Milah and Tevilah), so too must a Ger.

(d)Rav Papa explains that a Ger is not Chayav to bring a Shelamim together with his Olah, like Yisrael at Sinai - because if the Torah gives him the option of bringing two birds as an Olah (without a Shelamim), it is obvious that his Olas Beheimah does not require a Shelamim).

(e)We then learn from the word there ...

1. ... "la'Hashem" (in the Pasuk there "Isheh Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Hashem") that - one can also bring birds (which go entirely to Hash-m, and therefore conform to "la'Hashem").

2. ... "Kein" that - it has to be specifically an Olah and not a Minchah (see Tosfos 9a DH 'Yachol').