1)

(a)Rebbi Elazar commented to the Beraisa expert who cited to him the reason for the P'tur of anointing a Nochri as 'Kol she'Yeshno be'Sach, Yeshno be'Bal Yisach' - 'Well said! The Torah writes "Lo Yisach" with two 'Yudin' (in the Pasuk in ki Sissa "Al B'sar Adam Lo Yisach"), giving it a double connotation; a. It shall not be poured on him, and b. he shall not pour it on others (as if it had written "Lo Yasich").

(b)Rav Chananyah, citing a Beraisa in the presence of Rava, proved from the same Pasuk "Al B'sar Adam Lo Yisach" - that a Kohen Gadol who takes Shemen ha'Mishchah from his head and rubs it on his stomach is Chayav (like Rebbi Meir on the previous Amud).

(c)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queried him from a Beraisa - which permits the son of a Kohen's daughter who is a Yisrael (or any other Yisrael for that matter) to roll in the Terumah oil which his grandfather used to anoint himself.

(d)To answer the Kashya, Rav Ashi cited the two Pesukim in Emor "u'Meisu bo ki Yechaleluhu" (in connection with Terumah) and "ki Shemen Mishchas Elokav alav" (in connection with a Kohen Gadol), from which he extrapolated - that whereas Terumah oil loses its Kedushah once it has been used, Shemen ha'Mishchah does not.

2)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'al Eilu Chayavin al Zedono Kareis, ve'al Shigegaso Chatas, ve'al Lo Hoda she'Lahem Asham Taluy, Chutz min ha'Metamei Mikdash ve'Kodashav'. The Tana is coming to preclude Metamei Mikdash ve'Kodashav - from Asham Taluy (as we explained in our Mishnah) exclusively.

(b)We ask why the Tana does not then insert 'ha'Over alav Yom ha'Kipurim' in the Mishnah - who would be Patur from an Asham Taluy because Yom Kipur has already atoned for his Safek sin.

(c)Resh Lakish answers - that our Mishnah is only concerned with cases where the sinner is Chayav a Chatas and still Patur from an Asham Taluy (whereas in the case under discussion, he is not Chayav a Chatas either).

(d)Rebbi Yochanan establishes the case by 'Meva'et', (someone who denies that Yom Kipur atones) - who remains Chayav a Chatas, even if he does Teshuvah. Consequently, even though it also incorporates a case where he did not bring his Korban be'Oneis (and is therefore Patur after Yom Kipur), the Tana omitted it altogether (see also Shitah Mekubetzes).

(e)Resh Lakish disagrees. According to him - Yom Kipur atones even for a Meva'et

3)

(a)Abaye and Rava argue over the same point. According to Abaye, if someone denies that his Korban will atone for his sin, it will not atone for him (like Rebbi Yochanan). Rava says - that it will (like Resh Lakish).

(b)In a case where the sinner refuses to bring his Korban altogether - even Rava will agree that (based on the Pasuk in Vayikra "Yakriv oso" [which Chazal explain to mean 'li'Retzono']) the Korban does not atone.

(c)So they must argue in a case where he agrees to bring the Korban, but claims that it will not atone, in which case, Rava maintains - that seeing as he agrees to bring it, it atones automatically.

4)

(a)Rava retracts from his current stance however, based on a Beraisa which discusses the Kaparah of Yom Kipur. The Tana there initially thinks that Yom Kipur will atone even for Einan Shavin (people who have not done Teshuvah [even though Chatas and Asham do not]) - just like it atones for Meizid as well as Shogeg (even though Chatas and Asham do not).

(b)And he learns from the word "Ach" (in the Pasuk "Ach be'Asor la'Chodesh ha'Shevi'i ha'Zeh Yom Kipurim hu") - that it does not.

(c)'Shavin' and 'Einan Shavin' cannot mean Shogeg and Meizid - since the Beraisa specifically presents them as two different cases.

5)

(a)So we cite Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan who ruled that in a case where the sinner set aside a Chatas, left the fold, and now does Teshuvah and wants to bring his Chatas - he cannot do so, since it has been rejected.

(b)We refute the suggestion that in similar vein, Meizid in the current Beraisa refers to a case where the sinner ate Cheilev, left the fold and did Teshuvah after Yom Kipur, which the Torah now rejects - because even though a Korban can be permanently rejected, a Yisrael cannot.

(c)We finally explain 'Shavin' as - where one accepts that his Korban will atone, and 'she'Ein Shavin' as - where he believes that it will not ...

(d)... and the Tana specifically said that the Chatas and Asham will not atone by Einan Shavin (forcing Rava to retract from his original opinion).

6)

(a)We have a problem with this however from another Beraisa, which discusses someone who contravened on Yom Kippur in three basic ways. He neither fasted nor did he desist from Melachah. The third thing that he did was not to treat it as a Mikra Kodesh- meaning that he not Daven (see also Tosfos DH 've'Kar'o Mikra Kodesh').

(b)The Tana learns from "Yom Kipurim Hu" - that in spite of that, Yom Kipur atones for him.

(c)We are now faced with two contradictory S'tam Sifras, which we answer by establishing the latter Beraisa according to Rebbi in his own name (who holds that Yom Kipur does not require Teshuvah) - with the exception of Porek Ol, Megaleh Panim ba'Torah she'Lo ka'Halachah and Meifer B'ris Basar, by all of which Teshuvah is crucial.

(d)And the author of the first Beraisa is - Rebbi according to Rebbi Yehudah.

7)

(a)Rava establishes both Beraisos like Rebbi in his own name. Nevertheless, he rules in the first Beraisa that Yom ha'Kipurim does not atone without Teshuvah - because it is referring to sins concerning the contravention of Yom Kipur itself.

(b)Consequently, when the second Beraisa rules that Yom Kipur atones even for those who do not do Teshuvah - it is referring to sins that one transgressed during the year, but not to sins that contravene Yom Kipur.

(c)We try to prove Rava's answer from the Kareis of Yom Kipur itself - which would otherwise never take effect.

(d)We refute this proof however, by establishing the Beraisa where he worked all night, and died at the crack of dawn, because based on the Pasuk "ki ba'Yom ha'Zeh Yechaper Aleichem" - only the day of Yom Kipur atones, but not the night.

8)

(a)And we go on to refute the above proof, even assuming that the Tana is speaking in the day, in one of three ways. One of them speaks when he ate or did Melachah close to Sheki'ah - in which case there is no time for Yom Kipur to atone for him.

(b)The other two answers - establish the case where, as he was eating on Yom Kipur, he choked over a bone, or the ax with which he was cutting slipped and dealt him a blow from which he immediately died.

9)

(a)When the Rabbanan said (at the conclusion of our Mishnah) 'Af ha'Megadef' - they were responding to Rebbi Akiva, who inserted Megadef in the list of Kerisos, but omitted Yid'oni (because it does not entail an act (as we already learned earlier). In that case, they claimed, neither does Megadef.

(b)The problem with with this explanation now is from Rebbi Yochanan earlier in the Sugya - who explained that Rebbi Akiva (who does not require an act) omits Yid'oni (not because it is not an act, but) because it is part of the same La'av as Ov (see commentaries on the Mishnah).

(c)Rebbi Akiva however, explains in a Beraisa that Megadef is Chayav a Korban, because the Pasuk in Sh'lach-l'cha (in connection with Megadef) writes Kareis. The Chachamim's problem with that is - from Pesach and Milah, which are Chayav Kareis, yet they do not bring a Korban.

(d)We reply - that what Rebbi Akiva really meant to say was - that Megadef must be Chayav a Korban, because the Torah writes Kareis with regard to it, in the Parshah which is talking about Korbanos.

(e)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether to define Megadef as Mevarech es Hash-m (Rebbi Akiva) or as Oved Avodah-Zarah (which entails an act [the Rabbanan]).

10)

(a)The Rabbanan learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Nasa Chet'o" (by Mevarech Hash-m) "Chet'o Yisa" from Pesach Rishon (where the Torah explicitly writes Kareis) - that Mevarech es Hash-m is Chayav Kareis

(b)Rebbi Akiva, in whose opinion Megadef (where the Torah also writes Kareis) refers to Mevarech es Hash-m (and also that "Chet'o Yisa" refers to Pesach Sheini, where Kareis is not explicitly written) learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah - that Pesach Sheini is subject to Kareis.

11)

(a)When Isi ben Yehudah says in a Beraisa (in connection with Megadef) 'Girafta es ha'Ke'arah ve'Chisartah' - he means that a Megadef licks the platter clean together with part of the platter (in other words, Megadef is 'Mevarech es Hashem', which is worse than Avodah-Zarah). And the connection between 'Giraftah' and Megadef ('Gidaftah') lies in the fact that a 'Daled' and a 'Reish' are sometimes interchangeable.

(b)Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah's Mashal differs from Isi ben Yehudah's - in that, he refers to licking the platter clean, but not together with part of the platter, because he defines Megadef as 'Oved Avodah-Zarah'.

(c)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah explains himself, when he specifically states that Megadef is 'Oved Avodah-Zarah'; whereas according to the Chachamim, it is - 'Mevarech es Hashem'.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses three categories of a Korban Yoledes, one of them is brought and eaten - the second is brought and not eaten, whilst the third cannot even be brought.

(b)Rebbi Meir lists in the first group a woman who miscarries a baby in the shape of an animal, a beast or a bird - because in Parshas Bereishis, the Torah refers to their creation as 'Yetzirah' just like Adam.

(c)The Chachamim - confine the Din of Korban Yoledes to a woman who gives birth to a baby that has the form of a human being.

(d)In a case where the stillborn baby emerges in the shape of a Sandal (flat), a placenta or a skin bag containing miniature limbs - the mother is obligated to bring a Chatas Yoledes, which is eaten.

(e)And a Shifchah he says, who gave birth to any of these - has exactly the same Din as her mistress.

13)

(a)The Mishnah lists two cases of a Yoledes who brings a Korban which is not eaten. One of them is where the Yoledes has a miscarriage, but does not know what she gave birth to. The other - where two women miscarry, one a baby that renders her Chayav a Chatas, the other, one that does not, and it is not known which is which.

(b)In the latter case, when bringing the Olas ha'Of, each woman stipulates - that if she is Chayav an Olah, then this is it; but if she is not, then it is an Olas Nedavah.

(c)They cannot make the same condition when bringing the Chatas ha'Of - because a Chatas cannot be brought on a Safek.

14)

(a)The Kohanim are not permitted to eat the Chatas - because if she is not Chayav, then the Melikah that is performed by the Kohanim, renders the bird a Neveilah (as we already learned earlier).

(b)Nor is the Safek Korban Asur because of Chulin ba'Azarah - since it is only the blood that goes on the Mizbe'ach, and not the Basar, in which case it is not called Achilas Mizbe'ach (as we learned there too).

(c)Even though it is a Safek, they are permitted to bring the Chatas, since it is a Chatas ha'Of, and, as we learned in Nazir - one may bring a Chatas ha'Of on a Safek.

15)

(a)Rebbi Yossi qualifies the Mishnah's last ruling. Each woman is obligated to bring an independent Korban - only if they have left Yerushalayim (and it is the Kohanim who are bringing their Korban on their behalf).

(b)If both women are present - then they bring one bird between them as a Chatas ha'Of, and stipulate that it should atone for whichever one needs the atonement, and whichever one does not, duly foregoes her part in it.

16)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if a woman miscarries a skin bag filled with water, blood or colored bits of flesh, a baby in the form of a fish, grasshoppers, Shekatzim and Remasim or one who gave birth on or before the fortieth day after she became pregnant - does not bring a Korban at all.

(b)The last case in the current list is 'Yotzei Do'fen'. Rebbi Shimon rules that a Yotzei Do'fen - does obligate its mother to bring a Chatas ha'Of.

(c)The Beraisa extrapolates from the Pasuk (in connection with the Korban Yoledes) "Daber el B'nei Yisrael" that Nochri women who give birth are Patur from a Korban, and from the continuation of the Pasuk "Ishah ki Sazri'a" - the Tana incorporates a Shifchah who gives birth in the Din of Tum'as Yoledes.

(d)We need a Pasuk to include a Shifchah in the Din of Chatas Yoledes, in spite of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lah" "Lah" (both in ki Seitzei), which teaches us that whatever a woman is Chayav, an Eved or a Shifchah) is Chayav too - since we would have restricted that to where the Din pertains to a male (Eved) as well as to a female (Shifchah), but not where it pertains to a Shifchah only.

17)

(a)The Mishnah in the fifth Perek discusses a case where one of two people is Chayav an Asham Taluy. Rebbi Shimon rules that they bring one Korban between them and stipulate like Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah. Rebbi Yossi there - forbids this.

(b)Rava (as well as Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan) reconciles Rebbi Yossi here with Rebbi Yossi there - by confining Rebbi Yossi there to a case where the Korban is the result of a sin, about which the Pasuk writes in Vayikra "O Hoda Eilav Chataso" (to preclude bringing the Korban be'Safek).

(c)Whereas Rebbi here is talking about a Safek Chatas Yoledes - which comes, not as a Kaparah for a sin, but to permit the Yoledes to eat Kodshim. Consequently, the Limud from "O Hoda Eilav Chataso" will not apply.

(d)Rebbi Yossi states there - 'Kol Chatas she'hi Ba'ah al Chet, Ein Shenayim Mevi'os Osah', proving this answer correct.

18)

(a)Concerning the Machlokes in our Mishnah between Rebbi Shimon and the Chachamim regarding a Yotzei Dofen, Resh Lakish explains that Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im Nekeivah Seiled" - that not only does a woman bring a Korban Yoledes for a regular birth, but she also brings one for a cesarean. Otherwise, the Pasuk ought to have written - 've'Im Nekeivah hi'.

(b)Rebbi Mani bar Patish, on the other hand, explains the Chachamim, by citing the Pasuk "Ishah ki Sazri'a ve'Yaldah" - from which they learn that she only brings a Korban for a regular birth, but not for a cesarean.

(c)We learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "be'Yom Tzavoso" - that a Korban cannot be brought at night-time.

(d)'Yom M'los' is - the last of the eighty days of Taharah following the birth of a daughter, at which point a woman becomes obligated to bring her Korban.

19)

(a)When Beis Shamai exempted a woman who has a miscarriage on the night of the eighty-first day of the birth of her daughter, from bringing a second Korban, Beis Hillel asked them what the difference is between the eighty-first day and the night of the eighty-first day (since both occur after "Yom M'los"); to which they replied - that whereas the eighty-first day is a time on which the first Korban can already be brought, the night before is not.

(b)Beis Hillel countered that - by citing the case of a woman who gives birth on the eighty-first day which falls on Shabbos (which is also a day on which her Korban cannot be brought, yet she is obviously Chayav to bring a second Korban.

(c)To counter this argument, Beis Shamai drew a distinction between nighttime, which is not a time on which any Korban can be brought, and Shabbos, on which a Korban Tzibur can.

(d)And to counter Beis Hillel's argument that in any event, the birth on the eighty-first night renders the Yoledes Tamei (so why should she not be Chayav a Korban) - they cited every case of a woman who has a miscarriage within the M'los period, and who is Patur from a Korban, even though the birth renders her Tamei.

(e)The Mishnah always refers to the night of the eighty-first day following the birth of a girl, and not to the night of the forty-first day following the birth of a boy, the Shitah Mekubetzes explains - because as Chazal have said, it takes a baby forty days (and not a second less, for a baby to form, Consequently, should the mother have a miscarriage on the fortieth night, the baby will be not properly formed, and the mother will not be Chayav a Chatas.