1)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Akiva ("Asham Hu" 'Hu Kareiv, ve'Ein Temuraso Kareiv') is - that we already know this from the 'Halachah' (that whatever is Meisah by Chatas, is Ro'eh by Asham).

(b)So we conclude that we need "Hu" for Rav Huna, who learns that if an Asham whose owner has already received his Kaparah, is Shechted S'tam, assuming it was ...

1. ... sent into the field to graze ('Re'iyah') - it is brought as an Olah.

2. ... not sent into the field to graze - it remains an Asham, and is not valid as an Olah.

(c)Consequently, Rebbi Akiva is speaking - where the Asham was Shechted S'tam without being sent to graze.

2)

(a)We query why the latter Tana, who learns V'lad and Temuras Olah and Shelamim from "Rak Kodoshecha asher Yih'yu lach ... " does not learn it from the Pasuk "Im Zachar Im Nekeivah". We refute the initial answer (that we need that Pasuk for V'lad and Temuras Ba'alei-Mumin) - by recalling that we learn that from the two "Ims", and not from "Zachar" and "Nekeivah".

(b)And we answer the original question - by pointing out that this Tana does not Darshen "Im" (negating the point that we just made).

(c)On the other hand, to explain how the first Tana will learn the Pasuk "Rak Kodashecha ... Tisa u'Va'sa", we answer 'Afilu mi'Mir'ayhu', which means - that once Yom-Tov arrives, one should not delay, but fetch the animals concerned from 'their grazing grounds', however far away they may be, to take them to the Beis- Hamikdash.

(d)and 'mi'Murgayhu' in the second Lashon means - that one should take them even if they are in the middle of threshing (see Tosfos DH 'Afilu')

3)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer holds that the V'lad of a Shelamim cannot be brought as a Shelamim - but in placed in a narrow room without food or drink until it dies.

(b)Rebbi Shimon qualifies the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim - by confining it to V'lad Shelamim, but not to V'lad V'lad Shelamim or V'lad V'lad (or just V'lad) Temurah (as will be explained in the Sugya).

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Papayas testified - that a V'lad Shelamim is brought as a Shelamim (like the Chachamim).

(d)Rebbi Papayas also testified that they once owned a cow of Shelamim that they ate on Pesach - and its V'lad as a Shelamim on Succos.

4)

(a)Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan tries to learn Rebbi Eliezer's Din from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Im Zevach Shelamim Korbano" - translating "Im" as if it had been punctuated with a 'Tzeirei' (to read 'Eim') instead of a 'Chirik', and then Darshening "Eim", 've'Lo V'lad'.

(b)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba queried Rebbi Ami from the Pasuk in Tzav "Im al Todah Yakrivenu" - which we ought then to Darshen in the same way (to disqualify the V'lad of a Todah from the Mizbe'ach).

5)

(a)From the very same word "Im al Todah Yakrivenu", the Beraisa specifically permits 'V'ladah, Chilufah u'Temurasah' of a Todah to be brought on the Mizbe'ach (see Hagahos ha'G'ra 4).

(b)'Chilufah' is ...

1. ... where the original Todah got lost, and was found again before the replacement was brought, in which case ...

2. ... either animal may now serve as the Todah).

(c)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan therefore attributes Rebbi Eliezer's ruling - to a Rabbinical decree for fear that one might then delay bringing the mother, so as to rear flocks of Shelamim sheep. Meanwhile, they will come to shear the mother and work with it.

(d)They did not also decree on a Korban Todah - because it is less common (and Chazal tend not to decree on things that are not common [see also Shitah Mekubetzes 24).

6)

(a)When Rebbi Shimon said in our Mishnah 'Lo Nechl'ku al V'lad V'lad Shelamim ... she'Lo Yikarevu', he meant either that Rebbi Eliezer would not have said 'Lo Yikarevu' (since he too must agree that they can be brought), or - that even the Rabbanan would agree that 'Lo Yikarevu'.

(b)

1. Rabah prefers the first interpretation - because it would be unusual to retain a Kodshim animal for so long.

2. Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi prefers the second - since the fact that there are V'ladei V'lados certainly bears out the Chachamim's suspicions more than just V'lados.

7)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the words "Im Keves" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra [in connection with the Korban Shelamim] "Im Keves hu Makriv") - that it is only V'lad Shelamim that one brings as a Shelamim, but not V'lad di'V'lad.

(b)From the continuation of the Pasuk " ... hu Makriv" the Tana precludes the V'lados of all other Kodshim. This cannot pertain to V'lad Chatas, which we already knows goes le'Misah. Nor can it pertain to V'lad Olah or Asham - since both Korbanos are males, which have no offspring.

(c)So Ravina finally establishes it - by V'lad Ma'aser Beheimah.

(d)We cannot learn this from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah" from B'chor - because that would be learning 'Efshar from I Efshar' (since B'chor is a male).

(e)Rebbi Chiya cites this beraisa here - because the opening statement of the Beraisa supports Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Levi who forbids V'lad di'V'lad of a Shelamim according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer (see Tosfos DH 'Tani')

8)

(a)Rava rules that each day that one fails to bring a Korban after the first Yom-Tov - one transgresses an Asei, a problem with Rebbi Papayas in our Mishnah, who testified that they ate the baby of the Shelamim that they brought on Pesach, not on Shevu'os, but on Chag (which we interpret as Succos).

(b)Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava explains that the V'lad was sick on Shavu'os. Rav Ashi answers - that 'Chag' there refers to Shavu'os.

(c)Rav Z'vid declines to learn like Rav Ashi - because wherever Pesach is mentioned, Shavu'os is referred to as 'Atzeres', and not 'Chag'.

(d)Either way, the significance of Rebbi Papayas' testimony is - to preclude Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that V'lad Shelamim is not brought on the Mizbe'ach.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that V'lad Todah u'Temurasah - u'V'lad V'ladah ad Sof Kol ha'Doros Harei eilu ke'Todah (like it said by Shelamim).

(b)Regarding the Pasuk "Im al Todah Yakrivenu", the Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... "Yakriv..." (in the Pasuk "Im al Todah Yakrivenu") - that the exchange of a Todah ('Chilufah') can serve as the Todah that he is obligated to bring (as we learned on the previous Amud).

2. ... " ...nu" (of the same word)- whichever one he chooses requires loaves, but not the other one.

(c)And the Tana learns from the word there ...

1. ... "Im" - that V'lados, Temuros and Chalifos (the second animal) are brought on the Mizbe'ach, too.

2. ... "Todah" - that the former does not require loaves (see Tosfos DH 'va'Chalifos').

10)

(a)The ramifications of the Mishnah's statement that Temuras Olah, V'ladah and V'lad V'ladah are like the Olah are - that it requires skinning, cutting up and burning on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)We already quoted Rebbi Elazar, who holds that the male son of a female animal that one designated as an Olah is brought directly as an Olah. The Chachamim rule - 'Yir'eh' (that it is sent into the field until it obtains a blemish, when it is redeemed, and the proceeds are used to purchase an Olah).

(c)To answer the Kashya that the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Elazar in the Seifa (by V'lad Olas Nekeivah) and hold Ro'eh, do not argue on the Reisha (by Temuras Olah), Rabah bar bar Chanah explains - that even though they only express their opinion in the Seifa, they really argue in the Reisha (which is the opinion of Rebbi Elazar) too.

(d)According to Rava however, the Rabbanan agree in the Reisha that the Temurah ... is brought directly as well - because, unlike the case of Olas Nekeivah, the mother itself is brought directly.

11)

(a)We cite a Beraisa which discusses Temuras Asham, V'lad Temurah ... . The Tana Kama rules 'Yir'eh'. Rebbi Eliezer holds - 'Yamusu'.

(b)Rebbi Elazar says - 'Yavi bi'Demeihen Olah', implying that they cannot be brought directly on the Mizbe'ach (an apparent contradiction to his ruling in our Mishnah).

(c)Rav Chisda answers 'le'Divreihem de'Rabbanan ka'Amar', meaning - that he himself maintains his position stated in our Mishnah, and the point that he is making to the Rabbanan is, if the Din is 'Yir'eh', then at least the Olah that is brought ought to be an Olas Yachid, in the name of the owner of the Asham.

(d)To which the Rabbanan reply - that, in their opinion, the proceeds of 'Yir'eh' always go towards Nidvas Tzibur (for the Olas Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach).

12)

(a)According to Rava, Rebbi Elazar concedes that T'muras Asham itself does not go on the Mizbe'ach - because, unlike Olas Nekeivah (where the mother is called an Olah), the T'muras Asham's 'mother' is not called an Olah.

(b)When we say that the mother is called an Olah, we mean (besides the fact that the money is designated for an Olah) - that there is a precedent for an Olas Nekeivah in the Olas ha'Of, as we learned earlier.