1)

(a)In a case where someone eats one of two pieces of Chulin and Cheilev that are lying in front of him, and does not know which one he ate, our Mishnah - obligates him to bring an Asham Taluy.

(b)If ...

1. ... the same person then eats the second piece - he brings a Chatas.

2. ... somebody else ate the second piece - each one brings an Asham Taluy.

(c)This latter ruling - is not unanimous. It does not follow the opinion of those who require Chatichah Achas mi'Shetei Chatichos (in which case the second one is Patur).

(d)Like in the previous case, Rebbi Yossi does not agree with Rebbi Shimon - who permits the two sinners to bring a Chatas between them and to stipulate.

2)

(a)In the same case, but where one piece was Cheilev and one Kodesh, the Tana rules that if after eating the first piece ...

1. ... he also eats the second one - he brings a Chatas and an Asham (Me'ilos).

2. ... somebody else eats the second piece - each one brings an Asham Taluy.

(b)According to Rebbi Shimon - they can bring a Chatas and an Asham between them, and Reuven then stipulates that if he ate Cheilev, and Shimon, Hekdesh, then he is Mochel his portion in the Asham, and Shimon, his portion in the Chatas, and vice-versa.

(c)If he ate one of two pieces, one of which was Cheilev and the other, Cheilev Kodesh, the Tana Kama obligates him to bring a Chatas. Rebbi Akiva requires - an Asham Taluy as well.

(d)And if he then ate the second piece, the Tana obligates him to bring - two Chata'os and an Asham Me'ilos.

3)

(a)If somebody else came and ate the second piece, the Tana Kama obligates each one to bring a Chatas, and Rebbi Akiva - an Asham Taluy as well.

(b)Here too, Rebbi Yossi disagrees with Rebbi Shimon, as he will in the final case. Rebbi Shimon requires each one to bring a Chatas, as well as an Asham between them.

(c)If the sinner ate one of two pieces that were Cheilev and Cheilev Nosar, then he brings a Chatas and an Asham Taluy. Should ...

1. ... he then eat the second piece - he has to bring three Chata'os.

2. ... somebody else eats the second piece - each one brings a Chatas and an Asham Taluy.

(d)Rebbi Shimon - obligates each one to bring a Chatas plus one Chatas between them.

(e)Rebbi Yossi declares that any Chatas that comes to atone for a sin, cannot be brought in partnership - to preclude the Chatas ha'Of of a Yoledes, which does not come to atone for a sin, where he concedes that it can (as we learned in the first Perek).

4)

(a)Rava commented that Rebbi Yossi, who rules (in the case of Chatichah shel Chulin va'Chatichah shel Cheilev) 'Ein Shenayim Mevi'in Chatas Achas' - concedes that each one brings an Asham Taluy.

(b)He tried to refute the Kashya that this is precisely what the Tana Kama says - by restricting the Asham Taluy to the first one only, because (as opposed to the Tana Kama), Rebbi Yossi requires Chatichah Achas mi'Shetei Chatichos.

(c)In light of the Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi specifically requires them both to bring an Asham Taluy, Rav Nachman finally resolved the problem - by explaining the Chidush of the Mishnah as being that the Tana Kama is in fact, Rebbe Yossi.

5)

(a)When Rava asked Rav Nachman, why, in the last case ('Chatichas Cheilev va'Chatichas Cheilev Nosar'), one is not also Chayav an Asham (seeing as it was Nosar of Kodesh [see Shitah Mekubetzes 16]). To which, he replied that - the Tana is speaking where the Nosar was not worth a P'rutah (bearing in mind that Nosar of Shelamim lies in the open for two days).

(b)We reconcile this with the Reisha, where the Tana refers to a piece of Hekdesh which is worth a P'rutah and where he is obligated to bring an Asham - because that is not talking about Nosar.

(c)And when the Mishnah in the third Perek ('Yesh Ochel Achilah Achas ... ') refers to a piece of Nosar that is worth a P'rutah - it is talking either about someone who ate Achilah Gasah (an extra large quabtity), or in the winter when meat lasts longer without going bad, whereas our Tana is talking about Nosar in the summer.

(d)Even though Nosar is Asur be'Hana'ah (and therefore has no value), he is nevertheless Chayav as long as it is intrinsically worth a P'rutah - like all Olin (Kodshim that go on the Mizbe'ach) which are Asur be'Hana'ah ...

(e)... and Nosar is considered Olin - due to the Din of Im Alu, Lo Yerdu.

6)

(a)Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa - exempts someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur from a Chatas (because he holds Ein Isur Chal al Isur [even an Isur Chamur on an Isur Kal]).

(b)This ruling extends even to an animal that became a Neveilah only on Yom Kipur - because its Isur nevertheless preceded that of Yom Kipur in the form of Eiver min ha'Chai.

(c)Based on this Beraisa, Rava queried Rebbi Shimon in the Seifa of our Mishnah, who obligates the person who ate Cheilev of Nosar to bring two Chata'os, one for eating Nosar - even though the Isur of Cheilev preceded it.

(d)Rav Nachman replied that - the sinner ate a kidney (of Nosar) together with its Cheilev, in which case both Isurim to apply simultaneously.

7)

(a)The problem that still remains is - why Nosar takes effect on Olin? Why is he not Patur since the Isur Me'ilah preceded it?

(b)We suggest that Rebbi Shimon holds of Isur Chamur - perhaps he will concede that Isur Chal al Isur in the case of a more stringent Isur (such as Nosar, for which one is Chayav Kareis, against Me'ilah, which is only a La'av, according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi).

(c)We refute this suggestion however - from the source of Rebbi Shimon's opinion (that we just cited), where Yom Kipur does not take effect, even though it is more stringent that Neveilah.

(d)We therefore answer that - Kodshim are different, since the Torah reveals there that various Isurim take effect, despite the fact that the Isur Kodshim preceded them (as we will now see).

8)

(a)The previous answer is based on a Beraisa, where the Tana learns from the Pasuk in Tzav " ... asher la'Hashem" that - one is Chayav for eating Emurim be'Tum'as ha'Guf, even though there is already an Isur La'av on the limbs and Kareis on the Cheilev.

(b)And we prove this further from Rebbi, who holds - Isur Chamur Chal al Isur Kal, but not vice-versa ...

(c)... in which case, the Isur Me'ilah ought not to take effect on Emurei Kodshim - since it is only subject to Misah (bi'Yedei Shamayim, which does not incorporate a Chatas be'Shogeg), whereas Emurei Kodshim (the Chalavim) are subject to Kareis, which does.

(d)Yet Rebbi learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Kol Cheilev la'Hashem" that - Me'ilah does apply to Emurei Kodshim Kalim.

9)

(a)We query our previous interpretation of Rebbi Shimon however, from Rebbi Shimon's own opinion in another Beraisa, where he rules that - Olin are not subject to Pigul and Nosar.

(b)To reconcile our previous interpretation of Rebbi Shimon with this Beraisa - we turn it into a Machlokes Tana'im (between our Mishnah and the Beraisa).

(c)We ask what the latter opinion will then learn from the Pasuk (that we just cited) "Kol Cheilev la'Hashem". We cannot ask this from the Pasuk that we cited earlier " ... asher la'Hashem" ('Lerabos es ha'Emurin') - because we can simply establish that D'rashah like the Rabbanan, who hold Isur Chal al Isur' by Isur Kolel (such as Neveilah on Yom Kipur [which is distinctly not like Rebbi Shimon] since Tum'as ha'Guf extends to the Basar as well). In that case, it has nothing to do with the uniqueness of Kodshim.

(d)The previous D'rashah (of "Kol Cheilev la'Hashem") however, is different, in that it is a case of an Isur Kal taking effect on an Isur Chamur, something that we do not find by Chulin, and which seems to indicate that Kodshim are unique (a fact which Rebbi Shimon too, will have to address).

10)

(a)We answer this Kashya by establishing the Beraisa by V'lados Kodshim - according to the opinion that holds V'ladei Kodshim be'Havayasan Hein Kedoshim (the Kedushah of V'lados Kodshim only takes effect when they are born) in which case the Isur Me'ilah and the Isur Cheilev take effect simultaneously.

(b)Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa now learns from the Pasuk that we cited earlier " ... asher la'Hashem" that - the Isur Tum'as ha'Guf takes effect on Lan (where the Emurim were not on the Mizbe'ach at dawn break) and Yotzei (where they were taken out of the Azarah) see Shitah Mekubetzes 5).

11)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses a case of someone who is bringing an Asham Taluy, when he discovers that he did not sin. According to Rebbi Meir, if he makes this discovery before the animal has been Shechted, it is returned to the flock. The Chachamim require, in addition - 'Yir'eh ad she'Yista'ev... ' (that the animal grazes in the meadow until it obtains a blemish and is then redeemed).

(b)Rebbi Eliezer permits the animal to be sacrificed - because if it is not brought for this sin, then it is brought for another one (effectively, he permits one to bring a voluntary Asham Taluy - as we have already learned), to atone for a sin that one may have performed.

(c)The Tana rules, should the discovery occur after ...

1. ... the animal has already been Shechted that - the blood is poured out and the animal burned.

2. ... the blood has already been sprinkled that - the Basar is eaten (by the Kohanim).

(d)The Din in the former ruling differs from that of Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah, which are buried and not burned - because it has the Din of Kodshim that became Pasul, which are burned).

12)

(a)Rebbi Yossi argues with the Tana Kama in the last case. In his opinion, even if the blood has already been received in a cup, and has not yet been sprinkled - the Basar may be eaten ...

(b)... because whatever stands to be sprinkled, is as if it has already been sprinkled.

(c)The Tana draws a distinction between an Asham Taluy and an Asham Vaday under the same circumstances. The case is - where he discovers before the animal was Shechted, that he did not sin, in which case the animal is sent to graze with the other animals.

(d)Despite the fact that an Asham Vaday is generally brought following a Vaday Yedi'ah, the Tana is speaking in a case - where the witnesses who testified that he ate Kodshim be'Tum'ah became Zom'min, or where he later discovered that what he ate was not Kodshim.

(e)The Rabbanan do not argue here, like they argued with Rebbi Meir by Asham Taluy - because whereas the owner of an Asham Taluy (precisely because of the nagging uncertainty) sanctifies it at all costs (as we explained earlier), the owner of an Asham Vaday does so only because he believes he is guilty. And once he discovers his mistake, it becomes a case of Hekdesh Ta'us (Hekdesh declared in error), which is not considered Hekdesh.

13)

(a)If the owner discovers that he did not sin after the Asham has been Shechted, the animal must be buried. In a case where the blood has already been sprinkled - it must be burned.

(b)In the case of a Shor ha'Niskal, our Mishnah rules that if it is discovered that the animal did not kill ...

1. ... before it has been stoned - it is returned to the flock.

2. ... after it has been stoned - it is Mutar be'Hana'ah.

(c)An Eglah Arufah on the after hand - has to be buried, in the latter case (because to begin with, it was brought on a Safek, and in that capacity, having done its job, it remains Asur).

14)

(a)The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir ('Yeitzei ve'Yir'eh') and the Rabbanan ('Yir'eh ad she'Yista'ev ... ') in the opening case in our Mishnah is - whether the owner only declared the animal Hekdesh because be needed it, but now that he does not, it was never Hekdesh to begin with (Rebbi Meir), or that, for fear that he may have sinned, his declaration was absolute, irrespective of whether he actually sinned or not (the Chachamim).

(b)Our Mishnah discusses a case where, after being Makdish the Asham Taluy, he discovers that he did not sin. The Beraisa adds that - Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan also argue in a case where he discovered that he sinned.

(c)Consequently ...

1. ... our Mishnah is coming to stress - the opinion of the Chachamim (how even if it transpires that he did not sin, the animal remains Hekdesh)

2. ... the Beraisa is coming to stress - the opinion of Rebbi Meir (how even if it transpires that he did sin, the animal is Chulin.