1)

(a)Rebbi Meir says that if someone is bringing an Asham Taluy and, before the animal has been Shechted, he becomes aware that what he ate was not Cheilev we apply the Din of 'Yir'eh'. Once it obtains a blemish - the animal may be eaten by the owner ...

(b)... because the owner only declared it Hekdesh on the understanding that he needed it; once it becomes clear that he does not, his declaration becomes invalid retroactively.

2)

(a)According to the Chachamim, the blemished animal is sold and the proceeds go to 'Nedavah' - with which the Kohanim purchase animals which they bring on the Mizbe'ach as Olos Nedavah ('Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach').

(b)They argue with Rebbi Meir - because they maintain that, for fear of having sinned, the owner declares the animal Hekdesh with a full heart.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer holds - that the animal goes on the Mizbe'ach (as a Safek Asham) ...

(d)... because if it does not cover the current sin, then it will cover another one (See Tosfos Yom Tov).

3)

(a)In the event that he discover that he did not sin, after ...

1. ... the animal has already been Shechted - the blood is poured out (See Tiferes Yisrael & Tosfos Yom Tov) and the animal is taken to the 'Beis ha'Sereifah' to be burned (even according to Rebbi Meir [See Tosfos Yom Tov, towards the end of DH 've'ha'Basar Yeitzei ... ']).

2. ... the Kohen has sprinkled the blood - the Basar is eaten by the Kohanim.

(b)The Tana Kama learns this from the words in the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with an Asham Taluy) "ve'Hu Lo Yada ve'Nislach lo" - which implies that as long as the owner does not know whether he sinned or not at the time that the atonement takes place (during the sprinkling of the blood), the Asham is Kasher

(c)Rebbi Yossi holds that - the blood is sprinkled and the Basar eaten even if he discovers that he did not sin whilst 'the blood is still in the cup'.

(d)His ruling is based on two principles; one of them that 'K'lei Shareis sanctify even something that is Pasul', the other that - blood that is ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it has already been sprinkled.

(e)The Halachah is - like the Tana Kama.

4)

(a)The previous Mishnah is speaking about a Safek Chatas. An Asham Vadai is different, inasmuch as if the owner discovers, before the animal has been Shechted, that what he ate was not Kodesh - the Din of Yir'eh applies according to both ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir and ...

2. ... the Rabbanan ...

(b)... who agree with Rebbi Meir in this case - because the owner was Makdish the Asham on the definite assumption that he was Chayav, and now that he knows that he is not, it turns out to have been 'Hekdesh Ta'us' (which is not Hekdesh).

(c)Seeing as one only brings an Asham Vaday through the testimony of witnesses, he discovers that he did not sin, either because the witnesses erred, thinking that he ate Kodesh, when in reality it was Chulin - or because they turned out to be Eidim Zom'min.

5)

(a)If the owner makes the discovery after the animal has been Shechted, it must be buried, not burned (like in the previous Mishnah) - since, as we just explained, the animal is Chulin, and it is only Hekdesh that needs to be burned.

(b)The Tana rules however, that, if the blood has already been sprinkled - then the Basar must go to the Beis ha'Sereifah.

(c)This cannot be the same Tana as the one who issued the previous ruling - because as we explained there, since, in his opinion, the animal is Chulin, there is no reason for it to be burned [See Tosfos Yom Tov]).

6)

(a)A Safek Shor ha'Niskal and an Eglah Arufah are different than a Safek Asham Taluy, assuming they discover that there is no obligation to bring them before the one is stoned and the other one's neck is broken - in that the Din is 'Yir'eh', even according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir there (as we explained in the case of Asham Vaday).

(b)The case regarding the Eglah Arufah is - where they discover the identity of the murderer.

(c)If the discovery is made after ...

1. ... the Shor ha'Niskal has been stoned - then it becomes Mutar be'Hana'ah.

2. ... the neck of the Eglah Arufah has been broken - then it renains Asur be'Hana'ah and must be buried (just like all Eglos Arufos) ...

(d)... because at the time of the 'Arifah' it was still a Safek, in which case, the Eglah did its job and must be treated like any other Eglah Arufah.

(e)According to the Rambam ...

1. ... a Shor ha'Niskal is different that an Asham Vaday (after the Shechitah) - which must be buried, whereas the Shor ha'Niskal is Mutar be'Hana'ah.

2. ... an Eglah Arufah (after the Arifah) is different than a Shor ha'Niskal - which is Mutar be'Hana'ah, whereas the Eglah Arufah is Asur.

7)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer permits bringing an Asham Taluy ...

1. ... every day and even ...

2. ... every hour (See Tiferes Yisrael).

(b)His reason is because to begin with, the Asham Taluy is a Nedavah, seeing as - in the event that he discovers that he sinned, he brings a Chatas (See Tosfos Yom Tov).

(c)He called an Asham that is brought without the owner having sinned - an 'Asham Chasidim'.

8)

(a)Bava ben Buta used to - bring an Asham Taluy every day ...

(b)... except for Yom Kipur - because his colleagues asked him to wait at least until he had transgressed a Safek Chatas.

(c)When he said 'ha'Ma'on ha'Zeh' whilst swearing that, had they let him, he would have brought an Asham Taluy on Yom Kipur as well - he was swearing by the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

9)

(a)The Chachamim maintain that one only brings an Asham Taluy - for a sin that is subject to Kareis be'Meizid and a Chatas be'Shogeg.

(b)As we explained earlier, the Asham Taluy does not come to atone, and one brings it - to ward off the punishment until he gets to know whether he sinned or not.

(c)The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.

10)

(a)The Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... Chayvei Chata'os and Chayvei Ashamos Vada'in that one did not manage to bring before Yom Kipur - must still be brought after Yom Kipur, but not ...

2. ... Chayvei Ashamos Teluyin.

(b)We learn the former ruling from the words "lifnei Hash-m" (in the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "mi'Kol Chatoseichem lifnei Hash-m Titharu") - implying that Yom Kipur only atones for those sins that only Hash-m knows about, but not for sins of which the perpetrator is aware.

(c)The Tana also says that someone who transgresses a Safek Aveirah on Yom Kipur - is Patur from bringing an Asham Taluy ...

(d)... even if this occurs just before nightfall of Motz'ei Yom Kipur - since the entire day atones.

11)

(a)In spite of what we learned in the previous Mishnah, the Tana obligates a woman who is Chayav a Safek Chatas ha'Of to bring it even after Yom Kipur - because until she does, she is not permitted to eat Kodshim.

(b)He also says that a woman who discovers that she gave birth to a 'V'lad' that is Patur, after the Kohen has already performed Melikah on her Safek Chatas ha'Of - must bury it ...

(c)... mi'de'Rabbanan.

12)

(a)The current bird's status min ha'Torah is - Chulin ...

(b)... and the Rabbanan forbade it be'Hana'ah - so that people should not think that one is allowed to benefit from a Safek Chatas Ha'Of.

(c)Even though a Safek Chatas ha'Of is brought, it cannot be eaten - because in the event that one is Patur, Melikah renders the bird a Neveilah.

(d)It is not Asur be'Hana'ah min ha'Torah because of 'Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah' - since that is confined to an animal that is Shechted in the Azarah.

13)

(a)The minimum that a person should spend on an Asham is - two Sela'im.

(b)We learn this from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with an Asham Me'ilos) "be'Erkecha Kesef Shekalim be'Shekel ha'Kodesh le'Asham". The Tana say 'two Sela'im' (and not two Shekalim) - because the Targum of "Shekalim" is 'Sela'im'.

(c)We extend the current ruling to an Asham Gezeilos and an Asham Taluy, based on the Gezeirah-Shavah - "be'Erkecha" "be'Erkecha".

(d)It also extends to an Asham Shifchah Charufah - since, like the previous three, it comprises a ram.

(e)The two exceptions are - the Asham Metzora and the Ahsam Nazir, which both comprise a lamb and have no fixed minimum value.

14)

(a)If someone sets aside two Sela'im foe an Asham and with the money he purchases two rams for an Asham, the Mishnah permits him to bring one of them - provided its value rises to two Sela'im ...

(b)... since the value of the Korban is assessed at the time that it is brought (and not when it is purchased).

(c)The other one - is 'Ro'eh' until it obtains a Mum, at which point it is sold and its proceeds go to Nedavah ...

(d)... because it was purchased as an Asham with money of an Asham, and the Din of an Asham that is not brought on the Mizbe'ach is Ro'eh.

15)

(a)In the equivalent case, but where he purchased two rams as Chulin, if one of them is worth two Sela'im and the other, ten Zuz (two and a half Sela), he brings the former as his Asham.

(b)According to the Mishnah - he brings the other one as his Asham Me'ilos, but ...

(c)... in fact - he gives it to the Gizbar of Hekdesh as payment for the two Sela'im (plus a fifth) that he was Mo'el (See Tosfos Yom Tov).

(d)As for the Asham Me'ilos that he is Chayav - that he brings from his own pocket.

16)

(a)In a similar case, but where he purchased one animal as an Asham and one as Chulin and where the Asham is actually worth two Sela'im, he again brings it as his Asham. He brings the second animal as his Asham Me'ilos - provided it too, is worth at least two Sela'im ...

(b)... and he remains obligated to pay Hekdesh for having been Mo'el - one and a fifth Sela'im.

17)

(a)The Tana rules that someone who dies without having brought his Chatas, his son, who is Chayav a Chatas too (See Tosfos Yom Tov) - cannot bring it.

(b)Similarly, he rules that someone who designates a Chatas for ...

1. ... one sin cannot bring it for another one, even if ...

2. ... he designated it for Cheilev that he ate yesterday and he now wants to bring it for the Cheilev that he ate today.

(c)He learn these rulings (See Tosfos Yom Tov) from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Korbano al Chataso" that - one can only bring the Chatas that one designated for the sin on which he designated it.

18)

(a)When the Mishnah permits bringing a goat from a Hekdesh lamb and a lamb from a Hekdesh goat, it means that - if one designates money for the one, one is permitted to use it to purchase the other.

(b)The Tana also permits someone who designates a lamb or a goat to bring pigeons or young turtle-coves, in a case of - a wealthy person who is Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yoreid, and who, after designating money for an animal, becomes poor.

(c)If, in the previous case, he then becomes poorer still and wants to bring a tenth of an Eifah of fine flour - the same Heter applies.

(d)The remainder of the money in both cases - is Chulin (See Tosfos Yom Tov).

19)

(a)We learn the previous Halachah from the 'Mem' in the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with a Korban Oleh ve'Yoreid) "me'Chataso asher Chata" - implying that he can use some of the money of his Chatas.

(b)We know this in the former case (where he uses the money to purchase birds), and it also pertains to the latter case (where he uses it to purchase flour) - since the Torah uses the same word "me'Chataso" with regard to the birds (See Tosfos Yom Tov).

(c)Whereas from the Pasuk there (written in connection with the tenth of an Eifah of flour that a very poor person brings) "al Chataso, we learn that - if a man who is destitute designated money for his flour-offering and became less poor, he can simply add to the money that he set aside and purchase birds ...

(d)... and the same will apply to an Ani who designated money for a bird and whose financial status improves and he now wants to bring birds (See Tosfos Yom Tov).

20)

(a)The Mishnah rules in a case where someone who is Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yoreid designates ...

1. ... a lamb or a goat and who then becomes poor, if the animal that he designated obtained a blemish - he may sell it and use some of the proceeds to purchase birds.

2. ... a bird which obtains a blemish after his financial status improves and he now needs to bring a lamb or a goat - he is not permitted to do likewise with the bird ...

(b)... because, whereas a Mum renders a Hekdesh animal subject to Pidyon, a Hekdesh bird cannot be redeemed.

(c)We learn this from the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection with redeeming Hekdesh) "ve'He'emid es ha'Beheimah lifnei ha'Kohen" - implying that a Hekdesh animal can be redeemed but not a Hekdesh bird.

21)

(a)Rebbi Shimon says that - the Torah generally mentions lambs first.

(b)The significance of the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Korban Chatas) "ve'Im Keves Yavi Korbano" is - that it follows the Pasuk concerning Eiz (the only occasion that it does so).

(c)The Tana prove from there - that the two are of equal importance, and that one may whichever one one chooses.

(d)Rebbi Shimon repeats what he said about lambs and goats about pigeons and young doves.

(e)And here too, he learns from the Pasuk in Tazri'a (in connection with a Yoledes) "u'ben Yonah O Tor" - that the two are of equal importance.

22)

(a)By the same token, Rebbi Shimon points out that the Torah generally mentions Av before Eim ...

(b)... yet from the Pasuk in Kedoshim writes "Ish Imo ve'Aviv Tira'u", he learns that - the two are nevertheless of equal importance ...

(c)... and the reason that the Chachamim gave precedence to Kibud Av over Kibud Eim is - because one's mother, like oneself, is obligated to honor one's father.

23)

(a)The Torah gives precedence to Kibud ha'Rav over Kibud Av - for the same reason (because one's father, like oneself, is obligated to honor one's Rebbe ...

(b)... from whom one learned most of what one knows.

(c)Besides returning his lost article and redeeming him if he has been captured, this ruling applies to - saving his life (incorporating sustaining him) and unloading (or loading) his donkey.

(d)One's father takes precedence over one's Rebbe however (even over one who taught him most of what he knows) - if he himself is a Talmid-Chacham (See Tiferes Yisrael), albeit not on a par with his son's Rebbe.