Explanation #1 (cont.): He (Rashi) explained similarly in Rosh Hashanah (28a) regarding "one may not blow a Shofar of idolatry. If he blew it, he was Yotzei."

Question: It says in Chulin (89a) "one may not blow a Shofar of idolatry. If he blew it, he was not Yotzei";

It explains there that [he was not Yotzei] because idolatry is Kesusei Michtas Shi'urei!

Answer: There, it discusses idolatry of a Yisrael. Bitul does not help for it.

Support: We answer like this in Sukah (31b) regarding Rava's teaching "one may not take a Lulav of idolatry. If he took it, he was Yotzei";

The Gemara asks from the Mishnah, which says that a Lulav of an Asherah (a tree planted to be worshipped) is Pasul, and answers that [the Mishnah] discusses an Asherah of Moshe (i.e. of a Yisrael).

Question: If it is a Yisrael's idolatry, why do we say Kesusei Michtas Shi'urei? It must be buried!

We derive this in Avodah Zarah (52b) from "v'Sam ba'Seser."

Answer #1: Since it must be buried, this is the ultimate Kesusei Michtas Shi'urei!

Answer #2: It refers to a Nochri's idolatry that he served based on a Yisrael's desire. It must be burned.

Question: Avodah Zarah of a Nochri, once the Yisrael picked it up, it is a Yisrael's, like it says in Avodah Zarah (42a)!

This is a decree, lest he pick it up and afterwards be Mevatel it.

Answer: The case is, he picked up the Shofar or sandal with intent not to acquire it;

The Mishnah (101a) says that [even] if the shoe was not his, the Chalitzah was Kosher;

We can say that Lulav discusses on Yom Tov Sheni (i.e. after the first day, when he need not own it).

Implied question: In Sukah, we could have said that it discusses Yom Tov Rishon! What forced us to say that it discusses a Yisrael's Asherah?

Answer: Presumably, Asherah is like [a Lulav of] Ir ha'Nidachas, which is Pasul even on Yom Tov Sheni.

Implied question: Why did it teach that with a sandal offered to idolatry, the Chalitzah is Pasul? It could have mentioned a sandal of idolatry of a Yisrael!

Answer: He preferred to teach the entire matter regarding a Nochri's idolatry.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): All of them refer to idolatry of a Nochri. Here we discuss after Bitul, and there (in Chulin) we discuss before Bitul.

Even after Bitul, l'Chatchilah he may not blow it or do Chalitzah with it, for it is repulsive regarding a Mitzvah, for it once had the name of idolatry.

Even if you will say that l'Chatchilah one may cover the blood [of a slaughtered bird or Chayah] with earth of idolatry, e.g. of Ir ha'Nidachas, covering is unlike Chalitzah;

Regarding covering, we are not concerned if it is repulsive.

Implied question: In Sukah, why did we answer that we discuss idolatry of a Yisrael? We could have said that it is of a Nochri, before Bitul!

Answer: Even if the Lulav was detached from the date tree [without intent for Bitul], it is Batel.

Implied question: It says in Chulin (89a) "if one blew a Shofar of idolatry, he was not Yotzei"! (We should say that when it was detached, it was Batel!)

Answer: That is when the Lulav itself is idolatry. "Lulav of an Asherah" connotes that it was taken from an Asherah.

Implied question: We could have discussed below that if he did Chalitzah before Bitul, it is Pasul, and distinguish within [idolatry] of a Nochri itself!

Answer: By the way, [the Beraisa] teaches that what is offered to idolatry can never be Batel.

Question: Since Rava discusses when it was Batel, what was Reish Lakish's question (Avodah Zarah 47a) whether one may use for the Mitzvah a Lulav from a date tree of idolatry that was Mevutal?

He should settle it from Rava, that l'Chatchilah one may not take it, but if he took it, he was Yotzei!

Answer: It was clear to Rava. Reish Lakish was unsure about it;

Even though he settled his question from R. Yochanan his Rebbi, he did not want to settle it from Rava. (The Ya'avetz points out that Rava was long after Reish Lakish. This is why Reish Lakish did not resolve his question from Rava!)

Explanation: Therefore, it is Pasul.

Citation: The text in the Yerushalmi says 'what is the source that we judge during the day and finish at night? It says "v'Shaftu Es ha'Am b'Chol Es"';

Citation (cont.) Question: Does the verse teach about transgression?! (Tosfos will discuss this below.)

Citation (cont.): Rather, what is the source that if they erred and judged at night, it is valid? It says "v'Shaftu Es ha'Am b'Chol Es"...

Assertion: It seems that this is a mistake. Also, it does not ask properly against finishing at night "does the verse teach about transgression?!"

Correction: Rather, the text says oppositely. What is the source that if they erred and judged at night, it is valid? It says "v'Shaftu Es ha'Am b'Chol Es"...

Citation (cont.): Does the verse teach about transgression?! Rather, what is the source that we finish at night?...

Support: Also the Bavli establishes this verse to teach about finishing at night.

There are many matters in the Yerushalmi that must be reversed.

Implied question: We could have asked "Rabanan said only b'Di'eved. Did they say l'Chatchilah?!"

Rather, we asked against Shmuel, who was particular only because he acted based on an individual's opinion;

We conclude that he acted like R. Yishmael ben Elisha, l'Chatchilah.

The text: This is the text in Seforim.

Question (Ri): How is it possible that R. Yishmael ben R. Yosi saw R. Yishmael ben Elisha, who was killed before R. Akiva?

R. Yishmael [ben R. Yosi] sat submissively [like a Talmid] in front of Rebbi, and the day that R. Akiva died, Rebbi was born! (This shows that R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi was younger than Rebbi, and never saw R. Akiva or R. Yishmael ben Elisha.)

Answer #1: We need not erase the text due to this. It is not difficult that R. Yishmael [b'Ribi Yosi] sat submissively in front of Rebbi [even if he is older than Rebbi];

Also R. Yosi his father, had he been alive, would have sat submissively in front of Rebbi!

Answer #2: According to the Ri, who explains that there were two Chachamim named R. Yishmael ben Elisha, this is fine;

The one who was killed was the grandfather of the one whom R. Yishmael ben R. Yosi saw. It is possible that he lived much after R. Akiva.

Question #1: What is R. Yanai's source that this is the reason? Perhaps it is because they have no Da'as!

Citation (106a - Beraisa): We require that both of them intend.

Question #2: Why do we say below (105b) that a minor [Yevamah] who reached the age of Pa'utos (somewhat mature children) can do Chalitzah, and a minor Yavam would have been able to do Chalitzah, if not because it says "Ish" in the Parshah?

They do not have Da'as!

Answer: Beis Din supervises them and instructs them to do a proper Chalitzah.

Support: We say so in Gitin (22b) that if a Cheresh, lunatic or child wrote a Get and an adult supervised, it is Kosher.

Distinction: However, regarding Chalitzah, a lunatic cannot do Chalitzah, even if Beis Din supervises, like it says in the Tosefta, for there are many matters in Chalitzah, and he does not have Da'as at all to do according to Beis Din.

However, regarding Get, which is easy to do with an adult supervising, it is Kosher;

His intent is recognized in his action that he writes the Get Lishmah, for he writes the names of the husband and wife, the date, and the names of his and her cities.

Implied question: It says in Chulin (12b), regarding "all of them, if they slaughtered and others supervised, the Shechitah is Kosher", and we establish it like R. Noson, who does not require Kavanah for Shechitah;

Inference: According to Rabanan, who require Kavanah for Shechitah, adult supervision does not help!

Answer: There, the supervisors do not teach him. They merely see that he does not mess up (pause or press);

Also, his intent is not recognized from his action like it is [recognized] in Chalitzah. Here he merely intends to cut meat, like it says in Chulin (13a), that we require intent recognized through his action.

Explanation: R. Zeira's teaching is in Menachos (103b) regarding [one who vowed to bring a Minchah of 61 Esronim. He must bring it in two Kelim, because] 61 cannot be mixed [in one Kli];

The Gemara asked that even if he did not mix, it should be Kosher. A Mishnah says that if he did not mix, it is Kosher!

Question: What was the question? [He must bring it in two Kelim, because] l'Chatchilah, it must be mixed!

Answer (Ri): There is different. Since he said "Alai (it is incumbent on me to bring) a Minchah of 61 Esronim", he intended for a big Korban;

Therefore, he should bring it all in one Kli if b'Di'eved it is Kosher without mixing.

Distinction: Only when he said "Alai Minchah", we say that he intended for a big Korban. If he said Stam, without "Minchah", it does not connote that he fixed to bring it in one Kli;

Citation (Menachos 102b - Mishnah): If one said "Alai two Esronim, to bring them in one Kli", if he brought them in two Kelim, it is Pasul.

Inference: Had he said Stam, and did not say "in one Kli", he could bring them in two Kelim.

Question: What is his source that if it was not mixed, it is Kosher?

Perhaps we are Machshir only if a Kohen did not mix it, rather, a Zar did, but if it was not mixed at all, it is Pasul!

Strengthening of question: We say so in Menachos (18a), that if Yetzikah (pouring the oil) was not done, it is Kosher;

The Gemara explains that this means that a Kohen did not pour, rather, a Zar did!

Answer: He had a tradition that even if it was not mixed at all, this is not Me'akev.

Question: Why is it not Me'akev? In several places it says "Belulah"!

[It says so] regarding Minchas Ma'afe Tanur (baked in an oven) and Machavas (a shallow pan), regarding Minchas Nesachim many times, and 12 times in the Korbanos of the Nesi'im!

Answer #1: He holds that this does not connote that it is Me'akev, since it does not say a command "Yivlol".

Question: This requires investigation, whether in general it is Me'akev in such a case.

Answer #2: All of them are needed for some Drashah.

Question: What is the source that it is Me'akev when it is not proper to be mixed?

Answer: This is logical, for it says "Belulah", and the Torah said that it is not Me'akev;

Presumably, all these times it is written helps that we require that it could be mixed.

Implied question: Why was the Gemara (Nedarim 73) unsure whether a Cheresh can annul [vows of his wife], or not, because he cannot hear [them], like R. Zeira's teaching?

Answer: It was unsure whether the Torah wrote "and he heard" merely because this is the usual way, that after he hears, he annuls.

Question (Ri): Why may an Arel and Tamei send Korbanos [through a Shali'ach]?

Granted, Semichah is not Me'akev, but we should say that whatever is not proper for mixing, mixing is Me'akev [and likewise here, since he cannot do Semichah, it is Me'akev]!

Answer #1: Since we expound in Toras Kohanim [regarding one who became Tahor from Zivah, but he is still a Metzora] "from his Zov, and not from his Nega", this teaches that a Tamei may send Korbanos, for the verse discusses bringing Korbanos.

Answer #2: In Chagigah (4b) we exclude a Tamei [from Re'iyah] from "u'Vasa Shamah va'Haveisem Shamah" - whoever has a Mitzvah to come (into the Mikdash) has a Mitzvah to bring [Olas Re'iyah];

Inference: [A Tamei] can send other Korbanos. We are not concerned that he be proper to do Semichah.

Question (R. Shimshon): Since it says in Sanhedrin (45b) that there is an opinion that [even] if the witnesses' hands were cut off, [the one they condemned to death] is Chayav [Misah]. He does not require the verse like it says [that the witnesses' hands will kill him]!

Why don't we say that since it says "Yad ha'Edim", we require that it is possible for the witnesses' hands to kill him?

Answer #1: Perhaps there is something extra [in the verse] to obligate even if their hands were cut off.

Answer #2: It is unreasonable to exempt because the witnesses have no hands.