1)

(a)

1. Pesach Rishon is subject to Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei, if someone in the group possesses Chametz, and it also requires Hallel to be said at the time of eating - whereas neither of these apply to the Pesach Sheni. (Note: One is permitted to have Chametz in the house where the Pesach Sheni is being eaten, but not at the same table.)

2. Both the Rishon and the Sheni require Hallel to be recited whilst they are being prepared (during the day), they must both be roasted, they must both be eaten together with Matzah and Maror, and the Shechitah etc. of both over-rides Shabbos.

2)

(a)From the Pasuk "k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach Ya'asu Oso", we include Mitzvos she'be'Gufo in the Pesach Sheni - incorporating the Shechitah and the other Avodos performed on the body of the Pesach, and eating it roasted.

(b)The Mitzvos she'Al Gufo - which "Al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu" come to include - comprise eating it together with Matzah and Maror.

(c)Although we learnt from "k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach Ya'asu Oso" that Mitzvos she'be'Gufo of the Pesach Sheni are similar to the Pesach Rishon, we still need "v'Etzem Lo Yishberu Bo" to preclude Mitzvos she'Lo Al Gufo, because, since the Torah then writes "Al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu' (which are not Mitzvos she'be'Gufo), it seems that our initial contention (to preclude whatever is not a Mitzvah she'be'Gufo, is not absolutely correct). In fact, maybe we are dealing here with a 'P'rat u'Klal', which includes everything.

(d)We would have treated it as a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal', and not vice versa - because the P'rat is mentioned first. The reason that we do not treat it as a 'Prat u'Klal' - is because if it were, the Torah would only have inserted one P'rat; now that it mentions a number of Pratim, it must be treated as a 'Klal u'Frat' (on each Prat individually).

3)

(a)'Mitzvos she'Lo Al Gufo' - comprises "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi".

4)

(a)Isi ben Yehudah learns from "v'Etzem Lo Yishberu Bo" - that even breaking the bones of a Pesach that do not contain marrow is prohibited.

(b)The Rabanan learn from "k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach Ya'asu Oso" - 'Ein Shochtin ha'Pesach Al ha'Yachid' (and since the Torah needed to write "Ya'asu", it also added "Oso".

(c)'de'Kamah d'Efshar Le'ahaduri, Mehadrinan' - means that if there is only one person who is Tamei by Pesach Rishon (who will therefore be the sole person bringing the Pesach Sheni), we try to prevent this from happening - by making one other person a Tamei Sheretz.

5)

(a)The Klal written by Pesach Sheni is "k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach Ya'asu Oso".

(b)The Aseh of "Al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu" includes that of "Tzli-Esh" and excludes that of "Tashbisu Se'or mi'Bateichem".

(c)The 'Lav ha'Nitak la'Aseh' of "Lo Yash'iru Mimenu Ad Boker" includes that of "Lo Sotzi Mimenu" - and excludes those of "Lo Yera'eh" and "Lo Yimatzei".

(d)The 'Lav' (that is not a Nitak la'Aseh) of "v'Etzem Lo Yishberu Bo" includes "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na" - and excludes that of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi".

6)

(a)This Tana considers the Lav of "Lo Sotzi" (see 5c.) a 'Lav ha'Nitak la'Aseh' - because the Pasuk implies that even if one took it out, he should take it inside again (see Tosfos DH 'Lo Sotzi'), in which case he is even permitted to eat it.

(b)This explanation is not however, unanimous. According to one opinion (see Daf 85a), someone who eats a piece of Pesach that left its borders, transgresses the Lav of "u'Basar b'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu".

(c)Someone who transgresses "Lo Yera'eh" and "Lo Yimatzei" is subject to the Aseh of "Tashbisu" (until after Yom-Tov), making it 'Nitak la'Aseh'.

(d)We include the Lav of "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na", and exclude that of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi" - because the former is a Mitzvah to do with the body of the Pesach, and it is therefore more logical to include it than the latter, which is not.

7)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "ha'Shir Yihye Lachem k'Leil Hiskadesh Chag" - that one only sings Hallel on the night that is sanctified as a Yom-Tov (i.e. Pesach Rishon), but not on Pesach Sheni, which is not a Yom-Tov.

(b)The Gemara gives the logical reason for reciting Hallel during the preparation of the Pesach Sheni as 'how can Yisrael possibly Shecht their Pesachim or take their Lulavim and not sing Hallel'? (Rashi explains that because it is a Dvar Mitzvah it requires Hallel - though it is unclear what he means.)

8)

(a)According to the Tana of our Mishnah, the Pesach Sheni does not over-ride Tum'ah - since one of the major reasons that one brings the Pesach Sheni is because the owner was Tamei by the Pesach Rishon, so what sense will it make to bring it now b'Tum'ah?

(b)Rebbi Yehudah argues that the Torah gave him a chance to bring the Pesach Rishon in a state of Taharah. Now that it did not work out, it is better to bring it b'Tum'ah on Pesach Sheni, than not at all.

(c)Although it is clear that both Beraisos (the one which holds that Pesach Sheni does not require Linah, and the one which holds that it does) follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, we are forced to say that they are learned by two different Tana'im, who argue over what Rebbi Yehudah holds.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah (in one of the above-mentioned Beraisos) learn from the juxtaposition of "Sheshes Yamim Tochal Matzos" to "u'Fanisa va'Boker, v'Halachta l'Ohalecha" - that it is only when Matzos are eaten for six days (i.e. Pesach Rishon) that Linah applies, but not on Pesach Sheni.

9)

(a)Zavin and Zavos etc., are not included in the Heter of eating a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah, together with Teme'ei Mes - because the Pasuk "Ish" that is written by Pesach Sheni (and from which we learn that it is only an individual who brings Pesach Sheni, but not a Tzibur), mentions specifically "Tamei la'Nefesh", to preclude Zavin and Zavos from this concession.

(b)We learn from the juxtaposition of "v'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Basar v'Tum'aso Alav, v'Nichresah" to "Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" - that it is only when the flesh is eaten by Tehorin, that even Zavin and Zavos, Nidos and Yoldos are Chayav Kares for eating the Pesach, but not a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah (despite the fact that they forbidden to bring it).

(c)Rebbi Eliezer learns that they are not even Chayav for entering the Azarah (by a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah) either - from the Pasuk "vi'Yeshalchu Min ha'Machaneh Kol Tzaru'a, v'Chol Zav v'Chol Tamei la'Nafesh", which compares a Metzora and a Zav to a Tamei Mes, to teach us that whenever a Tamei Mes is Patur from Kareis for entering the Azarah (e.g. by a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah), a Metzora and a Zav are not Chayav either.

(d)The Rabanan (above on 67a.) learn from that Pasuk that each of the three is forbidden to enter different Machanos (a Tamei Mes only the Azarah - the Machaneh Shechinah, a Zav even the Har ha'Bayis - the Machaneh Leviyah, and a Metzora even Machaneh Yisrael - outside the walls of every Jewish town.

10)

(a)Kohanim who are Tahor are permitted to enter the Heichal only for the Avodah, but not otherwise (because the Torah writes in Acharei Mos - "v'Al Yavo v'Chol Es El ha'Kodesh").

(b)The Tamei Mes by a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah might be Patur - because, since he is permitted to enter the Azarah in order to bring his Korban Pesach, he will also be Patur for entering the Heichal.

(c)Rava Darshens from ...

1. ... "vi'Yeshalchu Min ha'Machaneh" (according to the first Lashon) - 'Afilu Miktzas Machaneh' (meaning that sometimes a person has to be sent out from one section of the Machaneh - i.e. the Heichal, even though he is not sent out of the other section i.e. the Azarah), in which case he will be Chayav.

2. ... "vi'Yeshalchu Min ha'Machaneh ... mi'Chutz la'Machaneh Teshalechum" (according to the second Lashon) - exactly the opposite: that a person is only sent out of part of the Machaneh Shechinah if he is obligated to leave the entire Machaneh, but as long as he permitted to enter the one half, he is not Chayav for entering the other.