Sugya in Zevachim: At the end of the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 29.) Rebbi Elazar argues with ben Azai and learns from "Oso" that the Pasuk is talking about the Korban and not about the Kohen.

Our Sugya: Only the Gemara here wants to establish it according to ben Azai.

Conclusion: In any case, the Sugya there concludes like the Sugya here.

Question: The Gemara there pushes to establish the statement of Acherim like ben Azai, whereas in Temurah at the end of Eilu Kodshim (Daf 21: & 22.) in connection with 'the three things that Rebbi Yossi says in the name of three elders' ...

Question (cont.): It implies that ben Azai, who establishes the Hekesh of Ma'aser to B'chor - 'Just as B'chor can only be eaten within the walls (of Yerushalayim), so too, can Ma'aser only be eaten within the walls, doesn't concur with Acherim ...

Question (concl.): Since it asks there 'From where do the Rabbanan, who learn something else from there, learn that a B'chor does not become Pasul from one year to the next'?

Answer: It doesn't really matter however, if the Gemara tries to establish the case in all possible ways.

Explanation #1: At the end of the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 29:) Rashi explains it in connection with money that was stolen.

Explanation #2: It seems however, that it is really talking about a Neder ...

Proof: As is evident in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos, Daf 32: and 32:) ...

Proof (cont.): As Rebbi Nasan states in a Beraisa 'For the sin of Nedarim a man's wife dies, as the Torah writes "If you do not have with what to pay, why should He take away from you the woman who lies in your bosom?"

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara Darshens here "in you" 'will be a sin and not in your wife' ...

Answer: Is because here it speaks about somebody who ultimately pays, only who, in the interim, transgresses 'bal Te'acher'.

Source: As the Torah writes in Bamidbar (32) "And what comes out of your mouth you shall do".

Question: The Gemara says in Perek ha'Motzei Tefilin (Eruvin, Daf 96. & 96:) in connection with establishing "ve'Shamarta es ha'Chukah ha'Zos" with regard to Tefilin (according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili), whereas Rebbi Akiva establishes it by the Korban Pesach, and nevertheless, Pesach is only an Asei, since "Hishamer" of an Asei is an Asei.

Question (cont.): And similarly, in the last Perek of Yoma (Daf 81.) in connection with Resh Lakish, who explains why the Torah does not warn on Inuy (on Yom Kipur) because it is not possible to do so.- because what should it write? And the Gemara asks there 'Let write "Hishamer be'Inuy"? And it answers 'Hashemaer da'Asei, Asei'?

Question (concl.): In that case, here too, the Hishamer belongs to the Asei to pay what one promised, and the Asei is that of "Motzei Sefasecha ..."

Answer: Granted, laying Tefilin after sunset refers to the Asei of putting on Tefilin; but "Tishmor" here refers to "Lo Te'acher" that precedes it' that one should take care not to delay (fulfilling what one promised).

Observation: According to Rebbi Yochanan, who says at the end of 'ha'Kometz Rabah' (Menachos, Daf 36: and 37.) in connection with someone who wears Tefilin after sunset that 'Hishamer of an Asei is nevertheless a La'av'

Observation: Must hold that the Gemara, which declares Pesach and Milah Mitzvos Asei does not hold like Rebbi Akiva, and the ruling of Resh Lakish in Yoma does not remain intact.

Refutation: However, it is not correct to establish it not like Rebbi Akiva, seeing as it is a Mishnah in the first Perek of Kerisus (Daf 2.), and the Gemara on Daf 3: implies that the Sugya goes according to Rebbi Akiva, since it inserts Ov but not Yid'oni.

Conclusion: It is therefore necessary to differentiate and to say that the case of Rebbi Yochanan is not comparable to other cases of 'Hishamer de'Asei' (See Hagahos ha'Bach).

Source: As the Pasuk writes in Yeshayah (45) "Yatza mi'Pi Tzedakah".

Question: 'Kofin oso' applies to all Mitzvos Asei, as the the Gemara says in Perek ha'Kosev (Kesuvos, Daf 86:) 'Makin oso ad she'Teitzei Nafsho'.

Question (cont.): And the reason that it mentions it here is ...

Answer: Because, seeing as the Torah writes "li'Retzono", we would have thought that it cannot force him.

Implied Question: The Mishnah in Perek ha'Omer Mishk'li alai (Erchin, Daf 21.) learns that 'Whereas one does not take a security from someone who is Chayav a Chatas or an Asham, one does take one from someone who is Chayav an Olah or a Shelamim'.

Implied Question: How does this speak? If it is before it reaches the stage of bal te'Acher, then one should take a security even from someone who is Chayav an Olah or a Shelamim?

Implied Question (cont.): Whereas if it is afterwards, then one should take even from someone who is Chayav a Chatas or an Asham?

Answer: It is speaking where he has not yet transgressed, but where we see that he is lax in bringing it, and where he spends money unnecessarily specifically so that he is not left with the funds to bring his Korban

Answer (cont.): Consequently, one takes a security - and it is if one does not find anything to take that one forces him physically, as the Gemara explains here.

Question: Why does one need to take a security for Olos any more than for Chata'os and Ashamos ...

Question (cont.): Bearing in mind that, in the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 6.) the Gemara says that Olos too, atone for Chayvei Asei?

Answer: Since the Gemara says in Yoma (Daf 86.) that, 'If one does Teshuvah (after transgressing an Asei), he is forgiven without even having to move from the spot'. It transpires that it is the Teshuvah that really atones, in which case, it cannot be compared to Chata'os and Ashamos.

Clarification of Sugya. Question: Tosfos assumes that the Gemara answers this, since it initially queried the Asei, the Lo Sa'aseh and the Isuy (coercion), and it seems that the there are two Pesukim for each one.

Answer: The Gemara answers that each one requires two Pesukim, one for 'Amar ve'Lo Afrish' (where one declared but did not separate), the other, for 'Afrish ve'Lo Akriv' (where one separated but did not bring the Korban).

Question: Then the Gemara asks how one can possibly say 'Amar ve'Lo Afrish', since the Torah includes Nedavah, and we learned in a Mishnah ... ?

Clarification: What the Gemara is now asking is - how one can establish the Asei, the Lo Sa'aseh and the coercion of the Pasuk by 'Amar ve'Lo Afrish' ...

Clarification (cont.): Seeing as those three issues (the Asei, the Lo Sa'aseh and the Isuy) pertain to Nedavah as much as they do to Neder, seeing Nedavah is written in the same Pasuk, as the Gemara stated earlier "Nedavah" - 'literally', and how can 'Amar ve'Lo Afrish' refer to Nedavah ...

Clarification (cont): seeing as they are diametrically opposed to one another - seeing as 'Amar ve'Lo Afrish' does not say 'Harei Zu'; on the contrary, he says 'Harei alai Neder', seeing as he does not designate it at that moment; whereas Nedavah intrinsically means that one designates it at that moment?

Source: AS we learned in the Mishnah in Megilah 'What is a Neder ... ?'?

Answer: And the Gemara answers that there are two cases of 'Amar ve'Lo Afrish' that are Neder, and two that are Nedavah.

Case: Where he declares 'Harei alai Olah al-M'nas she'Lo Eschayav be'Achrayusah' ...

Clarification (cont.): When he says 'Harei alai' this is akin to a Neder, yet by stating that he does not accept liability', he clarifies that he really wants it to be a Nedavah.

Conclusion: So here we have a case of 'Amar ve'Lo Afrish' where he says 'Harei alai' yet it is like a Nedavah, since he does not undertake liability, like a Nedavah.

Source: This is a Mishnah in the first Perek of Kinin (Mishnah 1).

Clarification: This is not comparable to 'making a stipulation which clashes with what the Torah says' (in which case the Neder would be invalid.

Reason: Since it is Pasul to be brought as a Korban ...

Source in Mishnah: As we learned in the Mishnah in Bechoros (Daf 41.) 'an old animal, on that is sick and one that has a foul odor'.

Source in Pasuk #1: And in Perek Kol ha'Asurim (Temurah, Daf 28:), the Gemara precludes them from the Pasuk "min ha'Tzon, min ha'Kevasim u'min ha'Izim" (from the three words "min").

Source in Pasuk #2: Moreover, the Pasuk writes in Mal'achi (1) "Do you think that there is nothing wrong with bringing Me a lame animal or one that is sick?"

Implied Question: The Tana mentions B'chor ...

Answer: Because it is in connection with B'chor that the Torah introduces the Halachah of a year - "You shall eat it in its first year".

Answer (cont.): Whereas other Kodshim we learn from the word "Kol" there.

Clarification: It speaks where he sanctified it on Erev Pesach ...

Clarification (cont.): Whereas when the Gemara will shortly say 'It is fine according to the opinion that requires the three Regalim in the right order', it is speaking where the owner sanctified it after Pesach.

Clarification: Because whereas, on the one hand, where he sanctifies it in the middle of Yom-Tov, when the year comes round, three Regalim have not yet passed, since one requires complete Yamim-Tovim, as we learned earlier ...

Clarification (cont.): On the other hand, there are three complete Regalim, if one adds the end of Yom-Tov of the previous year to the beginning of the Yom-Tov of the current year?

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi establishes the case where the owner sanctified it prematurely (before the eighth day) on Pesach.

Refutation: It is implied shortly however, that this is not a good answer, when the Gemara says 'One only counts a year by a B'chor from the time that it is fit to be brought as a Korban (but not before).

Alternative Answer: According to Rebbi Meir, who said earlier 'One Yom-Tov' and according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who said 'two', the case can only be where the animal is sick on Yom-Tov ...

Alternative Answer (cont.): Indeed, the Gemara could have answered this according to Rebbi and the Rabbanan too.

Clarification: Rashi explains that the same applies in regular years, according to Rebbi, who learns from "Temimah" of Batei Arei Chomah, as is evident in the last Perek of Erchin (Daf 31:).

Clarification: La'av Davka (after Pesach), since the same will apply in the middle of Pesach, as is evident earlier (on Daf 5:) ...

Reason: Seeing as one needs the entire Yom-Tov.

Source #1: Since an heir is Chayav to bring the Korban, as we learned in the Mishnah in Kinin (Perek 2, Mishnah 5), which the Gemara cites in many places - 'If a woman brings her Chatas and dies, her heirs must bring her Olah'.

Two Possibilities: It implies in the first Perek in Kidushin (Daf 13:) that according to those who hold 'Shibuda is not d'Oraysa', it speaks where she designated it in her lifetime, whereas according to those who hold 'Shibuda d'Oraysa', it speaks even where she did not.

Source #2: And at the end of 'Yesh B'chor' (Bechoros, Daf 51:) too, the Gemara says 'Whereas over there, the heirs are obligated to bring the Olas Re'iyah of their father ... '.

Clarification: And the same applies to a Zakein, a sick person and anyone who does not own land, and to anybody else who is Patur from Re'iyah.

Clarification: And the Pasuk (in Re'ei) "And you shall come there and you shall bring there" will therefore apply to her.

Explanation #1: 'In Bavel, Rashi explains, with colored clothes, and in Eretz Yisrael, with pressed linen clothes, as the Gemara says in Kidushin) Daf 34: & 35.).

Question #1:Rabeinu Tam queries this however, inasmuch as that speaks nowadays, but when the Beis-ha'Mikdash stood, there is no Simchah other then with meat, as the Gemara says in Arvei Pesachim (Pesachim, Daf 109. & 109:)?

Question #2: Furthermore, the Gemara says in the first Perek of Chagigah (Daf 6. & 6:) in connection with the Mishnah 'What is the definition of a Katan? Whoever cannot hold his father's hand to go from Yerushalayim to the Har ha'Bayis'.

Question #2 (cont.): And on the question 'Who brings him until there (Yerushalahyim)?', the Gemara answers 'Until there his mother, who is Chayav Simchah, brings him'.

Question #2 (concl.): This implies that she is obligated to go to Yerushalayim on account of the Mitzvah of Simchah?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains 'Ba'alah Mesamchah' to mean that the obligation lies on her husband and not on her.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And that which was said in Chagigah that 'his mother, who is Chayav (in Simchah)', refers to her husband's obligation (toward her)- and not to her obligation .

Retraction: We find in the Gemara in Pesachim in Perek Eilu Devarim (Daf 71.) however, that even when the Beis-ha'Mikdash is standing, one can fulfil the Mitzvah of Simchah with fresh clothes and old wine ...

Retraction (cont.): Such as where the first day of Yom-Tov falls on Shabbos, since the Shechitah must take place when Simchah applies (and not the day before).