1)

(a)We initially think that the skin of the fat-tail is considered part of the fat-tail, in which case - it must be brought on the Mizbe'ach together with the fat-tail of the Shelamim.

(b)The problem with this is that - our Mishnah considers a Machshavah to eat the skin of the Alyah a Machsheves P'sul, whereas the Chachamim do not consider a Machshavah from Achilas Mizbe'ach to Achilas Adam a Machsheves P'sul.

(c)So Shmuel establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Eliezer. The Tana Kama of a Mishnah in the next Perek states that if one Shechted a Zevach with the intention of eating something that is normally burned or vice-versa, remains Kasher. Rebbi Eliezer disagrees - because he holds that a Machshavah from Achilas Adam to Achilas Mizbe'ach, or vice-versa, is valid.

2)

(a)From the Seifa of the Mishnah, Zeh ha'Kelal, Kol ha'Shochet, ve'ha'Mekabel ... Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol u'Lehaktir Davar she'Darko Lehaktir we extrapolate - Ha Le'echol Davar she'Ein Davar Le'echol, Lo (like the Rabbanan).

(b)When they asked Shmuel Reisha Rebbi Eliezer, Seifa Rabbanan?, he answered - In (Yes) Reisha Rebbi Eliezer, Seifa Rabbanan.

(c)Rav Huna disagrees with Shmuel. He maintains that - the skin of the fat-tail is not like the fat-tail (as far as burning it on the Mizbe'ach is concerned).

(d)And Rabah supports Rav Huna based on the Pasuk (in connection with the Chalavim that go on the Mizbe'ach) "Chelbo ha'Alyah Temimah" - "Chelbo ha'Alyah", 've'Lo Or ha'Alyah'.

3)

(a)According to Rav Huna, the author of our Mishnah is the Rabbanan.

(b)Rav Chisda agrees with Shmuel on principle, but he establishes our Mishnah by the skin of the fat-tail of a kid-goat - which is not brought on the Mizbe'ach, and which is therefore considered 'Achilas Adam (with which we have no problem in the first place).

(c)The two othyer disputants decline to learn like ...

1. ... Shmuel - because they consider Reisha Rebbi Eliezer, Seifa Rabbanan to be a Dochek.

2. ... Rav Huna - because they maintain that the skin of the Alyah is like the Alyah.

3. ... Rav Chisda - because we have already learned a Mishnah in Chulin 've'Eilu she'Oroseihen ki'Besaran, Or ha'Alyah', and a mere repetition of the same Halachah would be unnecessary.

(d)The Mishnah in Chulin is speaking - in connection with Tum'ah, and teaches us that, because the skin of the Alyah is soft, it is considered Basar to combine with less than a k'Beitzah with regard to Tum'as Ochlin, or with less than a k'Zayis with regard to Tum'as Neveilah.

(e)Nevertheless, if not for our Mishnah, Rav Chisda explains, we might have thought that with regard to eating Korbanos, the skin of the Alyah is not considered part of the Alyah, because the Torah writes "le'Moshchah" (regarding Korbanos), implying that one eats then in royal fashion (and kings do not usually eat the skin of the Alyah). Presumably, "le'Moshchah" in fact, refers to the way one eats the Korbanos, and not to which parts of them one eats.

4)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa rules that - if someone Shechts an Olah with the intention of bringing a k'Zayis of skin under the Alyah ...

1. ... Chutz li'Mekomo - it is Pasul, but whoever eats it is not subject to Kareis.

2. ... Chutz li'Zemano - it is Pigul, and whoever eats it is Chayav Kareis.

(b)Elazar ben Yehudah Ish Aveilim (and other Tana'im) includes the skin of the leg from the knee downwards of a small animal and the skin of the head of a tender kid-goat - in its first year, in the Tana Kama's ruling.

(c)And when he adds ve'Chol she'Manu Chachamim gabei Tum'ah ve'Eilu she'Oroseihem ki'Besaran, he means to add - the skin of a female animal's womb (though it cannot pertain to an Olah, which is always a male).

(d)By speaking specifically about an Olah, the Tana Kama implies that - by Zevachim, the skin of the Alyah is not considered like the Alyah (a Kashya on Rav Chisda) who holds that the skin of the Alyah is considered part of the Alyah even as regards Kodshim that are eaten.

5)

(a)Rav Huna will have no problem with this - because he precludes the skin of the Alyah (which he considers Basar) from the Pasuk "Chelbo ha'Alyah Temimah" from becoming Emurin, but not from being one of the Nesachim (with a 'Ches' [the pieces of Olah that are all brought on the Mizbe'ach]). See Tosfos DH 'Ela le'Rav Chisda'.

(b)We give two answers to reconcile Rav Chisda with the Beraisa; one of them that the Beraisa too, is speaking about the Alyah of a kid-goat - which does not go on the Mizbe'ach anyway, and must therefore be referring to a Machsheves Achilah (even if the Beraisa is talking about an Olah).

(c)The second answer is - to actually amend the Beraisa from ha'Shochet es ha'Olah to ha'Shochet es ha'Zevach.

6)

(a)We interpret the Pasuk in Tzav ...

1. ... "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav ba'Yom ha'Shelishi" - with regard to a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano (Pigul), where someone performed one of the main Avodos of a Shelamim with the intention of eating it on the third day.

2. ... "Pigul Yih'yeh" - with regard to a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo.

3. ... "Ve'nichr'sah ha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles Mimenu Avonah Tisa" that - one is only Chayav Kareis for eating one of the two, but not both.

(b)We counter the suggestion that "Mimenu" includes Chutz li'Zemano, because it is mentioned first - by proposing that perhaps it comes to include Chutz li'Mekomo, because it directly precedes the Chiyuv Kareis.

(c)So Abaye cites a Beraisa that he heard from Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi Amar Rav which interprets the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel be'Yom ha'Shelishi Pigul hu Lo Yeratzeh" to mean Chutz li'Mekomo - because we already know Chutz li'Zemano from the Pasuk in Tzav.

(d)And the the Pasuk must be talking about a P'sul Machshavah, and not about someone who eats a Shelamim on the third day - because the Torah writes "Lo Yeratzeh", and it is not possible for a Korban that is already Kasher to become Pasul simply because the Basar is eaten after its time.

7)

(a)And the prohibition of Nosar (a Korban or part of a Korban [in this case, a Shelamim] that is left over after its allotted time of eating has expired [from the third day and onwards]) we will learn - from the principle 'Ein Mikra Yotzei mi'Yedei Peshuto' (since the Torah refers specifically to someone who actually eats it on the third day', he too, is included in the prohibition).

(b)When the Torah writes there "ve'Ochlav Avono Yisa", it means that - whoever eats it is Chayav Kareis ...

(c)... and it refers to - Nosar ...

(d)... and the fact that the Torah writes "ve'Ochlav" in the singular comes to preclude - she'Lo bi'Mekomo from Kareis.

8)

(a)We suggest that perhaps "ve'Ochlav" refers to Chutz li'Mekomo, and precludes Nosar from Kareis - because it is written directly after it (since the basic Pasuk refers to Chutz li'Mekomo, as we explained).

(b)We answer that it is more likely to include Nosar than Chutz li'Mekomo, in order to learn Chutz li'Zemano from it with the Gezeirah-Shavah "Avon" "Avon" - meaning that the Pasuk in Tzav mentions "ve'Ochlav Avono Yisa" but not Kareis, and the Gezeirah-Shavah from Nosar (which mentions both) teaches us that Nesi'as Avon means Kareis.

(c)The advantage of Nosar over Chutz li'Mekomo (see Tosfos DH 'Mistavra') is hinted in Z.V. - which refer to Z'man (as opposed to Chutz li'Mekomo) and Bamah (where both Nosar and Chutz li'Zemano apply, but not Chutz li'Mekomo).

(d)We counter this however, by pointing out that Chutz li'Mekomo has four advantages over Nosar, as hinted in M.K.D.Sh. (Machshavah, K'tzas, Dam and Shelishi), meaning that - they are both P'sul Machshavah, both forbid the entire Korban with even a P'sul Machshavah on only part of the Korban, both are not applicable after the Zerikas Dam, and the word "Shelishi" by both is superfluous for a Gezeirah-Shavah, all of which do not apply to Nosar.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan therefore cites a Beraisa quoted by Zavdi ben Levi who applies the Kareis to Nosar, based on the Gezeirah-Shavah "Kodesh" (in the Pasuk "ve'Ochlav Avono Yisa") from "Kodesh" (in the Pasuk "Ve'sarafta es ha'Nosar ba'Eish ... ki Kodesh hu" [in Tetzaveh]). "Kodesh" appears in "ki es Kodesh Hash-m Chilel" (the phrase that follows "ve'Ochlav Avono Yisa").

(b)We have now learned from "ki Kodesh Hu" - that "ve'Ochlav Avono Yisa" (implying Kareis) pertains to Nosar and not to Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo.

(c)We suggest that perhaps "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel" (in Tzav) refers to Chutz li'Mekomo, and "ve'Ochlav Avono Yisa" (in Kedoshim), to Chutz li'Zemano, which practically speaking, means that - Chutz li'Mekomo will be subject to Kareis, whereas Chutz li'Zemano will not.

(d)Once again, we try to answer with the S'vara that, since we learn Kareis by the Pasuk in Tzav from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Avon" "Avon" from Nosar, it is more likely to pertain to Chutz li'Zemano, due to the similarities hinted in Z.V. We counter this proof however - with Adraba (on the contrary), if anything, it would be more logical to place Nosar and Chutz li'Zemano together in the same Pasuk, due to this similarity, and to include one in Kareis and preclude the other, (whereas let the Pasuk in Tzav will refer Chutz li'Mekomo).

10)

(a)Rava finally reverts to Rabah's initial D'rashah, learning both Chutz li'Zemano and Chutz li'Mekomo from "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel" in Tzav. He learns from ...

1. ... the double Lashon "He'achol Ye'achel" that - Pigul applies both to a Machsheves Achilas Adam and a Machsheves Achilas Mizbe'ach.

2. ... the word "Zevach" (in the phrase "mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav") - to include only what, like Shelamim, has parts that are Mefagel and Mispagel ...

(b)... something that creates Pigul (such as the blood), and something that is subject to Pigul, such as the Basar (Achilas Adam) and the Emurin (Achilas Mizbe'ach) ...

(c)... to preclude from the Din of Pigul - the Minchas Kohanim, the Minchas Kohen Gadol and the Minchas Nesachim, all of which are entirely burned and do not contain anything that pertains to Achilas Adam.

(d)And he learns from ...

1. ... "Shelishi" that - the Pasuk is referring to a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano.

2. ... "Lo Yeratzeh" that - Pigul will only take affect when the blood is ultimately sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach (ad she'Yakrivu Kol Matirav [but if, for example, it spills before the Zerikah, the Pigul is negated]).

3. ... "ha'Makriv" that - Pigul takes place at the time of Hakravah (in the form of a P'sul Machshavah during one of the Avodos, and is not simply Nosar on the third day).

4. ... "Oso" that - it is the Korban which becomes Pasul and not the Kohen.

5. ... "Lo Yechashev" that - if the Kohen has other thoughts, such as Chutz li'Mekomo (besides those of Chutz li'Zemano), It is Pasul but no longer Pigul (and there is no Kareis).

11)

(a)"Pigul" comes to include Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo, and we learn from "Yih'yeh" that - if the Kohen Shechts the Korban with the intention of eating half a k'Zayis tomorrow and half a k'Zayis outside the Mechitzah, the Korban becomes Pasul.

(b)And now that we learn from "Avono Yisa" that Pigul is subject to Kareis, we learn from the word "Mimenu" (in the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles Mimenu") - that only one of them is Chayav Kareis.

(c)And we know that the one that is included is Chutz li'Zemano - because we learn it from a Gezeirah-Shavah "Avon" "Avon" from Nosar (as we explained earlier), to which Machsheves Z'man is similar as regards Z.V. (Z'man and Bamah) as we explained there (and not Chutz li'Mekomo, to which Nosar is not similar at all).

(d)We could not give the same answer above, when we queried Rabah at the beginning of the Sugya that perhaps "Mimenu" comes to include Chutz li'Mekomo, because it directly precedes the Chiyuv Kareis, and to preclude Chutz li'Zemano - seeing as we had not yet learned the Gezeirah-Shavah from Nosar (to which we are now comparing she'Lo bi'Zemano).