1)

(a)We know that Pesach requires Linah - from the Pasuk in Re'eh "u'Fanisa va'Boker v'Halachta l'Ohalecha."

(b)The Mitzvah of 'Linah' comprises - remaining in Yerushalayim overnight, after having brought the Korbenos ha'Chag, until the first morning of Chol ha'Mo'ed.

2)

(a)We ask from where the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon (who learn 'Bal Te'achar' from "b'Chag ha'Matzos, uve'Chag ha'Shavuos uve'Chag ha'Sukos") will learn Tashlumin by Shavu'os. We cannot ask the same question on Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who learns 'Bal Te'achar' from "uve'Chag ha'Sukos" - because, according to him, Sukos alone determines Bal Te'acher, in which case, "b'Chag ha'Matzos, uve'Chag ha'Shavuos" remain superfluous, to Darshen Tashlumin by Shavu'os.

(b)A Beraisa cited by Rabah bar Shmuel explains that the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon learn Tashlumin from Rosh Chodesh - because in the same way as the Torah says to count the days which comprise the month, and to bring the Korban of Rosh Chodesh on one day (just like one counted), so too, does the Torah say count the weeks until Shavu'os, and then gives a week (like one counted) on which to bring the Korban.

(c)Rava asks from the Pasuk in Emor, that obligates us to count days as well as weeks - how we know to that Shevuos has a week for Tashlumin (based on the obligation to count weeks), perhaps it has only a day (based on the obligation to count days)?!

(d)And we answer - that this is because the name of the Chag is 'Shavu'os' (indicating that the weeks that one counts are the main objective of the Mitzvah, and that the counting of the days is of secondary importance).

3)

(a)The problem with the fact that the Tana lists Pesach among the Korbanos that are included in Bal Te'acher is - that the Korban Pesach can only be brought on the fourteenth of Nisan, and is not therefore subject to Bal Te'acher.

(b)Rav Chisda answers that the Tana includes Pesach only by the way, but not because it belongs there - Rav Sheishes interprets 'Pesach' to mean 'Shalmei Pesach' (i.e. a Korban Pesach that was left over and not Shechted on the fourteenth, and which becomes a Shelamim.

(c)The Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to mention Shelamim that come as a result the Pesach of specifically, despite the fact that he has already included Shelamim in the list - since we might other wise have thought that like the Pesach, from which they come, they.

4)

(a)A second Beraisa learns Bal Te'acher in all the cases mentioned in the Beraisa on the previous Daf, from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei (which is the source for Bal Te'acher). Although the Torah only writes "Neder", we nevertheless include Nedavah from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Neder" "Neder" from the Dinim of Korbanos in Tzav. The ...

1. ... factual distinction between Neder and Nedavah is - that whereas a Neder comprises a vow to bring an unspecified animal as a Shelamim or an Olah, a Nedavah - comprises designating a specific animal as a Korban.

2. ... Halachic difference between them is - that in the case of a Neder one remains liable in the event that the animal that one subsequently designates gets lost; whereas in the case of a Nedavah - (which is no longer available), one does not.

(b)From "la'Hashem Elokecha" we learn Damim, Erchin, Charamim and Hekdeshos - which are all Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(c)From "Lo Se'acher Leshal*mo*" - we learn 'Hu v'Lo Chalipav' (that Bal Te'acher is confined to the animal itself, but not to the animal with which the owner switched it (i.e. Temurah, which is a valid Korban even though it is forbidden to do so).

5)

(a)From "Darosh Yidreshenu" we learn the Din of Bal Te'acher with regards to Chata'os and Ashamos - Olos and Shelamim.

(b)Despite having already learned Nedarim and Nedavos earlier, the Tana see fit to learn Olos and Shelamim again - because whereas the one refers to Olos and Shelamim that one volunteered to bring, the other refers to Olos Re'iyah and Shalmei Chagigah (which are obligatory).

(c)Besides Tzedakos, we learn from "Hash-m Elokecha" - that Ma'asros (Dagan and Behemah) and Bechor are also included in the Lav of 'Bal Te'acher' ...

(d)... whereas "me'Imach" comes to include - Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah (as the Torah uses the same word in Mishpatim, regarding a poor man "es he'Ani Imach").

6)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "v'Hayah Becha Chet" - 'v'Lo b'Korbancha Chet' (to teach us that even though one has transgressed the Lav of 'Bal Te'acher', the Korban nevertheless remains valid).

(b)When the Tana says "Hu" 'v'Lo Chilufav', he cannot possibly be referring to ...

1. ... Chilufei Olah or Shelamim - because they become Korbanos in their own right, so why should 'Bal Te'achar' not apply to them?

2. ... Chilufei Chatas - because that is one of the five Chata'os that have to die, and it is obvious that 'Bal Te'acher' will not apply to it.

(c)We then suggest that maybe he is referring to Chilufei Todah - which one brings without the forty loaves.

(d)If both animals are still alive - one brings them both together with the one set of loaves, and stipulate that the loaves go together with whichever one is the original Todah.

7)

(a)"Hu" 'v'Lo Chalipav' cannot refer to the previous case, but there when one of the animals died - since there is no way that he can even bring the Todah (because, if it is the original Todah, then he is obligated to bring the loaves, whereas if it is not, he is not permitted to bring them), let alone transgress Bal Te'acher.

(b)Rav Sheishes finally establishes "Hu" 'v'Lo Chilufav' by a Chalipei Olah or Shelamim. And to circumvent the Kashya 'Peshita' - he establishes the case where the original Korban became blemished after two Yamim-Tovim had already passed, and that is when he designated the Chalipin to replace it.

(c)It is no longer obvious - because we might have thought that seeing as the Chalipin comes to replace the original one, he will already transgress 'Bal Te'acher' as soon as the next Yom-Tov arrives, (as if it was the original Korban); therefore we learn from "Hu" 'v'Lo Chalipav', that it will only apply after three Regalim have passed from the time that he designated it.

(d)According to Rebbi Meir (in whose opinion one transgresses Bal Te'acher already after one Yom-Tov) - Rava establishes it where he designated the Chalipin in the middle of Yom-Tov, in which we might have thought that 'Bal Te'acher' applies immediately after Yom-Tov (as it would have done had he not declared the Chalipin). The Torah therefore writes "Hu", 'v'Lo Chilufav' (as we just explained).

8)

(a)The Torah writes in connection with Bechor Behemah "Shanah b'Shanah". We would have thought that the Bechor becomes Pasul after the first year has expired - in the same way as a Ba'al-Mum (a blemished Korban) does.

(b)We learn that it does not from the fact that the Torah compares it to Ma'aser Dagan, which we know does not become Pasul - from the Pasuk in Ki Savo obligating the clearing out of all one's Ma'asros and giving them to their rightful owners after the end of the third year.

(c)We query this however, in that we already know this from Acherim (in a Beraisa), who learns it from the Pasuk in Re'eh "v'Achalta Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha Ma'asar Degancha ... u'Vechoros Bekarcha v'Tzonecha", comparing Bechor to Ma'aser (in the same way as we just explained).

(d)We answer that we need the Derashah of "v'Hayah Becha Chet", to teach us 'v'Lo b'Korbancha Chet' with regard to other Korbanos, which we cannot learn from Bechor - because Korbanos (Olah, Chatas ... ) come to atone (for a sin) or as a gift (Shelamim ... ), whereas Bechor comes for neither.

9)

(a)Ben Azai learns from the Pasuk in Tzav (regarding the Pesul of Pigul) "ha'Makriv Oso Lo Yechasheiv" - that Pigul (a thought on the part of the Kohen to bring the animal in its wrong time) renders the Korban invalid, but not an animal that is brought to the Beis Hamikdash after its time ...

(b)... rendering the Beraisa's Derashah "Becha Chet", 've'Lo b'Korbancha Chet', redundant.

(c)We therefore emend the Beraisa to read "Be'cha Chet" 'v'Lo b'Ishtecha Chet'.

(d)We might otherwise have thought that a man's wife would die because he transgressed 'Bal Te'achar' from Rebbi Yochanan (or Rebbi Elazar) who learns from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Im Ein Lecha Leshaleim Lamah Yikach Mishkavcha mi'Tachtecha" - that a man's wife is likely to die because he did not pay back money that he stole from human beings*(see Tosfos DH 'Ela Im Ken'). Note, that a woman dying for her husband's sins probably speaks when she is Chayav Misah anyway (for her own transgressions). Normally however, her husband's merits would protect her. But now that he too, is guilty of not paying money that he stole, his merits will no longer stand her in good stead.