Explanation: Being that the Mishnah has to say that it applies to Chulin and Mukdashin, and whether or not there is a Beis Hamikdash, it also says that it applies in Eretz Yisrael and in Chutz la'Aretz.

Explanation (cont.): This is despite the fact that this is seemingly unnecessary being that it is an obligation on a person (not dependent on the land).

Explanation (cont.): Being that there are Mitzvos mentioned where we must say this, such as regarding Reishis ha'Gez (the first shearing of the sheep), it is said here as well. This is as the Gemara explicitly states later (138b) that whenever the Mishnayos here say "in Eretz Yisrael and in Chutz la'Aretz" it is an unnecessary statement aside from when it says this regarding Reishis ha'Gez.

Explanation (cont.): Similarly, "whether or not there is a Beis Hamikdash" is only necessary regarding Oso v'Es Beno (and not the other Mishnayos). I would think that being that it is stated regarding Kodshim, perhaps it only applies when Kodshim are being brought. (This is why the Mishnah made a point of saying that Oso v'Es Beno even applies when there is no Beis Hamikdash.)

Question: Why would we think that Oso v'Es Beno is not referring to Mukdashin? The Pasuk does not differentiate!

Implied Question: One cannot answer that it is necessary to teach us regarding a case where one needs a Korban Pesach, and he only has an animal whose father or son was slaughtered that day. One might think that the positive commandment of Pesach pushes aside the negative commandment of Oso v'Es Beno. This is why the Pasuk is needed to teach us that the commandment of Oso v'Es Beno is not pushed aside.

Proof: We similarly say later (141a) regarding Shilu'ach ha'Ken that we need a Pasuk to teach us that we uphold Shilu'ach ha'Ken even when one wants to do a Mitzvah with the birds.

Answer: We see that Mechusar Zeman (Oso v'Es Beno is also considered Mechusar Zeman) has both a negative and positive prohibition, and without a special Pasuk we know that a positive commandment will not push it aside.

Answer: It appears that the Gemara's original question was due to the word "ox" interrupting, implying that Oso v'Es Beno does not apply to Mukdashin. It seems difficult to say that "ox" was not said for this reason, as otherwise the Torah should have stated this prohibition when the Torah was not discussing Kodshim at all, and we would have said the Pasuk is referring to both Chulin and Mukdashin! The conclusion of the Gemara must be that the prohibition was stated in this fashion (and not in a place that was not discussing Kodshim at all) in order to teach some sort of derivation.

Question: The Gemara later (130a) derives from the Pasuk that Matanos from an animal (to a Kohen, meaning the Zeroa etc.) do not apply to Mukdashin. One might think they would be required due to a Kal v'Chomer. The Gemara asks, why is a Pasuk needed to teach us this? If it were just for the Kal v'Chomer we could ask etc. However, without a Kal v'Chomer, the Gemara implies that if the Pasuk did not exclude Mukdashin we would have thought the Pasuk is referring to both Chulin and Mukdashin!

Answer: The Pasuk regarding Matanos is referring specifically to Chulin (implying that it does not apply to Mukdashin).

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara ask that just as Kodshim is inapplicable when there is no Beis Hamikdash etc.?

Question (cont.): We find this logic employed in Chulin (138b) that one might think that because it is stated regarding Kodshim, it should only apply when there are Kodshim.

Answer: Even though the Mishnah had to state Oso v'Es Beno applies when there is no Mikdash (due to this possible thought), we would not need a Pasuk to teach us this (i.e. to exclude this thought). While Kodshim are not brought when there is no Beis Hamikdash, they can have the holiness of a Korban when there is no Beis Hamikdash. (Accordingly, the thought is technically incorrect, and does not need a Pasuk to exclude it.)

Implied Question: Without Rava's teaching the Gemara could have still asked, "Doesn't the Pasuk say, "ox and sheep?" This would show that Kilayim is excluded from Oso v'Es Beno, being that one cannot cause a sheep and ox to have offspring together.

Proof: This is as the Gemara in Bava Kama (77b) states regarding the Pasuk, "When a person will steal an ox or sheep and slaughter it etc." (that by mentioning ox or sheep the Pasuk indicates that we exclude Kilayim).

Answer: Rather, the Gemara chose to ask a stronger question (using Rava's statement).

Question: Why don't we derive a Gezeirah Shaveh of "ox - ox" from Shabbos to teach us that Oso v'Es Beno even applies to an undomesticated animal? We find a similar type of teaching in the Gemara in Bava Kama (54b).

Answer #1: Being that we cannot derive that this even applies to an unkosher animal as we do regarding Shabbos, we cannot use this teaching at all.

Answer #2: Additionally, if we derive from Shabbos, why should the Torah state "sheep" regarding Oso v'Es Beno (when we know everything from "ox")?

Answer #3: Additionally, the animal must be like an animal of Kodshim which is domesticated.

Observation: This reason would also allow us to exclude Kilayim if the Torah did not say "or" (which causes us to say that the Torah is including Kilayim, as opposed to the implication of "ox and sheep").

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that we derive this from "Seh Kesavim v'Seh Izim." (Saying "Seh" - "sheep" twice indicates that both its father and mother must be a Seh.)

Question: There is difficulty with his explanation. In Bava Kama (78a), the Gemara concludes that Rava's teaching is needed regarding Peter Chamor. This is as the Mishnah states that one cannot redeem a firstborn donkey with a calf or with Kilayim.

Question (cont.): The Gemara there asks that according to Rebbi Elazar who permits redeeming with Kilayim because it is a "Seh," what does Rava's teaching teach us?

Question (cont.): The Gemara answers that it is for an unkosher animal born from a kosher animal which was impregnated by an unkosher animal. This is unlike Rebbi Yehoshua, as Rebbi Yehoshua understands that this is derived from "Seh Kesavim v'Seh Izim." This explicitly implies that Rava's teaching is not from the Pasuk "Seh Kesavim v'Seh Izim."

Explanation #2: It seems that Rava's teaching is from the Pasuk "Seh" said regarding Pesach.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara's conclusion in Bava Kama (ibid.) that we require Rava's teaching for redeeming a firstborn donkey, and the Gemara in Bechoros (12a) which explicitly derives this from the word Seh stated regarding the Korban Pesach.

Question #1: However, there is a difficulty. Why does our Gemara call Rava's teaching a Binyan Av, while the Gemara in Bechoros (ibid.) calls it a Gezeirah Shaveh by saying, "It says Seh here and it says Seh there etc.?"

Question #2: Additionally, why did Rava exclude Kilayim any more than a calf, undomesticated animal, Treifah, or slaughtered lamb? All of these are excluded from the word Seh, as stated there, "Just as there it excludes all of these types of animals etc."

Implied Question: One cannot say that a Treifah and a slaughtered animal are excluded from Seh (i.e. the word Seh without requiring a Binyan Av or Gezeirah Shaveh), and that when the Gemara says "all of these types are excluded" it doesn't literally mean they are all excluded due to the teaching of Rava.

Answer: This is evident from the fact that a calf and undomesticated animal are listed there, even though they clearly are excluded from the word Seh. Rather, it is better for the Gemara to list all of the exceptions (even the obvious ones) at once.

Answer: This is because a Par is called a Par even after it is slaughtered, as stated in Yoma (49b). One would technically be able to join a Korban Pesach after it is slaughtered were it not for the Pasuk of "mi'Hiyos mi'Seh" (implying one has to have his part of the Korban Pesach when it is alive), as stated there.

Answer (cont.): A Treifah is also still called a sheep, as the Gemara in Bava Kama (77b) says that one is liable to pay four or five times if he sells the sheep or ox as a Treifah, even though the Pasuk says "Seh." Here, as well, we say that Oso v'Es Beno applies to a Treifah. Rebbi Shimon only argues because he says that it is a slaughtering that is not fit.

Question #3: Another difficulty is that we see regarding Oso v'Es Beno and paying four or five times for an ox or sheep that a Treifah is excluded from a Binyan Av.

Answer: It appears to me that Treifah and a slaughtered animal are derived from a Gezeirah Shaveh of "Seh-Seh" derived from Pesach, as stated in Bechoros (12a). A calf and undomesticated animal are excluded from the implication of the word "Seh," and Kilayim is excluded from Rava's Binyan Av.

Answer (cont.): It is illogical to exclude Kilayim in the same way that we exclude Treifah and a slaughtered animal. We can say that "Tifdeh-Tifdeh" should include Kilayim being that it is technically a Seh, whether we go after the mother or the father of the animal. However, a Binyan Av can be used to exclude Kilayim, as the Pasuk says, "A pure Seh... and from the goats you should take." This indicates that its father must be a Keves and its mother must be a Kivsah.

Answer (cont.): This Pasuk is extra, as it is not needed regarding Korban Pesach. This is because Korban Pesach is derived from all other Kodshim regarding which the Pasuk, "Oh Kesev" teaches that Kilayim cannot be brought. Rather, the Pesukim regarding Korban Pesach must be teaching a general lesson that whenever the Pasuk says, "Seh" it excludes Kilayim.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Pasuk regarding Pesach says "Tamim" - "pure," even though this is derived from other Korbanos. (If we see the Pasuk bothers to state Tamim even though it would be known for other Kodshim, perhaps the Pasuk regarding Seh also only teaches about Korban Pesach and it is not extra!)

Answer: It must be that there is a derivation from the word Tamim as well.

Implied Question: We do not exclude a Treifah regarding Oso v'Es Beno and (a thief) paying four or five times based on the Gezeirah Shaveh of "Seh-Seh" from Pesach. (In Bechoros (12a), this Gezeirah Shaveh is quoted as teaching us only about Peter Chamor. Why don't we apply it to Oso v'Es Beno?)

Answer: It is possible that it is not open for derivation (and is only between Pesach and Peter Chamor, not any topic mentioning the word Seh).

Observation: Now it is understandable why when the Gemara in Bava Kama (78a) asks according to Rebbi Elazar who permits Kilayim what he uses Rava's Binyan Av for, the Gemara answers he uses it for Kodshim. It does not answer he uses it for Treifah or a slaughtered animal, as those are derived from the Gezeirah Shaveh and not the Binyan Av.

Question: The Gemara in Bava Kama (ibid.) asked what law was taught by Rava's Binyan Av. The Gemara asks that if it teaches a law regarding Kodshim, it is already clearly stated that Kodshim cannot be Kilayim! This indicates that if Kilayim were not explicitly stated regarding Kodshim, the Gezeirah Shaveh could be used to teach Kilayim.

Question (cont.): However, we stated above that the words used to teach the Binyan Av are only extra because we derive Korban Pesach from other Kodshim where Kilayim is excluded! (The implication of the Gemara in Bava Kama is that Kodshim would be derived from the Binyan Av were it not for the fact that there is already a source for Kodshim not being from Kilayim!)

Answer: It is normal that the Gemara acts as if we know Pesach from a different source (other than Kodshim).

Proof: We similarly find this in Kedushin (3b) and Kesuvos (46b) regarding the Kedushin of a (minor) daughter going to her father. The Gemara asks, perhaps we should derive that the father receives the Kedushin just as he receives her Boshes and Pegam? The Gemara asks this question despite the fact that Boshes and Pegam going to the father are derived from the fact that a father receives his daughter's Kedushin, as stated in Kesuvos (40b, see Tosfos there DH "d'Iy").

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we exclude Kilayim from "Oh Kesev." (How can we find "Oh" in one place including Kilayim, while in another place it excludes Kilayim?)

Answer: Each teaching of "Oh" is based on the context of the Pasuk it is in, as stated in Bava Kama (77b).

Question: How could the Gemara earlier have asked, "Why don't we say Oso v'Es Beno only applies to Kodshim and not Chulin?" How can we say this? If so, why would we require "Oh" to include Kilayim? We already know that Kilayim cannot be Kodshim, as we said, "Why not say that just as Kilayim cannot be Kodshim etc."

Answer: If Oso v'Es Beno was indeed only regarding Mukdashin, we would not derive that "Oh" includes Kilayim. Rather, we would say it is teaching us a different derivation.

Question: According to Rebbi Yoshiyah, why does the Pasuk say "Yachdav" (Devarim 22:10) regarding not plowing with an ox and donkey?

Answer: It is necessary. Without "Yachdav," I would think that it is forbidden to plow with them together even if they are not tied together.

Answer (cont.): Similarly, if the Torah had not said "Yachdav" regarding wearing Kilayim, I would think that one cannot even wear one garment of wool and one of linen even if they are not sewn together. "Yachdav" teaches that if they are sewn together by only one stitch, it is not considered that they are sewn together.

Answer (cont.): Rebbi Yonasan does not derive these laws from the word "Yachdav," as he requires "Yachdav" as explained in the Gemara (that each one separately is not forbidden). Rather, he understands that these laws are logical. This is why he does not say, "Just as the Torah excluded regarding Kilayim etc." as we indeed say in Pesachim (21b) "Just as the Torah excluded regarding Neveilah etc."

Explanation: The word "mother" in the Pasuk implies specifically the mother, not just the bird that normally hovers over the chicks. This is evident from the Pasuk's statement, "Send away the mother." It should have otherwise said, "You should send her away," being that it already mentioned, "You should not take the mother." This is why the Pasuk clealry indicates it is only referring to the mother.

Question: If so, why is the extra Pasuk regarding Shiluach ha'Ken needed? We can merely derive a Kal v'Chomer from Oso v'Es Beno that just as Oso v'Es Beno applies to an animal that is in his domain and not in his domain etc.!

Answer: If we would not know that Shiluach ha'Ken is specifically referring to the mother, we would not know regarding Oso v'Es Beno that it is referring to the mother whom the son always follows.