Explanation (Rashi): The case is, she fixed her vow with [to be the same species as] her obligatory [Ken].

Objection: There was no need to explain so. It is properly established when she did not fix!

Explanation: In Kinim (3:6) it explains that it horns are for Chatzotzeros (trumpets in the Mikdash). This implies that [the Chatzotzeros] are not of silver.

Support: Also Avodah Zarah (47a) connotes like this. Rami bar Chama asked, if one bowed to an animal [to worship it], are its horns Kosher for Chatzotzeros?

Question: In Menachos (28a), a Beraisa teaches that Chatzotzeros come from a chunk of silver!

Answer: That is not so difficult. There it discusses Moshe's Chatzotzeros. They were not Kosher for all generations.

Question: In Tamid (33b), a Mishnah teaches that [two Kohanim stood by the marble table near the Mizbe'ach, and] two silver Chatzotzeros were in their hands. This connotes that even for generations, they are of silver!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): There are two matters of Chatzotzeros. Those of Kohanim were of silver, and those of Leviyim were from animal horns, for music.

Answer #2: The Chatzotzeros [mentioned] in Maseches Kinim and in Avodah Zarah are Shofaros, like it says in Shabbos (36a) and in Sukah (34a) that the names Chatzotzeres and Shofar switched. (What we call now Shofar was initially called Chatzotzeres, and vice-versa);

In Shabbos (36a) there is a Beraisa that calls Chatzotzeros "Shofar".

Question: In Avodah Zarah it discusses what is needed for the Korban, like it says there 'during [Hakravah of] the Korban they did not blow the Shofar, rather, Chatzotzeres, like it says "u'Skatem ba'Chatzotzeros Al Oloseichem v'Al Zivchei Shalmeichem"!' (Tzon Kodoshim - rather, we must say like Answer #1.)

Question: Why is [Me'ilah] different than [fulfilling one's obligation? If it drawn to become a Chatas to uproot Me'ilah, it must be totally Kosher!]

Answer #1: We find like this in Menachos (12a) that if Shirayim became Chaser (lacking) between Kemitzah and Haktarah, one may not eat them, but Haktarah [of the Kometz] uproots Me'ilah from them;

And Zerikah helps for Yotzei and Pigul, like we say in Me'ilah (3b) that it uproots Me'ilah, even though [the Korban] did not fulfill [the owner's] obligation.

Answer #2: Some say that mid'Oraisa, it is drawn and becomes a Chatas totally. It is an enactment mid'Rabanan that it does not fulfill his obligation.

Possibility #1: [If so,] R. Yehoshua must hold that the Torah does not require Shechitah for birds (the owner will bring another Chatas ha'Of, and the Kohen will eat it even though it is Chulin that was killed through Melikah, without Shechitah) and [the Isur of] Chulin b'Azarah is not mid'Oraisa;

This is like it says in Nazir (29a) about one may put a vow of Nezirus on his [minor] son in order to train him in Mitzvos.

Possibility #2: Alternatively, he holds that Chulin b'Azarah is mid'Oraisa [for Behemos, but for] a Chayah or bird it is not mid'Oraisa;

This is like we find about R. Shimon in Chulin (85b). He holds that [Chulin b'Azarah] is mid'Oraisa, and even so for a Chayah or bird it is not mid'Oraisa;

He disagrees with the Drashah in Kidushin (57b-58a) that includes birds.

Question: According to the opinion that [Chulin b'Azarah] is not mid'Oraisa, why do we need a verse to teach that Chatas ha'Of may be brought amidst Safek?

R. Yosi bar Chanina says that it is not mid'Oraisa, like is proven in Nazir, and he requires a verse for Chatas ha'Of brought amidst Safek!

Answer: The verse teaches that one must bring it amidst Safek, just like regarding a Behemah one brings Asham Taluy [if it is a Safek if he is Chayav Chatas].

Opinion #1: It seems that our entire Mishnah (including the previous Mishnah) is R. Shimon, who says below (84a) that anything that is Pesulo b'Kodesh, Im Alah Lo Yered;

Source #1: We say in the Gemara (69a) that Melikah that permits the Isur, i.e. Im Alah Lo Yered, [the bird] is not Metamei b'Beis ha'Bli'ah;

Melikah done at night, according to R. Yehudah [Im Alah] Yered, like it says below (84a) "this excludes what was slaughtered at night." (Melikah corresponds to Shechitah.)

Source #2: Above (66b), the Mishnah says "all of these are not Metamei b'Beis ha'Bli'ah." [Melikas Olas ha'Of done below] is like Shechitah [of Kodshei Kodoshim] in the south, about which R. Yehudah says Yered, like it says in Me'ilah (2b). Rather, our Mishnah is R. Shimon.

Question: If it is like R. Shimon, he said that Melikah bi'Smol (with the left hand) is full Melikah, according to R. Tam's text above (24b) "if he did Melikah bi'Smol, it is Pasul, and R. Shimon is Machshir"!

Answer: [Our Tana] holds like R. Shimon about one matter (anything that is Pesulo b'Kodesh, Im Alah Lo Yered), and argues with him about one (Melikah bi'Smol).

Opinion #2: (Our Mishnah is like R. Yehudah.) R. Yehudah agrees about a bird that anything that is Pesulo b'Kodesh, Im Alah Lo Yered. The three exclusions below (84a) are written [only] about a Behemah.

Disclaimer: However, you are forced to say that one of them refers to a bird. If not, any Pesul of a bird, Im Alah Lo Yered!

Source: In the Gemara (69a) we derive this, because no Shechitah is Metamei b'Beis ha'Bli'ah, even if it does not permit the Isur.

Explanation #1 (Rashi, Kesav Yad): This is Chaladah (one of the Pesulim of Shechitah), because he inserts the end of the knife because he does not want to cut most of the meat before the Simanim.

Rejection: One cannot say so, for in Chulin (20b) it calls this Chaladah, even though we were thinking that he cuts the majority of flesh!

Explanation #2: There, Rashi explained that after the parts of the bone came apart, the knife is inserted under the bone, and this is Chaladah.

Consequence: According to this, we do not discuss a wide knife.

Explanation #3: It seems that it is considered Chaladah because he cuts the Simanim from below to above, and even with a wide knife.

Explanation: This means that the eye was gouged out. It is missing a limb. We exclude this in Kidushin (24b) because it is written "Min ha'Of", and not any bird, to exclude if the wing dried [so much that it will fall off].

This is unlike Rashi explained, that it is due to Hakrivehu Na l'Fechasecha.

Question: Why do we need a verse for Mechusar Ever (a Korban missing a limb)? Even for Bnei Noach it is forbidden, like we expound below (116a) and in Avodah Zarah (5b), bring an animal whose outermost limbs are intact!

Answer #1: If no verse were written about Yisrael, we would establish the verse of Bnei Noach for Yisrael, and not for Bnei Noach;

This is like it says in Sanhedrin (59a), that any Mitzvah said to Bnei Noach and was not repeated at Sinai, it was said to Yisrael, and not to Bnei Noach.

Answer #2: One might have thought that since a Ba'al Mum was permitted to Yisrael for birds more than for Behemos, and Mechusar Ever is permitted.

Answer #3: We would establish "mi'Kol ha'Chai" written about Bnei Noach only to Behemah, in which we find that a Ba'al Mum was forbidden to Yisrael.

Explanation #1: This entire Sugya is like R. Shimon, like I explained in our Mishnah (68a DH Malak). [Melikah done with] bi'Smol or at night, which are not Metamei, Im Alah Lo Yered;

[Melikah done through] a Zar or knife, which are Metamei, descend according to R. Shimon. Since a Pesul occurred in Shechitah, it is as if he choked it, and Yered, for Ein Pesulo b'Kodesh, for it was not Mekudash in a Kli;

Anything that is Pesulo b'Kodesh, which Lo Yered, i.e. a Pesul occurred after Shechitah and it became Kodesh through a Kli.

Explanation #2: This is unlike Rashi explained below (84a) that Ein Pesulo b'Kodesh means that a Pesul occurred before it came to the Azarah, e.g. bestiality.

Rebuttal #1: If a man had Bi'ah with it in the Azarah, how can [Rashi] explain [why this is called Ein Pesulo b'Kodesh? It was Kosher when it came to the Azarah!]

Rebuttal #2: Shechitah in the south, [the Gemara] in Me'ilah (2b) wanted to say that Yered according to R. Shimon, and R. Shimon did not mention specifically bestiality, for likewise if a Zar did Melikah or Kemitzah, Yered;

Source: You are forced to say that according to what Rabah wanted to say that Shechitah in the south, according to R. Shimon Yered, and Smol or at night, which are not Metamei Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah, and Im Alah Lo Yered...

The reason everywhere is like it explains here. Smol is Kosher on Yom Kipur, and night is Kosher for limbs and Chelev.

R. Yehudah excludes night, even though it has a Hechsher. Also Smol has a Hechsher, and he excludes it.

Implied suggestion: He excludes only three things, before three exclusions are written.

Rejection: If a Zar did Melikah, or a Ba'al Mum, Yered according to R. Yehudah, and the same applies to Shechitah in the south!

Question: According to R. Yehudah, what is the difference between Shechitah in the south and Pesach and Chatas Lo Lishmah? Also the south is Kosher for other Kodshim!

Answer: The south is as if it was slaughtered outside, for both of them are a Pesul due to place. This is the reason why Rabah wanted to say that Yered according to R. Shimon.

Question: Here it connotes that according to Rav, the Pesul of Zar is unlike the Pesul of Smol, and in Menachos (6b) he equates them regarding if he did Kemitzah, he returns [it to the Minchah and proper Kemitzah is done]!

Answer: There it does not depend on Hechsher, for R. Yehudah ben Beseira is Machshir all Pesulim.

Comment - Explanation #3: It seems to me that "anything that Pesulo b'Kodesh" means anything that its Pesul is Kosher elsewhere in Kodesh.

Source: This expression is taught below (84a) regarding Im Alah Lo Yered, and also there it explains all those that do not descend, where they are Kosher elsewhere;

Above (51a) it explains them. Linah of blood is Kosher, because land of Eimurim is Kosher, and similarly all of them.

Also in our Sugya it explains why Smol is different, that it is not Metamei, because it has a Hechsher on Yom Kipur, and night has a Hechsher for limbs and Chelev, and a Zar a knife are Metamei, for they do not have a Hechsher elsewhere;

R. Yochanan says that Melikah of a Zar is not Metamei because [Avodas Zar] has a Hechsher, in Shechitah or on a Bamah;

And similarly in an animal Ba'al Mum, Lo Yered according to R. Akiva regarding a cataract (a crust over the eye), since it is Kosher in birds (below, 85b);

Also according to Rabanan, if a Hechsher is found in a Behemah, Lo Yered.

Also according to R. Shimon, he requires a Hechsher elsewhere. This is Pesulo b'Kodesh!

This is why the Mishnah says about Esnan and Kil'ayim that Yered, because they have no Hechsher elsewhere.

Implied question: Why did R. Yehudah himself say "why is Linah of blood Kosher? It is because Linah of Eimurim is Kosher, and Linah of Eimurim is Kosher due to [Linah of] meat"? (Chak Nasan - he should have said that Linah of blood and of Eimurim is Kosher, because Linah of meat is Kosher!)

Answer: This is to teach that we learn other Avodos [b'Di'eved] from [what is] l'Chatchilah, or from a Bamah, but not Avodos Dam;

Therefore he says Yered for the three that R. Shimon is Machshir. [R. Yehudah] is not concerned that we find a Hechsher for them in some other place;

However, Avodos Dam R. Yehudah properly learns from Avodos Dam, even [b'Di'eved] from their proper way. Therefore, if [blood that should be put] above was put below, or [what should be put] inside was put outside, Lo Yered;

Implied question: Why is a Tereifah Yered even according to R. Shimon, according to R. Akiva, who learns Behemah from birds, even though we find a Hechsher for a Tereifah bird through Melikah?

Suggestion: There, that is the Mitzvah [to make it Tereifah through Melikah. Therefore, we do not learn from it.]

Rebuttal: We learn that Smol Lo Yered from the Mitzvah [other use the left hand for Avodah] on Yom Kipur!

Answer #1: We do not learn both Behemah from a bird and not the proper way from the proper way.

Answer #2: We do not learn a Pesul before Shechitah such as Tereifah from Melikah, which is unlike it, for it did not occur before Shechitah. It seems to me that Rabbeinu ha'Kadosh explained like this to us, unlike inside (what Tosfos wrote).

If so, it is not Metamei Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah and also Im Alah Lo Yered, for these depend on each other;

Source: The expression "anything that Pesulo b'Kodesh" was taught in the Mishnah regarding both of them, and also in Me'ilah it equates them to each other.

Implied question: Below (69a), we say that Shechitah of a Kodshim bird inside is not Metamei, even though Yered, like is proven below (111a)!

Source: He exempts him if he offered it outside afterwards. If Lo Yered inside, he would be liable outside, like it says there (109a)!

Answer: Here there is the verse below (69a, "Neveilah u'Tereifah") to teach that they are not Metamei.

Implied question: It says that what was slaughtered in the south, according to R. Yehudah Yered, in Me'ilah (2b), even though it is Kosher for Kodshim Kalim, and blood [that should be put] below was put above Lo Yered even according to R. Yehudah!

Answer: Even so, since they were slaughtered outside of their place, they are like one who slaughtered outside, and they are like one who choked them.

Opinion #1: Below (69a), it says that Melikah of a Pasul is not Metamei. Rashi explained that a Ba'al Mum [did Melikah]. I disagree.

Rebuttal: We do not find a Ba'al Mum Kosher for Avodah, even on a Bamah!

Source: This is proven above (16a. The Gemara) asked "you cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah (of a Ba'al Mum and a Tamei), for they are not permitted on a Bamah."

Opinion #2: Rather, it discusses Melikah of a Pasul, i.e. an Onen or Tamei or another Pesul that is permitted elsewhere;

And when the blood spilled from the neck, Lo Yered because the entire Shechitah was already done properly. This is from R. Baruch.

Implied question: [The Tartzan] could have said that [Smol] is Kosher for bringing limbs!

Answer: Since he finds on Yom Kipur [that Smol is Kosher] in an Avodah that is Me'akev Kaparah, he mentioned this.

Reference: I explained this above (14b. Some say that it is because all Pesulim are Kosher for it, or because it need not be Lifnei Hash-m. Tosfos preferred to say that it is because it is the same in Chulin and in Kodshim.)

Explanation: Since you are Machshir night, even though it is not Pesulo b'Kodesh, because it has a Hechsher [for limbs and Chelev], if so also a Zar [should be Kosher], since he has a Hechsher [on a Bamah]!

Implied question: [the Tartzan] could have answered that this is like the opinion (below, 69a) that Menachos and birds cannot be offered on a Bamah, and the Beraisa that teaches below (69a) like R. Yehudah is not difficult for him, for it is like the opinion that Menachos [and birds] are [offered on a Bamah]!

Answer: It connotes to him that if we learn from a Bamah, we learn even from Menachos and birds, since there is a Hechsher for a Zar.

Implied question: This Beraisa is like R. Yehudah below (84b)!

Answer: In any case, since R. Yehudah, who is stringent, learns from a Bamah, all the more so R. Shimon [does].

Explanation: [The Gemara] answers that he relies on Zos Toras ha'Olah. We include everything with a Hechsher, even if it has a Hechsher only on a Bamah;

However, R. Yehudah does not learn Avodas ha'Dam [from a Bamah], for he excludes what was slaughtered at night, and Yotzei, and similarly Shechitah [of Kodshei Kodoshim] in the south.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps it includes Chutz li'Zmano, Chutz li'Mkomo, and Lo Lishmah, which were not taught in our Mishnah!

Rejection: We learn these from a Kal v'Chomer. R. Yehudah holds that if Melikah was done at night, Yered, and it is not Metamei. All the more so these, for which Lo Yered, according to R. Yehudah they are not Metamei!