1)

(a)In the second Lashon, we query Abaye (I Avid Mehani) from the same Beraisa, from 'Im Yisrael hu, Machzir ve'Eino Lokeh' - because since he can take her back, his divorce is not effective (though in the first Lashon, Abaye only considered the divorce ineffective if he had to take her back).

(b)Here again, we answer that - the Torah writes "Kol Yamav" to teach us that as long as he takes her back, he has not contravened the La'av.

(c)According to Rava, the Torah needs to write "Kol Yamav"(despite the fact that he is anyway obligated to take her back [because of 'I Avid Lo Mehani']) - to turn taking her back into a Mitzvah, thereby exempting him for Malkos.

2)

(a)We learn the prohibition of separating Terumah min ha'Ra'ah al ha'Yafah - from the Pasuk in Korach "mi'Kol Matnosechem Tarimu ... mi'Kol Chelbo".

(b)The Mishnah in T'rumos rules that if someone did so - his Terumah is valid ...

(c)... creating a problem with Rava - according to whom it ought to be invalid.

3)

(a)We answer by equating Rava with Rebbi Ila'a, who extrapolates from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'Lo Sis'u alav Chet, ba'Harimchem es Chelbo Mimenu" that - his Terumah must be valid, because if it were not, then what sin would he have to bear?

(b)According to Abaye, on the other hand, the Torah needs to write "ve'Lo Sis'u alav Chet", even though the Terumah is valid anyway - because we would otherwise have thought that the Torah is only indicating its preference to separate from the superior crops Lechatchilah, but not that it is not effective Bedieved.

(c)We learn from the Pasuk there "Kol Cheilev Tirosh ve'Chol Cheilev Yitzhar" that - one is not permitted to separate from wine on to oil (or vice-versa).

(d)The Mishnah in T'rumos rules that if someone did so - his Terumah is not valid.

4)

(a)The Mishnah in T'rumos creates a problem with Abaye in that - according to him, it ought to be valid.

(b)We answer by citing the Pasuk there "Reishisam", 'Reishis la'Zeh, ve'Reishis la'Zeh' - which constitutes a second Pasuk forbidding it (based on the principle Shinah alav ha'Kasuv Le'akev) ...

(c)... and we support this answer with Rebbi Ila'a - who said the same thing.

(d)According to Rava, the Torah finds it necessary to add "Reishisam" - to extend the prohibition to wine and corn, by which the Torah wrote only one "Cheilev".

5)

(a)We then query Abaye from Charamim, where the Torah writes in Bechukosai "Lo Yimacher ve'Lo Yiga'el", yet the Mishnah in Erchin rules 'Chermei Kohanim - Ein lahem Pidyon Ela Nosnan la'Kohen'.

(b)Abaye answers by citing the Pasuk "Kodesh Kodashim Hu" - which teaches us that the Charamim retain their Kedushah ('be'Havayaso Yehei').

(c)According to Rava - "Hu" comes to preclude B'chor from the prohibition of being sold (as we will now explain).

6)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in ...

1. ... Korach "Lo Sifdeh" that - even if someone redeems a B'chor Beheimah or Ma'aser Beheimah), it retains its Kedushah.

2. ... Bechukosai "Lo Yiga'el" that - Ma'aser Beheimah cannot be sold ([even with a blemish] like Charamim, where the Torah writes "Lo Yiga'el ve'Lo Yimacher").

(b)Even though the Tana also learns the Heter Mechirah (with a blemish) by B'chor by inference (since the Torah did not write "Lo Sig'al"), Rava nevertheless needs "Hu" - to avoid learning from a Hekesh from Ma'aser that it is forbidden.

(c)We learned in our Mishnah that Temurah is effective, despite the fact that one transgresses two La'avin by doing it. Rava explains this - with the Pasuk which writes explicitly "Vehayah Hu u'Semuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh" (see Shitah Mekubetzes 1).

(d)According to Abaye, the Torah needs to write "Vehayah hu u'Semuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh" - to teach us that both animals are Kodesh, and not just the Temurah.

7)

(a)The Mishnah later in the third Perek learn from the Pasuk in Korach "Ach B'chor Shor ... Lo Sifdeh ki Kodesh Heim" that - even if one redeems a B'chor, it retains its Kedushah (like we learned in the Beraisa that we just cited).

(b)Abaye attributes this ruling to the word "Heim" (be'Havayasan Yehu).

(c)Initially, Rava learns from "Heim" that - a Temuras B'chor is not brought on the Mizbe'ach ('Hein Kereivin ve'Ein Temurasan Kereivin').

(d)Abaye learns this from the Pasuk "Im Shor Im Seh la'Hashem Hu" - and Rava concedes that this is correct.

8)

(a)So Rava now learns from "heim" that if the blood of a B'chor or Ma'aser Beheimah became mixed up with the blood of another Korban) - one nevertheless sprinkles it on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Abaye learns this from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (in connection with Yom Kipur) "ve'Lakach mi'Dam ha'Par u'mi'Dam ha'Sa'ir", according to the interpretation of Rebbi Yashiyah who learns that - before placing the two bloods on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, the Kohen Gadol mixes them together.

(c)Abaye now proves from there that - Ein Olin Mevatlin Zeh es Zeh (Korbanos do not negate one another) ...

(d)... since otherwise, the blood of the goat (which is considerably less than that of the bull) would be Bateil in that of the bull.

(e)Rava interprets the Pasuk like Rebbi Yonasan who maintains that - the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat are placed on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav independently.

9)

(a)The Mishnah in in the third Perek (that we just cited) rules that - even if one redeems Ma'aser Beheimah, the animal remains Kadosh.

(b)Abaye learns this from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah" from B'chor - because otherwise, the redemption ought to have been valid (since he holds 'I Avid, Mehani').

10)

(a)Rava uses the Pasuk "mi'Kol Ma'asrosechem" to explain - the Mishnah in T'rumos 'ha'Makdim T'rumah le'Bikurim, Mah she'Asuy Asuy' (even though we generally hold 'Lo Mehani').

(b)Abaye uses "mi'Kol Matnosechem Tarimu" in answer to Rav Papa's query, to teach us that - if the Levi arrived at the K'ri (the pile of corn after the owner has winnowed it and flattened it) and asks for Ma'aser before the Kohen has receives Terumah, he is obligated to give the Kohen the two per-cent of which he deprived him by claiming first.

(c)Rav Papa was querying the statement that, if the Levi arrives first 'be'Shibalim' (before the Kohen has flattened the pile) - he is exempt from paying the two per-cent to the Kohen,

(d)The S'vara to explain why the Levi is Patur from T'rumas Ma'aser be'Shibalin but Chayav bi'K'ri is - because whereas 'be'Shibalin' is not yet called Dagan and has not yet reached the stage of Chiyuv, 'bi'K'ri' is.

11)

(a)The Mishnah in Kidushin rules that, if a Kohen Gadol betroths a widow, the child is a Chalal - because wherever the Kidushin is valid (despite the fact that it constitutes a sin), we go after the Pagum (whichever side is flawed).

(b)Bearing in mind the Pasuk "Almanah u'Gerushah Lo Yikach", the problem with this is - why according to Rava, the Kidushin is not Bateil.

(c)Rava answers with the Pasuk there "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o" - which implies that although the children are Chalalim, the Kidushin is valid.

(d)According to Abaye, the Torah needs to write "ve'Lo Yechalel" - for the extra 'Lamed' (since it could have written 've'Lo Yachel'), which teaches us that the Almanah is a Chalalah, as well as her children.

12)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk there "Kol asher bo Mum Lo Sakrivu" that - it is forbidden to declare a Ba'al Mum, Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

(b)The Beraisa rules that if someone does so - the Hekdesh is valid, a Kashya on Rava, according to whom it ought to be invalid.

(c)To answer the Kashya, Rava cites the continuation of the Pasuk "ki Lo le'Ratzon Yih'yeh lachem" - which implies that although the animal will not atone (intrinsically), it will nevertheless take effect (for its value).

(d)Abaye explains that were it not for this Pasuk, we would have thought that - the Ba'al-Mum is brought on the Mizbe'ach as well.

13)

(a)The Torah writes in Emor "Nedavah Ta'aseh Oso" - in connection with being Makdish Ba'alei Mumin for Bedek ha'Bayis.

(b)We then extrapolate from "Oso" - 'Oso Atah Matfis le'Bedek ha'Bayis, ve'I Atah Matfis Temimim le'Bedek ha'Bayis'.

(c)The next Mishnah - validates Temimim that someone is Makdish for Bedek ha'Bayis (in spite of the fact that he has transgressed a La'av).

(d)When Rava, to explain why the Hekdesh is valid, says 'mi'Makom she'Nisrabu Ba'alei Mumin legabei Mizbe'ach, Nisrabu Temimin le'Bedek ha'Bayis', he means that - we learn from the juxtaposition of "Nedavah Ta'aseh Oso" to "le'Neder Lo Yeratzeh" that, just as Hekdesh Ba'al Mum le'Mizbe'ach is valid (as we just learned), so too, is Hekdesh Temimim le'Bedek ha'Bayis.