1)

(a)When Rebbi Shimon says in a Beraisa that a Parah Adumah is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher he means that it is considered a food (regarding Tum'ah), because, even after the Shechitah, he could still have redeemed it.

(b)And when Reish Lakish explains 'Omer Hayah Rebbi Shimon Parah Nifdis al-Gabei Ma'arechtah', he means that according to Rebbi Shimon, he is permitted to redeem it (even mid'Rabanan [see Tosfos]), even though he did not do so.

(c)We have proved from here that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Kol ha'Omed Lif'dos ke'Paduy Dami'.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan establishes Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah where the Ganav Shechted Temimim inside the Azarah not in the name of the owner. He agrees with Reish Lakish, who established the case when the Ganav Shechted blemished animals outside.

(b)He nevertheless declines to explain Rebbi Shimon like him because he considers it a Dochek (a pushed answer), to establish it specifically by blemished animals.

(c)Reish Lakish disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan however, based on the fact that Mechirah does not apply to an animal of Kodshim because Kodshim cannot go out to Chulin unless they are blemished.

(d)The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is whether we compare Tevichah to Mechirah and say wherever Mechirah is not applicable, Tevichah is not applicable either (Reish Lakish) or not (Rabbi Yochanan).

3)

(a)They follow their reasoning in another Machlokes, where Rebbi Shimon says that a Ganav who steals a Tereifah animal and Shechts it is Patur from Dalet v'Hey, because it is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah ...

(b)... where Rebbi Yochanan rules that if the same Ganav sold it (instead of Shechting it) he is Chayav to pay Dalet v'Hey.

(c)According to Reish Lakish, since he is Patur when he Shechts it, he is also Patur when he sells it.

4)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan queries Reish Lakish from the Beraisa 'Ganav Kilayim u'Tevachah, Tereifah u'Mecharah, Meshalem Tashlumei Arba'ah va'Chamishah'. He assumes that the author of the Beraisa must be Rebbi Shimon because the Rabanan would have said 'Ganav Kilayim u'Tereifah, Tevachan O Mecharan, Meshalem Dalet v'Hey'.

(b)Based on this assumption, Rebbi Yochanan now queries Reish Lakish from the Seifa from which we can extrapolate that if he sold the animal, he would be Chayav Dalet v'Hey even though he is not Chayav for Shechting it.

(c)According to Rebbi Yochanan himself, the Tana confines the Reisha to Tevichah because the Seifa is confined to Mechirah.

5)

(a)Reish Lakish, who establishes the author as the Rabanan, explains the fact that the Tana confines the Reisha to Tevichah because he chooses to establish the Reisha by one, and the Seifa, by the other.

(b)The problem with this is why the Tana would choose to do such a thing. Why did he not put them together and obligate both Kilayim and Tereifah Dalet v'Hey, whether he Shechted or sold them (as we explained earlier, according to Rebbi Yochanan).

6)

(a)Rava learns that the word "Shor, Seh Kesavim ve'Seh Izim" (written in connection with non-Kosher animals see Tosfos) is a Binyan Av, which teaches us that wherever the word "Seh" appears in the Torah, it precludes Kilayim.

(b)Nevertheless, the Tana incorporates Kilayim in our Pasuk (by Geneivah) "Shor O Seh" because "O" includes it.

(c)Another Beraisa Darshens the Pasuk in Emor (written in connection with Kodshim) "Shor O Kesev O Ez", to preclude an animal of Kilayim, and from "O Ez", the Tana precludes a Nidmeh an animal that resembles neither its father nor its mother, such as a goat whose father is a ram and whose mother is a ewe.

(d)This Beraisa appears to clash with our explanation of "Shor O Seh" by Geneivah because there "O" comes to include Kilayim, whereas here it comes to exclude it.

7)

(a)When Rava answers 'Hacha me'Inyana di'K'ra, ve'Hacha me'Inyana di'K'ra", he means that "O" is not fixed one way or the other; it works in conjunction with the Pasuk in which it appears, as we shall now see.

(b)What makes it logical to include an animal of Kilayim by Geneivah, but to exclude it by Kodshim is the fact that with regard to the former, the Torah writes "Shor O Seh", which cannot produce Kilayim. It is therefore obvious that, since the Pasuk itself is not speaking about Kilayim, "O" comes include it; whereas with regard to the latter, it writes "Kesev O Ez", which can produce Kilayim; consequently, "O" comes to preclude it.

(c)A sheep and a goat can produce Kilayim, because they are both small species of animals (Beheimos Dakos), but not an ox and a sheep because one is a small species and the other, a large one (a Beheimah Gasah).

8)

(a)Rava just explained that "O" by Kodshim comes to preclude Kilayim, because the Torah writes there "Kesev O Ez" (which can produce Kilayim). If the same Pasuk also writes "Shor O Kesev ... " (which cannot produce Kilayim) this is because the Reisha follows the same pattern as the Seifa.

(b)Bearing in mind that the two things we preclude from "O" are Kilayim and Nidmeh, Rava knows to compare the Reisha to the Seifa (to exclude Kilayim) because once we have precluded Kilayim (whose parents are different species) from the Dinim of Kodshim, we still need a Pasuk to preclude Nidmeh (whose parents are the same species). But if we were to compare the Seifa to the Reisha (to include), then, on the premise that we always Darshen Kilayim first (see Shitah Mekubetzes DH 'Ela'), we would not need a second Derashah for Nidmeh, which we automatically learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Kilayim.