1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that Rove'a, Nirva, Muktzah, Ne'evad, Esnan, M'chir, Kil'ayim, T'reifah and Yotzei Dofen - are not subject to Bitul, even if one becomes mixed-up in a thousand.

(b)It is possible to find a T'reifah that is not recognizable as such - either if a 'D'rusas ha'Ze'ev' (an animal that has been pierced by the claws of a wolf) became mixed-up with 'Nekivas ha'Kotz' (one that was pierced by a thorn) or - where the baby of a T'reifah became mixed-up with other animals ...

(c)... according to Rebbi Eliezer - who prohibits a V'lad T'reifah from going on the Mizbe'ach).

(d)Although Muktzah (an animal that has been designated for Avodah-Zarah) - is forbidden, whatever is on it (its ornaments) are permitted; whereas Ne'evad (an animal that has been worshipped) - is forbidden together with whatever is on it.

(e)All the cases in our Mishnah that are not Bateil - have a Din of Re'iyah; they are sent to graze in a field, and when they obtain a Mum, they may be eaten as P'sulei ha'Mukdashin.

2)

(a)We query our Mishnah from a Mishnah in Zevachim Kol ha'Kodshim she'Nis'arvu be'Chata'os Meisos ... Afilu Echad be'Ribu, Yamusu, which we initially explain to mean that - if one Kodshim animal became mixed-up with Chata'os ha'Meisos, they must all die.

(b)The problem with the word Afilu then is that - if in a case where one Kodshim animal become mixed-up with a few Chata'os ha'Meisos, they must all die, how much more so if there are ten thousand of the latter. So why does the Tana insert 'Afilu'?

(c)We therefore reinterpret the Mishnah to mean (not that one Kodshim animal became mixed-up in a few Chata'os ha'Meisos, but) that - one Chatas ha'Meisah ... became mixed-up in a group of Kodshim animals ...

(d)... adding that even if it was one Chatas ha'Meisah ... among ten thousand Kodshim animals, they must all die.

3)

(a)In view of the Mishnah in Zevachim, our Mishnah comes to teach us that - even Kodshim that are not Isurei Hana'ah are not subject to Bitul either.

(b)Rove'a and Nirva of Kodshim (that are Chayav Misah) will be Mutar be'Hana'ah - if they became forbidden through only one witness or through the testimony of the owner himself (which will suffice to forbid the animal on the Mizbe'ach, but not to have it killed).

(c)Even though our Mishnah already teaches us that Kodshim that are not Isurei Hana'ah do not become Bateil, we need the Mishnah in Zevachim to incorporate Chata'os that are Asur be'Hana'ah in this ruling - because we would otherwise have thought that it is only Kodshim that become forbidden to Hash-m (but not to people) that do not become Bateil, since they are Ma'us (loathsome) before Hash-m, but not Chulin, which are forbidden to Hedyotos too (to teach us that Bitul does not even help for Hedyotos either).

4)

(a)Rav Kahana queried Rav Shimi bar Ashi from another Mishnah in Zevachim, which specifically discusses Kodshei Rove'a and Nirva which became mixed-up with other animals, and where the Tana rules - Ro'eh, and with the proceeds of the most expensive of the animals, one purchases whichever Korban became mixed-up in the group.

(b)Rav Shimi bar Ashi explained that - whereas the Mishnah there speaks in a case where the Hekdesh preceded the Revi'ah, our Mishnah speaks where the mix-up occurred before the animal was declared Hekdesh.

(c)In spite of having taught us that Kodshim that are Rove'a or Nirva are not Bateil, our Mishnah finds it necessary to teach us the same where the Revi'ah preceded the Hekdesh - because we would otherwise have thought that the Bitul already took place, allowing the Hekdesh to take effect.

(d)And we need the Mishnah in Zevachim - to teach us the Din of Ro'eh (as we explained) which our Mishnah omitted.

5)

(a)The Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah rules that - not only are Yayin Nesech, Avodah-Zarah, Tziprei Metzora and a host of other Isurei Hana'ah Asur, but that they are also not subject to Bitul.

(b)In Zevachim, with regard to the Ta'aroves of Kodshim, the Tana lists Isurei Achilah (Tereifos) together with Isurei Hana'ah (such as Rove'a and Nirva) - because it is referring to whatever is Asur to Gavohah; whereas in Avodah-Zarah, when listing the Ta'aroves of Chulin, he lists Isurei Hana'ah (such as Yayin Nesech) and Isurei Achilah (such as milk that a Nochri milked) separately - because it is initially talking about Yayin Nesech (so it begins by listing whatever is similar to it).

6)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "min ha'Beheimah" - to preclude Rove'a and Nirva from the Mizbe'ach.

(b)The Tana ...

1. ... on the one hand, tries to learn this from a Ba'alas-Mum - with which no sin was performed, yet it is Asur to go on the Mizbe'ach, Kal va'Chomer Rove'a ve'Nirva, with which a sin was performed.

2. ... rejects this proof, on the other hand, from someone who plows with an ox and a donkey - with which a sin was performed, yet it is permitted to go on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)The Beraisa refutes the counter-proof from this latter case however - since it is not a case of a Chiyuv Misah, whereas a Rove'a ve'Nirva are.

(d)The Beraisa goes on to reject this Pircha however - with regard to Rove'a ve'Nirva where there is only one witness, where one is not Chayav Misah, and which is therefore comparable to Choresh be'Shor va'Chamor, as a result of which it will still require the Pasuk of "min ha'Beheimah".

7)

(a)Rebbi Shimon however, tries to learn Rove'a ve'Nirva where there is one witness, without a Pasuk from a new Kal va'Chomer from a Ba'alas-Mum. If two witnesses do not render it forbidden to eat, yet one witness renders it forbidden to bring on the Mizbe'ach, he argues, then Rove'a ve'Nirva, where two witnesses render it forbidden to eat (since it needs to be stoned), one witness should certainly render it forbidden to bring on the Mizbe'ach!

(b)The continuation of the Beraisa 'Talmud Lomar "min ha'Beheimah", Lehotzi Rove'a ve'Nirva' is strange - since Rebbi Shimon just learned it from a Kal va'Chomer from a Ba'alas-Mum.

(c)Rav Ashi explains how in fact, despite the Kal va'Chomer, we cannot really learn the P'sul of Rove'a ve'Nirva from that of a Ba'alas-Mum - because, whereas the latter is visible, the former is not ...

(d)... which explains why we still require the Pasuk.

8)

(a)The current Beraisa learns from the continuation of the Pasuk in Vayikra "min ha'Bakar" 'Lehotzi es ha'Ne'evad'. The reason that an animal that is worshipped is not Asur to a Hedyot anyway is - on account of the principle Ein Ba'alei-Chayim Asurim (a live animal is not subject to the Isur of Ne'evad).

(b)The Tana tries to learn the current D'rashah from a Kal va'Chomer from Esnan (Zonah) and M'chir (Kelev) - since, unlike them, the ornaments that adorn Ne'evad are Asur be'Hana'ah (as we learned earlier) ...

9)

(a)... which the Tana learns from the Pasuk "Lo Sachmod Kesef ve'Zahav aleihem ve'Lakachta lach".

(b)We would otherwise be able to learn from Esnan and M'chir the reverse Kal va'Chomer that - if Esnan and M'chir which are themselves Asur, what is on them is permitted, how much more so what is on Ne'evad, which is itself permitted.

(c)We even justify this Kal va'Chomer by restricting the Pasuk of "Lo Sachmod" to - inanimate objects.

(d)We counter it however - with the D'rashah "min ha'Beheimah", 'Lehotzi es ha'Ne'evad', forcing us to adopt the earlier Kal va'Chomer.

10)

(a)Rav Chananya queries the Tana's need for a Pasuk to forbid the ornaments that are attached to the Avodah-Zarah, from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Ibadtem es Sh'mam", 'Kol ha'Asuy li'Shemam', which the Tana in fact interprets to mean - the obligation to call the names of idols by derogatory nicknames.

(b)For example, they would call the idol Beis Galya - referring to a revealed image, 'Beis Karya' - which means a destroyed house, or a bathroom.

(c)And they called ...

1. ... P'nei Molech - 'P'nei Kelev'.

2. ... Ein Kol (which means 'the eye that sees everything) - 'Ein Kotz', which means 'the eye of a thorn'.

(d)The Tana knows that "min ha'Beheimah" precludes Rove'a - due to the word "bi'Veheimah" (in the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Ish ki Yiten Shechovto bi'Veheimah)", and Ne'evad from "min ha'Bakar" (and not the other way round) - because of the word "Shor" (in the Pasuk in Tehilim [in connection with the Eigel ha'Zahav] "va'Yamiru es Kevodam be'Tavnis Shor Ochel Eisev").

11)

(a)From "(u)min ha'Tzon" the Tana precludes an animal that is Muktzah to Avodah-Zarah, and from the "Vav" in front of "min" - an animal that gored (and killed) someone.

(b)An animal that is Rove'a and one that is Noge'ach - are both Chayav S'kilah.

(c)We nevertheless need two D'rashos to preclude them. We could not learn ...

1. ... Noge'ach from Rove'a - since, unlike the latter, the animal is not put to death if it killed be'O'neis (such as one that is trained to kill people).

2. ... Rove'a from Noge'ach - because the latter is unique in that the owner has to pay Kofer (the value of the dead man) in addition to the fact that his ox is stoned (which the former is not).

12)

(a)The Beraisa learns the Isur of Rove'a and Nirva from a different source. The Tana comments that Kodshim that fall under that category - have the same Din as animals whose temporary blemish precede their Hekdesh, which require a permanent blemish before they may be redeemed.

(b)The Tana, in conjunction with Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Emor " ... Ki Mashchasam bahem Mum bam" that - a Rove'a and a Noge'ach are forbidden to go on the Mizbe'ach, just as a Ba'al-Mum is (based on the following two D'rashos [see Tosfos DH 'Kol')

2. ... in No'ach " ... ki Hishchis Kol Basar es Darko al ha'Aretz" that - 'Hashchasah' sometimes pertains to adultery.

3. ... in va'Eschanan "Pen Tashchisun va'Asisem lachem Pesel Temunas Kol Samel" that - otherwise it pertains to Avodah-Zarah.

(c)Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the three 'mins' in Vayikra ("min ha'Beheimah, min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon") that - a sick, old or sweaty animal are disqualified from the Mizbe'ach.

(d)The previous Tana learns - the same from the three 'mins' in the Pasuk "Im min ha'Tzon Korbano min ha'Kevasim O min ha'Izim".

(e)Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns nothing from there - since he considers it a natural way of speaking.

13)

(a)Hash-m instructed - Gid'on (the Shofet) to take two bulls and bring them on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Resh Lakish learns from the fact that the second bull is described as 'seven years' that - a Muktzah animal is one that has been designated for Avodah-Zarah for seven years.

(c)Rav Acha bar Ya'akov refutes the Kashya that that bull was not just Muktzah, but, according to tradition, Ne'evad too - by explaining the tradition to mean that it was designated for seven years with the intention of bringing it, though it had not actually been brought yet.

14)

(a)According to Rava, the bull was in fact, worshipped. But that is a side Chidush (based on tradition) - which does not detract from the proof from the Pasuk that Muktzah alone is forbidden.

(b)The basis of Rava's Chidush is Rebbi Aba bar Kahana, who lists - eight Isurim that were permitted to Gid'on that night.

(c)Besides those of Chutz, Laylah, Zarus and (the absence of) K'lei Shareis, the other four sins were - Asheirah vessels, wood of An Asheirah, Muktzah and Ne'evad.