1)

(a)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk in Emor "u'Ma'uch ve'Chasus ... "Lo Sakrivu la'Hashem" - the prohibition of receiving the blood of a Ba'al-Mum.

(b)The problem we initially have with saying that the Tana Kama (of our Mishnah) learns the prohibition of sprinkling the blood of a Ba'al-Mum from there is that - the Beraisa already learned that from "al ha'Mizbe'ach".

2)

(a)We conclude however, that the Tana does not learn it from "al ha'Mizbe'ach" - since "al ha'Mizbe'ach" is a manner of speech and is therefore not superfluous.

(b)This is not just the Tana Kama's problem - because it is also a manner of speech as far as Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah is concerned, in which case he too, needs "u'Ma'uch ... "Lo Sakrivu la'Hashem". So from where does he learn Kabalas ha'Dam.

(c)We therefore conclude that Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns Kabalas ha'Dam from the Pasuk there "u'mi'Yad ben Neichar Lo Sakrivu", from which the Tana Kama learns that - a Nochri (who, although forbidden to bring an animal with a missing limb on his Bamah, is permitted to bring a Ba'al-Mum there, he) is nevertheless not allowed to bring a Ba'al-Mum on the Mizbe'ach.

(d)In the second Lashon, we arrive at the same conclusion as regards the Pasuk "u'mi'Yad ben Neichar Lo Sakrivu", and both Tana'im learn Z'rikas ha'Dam from "al ha'Mizbe'ach" (like they did originally), and from "u'Ma'uch ve'Chasus ... Lo Sakrivu la'Hashem" that - the prohibition of bringing a Ba'al-Mum on the Mizbe'ach extends to a Bamas Yachid (when a Bamas Yachid is permitted).

3)

(a)When Resh Lakish asked that perhaps the La'av is confined to a Tam that became a Ba'al-Mum, but not to an animal that was born a Ba'al-Mum, he was referring to the La'av of Bal Takrivu (Bal Takdishu [the first of the five La'avin that we listed at the beginning of the Sugya).

(b)The reason for this distinction is - because, as opposed to a Tam that became a Ba'al-Mum, an animal that is born a Ba'al-Mum is like a palm-tree (Dikla be'Alma [it is so obviously not eligible as a Korban that the owner obviously meant to be Makdish its value, and not its body]).

(c)Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef replied with the Pasuk there "Saru'a ve'Kalut" - which refers to an animal that is born with one limb (of a pair) that is larger than the other, and which is born with unnaturally split hooves (respectively).

4)

(a)What causes Resh Lakish to suggest that the Chiyuv of being Makdish an animal that is born a Ba'al-Mum is confined to Temurah, but does not pertain to the initial Hekdesh is - the Mishnah in the following Perek which lists a Chumra of Temurah over Makdish as the fact that Kedushah takes effect even on a Ba'al-Mum Kavu'a on it, but not that of an initial Korban.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan rejects Resh Lakish's suggestion however, based on a statement of Rebbi Yanai, that the Chaburah counted and finally listed five Sheimos (no more, no less), and if they were speaking about Temurah - then they ought to have added a sixth and seventh La'av (that of "Lo Yachlifenu" and of "ve'Lo Yamir").

(c)We counter Rebbi Yochanan's proof however - by pointing out that, at first sight, it makes no more sense to establish the Chaburah's statement by being Makdish than by Temurah, because it is Dikla be'Alma - no different than a date-palm, which one is obviously Makdish for its Damim, and not intrinsically as a Korban (as we explained earlier). So why should he receive Malkos for the one, more than from the other?

(d)And we answer that - it nevertheless makes sense to render him Chayav Malkus for being Makdish a Ba'al-Mum (even it he is not Chayav for declaring it a Temurah, and) even though it is clear that the Makdish was referring to the Damim and not the Guf - because whereas it is not disrespectful to declare a palm-tree Hekdesh (for the Damim), it is disrespectful to declare a Ba'al-Mum Hekdesh (even for the Damim) ...

(e)... because whereas no member of the date-palm family go on the Mizbe'ach, most members of the blemished animal's family do.

5)

(a)Rava rules that even someone who declares Hekdesh a blemished animal for its Damim to be used to purchase (not Korbanos, but) Nesachim - receives Malkos.

(b)We might have thought otherwise - because no member of the Beheimah Ba'al-Mum's family is eligible as Nesachim (in which case the reason that it is disrespectful does not really apply there).

(c)The Beraisa that we cite in support of Rava, the words "Nedavah Ta'aseh oso" (in the Pasuk in Emor [in connection with being Makdish a Ba'al-Mum] "Nedavah Ta'aseh oso u'le'Neder Lo Yeratzeh") to mean that - it is a Mitzvah to declare a Ba'al-Mum Hekdesh for Bedek ha'Bayis.

(d)And the Tana then learns from the...

1. ... word " ... u'le'Neder" that - it is a Mitzvah to do so not only as a Nedavah ('Harei Zu Nedavah le'Bedek ha'Bayis'), but also in order to fulfill a Neder that he already made ('Harei alai Beheimah le'Bedek ha'Bayis').

2. ... words "u'le'Neder Lo Yeratzeh" that - one is not permitted to declare a Ba'al-Mum Hekdesh to fulfill a Neder to bring a Korban.

3. ... word "Nedavah" (in the same context) that - the same applies to making a Nadavah in this way.

6)

(a)Even though "Neder" and "Nedavah" occur only once in the Pasuk, the Beraisa learns two things from them - because, due to the juxtaposition of the words and the 'Vav' in "u'le'Neder", both "Nedavah" and "Neder" can refer to both phrases in the Pasuk.

(b)Rebbi explains "u'le'Neder Lo Yeratzeh" to mean that - one cannot be Makdish a Ba'al-Mum with Kedushas ha'Guf, but for Bedek ha'Bayis one can.

(c)Seeing as that is precisely what the Tana Kama said - they must be arguing over whether one is permitted to be Makdish them for D'mei Nesachim (Rebbi) or not (the Tana Kama [a proof for Rava]).

7)

(a)Another Beraisa learns from "Oso" (in the Pasuk "Nedavah Ta'aseh Oso") - an Isur Asei for being Makdish Temimim to Bedek ha'Bayis.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Leimor" in the Pasuk there "va'Yedaber Hash-m el Moshe Leimor" a Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh as well, which bar Kapara explained to Rebbi - by Darshening the word "Leimor" as 'La'av Amur' (see Yefei Einayim).

(c)bei Rav explains "Leimor" - as 'Lo Yeimar' (it is forbidden to declare a Temurah).

8)

(a)According to Rava, someone who brings the limbs of a Ba'al-Mum on the Mizbe'ach is subject to two sets of Malkos, one for Bal Taktiru Kulo and one for Bal Taktiru Miktzaso. Abaye however - considers it a La'av she'bi'Kelalus (since both La'avin are learned from the same Pasuk ["ve'Isheh Lo Sitnu"]) ...

(b)... in which case - he will receive only one set of Malkos, and not two.

(c)Abaye therefore tries to explain the Beraisa that we cited earlier, listing five La'avin for someone who declares Hekdesh and then brings a Ba'al-Mum on the Mizbe'ach to mean that - there are five La'avin, and that it is possible to transgress all of them, though not all five at the same time.

(d)We reject ...

1. ... this answer however, from the wording of the statement 'ha'Makdish Ba'alei-Mumin legabei Mizbe'ach Over Mishum Chamishah Sheimos' - which, written in the singular, implies that one person can transgress all five simultaneously (and will receive five sets of Malkos for doing so).

2. ... Abaye's second answer (that we need to replace bal Taktiru Miktzaso with the prohibition of Kabalas ha'Dam) - by the fact that this is the opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who argues with the Tana Kama in the Seifa, but not that of the Tana Kama.

(e)We are therefore forced to conclude that - Abaye is disproved.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah states that - as far as Temurah is concerned, a Kohen has as much right to declare an animal a Temurah on his Korban as a Yisrael has on his.

(b)The Tana precludes Kohanim from the Din of Temurah regarding a Chatas and an Asham of a Yisrael - because they do not acquire them until after the Emurim have been burned, but as long as the Chatas is alive, they do not own it, and one cannot be Matfis (declare a Temurah) an animal than one does not own.

10)

(a)The Tana Kama - equates B'chor Beheimah that a Kohen receives from a Yisrael with Chatas and Asham in this regard.

(b)When Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri asked Rebbi Akiva why a Kohen cannot declare a Temurah on a B'chor that he receives from a Yisrael, he initially replied that - we learn it (with a 'Binyan Av') from Chatas and Asham.

(c)Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri objected to Rebbi Akiva's answer, on the grounds that - whereas the Kohen does not own the Chatas and Asham until after the Shechitah (as we explained), he does own the B'chor.

(d)So Rebbi Akiva learned it directly from the Pasuk "Vehayah hu u'Semuraso Yiy'heh Kodesh" - which compares a Temurah to Hekdesh; and since the Hekdesh took place in the house of the Yisrael (and that is where the Temurah will be valid) ...

(e)... because - unlike a Binyan Av, which can be disproved with a Pircha, a Hekesh cannot.

11)

(a)In the time of the Beis-Hamikdash - a Yisrael is not permitted to eat from a B'chor Beheimah that a Kohen brings on the Mizbe'ach (as we learned in the Mishnah in Zevachim).

(b)We learned in the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini 'B'chor Mochrin oso Tam Chai, u'Ba'al-Mum Chai ve'Shachut'. Assuming that the Tana is referring to ...

1. ... the time of the Beis Hamikdash - he means that one Kohen is permitted to sell it to another Kohen.

2. ... nowadays - it means that he may sell it even to a Yisrael (see Hagahos ha'Gra), because as far as the Yisrael is concerned, bearing in mind that it cannot be eaten anyway without a Mum, the only Isur nowadays is that of Gezel (which obviously does not apply in this case).

(c)And the reason that Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah confines the Mishnah to nowadays is - because in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash, the Kohen only acquires it after the burning of the Emurim (in which case, he cannot sell it alive).

(d)Rava queries Rav Nachman from the Mishnah itself. He extrapolates from the Lashon 'Mochrin oso Tam Chai' - Aval Lo Shachut, which can only be speaking in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash, because nowadays, there is never a case of Tam Shachut.

12)

(a)Rava is trying to prove from there that - the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini is speaking in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash (not like Rav Nachman).

(b)We refute Rava's proof however - by dismissing the inference (Chai In, Shachut Lo), since the Tana needs to learn the Reisha - to teach us that nowadays, the Kohen is considered the owner of the B'chor, even before it has been Shechted.