1)
(a)The Tana of our Mishnah informs us that if one Shechted the Korban Pesach for owners who cannot eat it for whatever reason, he is Chayav Chatas. What is the problem with that?
(b)Why can we not answer that the Tana includes this case because of the Seifa 'le'Ochlav v'she'Lo l'Ochlav etc. ... Patur'?
(c)The Gemara concludes that the Tana mentions it because of the case of 'she'Lo Lishmo'. Why does that case need to be included?
1)
(a)Is it not obvious that if one Shechted the Korban Pesach for owners who cannot eat it for whatever reason (which renders the Korban Pasul), he is Chayav Chatas? Why do we need a Mishnah to tell us that?
(b)We cannot answer that the Tana includes this case because of the Seifa 'le'Ochlav v'she'Lo l'Ochlav etc. ... Patur' - because that too, is obvious (since the Korban is Kasher).
(c)The Gemara concludes that the Tana mentions it because of the case of 'she'Lo Lishmo', which in turn, needs to be included, to teach us about the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua.
2)
(a)What does Mekalkel ba'Chaburah mean? Why is Mekalkel ba'Chaburah Patur (according to some opinions)?
(b)According to those opinions, why is someone who Shechts a Korban Pesach she'Lo l'Ochlav, Chayav? Why is it not a case of Mekalkel ba'Chaburah?
(c)Then why is he Chayav if he Shechted a Pesach which he subsequently found to be ...
1. ... blemished?
2. ... a Tereifah (in a visible place), seeing as, in both cases, we have learnt 'Im Alah, Yered'?
2)
(a)Mekalkel ba'Chaburah means making a wound which has no overall benefit. One is only Chayav for making a wound which is beneficial (according to this opinion - as is the case by other Melachos), such as to obtain blood to feed one's animal.
(b)Someone who Shechts a Korban Pesach she'Lo l'Ochlav is not Patur because of Mekalkel ba'Chaburah - because he obtains the benefit of 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu' (any Pesul Korban that occurred in the Azarah is Kasher inasmuch as, if it is taken up on the Mizbe'ach, it remains there).
(c)He is nevertheless Chayav if he Shechted a Pesach which he subsequently found to be ...
1. ... blemished (specifically by a cataract in the eye) - according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that unlike other blemishes, a Korban with a cataract in the eye also has the Din of 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'.
2. ... a Tereifah (in a visible place) - because the Shechitah is nevertheless effective to remove Tum'as Neveilah.
3)
(a)Which three Chata'os is one Chayav for Shechting a Chatas outside the Azarah to Avodah-Zarah on Shabbos?
(b)Why is he Chayav at all? Why is this not another case of Mekalkel ba'Chaburah?
3)
(a)Someone who Shechts a Chatas outside the Azarah to Avodah-Zarah on Shabbos - is Chayav a Chatas for Shabbos, for Avodah-Zarah and for Shechutei Chutz.
(b)This is not Mekalkel ba'Chaburah - because the Shechitah is effective to remove the Isur of Eiver Min ha'Chai.
4)
(a)A Chatas whose owner died, or one whose owner brought another animal in its place, must die. What happens to an Asham under the same circumstances?
(b)What did Rav Huna quoting Rav say about such an Asham that was put in the field to graze but was Shechted without actually specifying that it was now an Olah, and what do we learn from this statement?
(c)In that case, why will it not be Kasher even if it is Shechted before it is placed in the field to graze (see Tosfos DH 'Asham' that Akirah itself is only mid'Rabanan)?
(d)What does Rebbi Eliezer hold with regard to an Asham whose owner died etc.?
4)
(a)Whenever a Chatas must die, an Asham grazes in the field until it becomes blemished, and with its money one buys a Nedavah (Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai).
(b)Rav Huna quoting Rav said about such an Asham that was put in the field to graze but was Shechted without actually specifying that it was now an Olah - that it is nevertheless Kasher for an Olah. We see from Rav that a Korban that stands to be changed does not require Akirah (to change its status specifically).
(c)The reason that the Asham is not Kasher even if it is Shechted before it is placed in the field to graze - is because Chazal decreed a case where the Kaparah has been effected because of a similar case where it has not (and where it still remains an Asham). There is no case for such a decree once it has been designated as an Olah.
(d)According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Asham has exactly the same Din as the Chatas, so whenever the Chatas dies, the Asham dies, too.
5)
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua also holds that one brings an Olah from an Asham whose owner died etc. How does his opinion differ from that of the Tana Kama, who holds that it goes li'Nedavah?
(b)What are the ramifications of their Machlokes?
(c)What do we prove from the fact that it is the proceeds of the blemished Asham that goes to Nedavah and not the animal itself?
5)
(a)The Tana Kama holds that an Asham whose owner died etc. goes li'Nedavah (which means for Olas Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach, which, in effect, is a Nidvas Tzibur), whereas according to Rebbi Yehoshua, the owner brings a private Olah for himself with the proceeds.
(b)According to Rebbi Yehoshua, the Olah will require Semichah, and its drink-offering comes out of his own pocket, which is not the case if it goes for a Nedavah.
(c)From the fact that it is the proceeds of the blemished Asham that goes to Nedavah and not the animal itself - we prove that Chazal decreed after the Kaparah because of a case where the owner has not been atoned for yet.
73b----------------------------------------73b
6)
(a)We learnt in our Mishnah that, if, after Shechting the Korban Pesach on Shabbos, he discovers that the owners had all withdrawn, died or become Tamei, he is Patur from bringing a Chatas. The Beraisa adds that, if a similar case were to occur on a weekday, it would be burnt immediately (without requiring Ibur Tzurah - to wait until the next morning). According to Rav Yehudah quoting Rav, who said above that an Asham whose owner died does not require Akirah - and the same will apply to a Korban Pesach after Pesach - what would then cause the Pesach to be Pasul?
(b)Why does the Beraisa now pose a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav?
(c)How do we then attempt to amend Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement?
6)
(a)According to Rav Yehudah quoting Rav, who said above that an Asham whose owner died does not require Akirah (and the same will apply to a Korban Pesach after Pesach), a Korban Pesach whose owners had dies etc. - would be Pasul because it was Shechted after the Korban Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim.
(b)If this is why it is Pasul, then surely that is an external Pesul, not a Pesul ha'Guf, in which case it ought to need Ibur Tzurah. Consequently, it must be Pasul because it requires Akirah (not like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav), until when it remains a Pesach, which is Pasul because it has no owner (which is a Pesul ha'Guf).
(c)We therefore amend Rav to read not 'u'Shechato Stam' etc., but 'u'Shechato l'Shem Olah' - otherwise, it remains a Pesach (because 'Pesach Ba'i Akirah').
7)
(a)We learnt above however (on Daf 64a), that Rebbi Chiya bar Gamda establishes the Mishnah there by a Pesach whose members were all Tamei Mes, and whose Korban was therefore automatically destined for the Pesach Sheni, and requires Akirah (to become a Shelamim). How does this prove the original statement of Rav?
(b)How do we seemingly resolve the problem by establishing the Beraisa in 6a (which states that, if a similar case were to occur on a weekday, it would be burnt immediately) by someone who designated his Pesach before mid-day, and who died after mid-day?
(c)This answer however, does not conform with Rav's opinion with regard to the Dichuy (rejection) of animals. What does he say there?
(d)On what grounds does the Gemara also reject the suggestion that the author of that Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer of the Mishnah in 'Tamid Nishchat', who disqualifies another Korban that one Shechted in the name of a Pesach?
7)
(a)From Rebbi Chiya bar Gamda, who establishes the Mishnah there by a Pesach whose members were all Teme'ei Meisim, and whose Korban was therefore automatically destined for the Pesach Sheni, and requires Akirah (to become a Shelamim), it is clear that, otherwise, we would say 'Pesach Lo Ba'i Akirah', like the original statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav.
(b)By establishing the Beraisa in 6a (which states that, if a similar case were to occur on a weekday, it would be burnt immediately) by someone who designated his Pesach before mid-day, and who died after mid-day, we seemingly resolve the problem with Rav, because - the Pesach then becomes a 'Nireh v'Nidcheh' (fit and rejected) which cannot be rectified.
(c)This answer however, does not conform with Rav himself, who holds that animals are not subject to rejection (i.e. are always rectifiable).
(d)Establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer (of the Mishnah in 'Tamid Nishchat', who disqualifies another Korban that one Shechted in the name of a Pesach) - because according to Rebbi Eliezer, he ought to be Chayav a Chatas, too, since Rebbi Eliezer holds 'To'eh bi'Dvar Mitzvah, Chayav'. Why does the Mishnah exempt him?
8)
(a)The Gemara finally establishes the Beraisa like Yosef ben Chona'i. What does he say in the Mishnah in Zevachim? Like whom does he hold with regard to 'To'eh bi'Dvar Mitzvah'?
8)
(a)The Gemara finally establishes the Beraisa like Yosef ben Chona'i, who says in the Mishnah in Zevachim 'ha'Nishchatim Le'shem Pesach ... Pesulim' (in which case, it is a Pesul ha'Guf - which explains why it is burnt immediately). However, with regard to 'To'eh bi'D'var Mitzvah', he holds like Rebbi Yehoshua (which is why he is Patur from a Chatas).
9)
(a)According to Rav Ashi, the Tana of the Beraisa holds that the Pesach does require Akirah, and Rav holds like Rebbi Yishmael Bno shel Rebbi Yochanan Ben Berokah, who disagrees with him. Which two statements does Rebbi Yishmael make? How do his statements conform with Rav?
(b)The Gemara refutes Rav Ashi's explanation however, on the grounds that perhaps Rebbi Yishmael Bno shel Rebbi Yochanan Ben Beroka holds like the Tana of Bei Rabah Bar Avuha. What does he say?
(c)And the Gemara proves its point from the case of Nitme'u Be'alim. What is the proof from there?
9)
(a)Rebbi Yishmael Bno shel Rebbi Yochanan Ben Berokah says 'Im Yesh Shehus ba'Yom Leidah, Im Mashchu Ba'alim es Yedeihem O she'Meisu O she'Nitme'u, Chayav, v'Te'ubar Tzuraso, v'Yotz'ei l'Beis ha'Sereifah'.
(b)Tana of Bei Rabah Bar Avuha holds that even Pigul (the ultimate Pesul ha'Guf) requires Ibr Tzurah.
(c)The Gemara proves its point from the case of Nitme'u Be'alim - which also requires Ibur Tzurah, even though everyone agrees that Nitme'u Be'alim, where the Pesach now stands to be brought as a Pesach on Pesach Sheni, is a Pesul ha'Guf (and requires Akirah). So we see that, according to the Tana of Bei Rabah Bar Avuha, even a Pesul ha'Guf requires Ibur Tzurah.
Hadran Alach, 'Elu Devarim'!