1)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva do not argue, but 'Mashma'os Dorshin Ika Beinayhu' by which he means that - basically, they agree that one is Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored in a case of He'elam Tum'ah, and Patur by He'elam Mikdash ve'Kodesh, and they only argue over the source.

(b)We know that Rav Sheishes agrees with Rebbi Yochanan - from the fact that he would sometimes switch the opinions without batting an eyelid.

2)

(a)Seeing as both Tana'im obligate someone who forgets that he is Tamei to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, but exempt him if he forgets that he is in the Beis-Hamikdash, Rava asks Rav Nachman - what the Din will be if someone forgets both. Will he be Chayav or Patur?

(b)Rav Ashi tries to resolve the She'eilah - by examining the sinner's reason for desisting. If he desists because he is told that he is Tamei, then he will be Chayav; whereas if he desists because he is told that he is in the Beis-Hamikdash or because he is eating Kodshim, then he will be Patur (see also Tosfos DH 'Amar Rav Ashi').

(c)Ravina rejects this suggestion however - because either way, he will desist because he is a Tamei person eating in the Beis-Hamikdash or eating Kodshim, so Rav Ashi's distinction is meaningless.

(d)Ravina resolves the She'eilah with the words - 'Lo Sh'na', which means that, either way, he is Patur (see Ritva).

3)

(a)The Beraisa rules that in a case where someone walks along two paths, one Tamei, and the other Tahor (though it is not known which is which), and then enters the Beis-Hamikdash - he is Chayav to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored (since there is a Vaday Yedi'ah that he is Tamei).

(b)The Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon argue in a case - where after traversing one of the paths and entering the Beis Hamikdash, he Tovels and is sprinkled with the ashes of the Parah Adumah before traversing the second one and entering the Beis Hamikdash a second time.

(c)The Tana Kama rules that he is Chayav to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, since when all's said and done, he definitely traversed the Tamei path. Rebbi Shimon rules that he is Patur - because on neither occasion, does he know for sure that he entered the Beis-Hamikdash be'Tum'ah.

(d)Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Shimon - exempts him from a Korban even in the first case (where someone walks along two paths, one Tamei, and the other Tahor, and then enters the Beis-Hamikdash).

4)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah's in the name of Rebbi Shimon is - that seeing as 'Mah Nafshach' he is Tamei and he knows it, why should he not be Chayav?

(b)Rava therefore establishes the case where, at the time that he traversed the second path, he forgot what he had done in the first instance - because Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah holds that a partial Yedi'ah is not considered a Yedi'ah ...

(c)... whilst the Tana Kama holds that it is.

5)

(a)The problem with the Tana Kama in the latter case is - that he ought to be Patur, because on each occasion that he entered the Beis-Hamikdash, it was with a Safek Yedi'ah.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan therefore explains that the Tana Kama holds 'Asu Safek Yedi'ah ki'Yedi'ah', which means - that the Chachamim gave a Safek Yedi'ah the Din of a Vaday Yedi'ah.

(c)According to Resh Lakish however, the Tana Kama is Rebbi Yishmael - who does not require a Yedi'ah at the beginning at all.

6)

(a)We now query both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish from their respective interpretations of a Beraisa which discusses someone who ate Safek Cheilev, Safek Shuman - whose basic obligation is to bring an Asham Taluy.

(b)The Beraisa discusses a case where, after eating a piece of fat and realizing that what he ate was Safek Cheilev Safek Shuman, a person does it again. Rebbi obligates him to bring - two Asham Taluys ...

(c)... whereas Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon in the name of Rebbi Shimon - require him to bring only one ...

(d)... which they learn from the (otherwise ambiguous) Pasuk "al Shigegaso asher Shagag" - which, comes to teach us that sometimes, one brings only one Asham for a number of Shegagos.

7)

(a)Resh Lakish declares 'Ka'an Shanah Rebbi Yedi'os Sefeikos Mechalkos le'Chata'os', by which he means that - just as a Yedi'as *Safek* divides the Chata'os (because Safek Yedi'ah is considered a Yedi'ah), so too, does it divide the Ashamos.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan holds that - just as Yedi'as *Vaday* divides the Chata'os, so too, does Yedi'as Safek divide the Ashamos.

(c)And the basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'Yedi'as Safek divides by a Chatas (Resh Lakish) or not (Rebbi Yochanan).

(d)The problem with the opinions of both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish is that - they appear to have switched what they held by Korban Oleh ve'Yored when it comes to Korban Chatas Kavu'a.

8)

(a)We resolve the contradiction in Rebbi Yochanan, based on the Pasuk "ve'Ne'elam" (written by Korban Oleh ve'Yored) - the only source (by way of hint) for the Ha'alamah, on the one hand, and "O Hoda elav Chataso" (by the Chatas Kavu'a) - which is more specific (and therefore more inclusive) on the other.

(b)The problem with Resh Lakish is - that, based on the latter Beraisa, why he had to establish the first Beraisa like Rebbi Yishmael, when he could have established it like Rebbi (who agrees that a Korban Oleh ve'Yored requires a Yedi'ah at the beginning).

(c)The reason he chose to establish it like Rebbi Yishmael however is - to teach us that Rebbi Yishmael does not require a Yedi'ah at the beginning at all.

(d)This is not so obvious at all - because, even though Rebbi Yishmael uses "ve'Ne'elam" (from which the Chachamim learn 'Yedi'ah ba'Techilah') for something else, we might have thought that he nevertheless concedes that a Yedi'ah ba'Techilah is necessary via 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' which he had perhaps received from his Rebbes.

9)

(a)'Shevu'os Shetayim she'Hein Arba' means - 'Shevu'os Shetayim (Lehara O Le'heitiv le'Ha'ba) she'Hein Arba (Lehara O Leheitiv le'she'Avar)'.

(b)The radical ruling that Rebbi Akiva issues with regard to 'Lo Ochal le'Haba' is that - one is Chayav even for eating a 'Kol she'Hu' (less than the k'Zayis that normally constitutes Achilah).

(c)And he bases this ruling on the equally radical Halachah - that mere speech causes a person to bring a Korban.

(d)Consequently, he says - if the basis of a Korban can be mere speech (and does not require an act), it does not require a Shi'ur either.

10)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if Reuven says to Shimon either 'Shevu'ah Lo Ochal lach', 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal lach' or 'Lo Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal lach' - he is forbidden to eat by him.

(b)The last case implies that - he will not have transgressed if he does not eat by him, but that he will if he does.

(c)The Kashya this Beraisa poses on our Mishnah is that - it interprets 'she'Ochal' as meaning that he will not eat, whereas in our Mishnah, it means that he will?

11)

(a)To answer the Kashya, Abaye establishes the Beraisa - where his statement follows an attempt to induce him to eat by that person, where even 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal lach', is obviously meant to counter the pressure, as if to say 'a Shevu'ah (I will transgress) if I eat by you'.

(b)Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa where he said (not 'she'Ochal lach', but) 'she'I Ochal lach. In spite of the similarity between this case and 'she'Lo Ochal lach', we might otherwise have considered 'sh'I' as a slip of the tongue, and that he actually meant to say 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal lach' (in which case he would be obligated to eat by him).