1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that Kohanim, Levi'im Yisre'elim, Nashim and Avadim can all be Ma'arich and Ne'erach - Noder and Nidar.

(b)A woman and an Eved can be Ma'arich (despite the fact that whatever they own belongs to their husband and master, respectively) - in that if and when the former becomes divorced and the latter is set free, they will then become obligated to fulfill their Neder.

(c)The Tana precludes Tumtum and Androginus - from Ne'erachin, because the Torah only gives an Erech to a Zachar or a Nekeivah, but not to a Tumtum and an Androginus, whom the Tana considers independent species.

(d)A Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan cannot be Ma'arich or Noder - because they do not possess Da'as (intelligence).

2)

(a)'ha'Kol Ma'arichin ... ' comes to include a Mufla ha'Samuch la'Ish - a boy of twelve (or a girl of eleven), whose Nedarim and Erchin are valid, provided he is able to demonstrate that he knows in whose name he is making the Neder or is being Makdish.

(b)'ha'Kol Ne'erachin' comes to include a person who is ugly or one who is covered with boils (a leper), who we might otherwise have thought is not subject to Erchin - because he has no monetary value, and since the Torah writes by him "Nadar be'Erkecha", whoever has no Damim, ought not to be subject to Erchin either.

(c)The Tana inserts 'ha'Kol Nodrin' only because of 'ha'Kol Nidarin'. We initially assume that the Tana cannot have inserted 'ha'Kol Nidarin' to teach is Tumtum ve'Androginus, a Chashu, a baby less than a month old or a Nochri - because the Tana mentions them all specifically.

3)

(a)We conclude that the Tana inserts 'ha'Kol Nidarin' to teach us a baby less than a month old (even though he will specifically mention it later) - in the format of Tani ve'Hadar Mefaresh (the Tana first mentions it briefly and then explains it).

(b)The Tana might have given the same answer regarding one of the other cases that we just rejected, and he may have chosen to insert specifically the case of a baby less than a month old - to teach us that even the Rabbanan who argue with Rebbi Meir, and exempt someone who is Ma'arich a baby of less than a month old from paying Hekdesh, agrees that by Nidarin, the Madir has to pay.

4)

(a)We establish that the Mishnah 'ha'Kol Somchin' (in Menachos) and 'ha'Kol Mamirin' (in Temurah) come to include an heir after his father's death. Rebbi Yehudah rules that - an heir may neither make Semichah nor declare a Temurah on his deceased father's Korban.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah learns his Din by Semichah from the word "Korbano" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Vesamach Yado al Rosh Korbano") - and he then learns Techilas Hekdesh (Temurah) from Sof Hekdesh (Semichah).

(c)The Rabbanan learn from the double expression "ve'Im Hamer Yamir" (in Bechukosai) that - an heir can make a Temurah on his deceased father's Korban.

(d)They then extend their Din to Temurah - by learning Techilas Hekdesh from Sof Hekdesh (like Rebbi Yehudah).

5)

(a)The Rabbanan learn from one of the three "Korbano" (in connection with Shelamim) "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Chavero', from the second, "Korbano", ve'Lo Korban Akum', whilst the third "Korbano" - comes to include Kol Ba'alei Chovrin (that each member of a group that brings a Korban in partnership is obligated to perform Semichah).

(b)Rebbi Yehudah might disagree - with the latter D'rashah (leaving one "Korbano" spare from which to preclude making Semichah on his father's Korban).

(c)Even assuming however, that he concurs with the Rabbanan ('Lerabos Kol Ba'aslei Chovrin li'Semichah'), we might also explain Rebbi Yehudah - in that he will preclude Korban Akum and Korban Chavero from the same D'rashah (leaving one Pasuk to preclude his father's Korban).

(d)From the double expression "ve'Im Hamer Yamir", Rebbi Yehudah learns that - women may also declare an animal a Temurah (notwithstanding the fact that the Torah speaks in the masculine throughout the Parshah).

(e)The Rabbanan include women in the Din of Temurah from the word "ve'Im" - which Rebbi Yehudah does not Darshen.

6)

(a)'ha'Kol Chayavin ...

1. ... be'Succah' (Mishnah in Succah) comes to include - a Katan who no longer needs his mother (the moment he wakes up).

2. ... be'Lulav' (Mishnah in Succah) - a child who knows how to shake it properly.

3. ... be'Tzitzis' Beraisa) - a child who knows how to wear it properly.

4. ... bi'Tefilin' (Beraisa) - a child who knows how to retain a Guf Naki (without breaking wind) whilst wearing them.

(b)'ha'Kol Chayavin bi'Re'iyah' (see Tosfos DH 'ha'Kol Chayavin bi'Re'iyah') comes to include a Chatzi Eved ve'Chatzi ben Chorin ...

1. ... an Eved Cana'ani who was owned jointly by two masters, one of whom has set him free, whereas ...

2. ... Re'iyah is - the Mitzvah to appear before Hash-m in the Beis-ha'Mikdash on Yom-Tov, together with an Olas Re'iyah.

(c)According to our initial assumption, the current answer will not go according to Ravina who rules that - a Chatzi Eved ve'Chatzi ben Chorin is Patur from Re'iyah.

(d)We learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "el P'nei ha'Adon Hash-m" that - an Eved (who has another master besides Hash-m) is Patur from Re'iyah.

7)

(a)According to Ravina, we suggest that 'ha'Kol Chayavin bi'Re'iyah' comes to include someone who was not able to walk on the first day Yom-Tov, but whose leg healed by one of the subsequent days. A lame person is Patur from Re'iyah - because the Torah refers to Yom-Tov as "Shalosh Regalim".

(b)Some commentaries hold that if one did not celebrate on the first day, the obligation moves to the second, from the second to the third, and so on. Others say that - each day is Tashlumin (makes up for) the first day, on which the basic obligation occurs.

(c)This latter opinion negates the current answer - inasmuch as someone who is lame on the first day cannot became Chayav Re'iyah afterwards.

8)

(a)We conclude that, according to the latter opinion, the Mishnah in Chagigah 'ha'Kol Chayavin bi'Re'iyah' comes to include someone who is blind in one eye, who, we might have thought is Patur from Re'iyah, on the basis of Yochanan ben Dahava'i in a Beraisa, who, in the name of Rebbi Yehudah, Darshens from the word "Yera'eh" (in the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Shalosh Pe'amim ba'Shanah Yera'eh Kol Zechurcha"), which is written 'Yir'eh" - Yir'eh Yera'eh', just as Hash-m comes to see us (with both eyes [Kevayachol], so does He want to be seen by us).

(b)Alternatively, it comes to include a Chatzi Eved ve'Chatzi ben Chorin (like our original suggestion), even according to Ravina, whose statement goes according to the Mishnah Rishonah in Chagigah. Beis Shamai objected to Beis Hillel's opinion (there) that a Chatzi Eved serves his master one day and himself the next - on the basis of the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Lo Sohu Bera'ah, Lasheves Yetzarah", obligating even an Eved to proliferate.

(c)According to Beis Shamai therefore - we force the remaining master to release the Chatzi Eved (enabling him to get married) and he (the Eved) in turn, remains obligated to pay him half his value.

(d)According to the Mishnah Acharonah - Beis Hillel concede to Beis Shamai that we force the master to set the Chatzi Eved free. Consequently, even Ravina will agree that Chatzi Eved ve'Chatzi ben Chorin is considered as if he had already been set free, and is therefore Chayav Re'iyah.

9)

(a)When the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah rules 'ha'Kol Chayavin bi'Teki'as Shofar', it comes to include a Katan who has reached the age of Chinuch, which, according to some, based on a Machlokes in Yoma), means from the age of eight or nine (depending on his maturity). According to others there - the ages are nine or ten.

(b)And when the Mishnah in Megilah states 'ha'Kol Kesheirin be'Mikra Megilah' and 'ha'Kol Kesheirin Likros es ha'Megilah', it is referring to - women, who are Chayav to hear the Megilah, and who are even permitted to read it (even though it is a Mitzvas Asei that is dependent upon time) ...

(c)... following the statement by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi 'Af Hein Hayu be'Oso ha'Neis' (because they too, were involved in the miracle).