Explanation: In Kidushin 34b, Rashi explained that a man is Mesame'ach his wife - in Bavel, he gives to her colored garments. In Eretz Yisrael, he gives to her linen garments.

Implied question: Our Gemara connotes that we discuss Shalmei Simchah!

Answer: I explained there (DH Ishah) and in Rosh Hashanah (6b. He must feed her Shelamim to fulfill the Mitzvah of Simchah. Nowadays, or whenever this is not possible, he is Mesame'ach her with garments.)

Explanation: He is slightly big, but he cannot hold his [father's] hand and ascend with his legs.

Explanation: [We ask about if he can heal] before maturity. What is the law?

Do we say that since an adult is obligated mid'Oraisa, also a minor is obligated in Chinuch?

The reason for [obligating] a minor is to train him, so he will know when he is an adult.

Or, perhaps since such an adult is not obligated, also a minor is not!

Explanation: This is mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa, there is no Shi'ur for a Korban, other than Asham Me'ilos, about which it says "Kesef Shekalim";

Citation (Kerisus 26b - Mishnah): One who separates two Sela'im for an Asham...

Implied question: It says in Zevachim (48a) [one might have thought that the Korban for] a Safek [Aveirah, i.e. Asham Taluy] should not be more stringent that for a Vadai [Aveirah]. Just like for Vadai, one may buy a Chatas for a Danka (a sixth of a Dinar), also for a Safek, one may buy an Asham for a Danka!

Also in Menachos (107b), it says "one may bring a lamb and its Nesachim (accompanying flower and wine offerings) for a Sela."

Answer: This is not precise. It says in Kerisus (10b) that one brings a lamb for a Sela (without the Nesachim. There it is precise, for we learn from an Asham, which has no Nesachim.)

Support: Also in Yoma (55b), it says "he takes four Zuz and throws them to the river." This is not precise. We do not require so much.

Reference: In Menachos (107b) I explained. (Surely, mid'Oraisa, except for the Ashamos that must be two Shekalim, one may bring these Korbanos even for a Perutah, as long as they are choice animals. If there were a fixed price, perhaps the price of animals would decline, and a Mechusar Kipurim would have no solution! Mid'Rabanan, a generous person should spend a Sela, and a stingy person should spend at least a Danka.)

Explanation: He holds that [the Olah offered at Sinai] was Olas Re'iyah, like it says below.

Explanation: Chagigah is an example [of a Korban Yachid].

Implied Question: In Yoma (51a), it (Chagigah) is called a Korban Tzibur!

Answer: That is compared to Pesach Sheni;

Citation (51a) Question:" Why is Chagigah called a Korban Tzibur [more than Pesach]? It is because it comes amidst a gathering. Also Pesach comes amidst a gathering!"

Citation (cont.) Answer: There is Pesach Sheni, which does not come amidst a gathering.

Implied question: Why didn't they say "we learn Yom Tov from Yom Tov, but not from the Nesi'im, who offered on Yemei Chol!

Answer: We never find that this makes a difference.

Implied question: Below (23b), we learn Tziruf from "Kaf Achas" - the verse made everything in the spoon one. (If part became Tamei, all of it is Tamei);

We do not ask that we do not learn Doros (laws that apply permanently) from Sha'ah (a law that applied only for a limited time)!

Answer #1: There, since we cannot learn from Doros, it is proper that we learn from Sha'ah.

Answer #2: There is different, for the Torah repeated it 12 times (i.e. regarding every Nasi).

Support: It says in Menachos (8b and 19b) that [Klei Shares] for liquids are Mekadesh liquids [that are put in them];

"Shmuel learns Doros from Sha'ah because" the Torah repeated it 12 times.

Implied question: Why do they abandon Beis Hillel, and do like Beis Shamai?! Beis Shamai in place of Beis Hillel is not a Mishnah (we never follow their opinion)!

Answer: They hold that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel did not argue about this.

Question: What is his source that they hold that it was Olas Re'iyah?

Perhaps really, they hold that it was Olas Tamid. [Even though Chagigah was before Sinai, and Olas Re'iyah was not,] they prefer their reason (Olas Re'iyah is totally consumed, and the Tzibur offers more Olos on Shavuos than Shelamim)!

Support: The Gemara connotes like this, for it asks why Beis Hillel did not say like them (Beis Shamai)!

Answer: No, the Gemara asked why Beis Hillel did not say [that it was] Olas Re'iyah, like Beis Shamai. (Maharsha - i.e. they should agree that Olas Re'iyah is preferable, and therefore say that the Olah was Olas Re'iyah.)

Explanation: He asks specifically about this (Olas Tamid), for flaying is written primarily regarding it;

However, regarding Olas Re'iyah, even though really, it must be flayed, this is not difficult, since flaying was not written regarding it itself.

Implied question: He (Moshe) built the Mizbe'ach on the fifth [of Sivan], and the Torah was not given until [Matan Torah on Har] Sinai! (Si'ach Yitzchak - we cannot say that its laws were given at Sinai, but they were commanded beforehand, for if so, we can ask also according to R. Akiva, that initially it did not require...!)

Answer #1: He expounds 'from the time that its laws were said on Sinai', like it says "Olas Tamid ha'Asuyah b'Har Sinai";

The one who does not expound this (that it was Olas Tamid), he establishes it (ha'Asuyah...) to teach that Olah requires a Kli (to receive the blood, like it says about Olas Sinai "va'Yasem ba'Aganos").

Support: Rashi explained like this in his Perush on Chumash, [on the verse] ha'Asuyah b'Har Sinai" (Bamidbar 28:6).

Answer #2: The Sifri expounds that it was done on Har Sinai before the Torah [was given], i.e. on the fifth, when he built the Mizbe'ach.

Citation (Tosefta 1:4): Simchah has Tashlumin all seven days, but the other two do not. (The Turei Even and Tzelach challenge this. There is a Mitzvah of Simchah every day of the festival! Also, all agree that there is Tashlumin for Re'iyah and Chagigah! Our text of the Tosefta says that Simchah applies all seven days.)

Our Sugya does not say so. It holds that also the others have Tashlumin.

Implied question: Why doesn't it say that both of them have a Shi'ur (minimal price), unlike Simchah?

Answer #1: We can say that also Simchah has a Shi'ur.

Answer #2: In any case it is fine, for [the Tana] did not want to teach this rule like I explained above (2b DH Shome'a), that he teaches only stringencies in one not found in the other two.

Support: This is why he did not teach that two of them may not come from anything, but Simchah may come from anything, for he does not teach stringencies of two of them. (One may fulfill Simchah with any Kodesh meat, e.g. Ma'aser Behemah, Chatas, Bechor... (Beraisa Sof 8a), unlike Chagigah and Re'iyah - PF. I do not know why Turei Even explains that Simchah may come even from Kesef Ma'aser, but Chagigah and Re'iyah may not come totally from Ma'aser.)

Explanation #1: [This is possible only] according to the opinion that it was Olas Re'iyah.

Explanation #2: It is even like the opinion that it was Olas Tamid. Before Matan Torah it was bulls, and afterwards it changed [to lambs], just like it changed regarding flaying and dissection, according to R. Yosi ha'Glili.

Explanation: What was, was! (It is not relevant now. Why do we ask about it?)

Support: We ask similarly in Yoma (5b) regarding "how did [Moshe] dress [Aharon and his sons]?"

Implied question: In Pesachim (96a) regarding [where they burned] the Eimurim of Pesachim (there was no Mizbe'ach), and in Sanhedrin (15b), regarding how many judges would be required to condemn a bull that ascended Har Sinai [at the time of Matan Torah], we did not ask this!

Answer: This is because we thought that we can learn Doros from Sha'ah. (It is relevant. Si'ach Yitzchak - what was the Hava Amina to learn to Pesach Doros, to exempt from Haktaras Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach? Pesach is like a Shelamim! It is clear to R. Akiva (Menachos 82a) that Pesach requires Haktaras Eimurim. Rather, Tosfos means that if we can learn from Sha'ah from Doros, likewise we can learn Doros from Sha'ah.)

Implied question: In Avodah Zarah (34a) and Ta'anis (11b), regarding in which garments did Moshe serve during all the days of the Milu'im, we did not ask this!

Answer #1: Also there, we want to understand the verses, for we find Bigdei Kehunah only for Aharon u'Vanav.

Answer #2: The Bigdei [Kehunah] were not yet inaugurated, for they required Haza'ah;

It is relevant to serve in the Milu'im without Haza'ah on the garments. (Maharsha - how is this relevant? The Milu'im passed! Perhaps we can learn whether Haza'ah is needed to inaugurate Bigdei Kehunah. However, we know this from Aharon u'Vanav, who served in Bigdei Kehunah before Parah Adumah was done! Perhaps "Haza'ah" refers to anointing with Shemen ha'Mishchah. Mishmaros Kehunah - this will be relevant for the Milu'im that will inaugurate the third Beis ha'Mikdash!)

Suggestion: This is like the five verses that have no determination (where to pause in them - Yoma 52a). We do not follow the Trup (cantillation)!

Rejection: There, it (the word in the middle) can refer only to one of them (the Reisha or Seifa), for they have different connotations;

However, here it can refer to both of them.

Explanation: It says "Lo Sechaleh Pe'as Sadecha." (There is no Shi'ur how much one must leave.)

This is mid'Oraisa. Mid'Rabanan, it says in Chulin (137b) that one may not give less than [one part in] 60 for Pe'ah.

Opinion #1: Amora'im argue in the Yerushalmi (Pe'ah 1:1). One says that there is no Shi'ur above or below, i.e. one may leave as little as one [sheave of] wheat, or above, his entire field.

Opinion #2: The other says that there is no Shi'ur above, but there is a minimal Shi'ur. The Yerushalmi asks what they argue about.

Explanation: Surely, all agree that there is a minimal Shi'ur!

Citation (Yerushalmi) Answer: They argue about one who left less than one part in 60. The one who says that there is no Shi'ur at all, what he gave, he gave, and he is exempt from Pe'ah. If he gave more, [it is not considered Pe'ah, so] it is obligated in Ma'aser;

Citation (cont.): The one who says that there is a minimal Shi'ur, what he gave, he gave, and he is not exempt from Pe'ah;

Citation (cont.): The Oni acquired [what he took], and it must be tithed, until he completes the Shi'ur of one part in 60 at once. It is not Pe'ah if he did not give the Shi'ur at once.

Citation (cont.): Why didn't [the Mishnah] list also Terumah? This is due to Machlokes.

Explanation #1: This means division, like the Machlokes when two are holding the Toref (the part of a document with the names, date... - Bava Metzi'a 7b).

I.e. there is a distinction. R. Yochanan taught that one can make his entire field Bikurim, but he cannot make his entire field Terumah, for it must be Reishis (first) from which the remainder is recognized.

Citation (Yerushalmi in Eruvin) Question: A person cannot make his entire field Pe'ah, yet it was taught [among matters without a Shi'ur]!

Citation (cont.) Answer: Before he harvested one sheave, his field was not obligated in Pe'ah.

Explanation: It says "Lo Sechaleh Pe'as Sadecha b'Kutzrecha" - the Torah made Pe'ah dependent on harvesting. The Mishnah means that once it is obligated in Pe'ah, there is no Shi'ur (one can make everything remaining Pe'ah).

Question: Also regarding Bikurim, it says "Reishis". We should require that the remainder is recognized, just like regarding Terumah!

Answer: There (Bikurim 2:3), we include [that one can make his entire field Bikurim] from "v'Reishis Kol Bikurei Kol" (Yechezkeil 44:30).

Explanation #2: I would explain that "Machlokes" is the difference between one who is generous, stingy or average. (For Terumah, they give one part in 40, 60, and 50, respectively.) This excludes [Bikurim], for they are the same (Chachamim did not give different Shi'urim for different dispositions.)

Explanation #3: Tana'im argue in Terumos (4:5) about one who gives extra Terumah:

R. Eliezer says, one may give up to one part in 10 (like we find that Terumas Ma'aser is a 10th of what it exempts). If he gives above this (the excess does not become Terumah;) he [gives it to a Levi, who] makes it Terumas Ma'aser on elsewhere (Ma'aser Rishon Tevel to Terumas Ma'aser. Since it was called Terumah, we arrange that it go to a Kohen);

R. Yishmael says, [he can make up to] half Chulin and half Terumah. R. Akiva says, as long as he leaves some Chulin;

The Yerushalmi explains that R. Yishmael learns from "Reishis Deganecha" - it is enough for the Reishis (Terumah) to be as much as the grain exempted, but it should not exceed it).