Question: What has this to do with eating (See Shitah Mekubetzes 23)?

Answer: The Tana means that he carried it out in his mouth ...

Clarification: Because when he placed it in his mouth in the R'shus ha'Yachid and took it out to the R'shus ha'Rabim, he is Chayav for carrying - since swallowing it is akin to putting it down ...

Precedent: Because someone who carries (ink for) two letters and writes them as he is walking, is Chayav - because writting them is akin to putting them down (See marginal notes of the Ein Mishpat).

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask from the limb itself ...

Introduction to Question: Since the Gemara in Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh (Zevachim, Daf 84a & 85b) states that, in the case of someone who has in mind Chutz li'Zemano - 'Just as, once it goes on the Mizbe'ach, it is not taken down, so too, once it is taken down, it is not returned'.

Introduction to Question (cont.): And Ula states there, that that is only where the fire has not yet caught hold of it, but once it has, then even if it was taken down, it is returned ...

Question (cont.): In which case, we see that, once it has become 'the bread of the Mizbe'ach', its Pigul status is removed from it?

Answer: Nevertheless, the fact that its Pigul is removed from it is not as explicit as the case of Kometz that the Gemara cites here.

Question: Rashi in Perek ha'Kometz (Menachos, Daf 14a) asks why we need a Pasuk to preclude the Kometz from Pigul? Why can we not know it from the fact that its Matir was not brought according to the Halachah?

Answer: And he answers that it speaks where the fire caught hold of most of it, so that what was left became permitted.

Source: As the Gemara says 'When is the Kometz permitted? When the majority of it catches fire'.

Question: But in that case, its Pigul is (anyway) removed from it, as is evident here?

Answer: It is speaking where he brought half of it on the Mizbe'ach, and half he did not.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, the Pigul was not therefore removed from the latter, yet he brought the Matir according to the Halachah, seeing as he brought a k'Zayis of it on the Mizbe'ach.

Question: Then why can he not bring it even Lechatchilah? ...

Precedent: As the Gemara says in Perek Beis Shamai (Zevachim, Daf 43b) 'If half the Kometz is lying on the ground and half has been brought on the Mizbe'ach, one may bring the former on the Mizbe'ach even Lechatchilah'.

Answer: It is different there, seeing as initially, all of it was initially on the Mizbe'ach, and was only taken down afterwards, whereas here, it has not been on the Mizbe'ach at all.

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk to preclude from Pigul a Minchas Besachim and a Minchah of a Kohen Gadol, seeing as they are entirely burned ...

Question (cont.): And they are therefore not Matir anything?

Answer: When they were sanctified in a Keli, it as if their Matirin were brought, in which case they are fixed for Pigul.

Answer (cont.): And a Pasuk is therefore required to preclude them.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that this is the She'eilah cited in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin, 70a).

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam disagrees however, inasmuch as there is no connection between the two ...

Reason: Since there it is speaking about where half the baby emerges with the majority of the limb, as to whether it is considered born or not?

Authentic Explanation: Therefore he explains (See footnote 1) that it refers to the She'eilah cited in Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh (Zevachim 87a), where, in connection with the She'eilah whether 'The air of the Mizbe'ach is like the Mizbe'ach or not, it states 'If the majority of it is on the Mizbeach, it is like the Mizbe'ach, on the ramp, it is like the ramp' ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): The Gemara suggests that 'We resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah - 'Yesh Chibur be'Olin O Lo?' from there.

Clarification: Carrying is joined on to the other Melachos of Shabbos, but not on to those of Yom Kipur (The wording of Tosfos' Rebbe [See footnote 2]).

Implied Question: The current Sugya also appears in Perek Sh'nei Se'i'im (Yom, 61b), but the Gemara there does not reject it?

Answer: Perhaps 'Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach is different', as the Gemara concludes here ...

Answer (cont.): And it is quite common for Divrei Torh to be poor (vague) in one location and rich (explicit) in another (See footnote 4).

Clarification: This is due on account of Eishes Ach.

Question: But is she not a Mamzeres, in which case, how can she be Asur to his brother on account of Eishes Ach? How can the Isur of Eishes Ach take effect on that of Mamzeres?

Answer #1: It is speaking where the brother is also a Mamzer, in which case there is no Isur of Mamzeres, seeing as he too, is a Mamzer.

Answer #2: Alternatively, a stringent Isur does take effect on a more lenient one, as Tosfos explained above.

Question #1: Rabeinu Baruch asks why the Tana does not include Bas B'nah - where his daughter married his wife's son and she bore him a daughter, who is both the daughter of his daughter and of her son at one and the same time?

Question #2: Similarly, in the Seifa, why does he not include 'Bas B'nah and Bas Bi'tah ...

Question #2 (cont.): The case of Bitah would be where Ya'akov who married Rachel and Le'ah (who are not sisters), and where Rachel has a son from another man, and where he also marries Leah's daughter from Ya'akov ...

Question #2 (concl.): And Ya'akov then had relations with the daughter of Leah's daughter - who is both his wife's son's daughter and his granddaughter?

Answer: According to Tosfos' explanation later (in the following Dibur), that the Mishnah is only talking about Isur Mosif, the questions fall away.

Question: The Kadosh ha'Rav Yom-Tov asks why the Mishnah does not include Chamoso - where he married the daughter of his daughter's daughter's daughter, since his daughter's daughter is his mother-in law?

Answer: The Tana Kama is not referring to a case where an Isur was performed (See Birchas ha'Zevach).

Answer (cont.): And that explains why it does not include Eim Chamoso and Eim Chamiv - since they are Sheniyos.

Implied Question: And even according to Rebbi Yossi, who does speak about where the grandfather married be'Isur ...

Answer: One can explain that it does not include it, because he does not hold of Isur Kolel - i.e. Since he is forbidden to his wife's sister, he is also forbidden to his daughter because of Chamoso.

Implied Question: And even according to Rebbi Chiya, who says in Perek Arba'ah Achin (Yevamos, Daf 32a & 33a) that Rebbi Yossi declares him Chayav two Chata'os - on account of Isur Kolel

Answer: That is specifically an Isur Kolel of the same name ...

Answer: But not one of two names, such as Achos Ishah and Eim Chamoso.

Conclusion: And that explains why, according to him, when he talks about Eishes Ish who became Chamoso, he does not say that he is Chayav because of Chamoso, since they are two different names.

Negating Text: The Ri deletes this from the text ...

Reason: Because, otherwise, why does the Tana earlier say that there are six cases, when, in fact, there are seven?

Question: Why indeed, does he not say 'seven', and include Achos Ishto? ...

Case: Where Dinah bas Ya'akov is married to a man from whom she bears a daughter, and who has another daughter from a different woman, whom Ya'akov marries ...

Question (cont.): In which case Dinah's daughter to Ya'akov, is both his granddaughter and his wife's sister via an Isur Kolel - seeing as he is forbidden to her other sisters on account of Achos Ishah, he is also forbidden to Dinah's daughter on account of Achos Ishah?

Answer: The Tana only includes Isurim with which Rebbi Yossi agrees who speaks in the Seifa - i.e. cases of Isur Mosif.

Implied Question: And even according to Rebbi Chiya, who maintains (in Yevamos, 33a) that Rebbi Yossi does include cases of Isur Kolel ...

Answer: One can say that the Tana is only concerned with cases of Isur Mosif.

Question: Still, why does the Tana not include Achos Ishto be'Bas Achas (where the Isur comes simultaneously) - where Ya'akov marries the daughter of a man, who subsequently marries Dinah bas Ya'akov, who bears him a daughter ...

Question (cont.): And Dinah's daughter now turns out to be both the granddaughter of Ya'akov and his wife's sister?

Answer: In the cases concerning Kidushin, the Tana only includes those by whom the Isur takes effect immediately at the time of the Kidushin ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas in this case, when Ya'akov married the man's daughter, there was no Isur attached until Dinah's daughter was born from that man ...

Answer (concl.): And only then did the Isur Achos Ishto together with that of Bas Bito take effect.

Question: When the Gemara says that Rebbi Yossi concedes to Isur Mosif, from where does it know that ...

Question (cont.): Perhaps the entire Mishnah is speaking about Isur Bas Achas ...

Case: Where they were all betrothed when they were not yet three years old, and when they turned three all the Isurim took effect simultaneously, which the Mishnah considers as Bas Achas?

Answer #1: The Tana only mentions Isurim via Kidushin which take place at the time of Kidushin, and for all of them to occur simultaneously, it could only have occurred later when they all turned three.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Mishnah is only concerned with Isur Mosif, as Tosfos just explained.

Clarification: This refers to his maternal brother's wife ...

Proof: Because if it was referring to the wife of his paternal brother, how could the grandfather have married her, seeing as she is his daughter-in-law, on whom Kidushin does not take effect?

Chidush: It implies here that one's maternal brother's wife is subject to Kareis, which (be'Shogeg) is subject to Chatas.

Implied Question: And when the Toras Kohanim precludes her ...

Answer: It is from Ariri (dying childless), but not from Kareis.