1)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Korach "u'Besaram Yih'yeh lach ka'Chazeh ha'Tenufah u'che'Shok ha'Yamin" that - a B'chor Beheimah can be eaten for two days, like the Chazeh ve'Shok (the chest and the right calf) of a Shelamim.

(b)When the She'eilah was put to the Chachamim in the Sanhedrin as to the time-span in which one may eat a B'chor, Rebbi Tarfon too - answered that a B'chor can be eaten for two days.

(c)The Tana describes Sanhedrin as Kerem be'Yavneh - because they sat in (three) rows, like the trees in a vineyard (perhaps Chazal chose specifically a vineyard, because Torah is compared to wine).

2)

(a)The name of the Talmid who appeared for the first time before the Sanhedrin, and who asked Rebbi Tarfon for his source was - Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.

(b)When Rebbi Tarfon replied by comparing B'chor to Shelamim because both are Kodshim Kalim, Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili suggested that it was preferable to compare it to Chatas or Asham (which can only be eaten for one day) - since both are gifts to the Kohen.

(c)And he repeated this argument when Rebbi Tarfon gave another reason for comparing B'chor to Shelamim - because B'chor and Shelamim [s opposed to Chatas and Asham]) are not brought because of a sin.

(d)Rebbi Akiva then stepped in defense of Rebbi Tarfon. By citing the Hekesh to Shelamim that we quoted above - he gained firstly, the principle Ein Mashivin al ha'Hekesh (one cannot ask a Pircha on a Hekesh), and secondly, that seeing as the Hekesh compares B'chor to Chazeh ve'Shok, which are also a Matanah like B'chor, Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili's argument falls away completely]).

3)

(a)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili persisted, claiming that even if one learns B'chor from Chazeh ve'Shok, there is no proof that it may be eaten for two days - since the Pasuk may just as well be comparing it to Chazeh ve'Shok of Todah which may only be eaten for one day.

(b)Rebbi Akiva answered by pointing at the word "lach" (in the Pasuk "u'Vesaram Yih'yeh lach" that precedes "ka'Chazeh ha'Tenufah ... ") - which is superfluous, adding a Havayah (an additional aspect of personal ownership in the form of one day more) to the Kohen, indicating that we compare it to Shelamim rather than to Todah.

(c)Rebbi Yishmael however, sent Rebbi Akiva a message that he had erred, inasmuch as one cannot learn B'chor from Todah anyway (even without the Pasuk "u'Vesaram Yih'yeh lach" - since we only learn Chazeh ve'Shok by Todah from Shelamim with a Hekesh, and, as we have already learned, Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh.

4)

(a)From "u'Vesaram Yih'yeh Lach" Rebbi Yishmael learns that - a B'chor Beheimah must be given to the Kohen even if it is blemished.

(b)Rebbi Akiva learns that from "u'Vesaram" - which is written in the plural to incorporate a B'chor Tam and a B'chor Ba'al-Mum.

(c)According to Rebbi Yishmael - "u'Vesaram" refers to the flesh of Bechoros generally.

5)

(a)The Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael (whether eating Chazeh ve'Shok of Todah is considered a Hekesh or not) depends upon whether Heimenu ve'Davar Acher - something which is learned in part explicitly and in part from a Hekesh is a Hekesh or not.

(b)What is written explicitly by Todah is - the fact that it can be eaten for one day, and what we learn from a Hekesh from Shelamim is that - the Chazeh ve'Shok are given to the Kohen.

(c)Consequently, Rebbi Yishmael considers Heimenu ve'Davar Acher a Hekesh, whereas Rebbi Akiva does not.

6)

(a)We try to prove Rebbi Akiva right from Avodah on Yom Kipur. We learn from the Hekesh in the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed" that - the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi (in the Heichal) requires Achas Lema'alah ve'Sheva Lematah just like those on the Aron (inside).

(b)Heimenu ve'Davar Acher concerns what we learn from the Sa'ir Chatas (shel Yom Kipur [and vice-versa]) with regard to Achas Lema'alah ve'Sheva Lematah. What is written explicitly ...

1. ... by the Par is - Sheva Lematah ("ve'Hizah be'Etzba'o ... ve'Lifnei ha'Kapores Yazeh Sheva Pe'amim").

2. ... by the Sa'ir is - Achas Lema'alah ("Ve'hizah Oso al ha'Kapores ve'Lifnei ha'Kapores").

(c)The problem, according to Rebbi Yishmael is that - if, as he maintains, Heimenu ve'Davar Acher is considered a Hekesh, why is the Hekesh Achas Lema'alah ve'Sheva Lematah (to learn ba'Chutz mi'Bi'fenim) from the Pasuk "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed") not considered a Hekesh min ha'Hekesh.

(d)We answer Mekomos hu de'Gamri me'Hadadi - a Hekesh comparing one location (Chutz) to another (P'nim) after learning one animal (Sa'ir) from another (Par), is not considered a Hekesh min ha'Hekesh (whereas learning B'chor from Todah, which itself is learned from Shelamim, is).

7)

(a)Alternatively, we answer Chutz mi'Penim be'Chad Zimna Gamir, by which we mean that - seeing as we need to learn both Achas Lema'alah and Sheva Lematah from P'nim, it is as if we are learning Chutz from P'nim in one go (unlike the previous case, where we did not learn Chazeh ve'Shok by B'chor from the Hekesh from Chazah ve'Shok of Todah.

(b)From the Hekesh in Emor (in connection with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) "mi'Moshvosechem Tavi'u Lechem" we learn that - each of the ten Chametz loaves that accompany the Todah must comprise an Isaron (a tenth of an Eifah), just like each of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.

(c)The Torah has already written that - they must bake ten Chametz Lachmei Todah.

(d)We still need "Tih'yenah" to teach us that each of the ten Chametz loaves comprises an Isaron (as we will explain in Menachos), because otherwise we would have thought that - each loaf must comprise two Esronin (like the two loaves on Shavu'os).

8)

(a)We then learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "al Chalos Lechem Chametz" that - each Matzah loaf must also comprise one Isaron.

(b)The Kashya this poses on Rebbi Yishmael is - how we can now learn the second Hekesh, since he considers the first Hekesh (which is also a case of 'Heimenu ve'Davar Acher'), a Hekesh.

(c)And we answer 'Tavi'u Yeseira hi' - the word "Tavi'u" (which creates the first Hekesh) is superfluous, in which case, seeing as "Sh'nei Esronin" is written in this Pasuk, it is as if the Torah had written two Esronin for each two Chametz loaves of the Todah explicitly, and there is therefore no problem with the second Hekesh.

9)

(a)Rav Yosef establishes the author of our Mishnah (which restricts Achilas Pesachim until midnight), as Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya, who learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" (in Bo, in connection with the Korban Pesach) "Ve'avarti be'Eretz Mitzrayim ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" (in Va'eira) - that just as Makas Bechoros took place by midnight, so too, must the Korban Pesach be eaten by midnight.

(b)Rebbi Akiva disagrees on the basis of the Pasuk in Bo "Va'achaltem oso be'Chipazon". He learns from ...

1. ... there that - they were to eat the Pesach until the time when they were due to leave Egypt in haste (the morning).

2. ... the Pasuk (Ibid.) "ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" that - as opposed to other Korbanos, which are eaten on the day that they are sacrificed, the Pesach can only be eaten at night.

(c)Abaye suggests that the author of our Mishnah could even be Rebbi Akiva, who permits eating the Korban Pesach until morning - because the Tana is speaking mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas Rebbi Akiva is speaking mi'd'Oraysa.

(d)Rav Yosef refutes Abaye's suggestion however, on the basis of the Lashon 've'Eino Ne'echal Ela ad Chatzos', from which he extrapolates that - ad Chatzos is mi'd'Oraysa, just like ba'Laylah, li'Menuyav and Tz'li (mentioned there).