1)

(a)Others cite Rav Sheishes in connection with the Beraisa which discusses the Cheilev and the blood of a human being, and which learns from the Pasuk in Shemini "ve'Zeh lachem ha'Tamei that - the Cheilev of a human-being is precluded from the Isur of Cheilev.

(b)We would otherwise have thought that ...

1. ... human Cheilev is forbidden - from a Kal-va'Chomer from an animal, which is not subject to Nidus and Zivus, like a human being is, yet his Cheilev is forbidden.

2. ... human blood is forbidden even after concluding that his Cheilev is permitted - because blood does not have a Heter like Cheilev (which is permitted by a Chayah).

(c)We know that the latter is permitted too - from the same Pasuk "ve'Zeh lachem ha'Tamei", precluding Dam no less than Cheilev.

2)

(a)Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav qualifies the ruling of the Mishnah in Chulin which permits Bedi'eved the blood in the heart that one failed to tear open and remove - by confining it to that of a bird (which is less than a k'Zayis), whereas that of an animal is even subject to Kareis.

(b)We reconcile Rav with the Beraisa cited earlier, which lists Dam ha'Leiv together with the other limbs for which one transgresses a La'av, but not Kareis - by confining the latter to the heart's own blood (that is contained in the Basar), whereas Rav is speaking about the Dam ha'Nefesh that is found inside the hollow of the heart, which is not its own blood.

(c)Even though the Tana mentions Dam ha'Eivarim independently, he nevertheless inserts Dam ha'Leiv which also refers to the same blood (as a sort of P'rat u'K'lal).

(d)And we prove this - from the Tana's insertion of Dam K'layos (the blood of the kidneys, which can only be referring to the kidneys' own blood) in spite of the fact that he mentions Dam ha'Eivarim independently.

(e)Foreign blood gets into the heart - when, after the Shechitah, the animal gasps, inhaling it from the neck into the heart.

3)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, as long as the blood of Hakazah (blood-letting) is still spurting, it is considered Dam ha'Nefesh. This refers to - the middle blood, precluding the blood before and the blood after, which oozes out.

(b)Whereas Resh Lakish maintains - that it incorporates all the blood after the first few drops (which are black), from the moment it turns red.

(c)We cite a Beraisa which discusses Dam Hakazah, and which concludes 'Yatza Dam ha'Tamtzis Mipnei she'hu Shoseis (it oozes mout)', which we think incorporates - the blood at the beginning and blood at the end (all of which flow gently like Dam ha'Tamtzis), a Kashya on Resh Lakish.

(d)And we answer that, according to Resh Lakish, the Tana only comes to preclude - the first few blackish drops of blood that flow out before it begins to spurt.

4)

(a)Resh Lakish reconciles his opinion with another Beraisa, which specifically precludes the first blood and the last blood from Dam ha'Nefesh - by referring to a Machlokes Tana'im.

(b)And we cite a Beraisa, where Rebbi defines Dam ha'Nefesh as 'as long as the blood is spurting out' (like Rebbi Yochanan), and where Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon say - 'from the black drop and onward' (like Resh Lakish).

5)

(a)Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael Darshens from the Pasuk in Balak "ve'Dam Chalalim Yishteh" that - only the blood that flows when the animal is already (virtually) dead is (considered a beverage and is therefore) not Machshir, to preclude the blood which spurts out, which is not.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira whether someone who receives the Dam Hakazah of an animal in two cups - is Chayav for drinking the second cup (whether it too contains a certain amount of Dam Kilu'ach like the first one) or not (see also Tosfos DH 'Kibel Damo').

(c)Rebbi Zeira answered that it is a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. According to Resh Lakish he is Chayav two Chata'os; according to Rebbi Yochanan - only one.

6)

(a)In our Mishnah, we cited Rebbi Yehudah, who obligates someone who drinks Dam ha'Tamtzis to bring a Chatas. Based on the Pasuk in Vayikra "ki ha'Dam hu ba'Nefesh Yechaper", Rebbi Elazar comments that - even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that the Z'rikas ha'Dam of Korbanos (Kaparah) requires specifically Dam ha'Nefesh.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak supports this with a Beraisa, where the Tana learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "Kol Dam Lo Socheilu" that - Dam ha'Tamtzis of Kodshim, and Dam Chulin are included in the Isur of Dam.

(c)Otherwise, we would have thought that - one is only Chayav for the Dam ha'Nefesh of Kodshim.

(d)This prove that Rebbi Yehudah holds like that - because this Beraisa is a Sifra, and the author of S'tam Sifra is Rebbi Yehudah.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah cites Rebbi Akiva, who requires an Asham Taluy for Safek Me'ilah. The Chachamim rule that - he is exempt.

(b)Rebbi Akiva concedes however that - it is only if and when, one discovers that he was definitely Mo'el, that he subsequently pays his Me'ilah money together with his Asham Me'ilos.

(c)Rebbi Tarfon considers it unnecessary to bring two Ashamos. He therefore suggests that one immediately brings one Asham together with the money that he might owe plus a fifth, and stipulates that if he is Chayav Me'ilah, here is his Asham Me'ilos together with his money; whereas if it is a Safek, the Asham will serve as an Asham Taluy, and the money will be a Nedavah.

(d)It is possible to use the same ram for an Asham Me'ilos and an Asham Taluy - because both constitute a ram worth two Sela'im.

8)

(a)Rebbi Akiva objects to Rebbi Tarfon's suggestion - in a case where the Me'ilah is a large sum (which amounts to far more than the two Sela'im for the second Asham that he saves), which he now pays (plus a fifth) immediately, when he may not even be Chayav.

(b)He does however, agree with him - where the Me'ilah is a small amonit, that is worth less than the two Sela'im of the second Asham that he may need to bring later.

9)

(a)Rebbi Akiva learns from the 'Vav' of "ve'Im" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra, "ve'Im Nefesh Achas Secheta", which follows the Parshah of Asham Me'ilos) that - Me'ilah is subject to an Asham Taluy.

(b)Initially, we interpret the basis of his Machlokes with the Chachamim, who declare him Patur as - whether we learn Elyon mi'Tachton (an earlier Parshah from the one that follows it [Rebbi Akiva]) or not [the Chachamim]).

(c)Rav Papa concludes however, that on principle, the Chachamim agree that we learn Elyon mi'Tachton, because that - is the only source we have for the Halachah requiring the Shechitah of a ben Bakar of Kodshei Kodshim to be Shechted on the north side of the Azarah ...

(d)... and the Chachamim's source is therefore the Gezeirah-Shavah "Mitzvos" "Mitzvos" from Chatas Cheilev - from which we learn that one is only Chayav an Asham Taluy for a Safek that is Chayav Kareis be'Meizid, and Chatas be'Shogeg.

10)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa that, according to Rebbi, Me'ilah be'Meizid is Chayav Misah; whereas according to the Chachamim - it is only subject to a La'av.

(b)And Rebbi Akiva learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah that - only an Isur that is subject to a Chatas Kavu'ah by a Vaday, brings an Asham Taluy, but not one that is subject to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(c)A Chatas Cheilev is - another name for a regular Chatas, which we refer to as Chatas Cheilev - because it is in connection with Cheilev that Chatas is written.

(d)The problem with giving the Chachamim's reason as Ein Gezeirah-Shavah le'Mechtzah is that - it imploes that Rebbi Akiva holds Yesh Gezeirah-Shavah le'Mechtzah, when in fact, nobody holds that.

11)

(a)So we suggest that they argue over the 'Vav' in "ve'Im Nefesh". Rebbi Akiva learns Elyon mi'Tachton as we explained (in spite of the principle Ein Gezeirah-Shavah le'Mechtzah) - because a Hekesh (which is not subject to a Pircha) overrides a Gezeirah-Shavah (which is).

(b)Whereas the Rabbanan learn from the 'Vav', Tachton me'Elyon (Asham Taluy from Asham Me'ilos), but not vice-versa, and the 'Vav' teaches us that - an Asham Taluy must be worth at least two Sela'im, thereby maintaining both the Hekesh and the Gezeirah-Shavah in its entirety).

(c)Rebbi Akiva (who needs the Hekesh to preclude the Gezeirah-Shavah) learns that an Asham Taluy must be worth at least two Sela'im - from the Pasuk in Tzav "Zos Toras ha'Asham", which serves as a Hekesh (comparing all Ashamos to Asham Me'ilos, which must be worth at least two Sela'im, as the Torah specifically writes).

(d)Although the Rabbanan learn Tachton me'Elyon and not vice-versa, they nevertheless agree with the principle Ein Hekesh le'Mechtzah since it is really a question of the rules of Vav Mosif al Inyan Rishon (and not of Hekesh).

12)

(a)In spite of the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Asham", the Rabbanan need to learn Tachton me'Elyon - to include Asham Taluy in the minimum price of two Sela'im

(b)Otherwise, we would have thought that an Asham Taluy is different than other Ashamos - as it would not be logical to require a Safek to cost more than the Vaday which it replaces (a Chatas, which may cost as little as a Danka [a sixth of a Dinar]).

(c)And according to those who do not Darshen "Zos Toras ha'Asham" as a Hekesh, Rebbi Akiva learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah ...

1. ... "be'Erk'cha" "be'Erk'cha"(from Asham Me'ilos) that - all Ashamos must cost at least two Sela'im (like the Asham Me'ilos).

2. ... "Ayil" "Ayil" (from Asham Me'ilos) that - the same applies to an Asham Shifchah Charufah (by which the Torah does not write "be'Erk'cha").

(d)In spite of the Gezeirah-Shavah of "be'Erk'cha" "be'Erk'cha", an Asham Nazir may cost only one Sela - because instead of "Ayil", the Torah an Asham Nazir comprises "Keves ben Shenaso", which logically costs half as much as an Ayil.

13)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Tarfon's stipulation (by Safek Asham Me'ilos) 've'Im Safek' is that - it is definitely a Safek, so why does he say 've'Im ... '?

(b)And we answer that what he means is that if it remains a Safek, he will be Yotzei with the Asham Taluy that he already brought. The problem with this is - how he gets away with not bringing the Asham Vaday (once there is a Yedi'ah), since there was no Yedi'ah when he brought the Asham Taluy?

(c)Rava therefore extrapolates that according to both Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva - an Asham Vaday does not require a Yedi'ah at the beginning.

14)

(a)The regular Korban of a poor Yoledes comprises - two birds, an Olas ha'Of and a Chatas ha'Of.

(b)The difference whether her Korban comes in the form of a Vaday or in the form of a Safek (who is not sure whether she gave birth to a baby for which she is Chayav a Korban) is - with regard to the Chatas ha'Of, which is eaten (by the Kohanim) if it is a Vaday, but not if it is a Safek.

(c)Our Mishnah therefore rules that if a Yoledes Safek is bringing her Chatas ha'Of, and, before the Melikah has been performed, it is ascertained that she in fact, gave birth to a Vaday baby - the bird simply adopts the Din of a Vaday (and may be eaten by the Kohanim).

15)

(a)The Tana Kama exempts someone who ate one of two pieces of Chulin and Kodshim that were lying in front of him, and does not know which one, from an Asham Taluy - because, as we have already learned, according to the Chachamim, Me'ilah is not subject to an Asham Taluy.

(b)Rebbi Akiva maintains that - he is Chayav.

(c)Should ...

1. ... the sinner himself then eat the second piece - he is Chayav to bring an Asham Me'ilos.

2. ... someone else eats it, according to Rebbi Akiva, each one brings an Asham Taluy.

(d)Rebbi Shimon permits them to bring one Asham Vaday (see Shitah Mekubetzes 25) between them in which case each one stipulates - that if his friend ate the piece of Kodshim, then he is Mochel (foregoes) his portion (the money that he paid towards it).

(e)Rebbi Yossi maintains that - in the entire realm of Kodshim, there is no such thing as bringing a Korban between two people and stipulating, and that consequently, according to Rebbi Akiva, each one must bring his own Asham Taluy.