1)

(a)The problem with our Mishnah 'Al Eilu Blemishin Shochtin es ha'B'chor u'Pesulei ha'Mukdashin Nifdin aleihen' is that - the Tana already taught us this at the beginning of the Perek.

(b)We refute the suggestion that we need the Mishnah because of the Seifa - since that too is obvious (because now that one is permitted to Shecht and eat a B'chor on account of them, one can certainly redeem it).

(c)We explain the need for Rebbi to insert it here - to teach us that all the various individual opinions mentioned in the Perek (such as the three Dinim of Aylu and rulings by Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos and Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel) are Halachah.

2)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that - one may not Shecht Chavrar ve'ha'Mayim she'Ein Kevu'in and the inner gums that are notched or cut, in the Mikdash as a Korban, nor to eat as Chulin in the Medinah.

(b)The Tana issues the same ruling regarding Ba'al Garav, Ba'al Yabeles (wart) - (which does not possess a bone, and if it is in the white of the eye, it has no hair growing on it), Ba'al Chazazis'.

(c)If it is found on any other part of the animal's body - it is nothing more than an extra piece of flesh.

(d)The Tana issues the same ruling - regarding an animal that is old, sick or sweaty (and smells) as in the previous rulings.

(e)And he issues the same ruling with regard to an animal with which bestiality was performed or that killed a person - provided there was only one witness (or where he himself admits it), because if there were two witnesses, the animal would immediately be put to death.

3)

(a)The Tana Kama includes a Tumtum and Androginus in the above list - because they are a Safek B'chor.

(b)One cannot Shecht either of them in ...

1. ... the Mikdash - in case it is a female (which is not Kadosh and which would be Chulin in the Azarah).

2. ... the Medinah - in case it is a male, and therefore has Kedushas B'chor.

(c)Rebbi Yishmael rules that - an Androginus is in fact a Ba'al-Mum, because, on account of the excessive female organ, it is considered a male with a blemish, which may neither be Shechted nor shorn or worked with.

(d)The ramifications of the Chachamim's ruling that an Androginus is not a B'chor at all are that - it may even be shorn and worked with.

4)

(a)The boil ...

1. ... Garav is also called Cheres - because it is dry (like earthenware).

2. ... Chazazis is also called Yalefes - because it envelops a person until the day he dies (it is incurable).

(b)The problem with our Mishnah (which does not consider Garav and Yalefes blemishes) is that - the Torah specifically includes both in its list of Mumin.

(c)We solve the problem with Chazazis by distinguishing between an Egyptian Chazazis (which is incurable) and a regular one (which is not). We cannot simply solve the problem with Garav by distinguishing between a dry one (which is incurable) and a wet one (which is not) - because the fact that the Torah mentions "Garav" and "Cheres" in one Pasuk (in Ki Savo) implies that "Garav" is a wet boil.

(d)If, as we conclude, our Mishnah is speaking about a boil that is wet both on the inside and on the outside, then "Sh'chin Mitzrayim" must be - wet on the outside but dry on the inside.

(e)The Pasuk "Vay'hi Sh'chin Ava'bu'os Pore'ach" supports that - in that "Pore'ach" implies the part of the boil that is visible, whereas "Ava'bu'os" implies that it is moist (from the word Novei'a, to flow).

5)

(a)In the Pasuk "ve'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano, min ha'Kevasim O min ha'Izim", one of the three superfluous words "min" comes to preclude an old animal - the other two, one that is sick and one that is sweaty (Mezuham).

(b)We cannot learn ...

1. ... Choleh from Zakein - which is irreversible (whereas Choleh is not).

2. ... Zakein from Choleh - which is irregular (whereas Zakein is not).

3. ... Mezuham from Choleh and Zakein - which weaken the animal (which Mezuham does not).

4. ... Choleh and Zakein from Mezuham - which is disgusting (whereas they are not).

(c)"Adam ki Yakriv mikem Korban la'Hashem min ha'Beheimah, min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon", the first "min" comes to preclude a Rove'a ve'Nirva (a male or female animal with which bestiality was performed), and the second one to preclude Ne'evad (one that was worshipped, both without witnesses, as we explained in our Mishnah) - whereas the third "min" comes to preclude Muktzah (one that was designated to be worshipped at a later stage).

6)

(a)We have no trouble with the Tana Kama's ruling 'Tumtum Lo ba'Mikdash ve'Lo ba'Medinah', since it is a Safek Zachar, Safek Nekeivah, as we explained in our Mishnah. The problem regarding the same ruling by Androginus is that - it ought it to be permitted in the Medinah mi'Mah Nafshach, because even if it is a male, the groove (in the form of the female organ), should surely be considered a blemish.

(b)Abaye answers the question based on the Pasuk in Emor "O Shavur O Charutz" - comparing a groove to a break, which is only a blemish if it is in the location of a bone.

7)

(a)Rava learns that from the fact that the Torah writes "Garav" after having written "Charutz" - because if a groove in the location of flesh would be a blemish, then the Torah would not need to mention "Garav" (which, since it is dry, has grooves) and we could learn it from "Charutz", which is not ugly, Kal va'Chomer, Garav, which is.

(b)So the Torah writes "Garav" to teach us that - a groove in the location of flesh is not a blemish (and the reason that Garav is Pasul is because it is ugly).

(c)We learn from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'Hinei Mar'eihu Amok min ha'Or" that - Garav has a groove.

(d)Abaye and Rava are explaining the opinion of the Tana Kama, with whom Rebbi Yishmael, who considers a cut in the Androginus B'chor a blemish, disagrees. He rejects the argument ...

1. ... of Abaye - because he simply does not hold of the D'rashah "Charutz" Dumya de'"Shavur".

2. ... of Rava - because in his opinion, the groove in the shape of a female organ is worse than a regular groove, in that it is much more pronounced.

8)

(a)Rava asks whether Rebbi Yishmael is certain that an Androginus is a B'chor with a blemish - or whether he has a Safek that perhaps it is a female, and in the Mishnah, he merely concludes that if it is a male, then it already has a blemish (and that 'Mah Nafshach, the owner is permitted to Shecht it, as we already explained).

(b)One of the ramifications of Rava's She'eilah is whether he needs to give it to the Kohen (according to the first side) or not (according to the second side). The other is - whether he will receive Malkos for shearing the wool or working with the animal (according to the first side) or not (according to the second).

(c)We refute the proof from Rebbi Ila'i's statement in the name of Rebbi Yishmael 'Androginus B'chor Hu u'Mumo Imo' that he is certain - in that perhaps, in reality, he has a Safek, as we explained, and Rebbi Ila'i is merely stating what Rebbi Yishmael will hold assuming that it is a male.

9)

(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from a second Beraisa. In the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with Olas Bakar), the word "Zachar" comes to preclude a female, whereas "Zachar" in connection with Olas Tzon - comes to preclude a Tumtum and Androginus.

(b)The author of the Beraisa cannot be ...

1. ... the Tana Kama of our Mishnah (who considers an Androginus to be a Safek) - because 'We do not need a Pasuk to preclude S'feikos' (since there is no such thing as a Safek before Hash-m).

2. ... the Chachamim of our Mishnah, who consider it to be an independent species - since they learn Nekeivah, Tumtum and Androginus from one Pasuk (just as they do in Re'ei with regard to B'chor).

(c)In that case, the author can only be Rabbi Yishmael - a proof that in his opinion, an Androginus is definitely a B'chor and not a Safek (otherwise we would have the same problem establishing the Beraisa like him as we had in trying to establish it like the Tana Kama).

(d)We rejecyt this proof however, by establishing the Beraisa like the Chachamim after all - who in fact, preclude Tumtum and Androginus by B'chor too - from a second Pasuk (in Parshas Bo) "ha'Zecharim la'Hashem".