Question: The one who holds 'Mekalkel ba'Chaburah Patur is Rebbi Yehudah, and the Mishnah which rules that one is Chayav when they are not fit, which is 'Mis'asek' - when one Shechts one Korban and thinks that it is a different one, cannot go like Rebbi Yehudah ...

Question: Because according to him, Mis'asek is Patur, as is evident in Perek Safek Achal (K'risus 19:) ...

Question: Where he says 'Leave aside the case of Tinokos, because since Mekalkel ba'Churah is Chayav, Mis'asek is Chayav too.

Question: Implying that the one who holds that Mekalkel ba'Chaburah is Patur, holds that Mis'asek too, is Chayav.

Conclusion: In that case, our Mishnah cannot go like the one who exempts Mis'asek ba'Chaburah?

Answer: 'The one who holds Mekalkel ba'Chaburah is Patur' is in fact, Rebbi Yochanan in Rebbi Shimon, who renders Patur when it is a total Kilkul, where there is no Tikun at all.

Answer: This precludes Rebbi Avahu, in Perek ha'Oreg (Shabbos 106.) who cited a Beraisa in front of Rebbi Yochanan which exempts all Mekalkelin, except for someone who wounds and someone who destroys something by burning.

Answer: Rebbi Yochanan said to him 'Go, take your Beraisa outside! Wounding and burning are not a 'Mishnah'; and if they are, then they speak where he wounds because he needs the blood for his dog, and burns because he needs ashes'.

Answer: And, since he draws a distinction between wounding and burning, on the one hand, and other Mekalkelin on the other, it must go according to Rebbi Shimon.

Conclusion: So we see that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, even Rebbi Shimon concedes that real Mekalkel is not Chayav.

Question: The Ri still asks however, since we currently establish our Mishnah where there is no Tikun at all, under what circumstances does Rebbi Shimon declare Chayav Mekalkel ba'Chaburah?

Question: Bearing in mind that it then becomes a 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah', which he renders Patur even by Mekalkel ba'Chaburah ...

Source #1: As is evident at the end of 'Kol Kisvei' (Shabbos 121:), where Rebbi Shimon renders Patur someone who kills snakes and scorpions because it is a 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah'?

Source #2: And at the beginning of 'ha'Nechnakin' too, the Gemara concludes 'Who do we know holds 'Mekalkel ba'Chaburah, Chayav'? Rebbi Shimon - Well, he also holds 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah, Patur!'

Question: This implies that Tikroves of Avodah-Zarah render Tamei min ha'Torah, since he did not say 'Tiken Lehotzi'o mi'Yedei Neveilah', in which case one would not be Chayav on this Tum'ah for entering the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

Question (cont.): Whereas in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah 52.) it implies that it is mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Question (concl.): Since Rebbi Yochanan asks there what the Din will be regarding Tikroves of Avodah-Zarah consisting of food ... and concludes 'or perhaps an Isur d'Oraysa is not Bateil, but an Isur de'Rabbanan is'?

Answer: The Gemara here needs to answer 'Tiken Lehotzi'o me'Eiver min ha'Chai' (not to preclude from Neveilah, but) in order that we should not prove from the Beraisa that it is not min ha'Torah.

Precedent: Similarly, at the end of ha'Or ve'ha'Rortav (Chulin 129.) where Abaye proves that 'When they said that Tikroves of Avodah-Zarah of food is Metamei', it must be de'Rabbanan, because 'If it was d'Oraysa, it would transpire that food is subject to Tum'ah Chamurah'.

Precedent (cont.): And the Gemara answers that 'When it served, it served like a block of wood (not as food)'.

Precedent (conl.): There too, it merely a Dichuy (not a real answer). (In short, all the Sugyos hold that Tikroves Avodah-Zarah is Metamei mi'de'Rabbanan).

Question: The Ri asks why he is Patur, seeing as he did not perform a Mitzvah, and we establishes the Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon, who renders one Chayav even according to Rebbi Yehoshua, there where one did not perform a Mitzvah?

Refuted Answer: Nor can one answer that he is Patur here, because it is considered an Oneis ...

Refutation: Since it is clear that it is not because it is an Oneis thathe is Patur, but because of 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mitzvah' ...

Proof: As is evident in the Gemara, which asks that 'according to Rebbi Eliezer, he should even be Chayav a Chatas, seeing as he does not hold 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mitzvah, Patur?'

Answer: And the Ri answers that all this goes according to Rebbi Meir (and not Rebbi Shimon).

Clarification: The concept of Re'iyah is de'Rabbanan, since min ha'Torah, Re'iyah is not necessary at all. Hence the Gemara extrapolates 'So we see that Akirah is not necessary'.

Clarification (cont.): 'If so', the Gemara asks, 'The same ought to apply apply even if Nituk was not performed?'

Clarification (cont.): Because if Akirah was necessary, we would understand why we needed Nituk - since it is by making Nituk that one remembers to make Akirah.

Clarification (cont.): But if one did not make Nituk, it would not be Kasher - because we would decree where he did make Akirah on account of where he did not.

Clarification (cont.): But now that Akirah is not required, it ought to be Kasher, even before Nituk, since there is nothing to be concerned about.

Clarification (cont.): And the Gemara answers that 'Before Nituk we decree after the Kaparah on account of before the Kaparah'. In fact, even after Nituk, it is only Kasher Bedi'eved, but Lechatchilah at least, we decree on account of before the Kaparah.

Clarification (cont.): 'From where do we know that? From the Mishnah (in Temurah) "An Asham ... with the proceeds, yes, but the animal itself, no!" '

Conclusion: Since everyone agrees that after Akirah and Nituk one could Shecht it Lechatchilah (See Maharsha) ...

Conclusion (cont.): Because, seeing as one has the sign of Nituk, one would not decree on account of before the Akirah, unless it is because we decree after the Kaparah and Nituk on account of before the Kaparah.

Question: According to the Ri's explanation, that 'If we say that it requires Akirah ... ' it is fine, since we decree where one did not do Nituk in case one comes to Shecht it without Akirah, why does a Pesach all the year round, which requires Akirah, not also require Re'iyah?

Question: The Gemara in the first Perek of Menachos (Daf 4.), quoting Rav Huna Amar Rav, who rules that 'An Asham that is sent into meadow to graze (Nituk) and one then Shechts it S'tam, is Kasher to be brought as an Olah, states 'Nitak, In, Lo Nitak, Lo!'

Question (cont.): 'Why is that? Because the Pasuk writes "Hu", 'It must remain as it was!'

Question (concl.): We see from there that Nituk is d'Oraysa. Whereas our Sugya implies that it is mi'de'Rabbanan, because we decree it only onaccount of before the Kaparah.

Answer #1: The Ri explains that this is what the Gemara (in Menachos) means: 'The Torah writes "Hu", it retains its status before the Kaparah. Consequently, we decree after the Kaparah on account of before the Kaparah.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam explains the Gemara in Menachos like this: 'Nitak In, Lo Nitak, Lo!' The reason for this is (as the Gemara in our Sugya explains) - because we decree (after the Kaparah) on account of before the Kaparah.

Answer #2 (cont.): And the Gemara concludes 'Why is that? Because the Pasuk writes "Hu" ' - What the Gemara means is 'Why is it Kasher, seeing as it is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai that whatever dies by a Chatas, is Ro'eh by an Asham'?

Answer #2 (cont.): Therefore the Torah writes "Hu" - implying that when it finally obtains a blemish and is sold, it retains its status (of Kedushah) and the proceeds go to Nedavah, to be brought as an Olah.

Answer #2 (concl.): It transpires that the Pasuk is coming to teach us that the Halachah 'Kol she'be'Chatas Meisah ... ' means (not that the Asham goes out to Chulin, but) that it is brought as an Olah.

Answer #3: Alternately, that when we learn that the Asham is Ro'eh, it is a Mitzvah (but it is not crucial).

Answer #4: Alternatively, although we know that according to the Halachah of Asham it is brought as a Nidvas Tzibur, we do not whether this refers even to the animal itself or specifically to the proceeds of its sale. Therefore, the Pasuk reveals that it refers even to the animal itself; And if it were not for the Halachah, we would have thought that we learn from "Hu" that it retains its original status, and must be brought as an Asham, and not as an Olah.

Proof: For this explanation lies in the Gemara in Temurah (Daf 18.) where the text in all the Sefarim, citing Rav Huna, reads ''Asham she'Nitak li'Re'ayah, ve'Shachto S'tam, Kasher. Mai Ta'ama? AmarK'ra "Hu", 'be'Havayaso Yehei!'

Proof (concl.): And there is no text there that adds 'Nitak In, Lo Nitak, Lo!'

Question: How can one compare this Akirah to the one above ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as, whereas an Asham whose owner is atoned by another Asham, is no longer fit to bring as an Asham, a Pesach whose owner becomes Tamei or who withdraws, is still eligible to be brought as a Pesach in one appoints a new owner ...

Question (cont.): As we will learn later in a Mishnah, on Daf (89.) 'One is permitted to join a Korban Pesach or to withdraw from it until is has been Shechted'?

Answer: That speaks exclusively where one of the original members of the group remains designated on it, but the moment it remains without an owner, it is no longer fit to be brought as a Pesach.

Source: As we learned at the end of 'Mi she'Hayah Tamei' (later on Daf 98.) 'Someone who separates a Korban Pesach and dies, if his son was also designated to eat it, then he should bring it as a Pesach. But if not, it is brought as a Shelamim'.

Question: How can the Mishnah say "Shochto ve'Noda she'Mashchu Ba'alim es Yadam O she'Nitma, be'Chol Yisaref Miyad', seeing as 'be'Dam u'be'Ba'alim' requires Ibur Tzurah?

Refuted Answer: Nor can one cannot explain like Rashi - who says that the case of 'be'Dam u'be'Ba'alim' speaks where he became Tamei only after the Zerikah, in which case the Pesach is Kasher ...

Refutation: Since in Perek Keitzad Tzolin (later on Daf 82:) we will establish it before the Zerikah, since it says there that 'The case of the Ba'alim is similar to that of the Dam'.

Answer: Rebbi Shmuel b'Rebbi Shlomoh answers that the case in our Mishnah speaks before the Shechitah, which is akin to Shechting on behalf of people who are not designated to eat it, which in turn, falls under the category of P'sul ha'Guf.

Question: The Gemara concludes in Perek Sh'nei Se'irei (Yoma 64:) that Rav was not speaking according to Rebbi Yehudah. In that case, why can we not establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'Nidachin'?

Proof: In fact there are many Mishnahs which hold 'Ba'alei Chahyim Nidachin' - in PerekMi she'Hayah Tamei (later on Daf 98.), in Temurah (22.) and in K'risus (Daf 28.) from which we extrapolate that they hold 'Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin' ...

Conclusion: And Rav finds it necessary to establish them like Rebbi Yehudah. So why can we not also establish our Mishnah like him?