1)

(a)According to Rav Idi bar Avin ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Shimon holds that Temidin that are not needed cannot be redeemed without a blemish, whereas the Rabbanan hold that they can. The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we hold Leiv Beis-Din Masneh aleihen (the Rabbanan), or not (Rebbi Shimon).

(b)Rebbi Yosef b'rei de'Rav Shemayah queries Rav Papa from here - who just ascribed Leiv Beis-Din Masneh Aleihen to Rebbi Shimon.

2)

(a)When Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira why, having received the blood of the two goats of Shevu'os in two separate vessels and having already sprinkled the blood of the first one, they needed to sprinkle the blood of the second one, the latter replied that - it was to atone for Tum'ah that occurred between one goat and the other.

(b)From the fact that Rebbi Yirmiyah asked his Kashya with reference to an Asei after the Shechitah, Rebbi Yosef b'rei de'Rav Shemayah extrapolates that - had it occurred after the Hafrashah, but before the Shechitah, Rebbi Yirmiyah takes for granted that the goat would have atoned (and Rebbi Zeira certainly does).

(c)The problem with the alternative explanation in Rebbi Shimon (that we discussed above [that the Pasuk speaks when they designated the two goats at two different times]) is that - we assumed there that, had they done so simultaneously, the second goat would not now atone for an Asei after the Hafrashah (whilst we just learned that it does).

(d)Rav Papa, who had no answer to the first Kashya) answered the second Kashya with 'Dilma Im Timtzi Lomar ka'Amar', by which he meant that - Rebbi Yirmiyah might really have incorporated the two She'eilos in one; first he asked whether 'Bein Zeh la'Zeh' of Rebbi Shimon refers to before the Hafrashah or after it (because the goat atones even for an Asei after the Hafrashah). And assuming that he is referring to after the Hafrashah, will it even atone for an Asei after the Shechitah as well.

(e)This answers the Kashya - inasmuch as, Bein Zeh la'Zeh of Rebbi Shimon could in fact mean either before or after the Hafrashah, depending on the two sides of Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah (which remains unresolved, due to the possibility that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Zeira).

3)

(a)Rabah validates Reuven's Todah that is Shechted on behalf of Shimon (who is also obligated to bring a Todah). Rav Chisda invalidates it - because he considers it Shinuy Kodesh. Rabah does not, seeing as they are both Chayav the same Korban. Note, that neither Amora considers it Shinuy Ba'alim, since both owners are Chayav a Korban.

(b)Rabah learns his ruling from a Beraisa, where Aba Chanin in the name of Rebbi Eliezer validates a Todah that is Shechted as a Shelamim - because a Todah is in fact, a Shelamim.

(c)Rabah extrapolates from there that a Todah as a Todah is definitely Kasher. We counter this proof however - by establishing the Beraisa where both Korbanos belong to the same owner (and it is Kasher even if the two Todos are brought for different reasons [one because he returned from the sea, the other, because he was set free from captivity).

(d)The Tana prefers to add that [his] Shelamim le'Shem Todah is Pasul (rather than a case of Reuven's Todah for Shimon's Todah) - to teach us that even though a Todah is considered a Shelamim, a Shelamim is not considered a Todah.

4)

(a)We already discussed Rava's statement (earlier we cited it in the name of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav) Chatas she'Shachtah le'Shem Chatas, Kesheirah, le'Shem Olah, Pesulah. When he says Chatas ... le'Shem Chatas, he means, for example - a Chatas Cheilev as a Chatas Dam.

(b)And he learns his dual ruling from the Pasuk in Vayikra - "Ve'Shachat osah le'Chatas", validating the one (which is a Chatas), and invalidating the other (which is not).

(c)Rava also extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ve'chiper alav" that - if Reuven's Chatas is Shechted as Shimon's Chatas, it is Pasul, whereas if it is Shechted as Shimon's Olah, it is Kasher, because he Darshens "Alav", 've'Lo al Chaveiro', to refer to someone who, like him, is Chayav a Chatas (but not to one who is Chayav an Olah).

(d)Despite the fact that Rava is talking about a Chatas, whilst Rabah and Rav Chisda are referring to a Todah, Rava holds like Rav Chisda - since Rabah and Ra Chisda only mention a Todah, because Rabah's proof is based on a Pasuk regarding Todah, but in reality, their dispute extends to all Korbanos [see also Tosfos DH 'Amar Rava'].

5)

(a)Based on the previous case, Rava rules that a Chatas that is Shechted for no particular sin, is Pasul - because there is nobody who has not committed one Asei or another, for which a Chatas atones.

(b)He explains that a Chatas atones for Chayvei Asei - from a Kal va'Chomer from Chayvei Kareis).

(c)Rava also says that a Chatas that is Shechted for someone who is Chayav an Olah is Kasher - because an Olah is a different species than a Chatas (and is precluded from "Alav", ve'Lo al Chaveiro').

(d)He nevertheless rules Pasul in the current case - because a Chatas does not come to atone for an Asei Lechatchilah (see Tosfos DH Al Chayvei Asei). It atones Bedieved - for an Asei for which he did not yet obligate himself to bring an Olah, but not for one for which he did.

6)

(a)We already discussed Rava's statement forbidding sprinkling the blood of an Olah she'Lo li'Shemah even after having Shechted it she'Lo li'Shemah. He also invalidates an Olah that is Shechted with Shinuy Kodesh after the owner's death. He declares such an Olah that is Shechted with Shinuy Ba'alim Kasher however - because once the owner dies, the Korban has no owner.

(b)Rav Pinchas b'rei de'Rav Ami however - holds that it does.

(c)Rav Ashi asked whether he meant it ...

1. ... literally - in which case, he argues with Rava, and the heirs will have to bring another Olah to replace it.

2. ... with a pinch of salt - and that this is not necessary, because what he meant was that the Olah will atone for any Mitzvos Asei that the heirs performed (but if they Shecht it on behalf of somebody else, they will not not need to replace it - seeing as they were not Chayav to bring an Olah).

(d)Rav Pinchas b'rei de'Rav replied - that he did indeed mean what he said literally.

7)

(a)Rava explains that - one brings an Olah as a gift (to appease Hash-m after having done Teshuvah).

(b)And he proves that it cannot come as a Kaparah for an Asei or a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei. If it did, the problem assuming the sinner ...

1. ... did not do Teshuvah - lies in the Pasuk in Mishlei "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" (which teaches us that without Teshuvah, one's Korban is worthless).

2. ... did Teshuvah - lies in the Beraisa, which teaches us that an Asei attains forgiveness from the moment a person does Teshuvah, in which case no Korban is necessary.

(c)Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, explains the sequence of first Chatas, then Olah - by comparing it someone who sinned against the king. First the defense counsel enters to appease the king (the Chatas) and this is followed by a gift (the Olah).

8)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei ...

1. ... "Sh'mor es Chodesh ha'Aviv, Ve'asisa Pesach" that - Shinuy Kodesh is forbidden (Lechatchilah) when bringing a Korban Pesach.

2. ... "Va'amartem Zevach Pesach hu" - (Im Eino Inyan) that Shinuy Ba'alim is forbidden, too.

(b)Initially, we think that the Pasuk there needs to add "Ve'zavachta Pesach la'Hashem Elokecha" - to teach us that both Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim are Pasul even Bedi'eved.

(c)We object to this D'rashah however - due to the fact that it is already used for another D'rashah (as we will now see).

9)

(a)The problem Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah has with the continuation of the Pasuk "Tzon u'Vakar" is that - the Korban Pesach has to comprise Tzon (a lamb or a kid-goat), and not Bakar (a calf)?

(b)He therefore learns from it that - Mosar ha'Pesach (a left-over Pesach) becomes a Shelamim, which is the only Korban that can be brought from any Tzon or Bakar, male or female.

(c)Rav Safra therefore concludes that "Ve'zavachta Pesach ... " teaches us Rav Nachman's Din, and "Sh'mor es Chodesh ha'Aviv, Ve'asisa Pesach" and "Va'amartem Zevach Pesach", Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim respectively. Whereas from "Zevach Pesach Hu" we learn - Le'akev (that they are both Pasul even Bedieved).

(d)And he learns all the other Avodos by Pesach from Shechitah with the S'vara of Ho'il Ve'gali Gali. Rav Ashi - disagrees with that S'vara ...

10)

(a)Rav Ashi therefore learns all the other Avodos - from the Hekesh of "Zos ha'Torah la'Olah ve'la'Minchah ... " (as we will now see).

(b)The continuation of the Pasuk "be'Yom Tzavoso es B'nei Yisrael Lehakriv es Korb'neihem" - comes to include B'chor, Ma'aser and Pesach.

(c)Initially, he learns from Shelamim - that all three are included in the Isur of Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim, just like it is.

11)

(a)Rav Ashi goes on to learn Pesach exclusively from the same Hekesh - by extending the D'rashah to Bedi'eved, and comparing all Avodos to Shechitah, rendering them all Pasul even Bedieved by Pesach, just as they are all Kasher Bedieved by Shelamim.

(b)The D'rashah that is now redundant is - "Hu" (from which Rav Safra learned the Din of Bedi'eved by Korban Pesach).

(c)Rav Ashi, citing Rebbi Yehoshua, therefore concludes that "Hu" by the Korban Pesach comes to preclude from Rebbi Eliezer's interpretation of "Hu" by Asham.

(d)When Rebbi Eliezer Darshened from the latter "Hu" that an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo is Pasul, Rebbi Yehoshua said to him that - the Torah deliberately inserted it after the Haktaras Emurin to teach us not to Darshen this way, like we do by the Pesach, where "Hu" is mentioned before the Shechitah ...

(e)... because "Hu" after the Haktaras Emurin teaches us that the Asham must be brought li'Shemo. Now this cannot refer to Bedi'eved, because, seeing as the Korban is Kasher even if the Emurin are not burned at all, how can it possibly be Pasul because they were burnt she'Lo li'Shemo?