One who did Melikah (the slaughtering of a bird-offering in the Beis HaMikdash, which was performed using the fingernail of the Kohen rather than in the regular way) on a bird-offering (slaughtered for a person who is required to bring the sacrifice to complete his atonement) upon Chametz - one Beraisa teaches that he is liable and one Beraisa teaches that he is exempt.

The Beraisa that teaches that he is liable learns from the word "blood'' in the pasuk that the prohibition applies to all sacrifices.

The Beraisa that teaches that he is exempt learns from the word "Zevach-sacrifice'' - the prohibition does not apply to a bird-offering as it is not considered a sacrifice.

Question (R' Yaakov bar Zavda to R' Yosa): I understand the Beraisa that teaches that he is liable, but what is the reason of the Beraisa that teaches that he is exempt?

Response: We learn a punishment from a punishment (that one is liable for slaughtering upon Chametz from the case of slaughtering outside of the Beis HaMikdash); but we do not learn a punishment from an exemption (that if he did Melikah outside of the Beis HaMikdash, he is exempt). (Note: This explanations follows the understanding of Rav Chaim Kanievski.)

Rabbanan of Kisarin learned: I might have thought that one who receives the blood and one who takes the blood (of the Pesach) to the altar upon Chametz would be liable - the pasuk states "Zevach'' - slaughtering is special in that one is liable if it is performed outside the Beis HaMikdash; this excludes receiving and taking the blood, that one is not liable if it is performed outside the Beis HaMikdash.

I might have thought that one who burns the limbs upon Chametz would be liable - the pasuk states (Vayikra 14), "and it (the blood) shall atone'' - slaughtering is special in that it is crucial to receiving atonement; this excludes burning the limbs which is not crucial to receiving atonement.

Question (R' Yaakov bar Zavdi to R' Yosa): Rather than expound it to exempt, perhaps you should expound it to make him liable - I might have thought that one who receives or takes the blood to the altar upon Chametz would be exempt - the pasuk says, "Zevach'' - just as sacrificing is special in that one is liable if it is performed outside the Beis HaMikdash; I will also include burning the limbs, as one is liable if it is performed outside the Beis HaMikdash?!

(2nd part of question): I might have thought that one who receives the blood and one who takes the blood (of the Pesach) to the altar upon Chametz would be exempt - the pasuk states "and it shall atone'' - slaughtering is special in that it is crucial to receiving atonement; I will also include receiving and taking the blood that are crucial to receiving atonement?! (Note: This understanding follows the text of the Korban HaEidah).

Response: Something which they share can be used to expound, something which they do not share cannot. "Zevach'' - Slaughtering is special in that it is crucial to receiving atonement and one is liable if performed outside the Beis HaMikdash; this excludes one who receives or takes the blood, that one is not liable for performing it outside; this also excludes burning the limbs that is not crucial to receiving atonement.

(Mishnah in Maseches Beitzah): Beis Shamai say that Se'or is liable with the amount of a k'zayis and Chametz with the amount of a date. Beis Hillel say that in both, the amount is a k'zayis.

Rav Zrikan quoting R' Yosa ben Chanina: This only refers to the requirement to destroy it but in order to be liable for eating, even Beis Shamai agree that the amount is a kzayis.

R' Abahu quoting R' Yochanan: Both for destroying it and for eating it, it is the amount of a date. (Note: This statement and the several that follow are explained according to the text of the Korban HaEidah.)

Question (R' Mana upon meeting R' Chizkiyah): From where did you hear this (that they disagree over both cases)?

Answer: From R' Abahu.

Response: But I heard from R' Abahu in the name of R' Yochanan that (according to Beis Shamai) for destroying it is the amount of a date and for eating it is the amount of a kzayis.

Question #1: (According to Beis Shamai) in order to be liable if he slaughtered the Korban Pesach upon Chametz, does he need to have a kzayis for its eating or the amount of a date for destroying it?

Question #2 (R' Yirmiyah quoting R' Zeira): If two half-olives portions of Chametz are in the house, the house does not join them together; if in a vessel, the vessel joins them together. If he slaughtered the Korban Pesach upon them, would he be exempt since the house would not join them, or would he be liable since a vessel would join them?

Question #3: If he slaughtered the Korban Pesach upon Se'or (rather than Chametz), would he be exempt since Rav Huna quoted Rav saying that one may feed it to his dog; or would he be liable since Rav said that one receives lashes for eating it?

R' Shimon ben Lakish: One who slaughtered the Korban Pesach upon Chametz is only liable if the slaughterer was amongst the members of the group, but if he was not, then even if he or a member of the group owned Chametz, he is not liable.

R' Yochanan: If owned by the slaughterer, even if not owned a group member or if owned by a group member even if not owned by the slaughterer, he is liable.

R' Yochanan: Even if the Chametz is with him in Yerushalayim he is liable.

R' Shimon ben Lakish: He is only liable if the Chametz is with him in the Temple courtyard.

They both follow their reasoning, as they disagree over one who did melachah both on the 1st day of Yom Tov and the 2nd day of Yom Tov that is observed in the Diaspora -

R' Yochanan said that one can receive a warning for a case of doubt (such as this, where it is unclear if it is actually Yom Tov on any given day).

R' Shimon ben Lakish said that one cannot receive a warning for a case of doubt. (Similarly, if one owns Chametz that is located somewhere in Yerushalayim, if he is warned that he may not own Chametz when he slaughters the Korban Pesach, it is unclear at that time if the Chametz is still intact.)

All agree that he is liable if the Chametz was positioned in a place that was visible to the slaughterer through a window. According to R''SBL, he is liable as there is no doubt in this case. According to R' Yochanan, he is certainly liable as the Chametz is in Yerushalayim. (Note: This understanding follows the text brought by Rav Chaim Kanievski.)

Question: Why does R' Yehudah (of the Mishnah - see 62-2(b)) also include the afternoon Tamid offering in the prohibition of slaughtering upon Chametz?

Answer: The pasuk states (Shemos 34, 25), "the blood of My sacrifices'' - this (plural term) includes the blood of the Pesach and the blood of the Tamid offering.

R' Yochanan: The reasoning of R' Shimon (of the Mishnah - see 62-2(c)) is - one pasuk states (ibid), "You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifices upon Chametz''. Another pasuk states (Shemos 23, 18), "You shall not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifices upon Chametz''. One pasuk refers to the Korban Pesach on the 14th and one pasuk refers to all other sacrifices during Chol HaMoed.

Question: Why did you include Chol HaMoed and exclude the 14th?

Answer: Since the Torah has an inclusion and an exclusion, I will include Chol HaMoed since there is a prohibition of Bal Yero'eh and Bal Yimotzai and I will exclude the 14th that does not have that prohibition.

This follows R' Meir who said that the prohibition after the 6th hour is Rabbinic.

Answer (R' Mana): (Why is it that a "Pesach'' brought Lishmah during the Moed is exempt?) Since the pasuk states (Shemos 34, 25), "...the sacrifice of the festival of Pesach'', it refers specifically to the 14th (as later it would be referred to as a Shelamim).

Question (R' Yochanan quoting the Bnei Chavurah): What is the case (when the Mishnah says that if brought Lishmah during the Moed he is exempt and Lo Lishmah he is liable)? If he lost it and found it before he had sacrificed its replacement, whether it was Lishmah or Lo Lishmah, it should be sent out to graze! If he lost it and found it after he had sacrificed its replacement, whether Lishmah or Lo Lishmah, it should be sacrificed as a Shelamim?!

Answer: When the owner became Tamei or intentionally did not bring the sacrifice, that it must now be brought on Pesach Sheni. Therefore, if brought Lishmah, he is exempt as it is invalid; if brought Lo Lishmah, he is liable as it is valid.

Question: When is it that Lo Lishmah is exempt?

Answer #1 (R' Chisda): When it reached the age of a year (which disqualified it from use as a Korban Pesach) between Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheni.

Answer #2 (R' Ila quoting R' Yochanan): When it was separated for the Korban Pesach of the previous year.

(Beraisa): A Korban Pesach whose time had passed (as it reached the age of a year or its owner died) and he or others slaughtered it Lishmah on the 14th (it was therefore a case of a Shelamim slaughtered as a Pesach offering) - R' Eliezer says that it is invalid and R' Yehoshua says that it is valid.

Reasoning: R' Eliezer says that it is invalid as it is as if he has slaughtered a Pesach as a Shelamim. R' Yehoshua says that it is valid as it is as if he has slaughtered a Shelamim as a Pesach.

Question: Since its time had passed, it should make no difference whether it's a Pesach slaughtered as a Shelamim or vice-versa?!

Answer: According to Rav Chisda, its time passed between Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheni. According to R' Ila quoting R' Yochanan, it was separated for the Korban Pesach of the previous year.