Question: The Riva asks from Perek Eilu Ovrin (Daf 47:) where the Gemara concludes 'Since when is crushing permitted on Yom-Tov!'

Question (cont.): Implying that if it would be, we would apply 'Ho'il', even though an act is missing?

Answer: The Ri answers that the act of Milah is more Chashuv.

Clarification: It seems that Rav Chisda only rules Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan, because mi'd'Oraysa there is no differentiate between le'Chumra and le'Kula.

Clarification (cont.): In fact, mi'd'Oraysa we do not apply Ho'il at all, even le'Chumra.

Proof: And this is evident at the beginning of Perek Sh'nei Se'irim (Yoma Daf 62:), where Ravina said 'Now that Rav Chisda considers Mechusar Hagralah, Mechusar Ma'aseh - meaning that if one Shechted the goat of Yom Kipur outside, one would be Patur, since it lacks Hagralah, if not for the fact that it fit for the Sa'ir that is Shechted outside,

Proof (cont.): By the same token, if one Shechts Shelamim before the doors of the Heichal have been opened, one is Patur, seeing as Mechusar Pesichah is like Mechusar Ma'aseh.

Proof (concl.): So we see that he does not hold of Ho'il even le'Chumra.

Implied Question: If it is mi'de'Rabbanan, one may well ask, how can one be Chayav to bring another Pesach? Why is this not bringing Chulin into the Azarah?

Answer: That is not correct however, because, seeing as one does not sprinkle the blood, one is not Yotzei, in which case, it is permitted to bring another one (See Mesores sha'Shas).

Proof: And this is evident in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (Daf 78:) 'If one sprinkled the blood, one is Yotzei'.

Question: It transpires that, according to Rav Ashi, Mechsheves Areilim who are appointed on the Pesach render the Pesach Pasul unanimously, even by the Zerikah, whereas some render Kasher a Machshavah of those who have not been appointed ...

Question (concl.): Whereas the reverse is logical, that if those who are not appointed do not render Pasul, how much more so those who are!? (See Maharsha).

Question: The Rashba asks that perhaps he takes Tum'ah for granted because we learn the Tum'ah of the person from the Tum'ah of the Basar?

Suggested Answer: And if you want to answer that it seems to him that if Tum'as Gavri (Tum'ah of the person) is obvious that one does not render partial Tum'ah on account of complete Tum'ah, then the same will apply to Orlah, since we learn them both from the Pasuk "L'fi Ochlo".

Question (cont.): It nevertheless remains difficult as to why he says 'Danin Davar she'Lo Hutar mi'Chelalo ... ', since it is obvious that it is preferable to learn Tum'as Gavri from Tum'as Basar, Tum'ah from Tum'ah, and to which it is similar in all regards, than Tum'as Gavri from Z'man, to which it is not similar at all.

Question (concl.): And since it is obvious with regard to Tum'as Gavri, it is also obvious with regard to Orlah, since the two are comparable. So why does the Gemara want to learn Orlah from Z'man?

Answer: The Ri answers that one can also say about Tum'as Gavri that we should rather learn it from Z'man than from Tum'as Basar, since one learns P'sul Machshavah from P'sul Machshavah, and one cannot bring Tum'as Basar into the equation, since it is not a P'sul Machshavah.

Clarification: This goes like Rebbi Akiva in Chagigah (Daf 4:), who equates the Din of an Areil with that of a Tamei.

Proof: Otherwise, why can he not bring his Korbanos himself?

Question #1: The Ri asks from the Gemara there which states that 'A Tamei person is Patur from Re'iyah (on Yom-Tov), as the Torah writes "And you shall come there and you shall bring there ... " - whoever is subject to coming is subject to bringing, and whoever is not ... ', implying that a Tamei person is not Chayav to send any Korbanos ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as the very same Pasuk mentions other Korbanos ("your Olos and your Shelamim")?

Answer: Nevertheless, it is specifically with regard to the Chagigah, which is connected with (the Mitzvah of) coming that the Pasuk is particular ...

Implied Question: Because, despite the fact that the it mentions all Korbanos ...

Answer: It doesn't refer to all of them,

Proof: Since T'rumos and Ma'asros are also mentioned there.

Question #2: Furthermore, asks the Ri, how can a Tamei person send his Korbanos, seeing as they require Semichah (leaning one's hands on it)?

Refuted Answer: And even according to the opinion that holds that 'A partial is not considered an entry', we cannot answer that he can place his hands inside (the Azarah) and perform Semichah ...

Refutation: Because we have learned in Perek Kol ha'Pesulim (Zevachim Daf 33.) that 'Whoever performs Semichah, must enter with his head and the majority of his body, seeing as Semichah requires all one's strength'.

Answer #1: This Sugya is speaking about birds (which do not require Semichah).

Support: And so the Gemara answers in 'Kol ha'Get' (Gitin Daf 28:).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it could be speaking about B'chor and Ma'aser, which don't require Semichah either, as we learned in Perek Sh'tei Midos (Menachos, Daf 92:).

Refuted Answer: One cannot however, establish it by women (who are also exempt from Semichah) ...

Refutation: On account of 'Areil' (See also Tosfos Yevamos (104: DH d'Amar').

Question: Of course by Tum'as Basar one is permitted to sprinkle the blood ...

Question (cont.): As we say in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (Daf 77.) with regard to 'The five things that are brought be'Tum'ah'?

Refuted Answer: Even though one is not permitted to eat them.

Refutation: Because we are speaking about Tum'as Gavri being permitted to sprinkle the blood.

Refutation (cont.): Seeing as the Gemara does not yet know that the Pesach can be eaten be'Tum'ah.

Answer: What the Gemara means is that 'we learn something that does not have a Heter on Pesach from something that does not have a Heter on Pesach, and not from something that does

Precedent: In the same way as the Gemara earlier (Daf 61:) learned something that applies exclusively to the Korban Pesach from something that applies exclusively to the Korban Pesach'.

Conclusion: And when the Gemara establishes it by Tum'ah de'Gavri, and "Hutrah mi'Chelalah" means 'be'Tzibur', that refers to the Pesach, as Rashi explains.

Implied Question: Even though there are some who hold that Pesach the whole year round requires Akirah (to be verbally uprooted)?

Answer: Once its first year has passed, even they will concede that this is its Akirah, and that one is therefore Shechting a Shelamim as a Pesach.

Clarification: This means that one is able to wait until its time, when it becomes Pasul.

Explanation: And according to the Gemara's conclusion at the beginning of Sh'nei Se'irim (Yoma 62:) that 'Ein Mechusar Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom' (the Din of premature does not apply on the same day) with regard to 'Ho'il ... '.

Explanation (cont.): It would seem that the Gemara is asking from the same day, since 'she'Lo bi'Zemano' implies even on the morning of the fourteenth.

Explanation (concl.): Consequently, it asks that since even bi'Zemano on the same day is Pasul, she'Lo bi'Zemano is Pasul, too.

Question: But did Rebbi Eliezer, in the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 11.) not learn this from a Kal va'Chomer - 'If Pesach, whose leftover is brought as a Shelamim ... ' (as Rashi quotes).

Answer: It is via the Kal va'Chomer that Rebbi Eliezer implies that "Hu", 'be'Havayaso Y'hei' - 'Not it in the name of others and not others in its name.

Answer (cont.): And it is on account of this D'rashah that just as she'Lo bi'Zemano is Kasher in the name of others, so too, are others that are brought in its name, Kasher, seeing as they are compared to each other.

Conclusion: But if not for the Kal va'Chomer, he would only have Darshened 'Not it in the name of others, and no more.

Question: What is the Gemara asking, did we not learn above from a Pasuk that 'Some Ochlin does not render the Korban Pasul'?

Answer: The Rashba explains that what the Gemara is asking is why we do not declare 'li'Shemo ve'she'Lo li'Shemo' Kasher, like 'le'Ochlav ve'she'Lo le'Ochlav'.

Question: The Ri asks why the Gemara needs to come on to 'Eino be'Tzibur'? Why will the fact that even be'Yachid, it only applies to the Pesach exclusively not suffice?

Clarification: Since he holds that, were it not for the reason of 'I Efshar Levarer Isuro', it would not refer to it as 'be'Gufo', seeing as it is basically, a P'sul Machshavah, as we learned above (Daf 61.)

Clarification (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Yochanan, who does not make this inference, calls it 'Pesulo be'Gufo' in any event.

Clarification (concl.): Shinuy Ba'alim too, it is not possible to clarify the Isur. Consequently, it is not counted above (Ibid.)

Clarification: This implies that there would have been no problem had the Beraisa ruled 'Kasher' in both cases.

Question: On the contrary, both ought to be Pasul, seeing as Rebbi Meir holds 'Mefaglim be'Chatzi Matir', and Acherim is Rebbi Meir?

Answer #1: He only holds Pigul by half the Matir where one specifically mentions that the first or second Si'man, which is something specific, in the name of Areilim, as is evident in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 30.), as quoted by Rashi ...

Answer #1 (cont.): 'Abaye said to him " 'Do you think that there is no Shechitah until the end? There is Shechitah from beginning to the end, and he Shechted the first Si'man Chutz li'Zemano and the second Si'man Chutz li'Mekomo" '.

Answer #1 (cont.): Why did he need to specify the Simanim? Why did he not speak by S'tam?

Answer #1 (concl.): A clear proof that Rebbi Meir only holds 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' by something specific.

Answer #2: Furthermore it seems that even if he specifies half the Si'man, it is meaningless unless he mentions the whole Si'man.

Proof (cont.): Since the Gemara asks there 'But is Kemitzah not like 'Lach'tzos, yet they argue'?

Proof (cont.): And the Gemara answers 'There too, it speaks where he said "Kometz de'Minchah Chutz li'Zemano, ve'di'Levonah Chutz li'Mekomah".

Proof (cont.): The Gemara then asks from the Kometz of the Minchas Chotei, where there is no Levonah, yet they argue? And it answers that in that case, they do not argue.

Proof (concl.): Now why does the Gemara not answer that they argue where he said 'Chatzi Kometz Chutz li'Zemano, va'Chatzi Chutz li'Mekomo'.

Answer #2 (concl.): This is a clear proof that 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' requires both something specific and something complete.