Clarification: In Perek Ta'aroves (Zevachim 71b) the Gemara states that had it merely stated the Din here, we might have thought that they are permitted to a Hedyot ...

Clarification (cont.): Therefore the Tana there states 'Yamusu', to teach us that they are forbidden even to a Hedyot.

Clarification: In Perek ha'Ta'aroves (Ibid.), the Gemara explains that 'From there (in Perek ha'Ta'aroves), it does give a measurement; whereas here it says 'be'Chol she'Hu' ...

Clarification (cont.): And we need the ruling there to teach us the Takanah (what one must do [and this is how one generally answers this type of Kashya]).

Source: As we Darshen ' "From these" you may not sacrifice (See Tosfos, Chulin 115a, DH 'Choresh'), but you may bring Kodshim with which a sin was performed'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that - The reason that you gave is not a Pircha, since 'that is fine if a sin was performed with them via two witnesses ... ' ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): In other words, you can include in this Pircha a case where two witnesses testify that the animal raped or was raped, in which case it is Chayav Misah and is forbidden to Hash-m (to be brought as a Korban ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): But what if it was one witness or the owner himself who testified, in which case there is no Misah - from where do you know that it is forbidden to Hash-m other than from the Pasuk (until here are the words of Rashi).

Question: Why do we need a Kal va'Chomer for Rove'a and Nirva via two witnesses, why do we not know it from "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael", which the Gemara Darshens later (on Daf 29a) 'min ha'Mutar le'Yisrael' - whereas Rove'a and Nirva are Asur be'Hana'ah?

Answer #1: YThe Pasuk is needed for where one Shechted the animal and brought it before its Din was concluded, when it is still Mutar be'Hana'ah, as the Gemara states in Perek Arba'ah va'Chamishah (Bava Kama, Daf 41a).

Answer/Explanation #2: Alternatively one can explain 'Tul Mah she'Heveisa' to mean that - 'If a sin was performed with two witnesses' - even a Kal va'Chomer is not necessary, since without it everyone knows that it is forbidden to go on the Mizbe'ach.

Clarification: In the Toras Kohanim, Rebbi Akiva cites the Pircha as 'Mah le'Ba'al-Mum she'kein Mumo be'Galuy' - which is synonymous with the Pircha here 'she'kein Mumo Nikar'.

Question: Why does the Gemara not counter 'Let Esnan and M'chir prove ... - whose Mum is not discernable, yet they are forbidden to go on the Mizbe'ach?

Observation #1: The Gemara could just as well have made the Kal va'Chomer ere that it makes in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah Zarah 46b)

Observation #1 (cont.): 'If Esnan and M'chir, which are permitted to a Hedyot by detached articles but forbidden to Gavohah by animals, an animal that has beeen worshipped, that is forbidden to a Hedyot by detached articles, should certainly be forbidden to Gavohah by animals'.

Observation #1 (concl: In which case, it could not have added 'or vice-versa', like it says here (See Rashash and Olas Shlomoh)..

Observation #2: And in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Ibid.) where it learned a similar Kal va'Chomer to invalidate stones of a mountain from going on the Mizbe'ach - ''And if Esnan, which is permitted by Talush to a Hedyot, is forbidden by Mechubar to Gavohah; Ne'evad ...

Observation #2 (cont.): It could just as well have made the Kal va'Chomer of 'O Chiluf' - 'If Esnan and M'chir, which are forbidden, their Tzipuyim are permitted ... ', tyo permit the Tzipuy of a mountain even to the Mize'ach.

Question: Why do we not apply the principle 'Wherever one has the option of going le'Kula or le'Chumra, we go le'Chumra' ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah Zarah 46b)?

Answer: When it comes to animals, we prefer to go le'Kula, and not to render them Asur ...

Reason: Since it is possible to make a Kal va'Chomer le'Kula.

Introduction to Implied Question: 'One speaks where he said "to the mountain", the other, where he said "to the Mazel of the mountain", whose Tikroves is forbidden' ...

Implied Question: So we see that one is more stringent regarding Tikroves than regarding Tzipuy ...

Implied Question (cont.): Whereas by Tzibuy the Gemara says the opposite - that the Tzipuy of a mountain is forbidden, as the Gemara says there (on Daf 45a) is Asur, whereas its Tikroves is permitted ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek ha'Shochet (Chulin, 40a) 'Ha de'Amar le'Har' - i.e. 'If he Shechted in the name of a mountain, his Tikroves is permitted?'

Answer: When the Gemara says there that the Tzipuy of the mountain is Asur - it is referring to Tzipuy that was on it at the time that he prostrated himself ...

Answer (cont.): And in such a case, te Tzipuy of animals is also forbidden ...

Implied Question: Whereas when it says here that it is permitted ...

Answer #1: It is referring to a Tzipuy that was added after the prostration.

Answer #2: Alternatively, according to the Gemara's conclusion here - that the Tzipuy of of something that is sacrificed is Asur, the question is answered.

Authentic Explanation: Rashi explains that it is forbidden to Gavohah, and because it is ... , its Tzipuyin are forbidden even to a Hedyot, since we apply to it "Kesef ve'Zahav aleihem" (Rashi's words).

Authentication: And he is correct in saying this ...

Refuted Explanation: Since one cannot explain that due to the Miy'ut, the Tzipuy is also permitted to a Hedyot, and the Pasuk "Kesef ve'Zahav aleihem" we will establish by things that do not have a spirit of life, but that animals are permitted to Gavohah ...

Refutation: Because, since the Gemara will shortly say 'the reason is because the Torah precluded them', it implies that, once the Torah precludes them, all Tzipuy of Ne'evad by animals is forbidden.

Support: And that is also the implication of the Sugya.

Introduction to Question: Here it implies that Rebbi Shimon does not hold of the D'rashah of "Moshchasam" ...

Source: Because above he learns it from another Pasuk, since he said 'If it says "Noge'ach", why does it say "Rove'a"?' - implying that he learns it from "min ha'Bakar" ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Whereas in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah Zarah, 23b) he says, that Revi'ah is Pasul because the Torah writes "ki Moshchasam bahem Mum bam" ...

Question: So we see that he learns it from "Moshchasam"?

Answer: When Rebbi Shimon said earlier 'If it says "Noge'ach" ... , he says it according to the words of the Tana Kama, who learns it from "ha'Bakar", but he does not concur with him - since he learns it from "Moshchasam".

Question: What is the Tana saying? We already know Rove'a and Nirva from "ki Moshchasam"?