Why does the Torah use the expression "Adam ki Yakriv Mikem", implying that Korbanos are voluntary?
Rashi and Rashbam: Because it is currently discussing Korbanos Nedavah (voluntary Korbanos). 1
As opposed to Korbanos that come to atone for a sin (Rashbam).
What is the significance of the word "Mikem"?
Seforno #1: A Korban only atones if the owner humbly confesses his sin to Hashem. 1
Seforno #2 (citing Chulin, 5a) and Targum Yonasan: "From you", 'and not from an apostate who worships idols'.
Why does the Torah insert the word "Adam"?
Moshav Zekenim citing R. Eliezer of Garmaiza: One who brings a Korban for his sin is like Adam, who brought a bull for his sin (Shabbos 28b). 3
Moshav Zekenim: We read this like "Edom"
Having written "Min ha'Behemah", why does the Torah see fit to add "Min ha'Bakar u'Min ha'Tzon"?
Why does the Torah insert the word "Min" three times in this Pasuk, and why does it add the 'Vav' in "u'Min ha'Tzon"?
Rashi: To preclude a Nirva or Rove'a (an animal that played the male or female role in Bi'ah with a human-being); Ne'evad and Muktzah (It was worshipped, or designated for idol-worship) and Noge'ach 1 (one that killed a human-being), respectively.
Moshav Zekenim: This is when he was Makdish it before Beis Din sentenced it. If not, it does not become Hekdesh (Bava Kama 44b).
Why does the verse conclude "Korbanchem" in the plural?
Rashi and Ramban: To permit a Nidvas Tzibur
Korbanos Tzibur that are purchased with leftover money from Korbanos. See Ramban who in disagreement with Rashi, concludes that a Tzibur
Having begun with the word "Adam", why does it switch to the plural when it writes "Takrivu"?
And why does it conclude "Korbanchem" in the plural?
Rashi and Ramban: To permit a Nidvas Tzibur - in the form of Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach. 1
Korb'nos Tzibur that are purchased with leftover money from Korbanos. See Ramban who in disagreement with Rashi, concludes that a Tzibur - comprising the majority of Yisrael - can donate an Olas Nedavah (which, like most Korb'nos Tzibur, does not require Semichah).
Rashi writes that just like Adam did not bring a stolen Korban, you may not. We already exclude Gezel from "Korbano" (Bava Kama 66b) and "Mikem" (Sukah 30a)!
Moshav Zekenim citing Bechor Shor: An extra verse forbids even after despair (and the thief now owns it). 1
Rashi writes that just like Adam did not bring a stolen Korban, you may not. How can we learn from Adam, who had no one to steal from, to generations, when theft is possible?
In Yevamos (46a), Tana'im argue about whether or not we can learn possible from impossible, e.g. that a man can convert without Bris Milah, from the Imahos! Moshav Zekenim left this difficult. Perhaps he asks according to the opinion that does not learn possible from impossible. (PF)
Rashi writes that one may not bring a stolen Korban. It says in Gitin (55a) that if a thief or robber was Makdish the theft, it becomes Kadosh!
Moshav Zekenim, Riva: That is b'Di'eved. L'Chatchilah he may not do so. 1
Also, Rashi did not say that one cannot be Makdish theft, only that it is Pasul for a Korban! (PF)
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Behemah" excludes Nirva or Rove'a. In Chulin (5a), it says that "Min ha'Behemah" includes people who resemble animals (sinners)!
Moshav Zekenim 1 : There it expounds the extra Hei. It could have written Min Behemah or mi'Behemah. Therefore, we expound both.
Moshav Zekenim says that in Chulin, we exclude people who resemble animals. This is a printing mistake, or he had a different text of the Gemara. (PF)
Rashi writes that we exclude Nirva, Rove'a and an animal that killed a person. We kill such animals! (How could one bring it for a Korban?)
Riva, Moshav Zekenim citing Bechoros 41a: The case is, the owner or only one witness testified about it, so we do not kill it.
Rashi writes that we do not bring Chayos for Korbanos. What is the reason?
Moshav Zekenim #1: Hashem did not want to burden Yisrael to bring Korbanos from matters not commonly available. 1 Da'as Zekenim, Hadar Zekenim, Rosh (from Sifra) - this shows Hashem's humility.
Moshav Zekenim #2, Riva: Chayos were not blessed in Ma'ase Bereishis, due to the snake (lest it be blessed). 2 Riva
This is a reason not to obligate Korbanos from Chayos. Why are they Pasul even for voluntary Korbanos? (PF)
Moshav Zekenim, Riva: Chelev of Chayos is permitted, since we do not offer it, and Hashem commanded to cover their blood, since it is not thrown on the Mizbe'ach. (We cover the blood of birds, even though blood of some birds is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach!
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Bakar" excludes Ne'evad. What can we infer from this?
Moshav Zekenim (from Rashi, Chulin 40a): Since the Torah needed to forbid it for a Korban, this shows that it is permitted to people. We expound Ne'evad from "Min ha'Bakar", for they commonly worshipped cattle 1 - "va'Yamiru Es Kevodam b'Savnis Shor" (Tehilim 106:20).
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Tzon" excludes Noge'ach. In Temurah (28b) we exclude Muktzah from this!
Rashi said that we exclude Noge'ach due to the Vov ("u'Min ha'Tzon ")! (PF)
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Tzon" excludes Noge'ach. Why is this needed? It is forbidden even to people. It must be stoned!
Moshav Zekenim: The case is, the owner or only one witness testified about it, so we do not kill it and it is permitted to people.
Rashi writes that "Takrivu" teaches that partners may bring an Olah between them. We learn (Menachos 73b) from "l'Chol Nidreihem
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Tzon" excludes a Muktzah. Muktzah is forbidden only after seven years (Temurah 28b). Then it is already Pasul due to Zaken (Bechoros 41a)!
Riva: If he intends to designate it for idolatry for seven years, it is forbidden even after one day of designation.
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Bakar" excludes Ne'evad, and "Min ha'Tzon" excludes a Muktzah. If Muktzah is Pasul, all the more so Ne'evad!
Rosh: Muktzah is not forbidden until an action is done to it (Temurah 29a). This is why idolatry is not forbidden through designation (until he serves with it (Sanhedrin 47b).