Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked all these Kashyos earlier on Chiya bar Rav,)

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Meir says later (in Perek ha'Meivi, Daf 26b) that 'If he is aware of his Safek, he is Yotzei, and the animal goes to graze with the herd - because it has gone out to Chulin ...

Answer: It speaks here before he got to know about it, in which case it is still called an Asham.

Refuted Explanation: This is not the Chachamim mentioned later, who argue with Rebbi Meir in Perek ha'Meivi (Ibid.), who says that it should graze in the meadow until it obtains a blemish, when it is sold, and the proceeds go to Nedavah' ...

Reason: Because in that case, it is completely Hekdesh and one is Chayav if one Shechts it outside the Azarah ...

Authentic Explanation: But it is like Rebbi Meir - even going further than Rebbi Meir, since they declare him Patur even before he knows about it.

Question #1: What is the Gemara's Kashya? Grante, he can volunteer an Asham Taluy, but here he is Chayav an Asham on account of his sin, and he is teaching us that he is obligated to bring it and that we do not require one of two pieces?

Question #2: Moreover, why did the Gemara not ask earlier, when Rebbi Eliezer ruled that one is Chayav to bring an Asham Taluy on the Cheilev of a coy?

Answer: What the Gemara means to ask is 'Why does he say 'ki Achlah' - in other words Rebbi Eliezer here cannot be the Rebbi Eliezer of Coy, because if it was, what is Rav Nachman coming to teach us? ...

Answer (cont.): We must therefore say that above the text reads Rebbi Elazar and here, Rebi Eliezer, who is the disputant of Rebbi Yehoshua.

Proof: And this is the implication of the Sugyaa for the reason that Tosfos gave.

Introduction to Question: That is why the Gemara asks from where does Rav know that on one piece Rebbi Eliezer is Mechayev an Asham Taluy ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): The only proof we have that he does not require two pieces is from his ruling that 'A person is permitted to volunteer an Asham Taluy every day' ...

Question: Which is why he may bring even on one piece. In that case, seeing as it is not an obligatory Korban, he may bring it even if he did not eat at all?

Answer: And the Gemara answers that Rebbi is speaking according to Bava ben Buta, and he brings the Asham on Motza'ei Yom Kipur (See Shitah Mekubetzes 20), as Rashi explains.

Answer (cont.): And he (Rav) is coming to teach us that Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores' (See Mayim Kedoshim) - and the Torah writes "Mitzvas" ...

Implied Question: Even though we find in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 18b) that Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores', regarding the Pasuk "be'Vigdo vah" ...

Implied Question (cont.): In which case, let him say 'Achlah' - Chovah, since the Pasuk writes "Mitzvas'' Lo Achlah - Nedavah in any event? (See Mayim Kedoshim) ...

Answer: It cannot possibly be coming to teach us that Rebbi Eliezer's reason is based on 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores' ...

Proof #1: Because if so, it could just as well have quoted other Tana'im who hold 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores'.

Proof #2: Moreover, even if generally, he holds 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores', here he will hold 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra, for the reason that Tosfoe explained earlier (See Birchas ha'Zevach).

Implied Question: Even though it is Rebbi Yehudah who said this - earlier (on Daf 15b) ...

Answer: Nevertheless there is no indication that Rebbi disagrees with him in this point.

Clarification: And as for Rebbi Yossi b'Rebi Yehudah - what he means is that whatever divides for Chata'os such as Cheilev, Dam, Pigul and Nosar also divides for Ashamos, and one is Chayav to bring an Asham Taluy for each one ...

Clarification (cont.): He is not however, talking about Yedi'os ...

Reason: Where he holds that even by Ashamos, Yedi'os do not divide.

Clarification (cont.): And also according to Rava the explanation is that - Whatever divides by Chata'os with a Vaday Yedi'ah, divides by Ashamos with a Yedi'as Safek.

Clarifying Question: Since then there will be two Ashamos - one for eating Cheilev before Yom Kipur, in which case Yom Kipur stands in place of an Asham; the other, for eating Cheilev after Yom Kipur, for which he brings an Asham - which means that there are two Ashamos ...

Clarifying Question (cont.): Will you now say that if he later becomes aware of both Achilos, that he brings two Chata'os - bearing in mind that he ate them both in one He'elam? ...

Clarifying Question (cont.): He certainly does not ...

Clarifying Question (concl.): A proof that the principle 'Kol she'Chalukin ... ' is not correct, seeing as there are two Ashamos but only one Chatas?

Clarification: Now there are two Chata'os just as there are two Ashamos.

Clarifying Identity: Rava bar Rav Chanan was Abaye's Chaver ...

Source: As we find in Perek Keitzad Mishtatfin (Eruvin, Daf 86a).

Clarification: Cheilev in the morning of Yom Kipur (See Shitah Mekubetzes 20).

Implied Question: He does not discuss a food that is permitted - where he will be Chayav a Korban on account of Yom Kipur itself, when eating is prohibited ...

Answer: Because then he would need to give the Shi'ur of a Koseves which is the Shi'ur for eating on Yom Kipur ...

Answer (cont.): And he wants to mention the smaller Shi'ur (See Olas Shlomoh) - so he mentions a k'Zayis of Cheilev, which is less.