1)

(a)We have already learned that only Korb'nos Yachid are subject to Temurah, and not Korb'nos Tzibur. Our Mishnah adds that Korb'nos Yachid can be male or female, depending on the Korban. All Korb'nos Tzibur - are male ...

(b)... even the ...

1. ... Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur (the Shelamim that the Tzibur bring on Shavu'os), because it is only the Shelamim of a Yachid that can be a male or a female, but not that of a Tzibur, and the same will apply to the ...

2. ... Chatas that they bring every Rosh Chodesh and Yom-Tov, which the Torah specifically refers to as a Sa'ir (a male goat), even though most Chata'os Yachid are females.

(c)When we say that 'Korb'nos ...

1. ... ha'Yachid Chayavin be'Acharayusan', we mean that that - Korb'nos Yachid that have a fixed time (such as an Olas Yoledes or the Korban of a Metzora) may be brought after that time, whereas 'Korb'nos ...

2. ... ha'Tzibur Ein Chayavin be'Acharayusan' means that - once the time for the Korban Tzibur has passed, it may no longer be brought ...

(d)... based on the principle Avar Z'mano, Bateil Korbano.

(e)The Tana rules that - if the basic Korban Tzibur is not brought on time, one is no longer Chayav to bring the Nesachim; but if it is, one remains Chayav to bring the Nesachim at a later date.

2)

(a)One brings a Korban Tzibur on Shabbos and be'Tum'ah - but not a Korban Yachid.

(b)Rebbi Meir queries this from Chavitei Kohen Gadol and Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim - which are Korb'nos Yachid, yet they override Tum'ah.

(c)Rebbi Meir therefore - differentiates between Kodshim whose time is fixed (which override Shabbos and Tum'ah) and those that have no fixed time (which do not).

3)

(a)To reconcile our Mishnah 'Korban Yachid Osah Temurah' with the following Korban Yachid which is not subject to Temurah: ...

1. ... a bird in that - the Tana is referring specifically to Korb'nos Beheimah.

2. ... a V'lad Korban in that - that goes according to the Chachamim, whereas the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that it is.

3. ... a Temurah in that- we are talking about the main Korban, and not about a Temurah ...

(b)... in which case, we can answer the previous Kashya (from V'lad Korban) in the same way (that we are talking about the main Korban, and not the V'lad), without needing to establish the author as Rebbi Yehudah.

(c)We also query the statement that every Olas Yachid can be a male or a female. And we answer the Kashya from ...

1. ... an Olah, which is always a male - by establishing it by Olas ha'Of, which is not subject to gender.

2. ... a Chatas, which is always a female - by establishing it by a Chatas Nasi, which is a male.

3. ... an Asham, which is always a male - by answering that the Tana is referring to Korbanos that pertain to a Tzibur as well as to a Yachid, which an Asham does not.

(d)We might also answer the Kashya by paying attention to the wording of the Tana, who did not say 'Kol Korb'nos ha'Yachid ... ' - but 'Yesh be'Korb'nos ha'Yachid ... ', which we now reinterpret as referring to Shelamim exclusively (thereby eliminating all three Kashyos).

4)

(a)We learn from the words ...

1. ... "D'var Yom" (in the Pasuk in Emor "Zevach u'Nesachim D'var Yom be'Yomo") that - the Musafin can be brought all day.

2. ... "be'Yomo" - that once the day has past, the Nesachim can no longer be brought.

3. ... "Minchasam ve'Niskeihem" (in Pinchas, also in connection with the Musafin) that - if the relevant Korban has been brought, then one remains Chayav to bring its Nesachim, even that night, and even the following day (and even ten days later) ...

(b)... though this is only Bedieved (if they are unable to obtain the necessary Nesachim to bring together with the Korban) - but not Lechatchilah.

(c)The Musafin can be brought all day - provided the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim has not yet been brought.

5)

(a)With regard to the latter ruling, Resh Lakish cites the Pasuk in Emor "Milevad Shabsos Hash-m". Bearing in mind that this follows the Pasuk "Zevach u'Nesachim D'var Yom be'Yomo", he learns it from 'Semuchin', explaining the Pasuk to mean that - there where Yom-Tov follows Shabbos, besides the Yom-Tov Korbanos of that day, one also brings the Nesachim that are left over from the day before (Shabbos).

(b)In fact, we conclude, both Pesukim are necessary. Having written the ...

1. ... " ... D'var Yom be'Yomo. Mil'vad Shabsos Hash-m", the Torah still needs to write "u'Minchasam ve'Niskeihem", to teach us that - one may even bring the leftover Nesachim at night- time.

2. ... "u'Minchasam ve'Niskeihem", it still needs to write "Mil'vad Shabsos Hash-m", to teach us that - one is not confined to bringing them the following night, but can even bring them on the next day.

(c)If not for the word "Mil'vad ... ", one would only be permitted to bring the Nesachim the following night, but no later - because in the realm of Korbanos, the night follows the day, and the Torah would only have permitted bringing the outstanding Korban up to the end of that day.

6)

(a)Another Beraisa draws a distinction between the limbs and the fat-pieces of a Korban, and the Kometz, Levonah and Minchas Nesachim. It defines ...

1. ... the limbs and the fat-pieces of a Korban - as something that is normally brought at night.

2. ... the Kometz, Levonah and Minchas Nesachim - as something that is normally brought by day.

(b)Based on this definition, the problem with the initial text 'K'gon Kometz, Levonah and Minchas Nesachim she'Ma'alan mi'Bo ha'Shemesh' is that - it contradicts the previous statement (since we now see that they too, are brought by night).

(c)We therefore amend it to - ' ... she'Ma'alan ad Bo ha'Shemesh'.

(d)The Beraisa then learns from the words (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Zos Toras ha'Olah, Hi ha'Olah") ...

1. ... "Hi ha'Olah" that - one may place the limbs and the fat-pieces of a Korban that was sacrificed by day, on the Mizbe'ach after nightfall, to burn all night.

2. ... "Zos Toras ha'Olah" that - if the Kometz, Levonah and Minchas Nesachim are placed on the Mizbe'ach before nightfall, they may continue to burn on the Mizbe'ach all night.

7)

(a)When Rami bar Chama answers the Kashya on our Sugya (which permits Nesachim to be brought at night-time) 'Ka'an Likadesh, Ka'an Likarev', he means that - one may declare Hekdesh the Minchas Nesachim ... at night-time, but not offer it on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Rava citing a Beraisa, objects to this answer however, on the grounds that - whatever can be sanctified can be placed on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)The Beraisa rules that whatever is brought ...

1. ... by day - may only be sanctified by day.

2. ... by night - may only be sanctified by night.

3. ... by day or by night - may be sanctified by day or by night.

(d)Rav Yosef therefore deals with the contradiction - by erasing Minchas Nesachim from the list of Kometz, Levonah and Minchas Nesachim, that the Beraisa presents, incorporating the things that are brought by day.

8)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived in Eretz Yisrael, he found Rebbi Yirmiyah citing Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who Darshened from the Pasuk "u'le'Niskeichem u'le'Shalmeichem" that - Nesachim, like Shelamim, can only be brought by day.

(b)As a result, he (Rav Dimi) wanted to send Rav Yosef instructions in a letter - not to erase Minchas Nesachim from the Beraisa.

(c)He subsequently resolved the contradiction howevefr - by establishing the current Beraisa by Nesachim that are brought together with the Korban, whereas the earlier Beraisa, permitting them to be brought by night, is speaking about Nesachim that are brought on their own.

(d)We query Rav Dimi's intention to send Rav Yosef a letter containing the above information, based on a statement by Rebbi Aba b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who says that ...

1. ... people who transcribe Halachos (see Rabeinu Gershom) - are comparable to someone who burns the Torah (see Shitah Mekubetzes 3).

2. ... learning from such a text - is prohibited.

9)

(a)In support of Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement, Rebbi Yehudah bar Nachmeni learns from the two Pesukim "K'sav l'cha es ha'Devarim ha'Eileh" and "ki al-Pi ha'Devarim ha'Eileh" that - the oral Torah may not be transcribed, nor may the written Torah be learned orally.

(b)Whereas Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael explains the word "ha'Eileh" in the first Pasuk - 'Eileh Atah Kosev, ve'I Atah Kosev (These you are permitted to transcribe, but not) Halachos, Medrash and Agados'.

(c)And we answer the Kashya on Rav Dimi - by citing the concession of writing things that were previously not understood or were not previously known (Milsa Chadta [into which category the Halachos under discussion fall]).

10)

(a)In support of this answer, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish Darshened the Pasuk in Tehilim - "Eis La'asos la'Hashem Heiferu Torasecha" (The Chachamim tend to uproot Torah for the sake of Hash-m) ...

(b)... adding that - it is better to uproot one letter from the Torah, than to allow the Torah to be forgotten.

(c)As a result of this D'rashah, they permitted themselves - to learn Sifrei Agadta on Shabbos (even though it is forbidden to write them).

11)

(a)Rav Papa extrapolates from the fact that one is permitted to bring Nesachim at night-time that - if one comes across potential Nesachim at night-time (see Shitah Mekubetzes 6) one is permitted to declare them Hekdesh and bring them there and then.

(b)Rav Yosef b'rei de'Rav Sh'maya cited the Beraisa (that we learned on the previous Amud) - 've'Chol ha'Karev ba'Laylah, Kadosh ba'Laylah' (in support of Rav Papa).

(c)Rav Ada bar Ahavah added to this ruling that - if one did declare them Hekdesh, they become Pasul at Amud ha'Shachar, like the limbs and fat pieces of the Korban Tamid.

12)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak. Explaining the following Pasuk in Pinchas in connection with Chol ha'Mo'ed, Rebbi Yochanan Darshened ...

1. ... "Eileh Ta'asu la'Hashem be'Mo'adeichem" - as a concession to bring the Korbanos of Yom-Tov on Chol-ha'Moe'd.

2. ... "L'vad mi'Nidreichem ve'Nidvoseichem" - to extend the concession to Nedarim and Nedavos.

(b)From the word there ...

1. ... "le'Oloseichem", he added - Olas Yoledes and Olas Metzora, and from ...

2. ... "u'le'Minchoseichem" - Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os.

(c)He learns from "u'le'Niskeichem u'le'Shalmeichem" that - Nesachim, like Shelamim, must be brought by day (as we learned above).

(d)And "le'Shalmeichem" comes to include - Shalmei Nazir.

13)

(a)Abaye thought that Rebbi Yochanan ought to have learned from "u'le'Shalmeichem" - Shalmei Pesach (the Chagigah that came with the Pesach under certain conditions) ...

(b)... because, he argued - Shalmei Nazir are already included in Nedarim and Nedavos, which the Tana mentions independently.

(c)His objection is based on a Beraisa, which limits what can be brought on a Bamas Yachid to - Nedarim and Nedavos.

(d)And in the Mishnah in Zevachim, Rebbi Meir cites Menachos and Neziros as examples of what can be brought on it (a proof that Shalmei Nazir are classified as Nedarim and Nedavos). To refute the Kashya - Rav Dimi simply erases Neziros from the Beraisa.

(e)Shalmei Nazir are not included in Nedarim and Nedavos - because the Neder of a Nazir is not to drink wine, and the ensuing Korbanos are obligatory.

14)

(a)We query Rav Dimi however, with a Pasuk in Shmuel, where (in connection with the Nezirus that he undertook) Avshalom asks permission from his father David, to go and fulfill the Neder that he made in Chevron. Initially, we interpret "the Neder" with reference to his Korbanos Nazir, posing a Kashya on Rav Dimi (and Rebbi Yochanan).

(b)We object do the answer that the "Neder" refers to the vow that he took and not to the Korban - because that vow was taken in G'shur, and not in Chevron.

(c)So we answer that what he meant was that in order to fulfill his Neder, he intended to go to Chevron to purchase sheep for his Korban (as Rav Acha [or Rabah bar Rav Chanan] explained). This is logical - because why would he otherwise bring his Korbanos in Chevron and not in Yerushalayim?

(d)And the reason that he needed to go to Chevron to purchase sheep was - because that was where the best quality sheep were to be found (as we learned in Menachos).

15)

(a)We reject Rav Acha's answer however, on the basis of the Pasuk - "va'Ashalmah es Nidri ... be'Chevron", whereas according to the current suggestion, it ought to have said 'me'Chevron'.

(b)And we negate the proof that we just brought on the grounds that - firstly, it was not Yerushalayim where he should have gone, but Giv'on, as that is where the Bamah Gedolah (including the Mizbe'ach of Moshe) was, and secondly ...

(c)... since Bamos Ketanos were permitted, Avshalom was not even bound to go to Giv'on to bring his Korbanos - but had the right to bring them wherever he pleased.

16)

(a)The forty years mentioned by the Pasuk - constitutes the number of years from the time that Yisrael asked for a king until the episode with Avshalom (incorporating his rebellion).

(b)Even though Shmuel reigned for ten years on his own, and David for thirty-six (given that the episode with Avshalom took place in that year), we arrive at forty years - by adding one year that Shaul reigned together with Shmuel, and two years that he reigned on his own, and then deducting nine years of Shmuel's reign prior to Yisrael's request for a king.

(c)Alternatively, we know this from another source. Seeing as Eli, who had just been appointed Shofet when Chanah came to Daven for a son, reigned for forty years, this means that Shmuel, who was born the year following Eli's appointment, would have been thirty-nine when he succeeded him.

(d)We also know that Shmuel ruled until the age of fifty-two (fifty years [an 'Olam' from the time that his mother weaned him], at least that is how long he remained in the House of Hash-m), leaving us to conclude that he ruled for thirteen years (and leaving us with the same figure of forty-nine years minus nine as in the first explanation).