1)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, forbids the V'lad of a T'reifah on the Mizbe'ach. Assuming that a T'reifah can give birth, and he is speaking about a T'reifah that became pregnant, the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan is - whether 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Asur' (Rebbi Eleizer) or not (the Rabbanan), as we explained earlier.

(b)We cancan establish the Machlokes by whether 'Ubar Yerech Imo hu' or not - because even if it is, there is an aspect of Heter.

(c)Assuming, on the other hand, that a T'reifah cannot give birth, our Mishnah will be speaking - where the animal became a T'reifah after it was already pregnant.

(d)And the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim - will then be whether 'Ubar Yerech Imo hu' (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (the Rabbanan).

2)

(a)Rav Huna rules that a chick that is born from an egg of a dove that is a T'reifah - is forbidden even according to the Chachamim ...

(b)... because, unlike the baby of an animal, which grows from the air, it grows directly from the chicken's body.

(c)This version follows the first Lashon (that holds 'T'reifah Yoledes'). According to the second Lashon - Rav Huna must be speaking about the first batch of eggs that hatched after it became a T'reifah, and that was already developed beforehand.

(d)According to the second Lashon in Rav Huna, it is because, after it is born, the V'lad Beheimah continues to grow from the air (after it is born), whereas the egg does not. The proof for this is - that after the egg emerges, it does not continue to grows.

3)

(a)Rava tries to support Rav Huna from a Beraisa which discusses a spoonful of wormy substance that comes from a live human-being (who according to some, subsequently dies), which Rebbi Eliezer renders Tamei - because of Eiver min ha'Chai.

(b)The Chachamim - render it Tahor.

(c)Rava extrapolates from this Machlokes - that the latter only argue by the wormy substance, which is similar to dung, but concerning an egg of a T'reifah, which comes from the body of the chicken, even the Rabbanan will concede that it is forbidden (like Rav Huna).

4)

(a)Abaye disagrees with Rava. He extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'Tikvas Enosh Rimah, u'Ben Adam To'le'ah" - that this is Rebbi Eliezer's reason for forbidding the worms that emerge from the live persons's body ...

(b)... but regarding a chick that is born from the egg of a T'reifah - Rebbi Eliezer will concede to the Rabbanan, that it is permitted, seeing as the embryo only grows into a chick after it has rotted (at which point it is considered dung and is permitted [see Tosfos DH 'Ela']).

(c)When Abaye cited a Beraisa in support of his explanation, Rava finally retorted - 'I Tanya, Tanya' (If it is a Beraisa, there is nothing more to say).

5)

(a)The problem with the ruling of Rebbi Chanina ban Antignos in our Mishnah, disqualifying a Kasher animal that suckled a T'reifah is - that in that case, an animal that ate oats of Avodah-Zarah just once, ought to be Asur too, whereas we learned above that only a Muktzah animal is Asur in such a case, but otherwise not (see Cheishek Shlomoh).

(b)Rebbi Chanina T'rita'ah therefore explains that Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos is speaking where the animal 'suckled from the T'reifah from morning to morning' - meaning that its entire life, the animal suckled from the T'reifah each morning, so that it could have survived on that alone, in which case it will be Asur even if it ate other foods too.

6)

(a)We cite the source for the prohibition of redeeming a T'reifah animal as the Pasuk " Ve'achalta ", 've'Lo li'Kelavecha'. We learn from the word ...

1. ... "Tizbach" - 've'Lo Gizah'.

2. ... "Basar" - 've'Lo Chalav'.

(b)Others learn from "Tizbach Ve'achalta Basar" - that one is only permitted to eat from the meat after the animal has been Shechted (to preclude the wool and the milk, benefits that generally come before the animal is Shechted.

(c)According to this Beraisa, there is no Pasuk - forbidding the redemption of Kodshim to feed the dogs ...

(d)... which in fact, is a Machlokes Tana'im.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... Temurah ...

2. ... Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei - apply to Kodshei Mizbe'ach but not to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

3. ... V'ladan ve'Chelban - are forbidden regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach after they have been redeemed, but not regarding Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(b)Besides the additional Chumra that someone who Shechts Kodshei Mizbe'ach outside the Azarah is Chayav, but not Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, the Tana's final distinction between them is - that whereas those who do repairs in the Beis-Hamikdash cannot get paid from Kodshei Mizbe'ach, they can get paid from Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(c)When the Tana writes that, on the other hand, Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis have the edge over Kodshei Mizbe'ach regarding S'tam Hekdeishos, he means - that S'tam Hekdesh goes to Bedek ha'Bayis.

(d)And it has three other Chumros that do not apply to Kodshei Mizbe'ach. It takes effect on everything (even stones and wood), one is Chayav Me'ilah for using what grows from it - and the Kohanim are prohibited from deriving any benefit from them.

8)

(a)When our Mishnah states categorically that Kodshei Mizbe'ach make Temurah, bearing in mind that, as we learned in the first Perek ...

1. ... 'Ofos Kodshim do not make Temurah' - the Tana is referring specifically to Kodshei Beheimah.

2. ... 'V'lados Kodshim do not make Temurah', the author of the Mishnah must then be - Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that V'lados Kodshim do indeed make Temuros, as we already learned.

3. ... Temuras Kodshim, which do not make Temurah - the Tana is referring to the original Kodshim animals.

(b)We can answer the previous Kashya (from V'lados Kodshim) in the same way, without needing to establish it like Rebbi Yehudah.

(c)We learn from the word "Li" (in the Pasuk in Terumah "ve'Asu Li Mikdash") - "Li", 'mi'Sheli', that those who build the Beis-Hamikdash are entitled to take their wages from Hekdesh (Bedek ha'Bayis).

9)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes our Mishnah 'S'tam Hekdeishos le'Bedek ha'Bayis', not like Rebbi Yehoshua (in the Mishnah in Shekalim that we cited above in the third Perek), who rules - that if someone declares all his property Hekdesh, assuming that it includes male and female animals the males are brought directly as Olos, whereas the females are sold as Shelamim, and the proceeds used to purchase Olos.

(b)According to Rebbi Eliezer - the males are sold as Olos, the females as Shelamim, and the proceeds of both go to Bedek ha'Bayis.

(c)Even though Rebbi Eliezer holds 'S'tam Kodshim le'Bedek ha'Bayis', the animals cannot go directly to Bedek ha'Bayis - because if someone is Matfis animals that can go on the Mizbe'ach to Bedek ha'Bayis, the animals must be redeemed to go on the Mizbe'ach (as we shall see later in the Perek).

(d)According to Rebbi Yehoshua, even though the males are brought directly as Olos, the females cannot brought as Shelamim - because when a person is Makdish all his property, he is forbidden to derive any benefit from it, and the bulk of a Shelamim (including the skin) goes to the owner.

10)

(a)According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, our Mishnah does not go like Rebbi Eliezer either, since he too, will concede that if all the animals are males - they will go directly on the Mizbe'ach (like Rebbi Yehoshua) ...

(b)... and the reason that he says in the Mishnah in Shekalim that the males must be sold as Olos, and the money goes to Bedek ha'Bayis is - because he holds that it is not possible to divide up the animals into two categories of Kodshim, and that consequently, since the females cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach directly (as we explained), neither can the males.

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rebbi Eliezer in that, according to him - it is possible to divide the property into two categories of Kodshim.

11)

(a)According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah Amar Rav in the second Lashon, Rebbi Eliezer will concede to Rebbi Yehoshua that if the Noder possessed only animals, then he will not leave Kodshei Mizbe'ach for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. Only Rebbi Eliezer holds - that since he has other property that can only go to Bedek ha'Bayis, he does not divide his property into two categories of Hekdesh, and the animals go to Bedek ha'Bayis too, whereas Rebbi Yehoshua holds that a person does divide his property in this way.

(b)Rebbi Eliezer's words in the Mishnah in Shekalim 'u'Demeihen Yiplu im Sha'ar Nechasav le'Bedek ha'Bayis support the second Lashon. To reconcile the first Lashon with the Mishnah - we amend the Mishnah to read 'u'Demeihen Yiplu le'Bedek ha'Bayis' (omitting im Sha'ar Nechasav).

(c)Ravina explains that 'Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis Chal al ha'Kol' (in our Mishnah) comes to include ...

1. ... 'Shipuyi' - the shavings of wood that one planes from Hekdesh wood.

2. ... 'Neviyah' - the leaves that fall from a Hekdesh tree (see Tosfos DH 'l'Asuyei').

12)

(a)Rav Papa explains that 'Mo'alin be'Gidulin' in our Mishnah - come to include the milk of a Kodshim animal ('Chalav ha'Mukdashin') and the eggs of a Kodshim pigeon ('Beitzei Torin').

(b)The Mishnah in Me'ilah rules regarding ...

1. ... Kodshei Mizbe'ach - 'Chalav ha'Mukdashin u'Beitzei Torin Lo Nehenim (mi'de'Rabbanan) ve'Lo Mo'alin (min ha'Torah)'.

2. ... Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - 'Hikdish Tarnegoles - Mo'alin be'Beitzasah, Chamorah, Mo'alin be'Chelbah'.

13)

(a)Having referred to pigeon's eggs in the Reisha, the Mishnah in Me'ilah switches to chicken's eggs in the Seifa - because it is unusual to be Makdish Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis something that is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)The Tana sees fit to mention specifically donkey's milk in the Seifa - to teach us that even though it is a Beheimah Temei'ah, Kedushah takes effect on it.