Question: Why not bring a Kohen Katan?

Answer: The Gemara gives a better answer?

Refuted Explanation: Not like Rashi explains - that one is now Makdish an animal as a Mosar Pesach, in case his was the Tam ...

Refutation: Since the Gemara would not have made such a mistake.

Explanation: The Ri therefore explains that he should declare it Hekdesh as a Pesach, so that if the Ba'al-Mum was his, he will now be Yotzei with this one, whereas if it wasn't, it will be a Mosar Pesach.

Explanation (cont.): And the Gemara retorts that it is not a Mosar Pesach unless it is designated as a complete Pesach and is left over.

Question: How can this Mosar become a Kasher Pesach ...

Question (cont.): Bearing in mind that in Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei (Daf 99.) Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Yehudah argue over whether one needs one of the original designees or not. Both agree however, that if it remains even for a short period without an owner, it is no longer fit to be brought as a Korban Pesach?

Answer: It speaks here where the owner designated two animals as Pesachim, one for Acharayus, and where he brought one of them; the one that remains does not become Pasul because it was left alone (without an owner).

Question #1: Nevertheless, according to the opinion that a Pesach does not require Akirah, he is Shechting a Shelamim as a Pesach?

Question #2: Moreover, how could the owner possibly sell it? We will learn later that if someone sells his Olah or Shelamim, the sale is not valid?

Answer #1: As long as there is somebody who still needs it, everyone agrees that the Pesach requires Akirah, as we learned in Perek Tamid Nishchat (above, Daf 64.) 'It speaks where the owner is Tamei Meis ... '.

Answer #2: And if it is speaking about Mosar Pesach in money, the problem falls away.

Question #2: The Ri asks from the Mishnah in the first Perek of B'rachos (daf 2.) 'Whatever can be eaten for one day, must be eaten before dawn-break, and the Gemara (on Daf 9.) commenting that Achilas Pesachim is not mentioned there ...

Question #2 (cont.): Asks from the Beraisa which states that 'the Mitzvah of Keri'as Sh'ma, Hallel ... and Achilas Pesachim lasts until dawn-break'?

Question #2 (cont.): What is the Gemara now asking, seeing as it it implies here that it is possible to mention by the Pesach 'a day and a night'.

Question #2 (concl.): If so, it is indeed included in 'the things that can be eaten for a day and a night' mentioned in the Mishnah there?

Answer: Because it ought then to have mentioned it specifically, assuming he holds that one may eat it until dawn-break, to preclude from the Mishnah in 'Eizehu Mekoman' (Zevachim, Daf 56:), which requires it to be eaten by midnight. Which is mi'd'Oraysa, like the other cases there.

Answer (concl.): And since it does not mention it specifically, the Tana must hold that it it must be eaten until midnight, like it answers in 'Eizehu Mekoman'.

Clarification: He holds that Semichah must be performed with full force ...

Alternative: Otherwise, it would not be considered working with Kodshim.

Machlokes: In 'Ein Dorrshin' (Chagigah, Daf 16:), this is actually a Machlokes Tana'im.

Clarification: We say this too, regarding the other issues - Semichah, Matanos and Nosar.

Question: Is it because perhaps it will become Nosar or because of Semichah that is not crucial or that one will not perform the Matanos properly, that one may enter into a Safek Kareis?

Answer: It is preferable that a Safek Kareis should be pushed away with 'Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh', than that most of them, whgo have already brought their Pesachim, should act improperly.

Question: In Perek Ein Bein ha'Mudar (Nedarim, Daf 36.) Rebbi Zeira concludes according to Rebbi Yochanan, from this Mishnah, that 'Seh le'Beis Avos is not d'Oraysa' ...

Question (cont.): Because if is was, 'he is standing by the meat, and he is Mezakeh them'?

Question (concl.): Whereas here Rebbi Yochanan appointed them initially?

Answer: What the Gemara means to ask here is that - 'Alright if it is considered as if he appointed them initially, in that they don't need to be appointed, since "Seh le'Veis Avos La'v d'Oraysa".

Answer (cont.): But if it is not considered as if he had appointed them initially, and they do therefore require appointment - because "Seh le'Veis Avos d'Oraysa", then why is he Mezakeh his brothers with him, seeing as it is obvious that they were not all appointed together with him before the Shechitah ... .

Answer (concl.): Since the father said that he is going to Shecht on whoever arrives first'?

Clarification: Even if they only eat as much as one person.

Question: The Ri asks why the Gemara finds it necessary to give this answer ...

Question (cont.): Why can he not answer that here is different, since he cannot reply that they accepted him?

Question (concl.): In which case it is not comparable to where one of them is a big eater?

Answer: The Gemara needs to answer this, in order that one should not extrapolate the opposite: That Davka where he appointed others, where he cannot claim that they accepted him, they can send him away, whereas in the case of a big eater, where he can claim that they accepted him, they cannot give him his portion and send him away.

Answer (cont.): Whereas initially, where the Gemara wanted to conclude that it is comparable to where he eats more than the others, the Gemara could have retorted 'To the contrary, the opposite is true!'

Answer (concl.): Therefore the Gemara concludes that one cannot extrapolate anything.

Question: Why does the Gemara not resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah, that specifically where he appointed others to join him are they permitted to give him his portion, but not otherwise?

Answer: One can refute that by arguing that really they are permitted to split up even if he didn't appoint others to join him, and the reason that it mentions that he did - is to teach us that even it they stipulated that they would not break up, once he appoints others to join, they may.

Answer (cont.): Whereas the Beraisa one cannot refute, because it is obvious that once they stipulate that they will not break up, they are not allowed to give him his portion even if he eats more than they do.

Reason: Since one can assume that they stipulated with that in mind, seeing as if not for the fact that one of them ate more than the others, they would not have divided up without specifically stipulating that they would.

Question: The Ri asks that the Reisha is speaking where he was Makdish money for his Pesach, as is evident from the Gemara shortly; whereas the Seifa speaks about Chulin money ...

Proof: Because if he specifically declared it Hekdesh for a Shelamim, how can Shelamim money end up in Nidvas Tzibur, which is used to purchase Olos Kayitz for the Mizbe'ach?

Clarification: If what he did would achieve something, it would be understood, inasmuch as we would penalize him, so that he should get into the habit and do it again ...

Clarification (cont.): But now that 'he has not achieved anything', what is the point of penalizing him, since his actions are not worth anything?

Conclusion: And the Gemara answers - that we nevertheless penalize him.

Clarification: Because if it was Chulin money, what is it coming to teach us? It is obvious that it remains Chulin, because, seeing as it is permitted to appoint others on his Pesach, there is no reason to penalize him like in the Seifa?

Question: Even if the money was Chulin to begin with, how can he appoint others on it after he has declared it Hekdesh? Now that even by money he leaves nothing over, how much more so by the Korban Pesach ...

Question (cont.): Since he asks that Hekdesh should not take effect on Hekdesh?

Answer: Even though he does not leave anything over, he declares the animal Hekdesh having in mind that whoever is appointed on it should be Yotzei ...

Proof: And so the Pasuk writes in Sh'mos (12) "And he and his neighbor shall take ... ", and in the same connection the Torah writes (there) "Tachosu", implying under all conditions, even though the owner has already declared it Hekdesh, since that is his intention.