1)

(a)The problem the Pasuk "Sham Tizbach es ha'Pesach ba'Arev" poses on Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya is that - seeing as the Torah writes "ba'Arev", how can he interpret Bein ha'Arbayim to mean all day (just as we remarked with regard to the Neiros).

(b)Based on a Beraisa, we answer ha'Hu li'Ye'uchar Davar hu de'Asa - the significance of "ba'Arev" here is that in the event that one delayed bringing the Pesach until the evening, it must be brought after the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim (where the Torah writes "Bein ha'Arbayim", but not 'ba'Erev').

(c)And we find a precedent for this in Rebbi Yochanan, who rules that someone who delayed Davening Musaf and now has to Daven Musaf and Minchah - must Daven Minchah before Musaf (even though the Chiyuv to Daven Musaf came first).

2)

(a)The problem with the Pasuk "Bein ha'Arbayim" written in connection with Ketores and Neiros is, if "Bein ha'Arbayim" means all day - why the Torah writes it in connection with them, seeing as we will then require another Pasuk to restrict them to the afternoon.

(b)We also query Rebbi Oshaya from a Beraisa, where Rebbi (who holds like ben Beseira) asks how Rebbi Yehoshua can equate a Pesach on the morning of the fourteenth with a Pesach on the thirteenth - seeing as the latter is Kasher in the afternoon.

(c)All this proves that - ben Beseira's reason is (not because a Pesach is Kasher on the morning of the fourteenth, but) because it is Kasher for part of the day (a suggestion which we rejected in Rebbi Yehoshua's name on the previous Amud).

(d)Rebbi Yochanan therefore rules that - according to ben Beseira, if a Pesach is Shechted on the morning of the fourteenth it is Pasul, irrespective of whether it is li'Shemo or she'Lo li'Shemo.

3)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of ben Beseira, Rebbi Avahu asks how it is ever possible to have a Kasher Korban Pesach. When he comments that if is designated on the ...

1. ... fourteenth morning, it is Dachuy Me'ikara, he means that - seeing as it is not then fit to be brought either as a Pesach or as a Shelamim, it is immediately rejected, and Rebbi Yochanan holds that 'Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy' (as we will see shortly), in which case the Korban is Pasul.

2. ... thirteenth, it is Nir'eh ve'Nidcheh, he means that - even though it was initially fit to be brought as a Shelamim, it became Dachuy on the morning of the fourteenth, in which case it is Pasul according to everybody.

(b)This is not a problem according to the Rabbanan of ben Beseira (Rebbi Yehoshua) - because on the morning of the fourteenth, the animal, which is fit to be brought as a Shelamim, is never Dachuy.

(c)Rebbi Avuhu therefore establishes t case of a Kasher Korban Pesach according to ben Beseira - where the owner designated it in the afternoon of the fourteenth (when it is fit to be brought as a Pesach).

(d)The Pesach will even be Kasher however, according to ...

1. ... Abaye - if it as designated on the morning of the fourteenth, because he holds Ein Mechusar Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom (seeing as the animal will be fit to be brought as a Pesach later in the day, it is considered as if that time had already arrived (and the animal is not being considered Dachuy.

2. ... Rav Papa - if is designated on the night of the fourteenth, because he holds 'Laylah Ein Mechusar Z'man (we extend Abaye's principle to the night before it is due).

4)

(a)Rav Papa bases his statement on a ruling of Rebbi Apturiki, who presented an apparent contradiction between the Pasuk in Emor "Vehayah Shiv'as Yamim Tachas Imo" (implying that on the night of its eighth day, the newborn animal is permitted to be brought as a Korban, and the Pasuk there "u'mi'Yom ha'Shemimi va'Hal'ah Yeratzeh" (which implies that it is forbidden to bring it until daytime).

(b)And he resolved the problem - by explaining that the night is eligible for designating the animal (it is not called Dachuy), and the day for bringing it.

(c)Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Avahu whether Rebbi Yochanan holds Ba'alei-Chayim Nidachin, because if he held Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachim - Rav Papa would not need to conclude that the owner must have designated the Pesach in the afternoon, seeing as whenever he designated it, it would not be Dachuy.

(d)The alternative to Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin is - 'Shechutin Nidachin' (with which everyone agrees).

5)

(a)Rebbi Avahu answered by referring to another ruling of Rebbi Yochanan, regarding a case where Reuven declares Hekdesh his half of an animal that he owned together with Shimon, and he then buys the other half from Shimon and declares that Hekdesh too, Rebbi Yochanan rules that ...

1. ... the Hekdesh takes effect, but it cannot be sacrificed..

2. ... he is able to make a Temurah on it, and the Temurah has the same Din as the animal itself.

(b)The animal cannot be sacrificed - because when Reuven declared the first half Hekdesh, it immediately became Dachuy (since, due to Shimon's ownership, the Hekdesh could not spread to the entire animal).

(c)Rebbi Avahu proves from there that Rebbi Yochanan holds Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin. Otherwise, why can Reuven not sacrifice the animal after purchasing the second half and declaring the entire animal Hekdesh (Kedushas ha'Guf).

(d)This ruling also proves that Rebbi Yochanan holds Dichuy Me'ikara Havi Dichuy (since the animal is Dachuy the moment it was declared Hekdesh) and that - Yesh Dichuy be'Damim (where he initially declared Hekdesh half the animal, which is not subject to Kedushas ha'Guf).

6)

(a)The ramifications of ...

1. ... Kedushas Damim are that - the animal is only Kadosh vis-a-vis its value, meaning that it must be sold and the proceeds used to purchase another animal for Hekdesh.

2. ... Yesh Dichuy be'Damim are that - the animal's adopting Kedushas Damim is sufficient reason to render it Dachuy.

(b)The alternative explanation of Yesh Dichuy be'Damim, which we reject, is that - it is the monetary rights that Shimon has in the animal that are sufficient to render the animal Dachuy.

7)

(a)Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that if someone designates a Chatas for having eaten Cheilev, and who subsequently becomes an apostate and repents - his Chatas is Dachuy.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar ... Rebbi Yochanan finds it necessary to issue the same ruling with regard to someone who goes through the same process, but who (rather than becoming an apostate) then went out of his mind and recovered - because (as opposed to the first case, where the Dichuy is self-imposed), here, it is created naturally (and might therefore have been no worse than falling asleep).

(c)And Ula found it necessary to issue his ruling in spite of that of Rebbi Yirmiyah - because (unlike Rebbi Yirmiyah's case, where the situation is beyond his control to change) he is able to retract at any time (in which case, we may have thought that it is not considered Dichuy).

8)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether, in a case where someone eats Cheilev and designates a Korban, and Beis-Din then permit Cheilev and retract - the animal is Dachuy or not.

(b)What makes this a case of Dichuy is - the fact that during the time that Beis-Din permitted Cheilev, a Yachid was Patur from bringing a Chatas.

(c)A certain old man replied that on the contrary, when Rebbi Yochanan would Darshen about Dichuy, he would begin with this case, by which he meant that this is more a classical case of Dichuy than the previous cases - since not only is the man concerned Dachuy from his Chatas, but the Din of Chatas is Dachuy from everybody else too.

9)

(a)When Shimon ben Azai cited the Sanhedrin of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah's ruling (equating an Olah she'Lo li'Shemo with a Pesach and a Chatas she'Lo li'Shemo), he referred to them as Shiv'im u'Shenayim Zakein, and not Zekeinim - because they all agreed with the ruling, like one man.

(b)We reject Rav Huna's ...

1. ... suggestion that ben Azai's source is the words "Olah hu" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Olah hu Isheh Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Hashem") on the grounds that - this Pasuk is written after Haktaras Eimurin (just as we explained earlier with regard to the Asham).

2. ... counter-argument that "Olah hu" is written there twice (one of which comes to teach us Im Eino Inyan that she'Lo li'Shemo before Haktaras Eimurin is Pasul) - because there again, the Torah does the same thing by Asham (and if we do not make such a D'rashah there, why should we make it here).

(c)We conclude that ben Azai learns the P'sul of Olah she'Lo li'Shemo from Chatas she'Lo li'Shemo - with a Kal va'Chomer (based on the fact that an Olah is completely burned, whereas a Chatas is not).

(d)We counter the Pircha ...

1. ... Mah le'Chatas she'Kein Mechaperes - with Pesach Yochi'ach.

2. ... Mah le'Pesach she'Kein Zemano Kavu'a - with Chatas Tochi'ach.

10)

(a)ben Azai dismisses the Pircha Mah le'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Kein Yesh bahen Tzad Kareis' - since the connotation of Tzad Kareis by Pesach is different that than of Chatas (as we explained earlier).

(b)He does not however, invalidate an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo from the same Binyan Av - because of the Pircha Mah le'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'bahen she'Kein Yeshnan be'Tzibur ke'va'Yachid (whereas there is no such thing as an Asham Tzibur).

(c)Alternatively, ben Azai would have asked from Tzad Kareis had he learned Olah from a Binyan Av. But he didn't! He learned it - from tradition from the Sanhedrin (without knowing their source, as we explained in our Mishnah).

(d)And the reason that Rav Huna cited the Kal va'Chomer is - in order to sharpen the brains of his Talmidim, either to encourage them to ask the Kashyos brought in our Sugya, or to train them in making their own Kal-va'Chomers).