1)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan, Ze'iri and bar Pada decline to learn like Chizkiyah, because each Beis-Av served on his day - and since, as we already learned, the Beis-Adin would empty out the boxes every day, each Beis-Av would automatically receive all the skins from the Olos that were brought on their day, and there was no possibility of getting mixed-up.

(b)The other three decline to learn like ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan (she'Lo Yis'apshu ha'Ma'os) - because they are not worried about the money rotting.

2. ... Ze'iri (K'neged Par, ve'Ayil ... G'di ve'Sa'ir, ve'Rebbi Hi) - because they want to avoid establishing our Mishnah like an individual opinion.

3. ... bar Pada (K'neged ha'Parim, ve'ha'Eilim ... ve'ha'Mosros) on principle - because how can they have had a special box marked Mosros, when all of them are Mosros.

(c)They also disagree with him regarding the Ma'ah, because they hold like Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa. Rebbi Elazar there holds that the Ma'ah goes li'Nedavah. Rebbi Meir says - li'Shekalim.

2)

(a)Shmuel maintains that the six boxes corresponded to Moser Chatas ... u'Mosar Minchas Chotei u'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol (as we learned in the previous Perek). The leftovers of a regular Minchah - are used to purchase another Minchah.

(b)And the reason that Shmuel lists Moser Chatas and Mosar Minchas Chotei u'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol in this list is - because of a D'rashah of Yehoyada ha'Kohen, who Darshens that whatever comes from Mosar Chatas or Mosar Asham (even if it is in fact, a Minchah) should be used to buy Olos Tzibur, and their skins given to Kohanim.

(c)Rebbi Oshaya disagrees. He replaces Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol with Mosar Kinin.

3)

(a)Shmuel omits Mosar Kinin - because it already appears in the Reisha, among the seven boxes that are not li'Nedavah.

(b)Rebbi Oshaya counters that - by omitting Kinin from the Reisha.

(c)We reconcile this with the Beraisa cited by him, which does cite Kinin in the Reisha - by inserting Kinin in the Reisha, and Mosar Kinin in the Seifa.

(d)Kinin in the Reisha means that - a Mechusar Kipurim (who was Chayav to bring a pair of birds) places his money in the box marked Kinin, and on the assumption that the Kohanim have emptied the boxes, he is permitted to eat Kodshim after nightfall.

4)

(a)Rebbi Oshaya omits Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol - because he concurs with those who hold that Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol is left to rot (Yerakev), as we will now see.

(b)We learned in a Beraisa Mosar Minchas Nedavah, Mosar Minchah, Yerakev. According to Rav Chisda, the Reisha refers to Mosar Minchas Chotei; the Seifa - to Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol.

(c)Rabah establishes the Seifa by Mosar Lachmei Todah, which cannot be brought ...

1. ... as they are - because Lachmei Todah can only be brought together with the Korban Todah.

2. ... together with another Korban Todah - because every Todah comes together with its own loaves.

(d)He includes Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol in the Reisha (li'Nedavah) together with Mosar Minchas Chotei.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan too, holds that Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol goes to Nedavah. Rebbi Elazar says - Yerakev.

(b)In another Beraisa, we learned Mosar Shekalim, Chulin. The Tana there rules that Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah, Mosar Kinei Zavin ve'Zavos, ve'Kinei Yoldos, va'Chata'os va'Ashamos - Nedavah.

(c)We try and interpret Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah as - Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol, a proof for those who hold that it goes to Nedavah'.

(d)We refute this proof however, by establishing it - by a Mosar (Asiris ha'Eifah) of a Minchas Chotei.

6)

(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak cites a Beraisa, which quotes the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with a Minchas Chotei) "Lo Yasim alehah Shemen ve'Lo Yitein alehah Levonah, ki Chatas hi". Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates there from "ki Chatas hi" - "Hi Keruyah Chatas", 've'Ein Acheres Keruyah Chatas' (to preclude the Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol from the exemption from Levonah).

(b)The Torah refers to the Asiris ha'Eifah of the Kohen Gadol as - a Chatas.

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak nevertheless learns from the Beraisa that - although it is a Chatas, since it does not have the Din of a Chatas as regards the Levonah, it does not have the Din of a Chatas as regards Nedavah either (a proof for those who hold Yerakev).

7)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if someone declares 'Shor Zeh Olah', and the animal becomes blemished - he may use the proceeds to purchase two oxen.

(b)The Tana Kama says the same in the reverse case, 'Sh'nei Shevarim Eilu Olah', Venista'avu, Ratzah, Yavi bi'Demeihen Echad - Rebbi forbids it.

(c)In a similar ruling, if someone said 'Ayil Zeh Olah' and the ram becomes blemished, the Mishnah permits using the proceeds to purchase a lamb. In the reverse case 'Keves Zeh Olah', Venista'av - it cites the same Machlokes as it did in the precious case, the Tana Kama permits purchasing a ram with the proceeds, Rebbi forbids it.

(d)We reconcile the first ruling in the Mishnah 'Shor Zeh Olah', Venista'av; Im Ratzah Yavi be'Damav Shenayim, with the previous Mishnah 'Harei alai Shor be'Manah', Ve'heivi Shenayim, Lo Yatza - by pointing to the fact that whereas the previous Mishnah speaks about a Neder (Harei alai), which the Noder remains obligated to fulfill, this Mishnah speaks about a Nedavah (Harei Zu), from which he becomes absolved, once the animal obtains a blemish.

8)

(a)Despite the fact that the Tana is speaking about a Nedavah (as we just explained), Rebbi forbids bringing one animal instead of two - because the Chachamim did not allow him to change his Korban in this way.

(b)In fact - he argues in the Reisha, in the reverse case too, only he waited for the Rabbanan to finish their statement, before making his.

(c)We might have thought that he would concede to the Rabbanan in the Reisha - where the Noder is actually improving his Korban by bringing two instead of one (despite the fact that they cost the same).

(d)And we prove this from the Seifa, where Rebbi argues in the case of 'Keves Zeh le'Olah' ... Yavi be'Damav Ayil - which is also an improvement, yet he forbids it.

9)

(a)We then ask whether the Noder may change from one species to another - whether, for example, one may purchase two rams instead of a bull.

(b)And we resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa - where the Tana rules 'Shor Zeh Olah', Venista'ev, Lo Yavi be'Damav Ayil adding - Aval Meivi be'Damav Sh'nei Eilim.

(c)Rebbi forbids it because of Ein Bilah - one would have to bring two Menachos in two Keilim, and one would not be able to bring them in one K'li, in keeping with his obligation.

(d)We have now proved that - one may change from one species to another (and even Rebbi only argues on account of the Menachos).

(e)We reconcile the Rabbanan of this Beraisa with our Mishnah, which permits bringing even one lamb with the proceeds of a ram - by presenting it as a Machlokes Ta'an'im. Our Mishnah permits it Lechatchilah, whereas the Beraisa forbids it.

10)

(a)The Beraisa concludes 'u'vi'Tehorim, Eigel', Veheivi Par; 'Keves' Ve'heivi Ayil, Yatza. Tehorim means - without a blemish.

(b)The author of this statement is - the Rabbanan of Rebbi, because, according to Rebbi, 'Katan', Veheivi Gadol is not Yotzei'.

(c)We just concluded that, were it not for the problem with the Menachos, Rebbi would agree to the purchase of two rams with the proceeds of one bull. The problem with that from our Mishnah 'Ayil Zeh Olah', Venista'ev ... ; 'Keves Zeh Olah', Venista'ev is that - Rebbi forbids bringing a ram or a lamb there, even though the Minchah is brought in one K'li.

(d)We resolve the problem - by once again presenting it as a Machlokes Ta'an'im (whether Rebbi is concerned only about the Menachos, or even about the Korban itself, as we learned above).

11)

(a)Rav Menashyah bar Z'vid Amar Rav qualifies our Mishnah 'Shor Zeh Olah ... '; Im Ratzah, Yavi be'Damav Shenayim'. Had the Noder said 'Shor Zeh *alai* Olah', he maintains - it would be fixed exactly as he said it.

(b)We reject Rav Menashyah bar Z'vid's statement however, by interpreting 'Alai' as - 'Alai Lehavi'o' (obligating him to bring specifically that ox as a Nedavah, but exempting him once it becomes blemished).

(c)What Rav Menashyah bar Z'vid therefore really said was that - our Mishnah only speaks when he declared 'Shor Zeh Olah' or 'Shor Zeh alai Olah', but if he adds the word 've'Damav' ('Shor Zeh ve'Damav alai Olah'), he means to fix it as a Neder, and is obligated to bring one ox, and not two.

12)

(a)If a man declares one of his lambs or one of his oxen Hekdesh, our Mishnah rules, assuming that he owned ...

1. ... two such animals that - he is obligated to bring the larger one.

2. ... three such animals - that he brings the middle one.

(b)In a case where he remembers specifying which one he would bring, but cannot recall what he said, or if he cites his father on his death-bed, but does not know which animal his father was referring to, the Tana rules that - he is obligated to give his biggest animal to Hekdesh ...

(c)... because, based on the Pasuk in Re'ei - "Mivchar Nidreichem", we assume that this is what he had in mind to give.

13)

(a)We can learn from the Reisha of our Mishnah ... ha'Gadol she'Bahen Hekdesh that - someone who is Makdish, does so generously.

(b)And the Mishnah then continues ... ha'Benoni Hekdesh, says Shmuel, for exactly the same reason - because the middle one too, is considered generous, compared to the smallest, and we therefore suspect that this is what he may have meant.

(c)What Rebbi Chiya bar Rav suggests he does, to avoid having to give both animals to Hekdesh is - to wait until the middle one becomes blemished, and then to transfer its Kedushah on to the larger one (mi'Mah Nafshach rendering it [the middle one] Chulin).

14)

(a)Rabah bar Avuhah qualifies our Mishnah, by confining the Reisha to where the Noder said 'Echad mi'Shevarai Hekdesh' ...

(b)... but where he said 'Shor bi'Shevarai Hekdesh' he means - specifically the best, and not the middle one.

(c)We query this however, from a statement by Rav Huna bar Chiya Amar Ula ha'Omer la'Chavero, 'Bayis be'Beisi Ani Mocher lach', Mar'eihu *Aliyah*, which we initially interpret to mean - his attic, which is an inferior section of the house (quite the opposite of Rabah bar Avuhah's interpretation of the same Lashon).

(d)We reconcile Rabah bar Avuhah with the Beraisa - by re-interpreting Aliyah to mean min ha'Me'uleh she'be'Batim (the best part of his house).

15)

(a)We query Rabah bar Avuhah from a Beraisa 'Shor bi'Shevarai Hekdesh ... ', by which he means - an Olah'.

(b)The Tana rules that in a case where someone says 'Shor bi'Shevarai Hekdesh' or where his ox became mixed up with his other animals - he takes his biggest ox and gives it to Hekdesh.

(c)The Tana adds to this statement that - the rest of his animals must be sold as Olos and the money remains Chulin ...

(d)... because it is only when one redeems Hekdesh (as in the case of Hekdesh animals that became blemished), that the Kedushah needs to be transferred from the animal on to the money.

16)

(a)We query ...

1. ... Rabah bar Avuhah from here - because we think that the final statement (ve'Chulan Yimachru ... ) extends to the Reisha too (even though he said 'Shor bi'Shevarai').

2. ... the answer that 've'Chulan Yimachru le'Tzorchei Olah ... ' only refers to the Seifa 've'Chein Shor shel Hekdesh She'Nis'arev ba'Acherim ... ' - from the word 've'Chein', which implies that the Reisha and the Seifa are equal.

(b)And we answer that the Tana inserted the word 've'Chein' - only regarding the initial Din ha'Gadol she'bahen Hekdesh (which is indeed common to both cases), but not regarding the second statement.

17)

(a)Another Beraisa rules that in a case where someone agrees to sell his friend 'Bayis be'Beisi' or 'Eved ba'Avadai' - he may offer him a house that fell down or an Eved that died ...

(b)... whereas according to Rabah bar Avuhah - he ought to give him the best that he owns?

(c)We answer the Kashya - by differentiating between Hekdesh (where we say be'Ayin Yafah Makdish) and Mecher (where we apply the principle that the claimant has the underhand a branch of ha'Motzi me'Chavero alav ha'Re'ayah).

(d)That being the case, we can also revise our answer to the earlier Kashya from Bayis be'Beisi Ani Mocher lach - because by the same token, applying the same S'vara there, we will interpret 'Mar'eihu Aliyah' to mean that the seller has the right to offer the purchaser the attic (as we learned initially).