1)

(a)In the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'He'erich ha'Kohen osah Bein Tov u'Vein Ra", "Tov" and "Ra" refer to - a Tam and a Ba'al-Mum respectively.

(b)Rav Gidal Amar Rav therefore establishes the Pasuk - by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, where no distinction is drawn between a Tam and a Ba'al-Mum.

(c)And he extrapolates Resh Lakish's opinion (that draws a distinction between Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis) - from the word "Osah", implying that the Din of Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah are restricted to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, and do not extend to Kodshei Mizbe'ach (which are mentioned in the previous Pasuk).

(d)Rebbi Yochanan learns that - "Osah" comes to preclude Ba'alei-Mumin me'Ikara from Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah.

2)

(a)Despite the fact that "Tov" and "Ra" clearly refer to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, Rebbi Yochanan incorporates Kodshei Mizbe'ach in Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah - since they are mentioned in the previous Pasuk (and Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah therefore refer to them as well).

(b)According to Tana de'bei Levi, Ba'alei-Mumin me'Ikara, Chayos and Ofos - are all subject to Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah ...

(c)... and it is not clear what he then learns from "Osah".

3)

(a)To explain Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from "Bein Tov u'Vein Ra" that - the Pasuk must be speaking about Kodshei Mizbe'ach (where a distinction is drawn between a Tam and a Ba'al-Mum).

(b)The problem with this is that if that is so, the Pasuk, according to Rav Yehudah, out to have said 'Bein Tov la'Ra' (implying a distinction, whereas 'Bein Tov u'Vein Ra' implies that there is no distinction, like Rav Gidal Amar Rav explained earlier).

(c)We query Rebbi Yochanan from a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama draws a distinction between Kodshei Mizbe'ach Tam that died - which must be buried, and Kodshei Mizbe'ach Ba'al-Mum - which may be redeemed.

(d)He then rules that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - must die either way.

4)

(a)Rebbi Shimon draws a distinction between Temimin and Ba'alei-Mumin, but rules that - both Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis Temimin are buried, whereas Ba'alei-Mumin may be redeemed.

(b)To reconcile his opinion with the Tana Kama (who does differentiate between Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis), Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Beraisa - by a Ba'al-Mum whose blemish preceded the Hekdesh ...

(c)... which we prove from Rebbi Shimon, who, had the Tana Kama been speaking about an animal whose Hekdesh preceded its blemish, would have required the Kodshei Mizbe'ach (which in his opinion, is subject to Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah) to be buried.

5)

(a)This poses a Kashya on Resh Lakish, in that if the Tana Kama is speaking about a Ba'al-Mum me'Ikara, we can extrapolate from his words that - in a case where the Hekdesh preceded the Mum, the Rabbanan would agree that the Korban must be buried (because they hold that Kodshei Mizbe'ach require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah).

(b)If, on the other hand, Resh Lakish will establish the Beraisa where the Hekdesh preceded the Mum, the problem remains - why Rebbi Shimon does not argue with them and say by Kodshei Mizbe'ach 'Yikveru'.

(c)Resh Lakish therefore cites a different Beraisa, where the Tana Kama concurs with the Tana Kama of the previous Beraisa, only he switches the order, mentioning Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis before Kodshei Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Yochanan reconciles his opinion with the Seifa 'Aval be'Kodshim (be'Kodshei Mizbe'ach) Yipadu' - by establishing the Beraisa by a Ba'al-Mum me'Ikara (like he did the previous Beraisa).

6)

(a)In this Beraisa, Rebbi Shimon only argues with the Tana Kama by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, where he rules 'Temimim Yikaveru, Ba'alei-Mumin, Yipadu'. Resh Lakish assumes that the Tana Kama ('Aval be'Kodshim Yipadu') is speaking where the Hekdesh preceded the blemish and he therefore maintains that Rebbi Shimon does indeed argue with him and say 'Yikaveru' (even though he did not specifically say so).

(b)Based on the fact that Resh Lakish establishes the Seifa where the Hekdesh preceded the Mum, Rebbi Yirmiyah tried to prove from there that one may redeem Kodshim to feed the dogs - seeing as the Tana is talking about redeeming a dead animal (as he said in his opening words 'Meisu, Bein Temimin Bein Ba'alei-Mumin Yikaveru ... ').

(c)He did he not make the same inference according to Rebbi Yochanan however - because since the Beraisa is talking about a Ba'al-Mum me'Ikara, it has no Kedushah, and there is no problem in redeeming it to feed the dogs.

7)

(a)Rebbi Zeira refutes Rebbi Yirmiyah's inference that Im Meisu, refers (not to an animal that died by itself, but) that was Shechted (albeit be'Isur).

(b)And he bases this on a Beraisa, where Rebbi Meir rules that if one Shechts Kodshim which obtained a blemish, they must be buried - like Rebbi Shimon who holds that Kodshei Mizbe'ach require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah ...

(c)... whereas the Rabbanan permit them to be redeemed.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira why Rebbi Shimon, who holds that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis do not require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah, says 'Temimim Yikaveru'. His reply was based on a Beraisa, which rules that Temimim that one declared Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis - can only be redeemed in order to go on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Likewise, Rav Papa queried Rebbi Yochanan from a Mishnah in Bechoros. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that a Ba'al-Mum me'Ikaro is not subject to Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah - according to both Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan).

(c)Rav Papa asked specifically on Rebbi Yochanan, because we assume that Resh Lakish (who established Rebbi Yochanan's source Beraisa by Tam ve'Na'aseh Ba'al-Mum) - will equate the Din by a Ba'al-Mum me'Ikaro with that of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, which requires Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah (according to the Rabbanan).

(d)He therefore queried him from a Mishnah in Bechoros, which discusses Kodshim whose blemish preceded their Hekdesh, which were subsequently redeemed. The Tana rules there that ...

1. ... they are subject to Bechorah (with regard to the first baby to which they then gave birth) and Matanos (Zero'a, Lechayayim ve'Keivah).

2. ... one is permitted to shear them, work with them, and drink their milk.

3. ... if someone Shechts them outside the Azarah - he is not Chayav for Shechutei Chutz.

4. ... they cannot make a Temurah.

9)

(a)The Tana concludes 've'Im Meisu Yipadu', and Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes this like Rebbi Shimon - based on the D'rashah from "Osah" ("Osah", 've'Lo Ba'al-Mum me'Ikaro', which has the same Din as Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis).

(b)According to the Rabbanan however - even a Ba'al-Mum me'Ikaro, requires Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah (a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Shimon in this point).

(c)Abaye (or Rava) answered Rav Papa - by establishing the author of the Beraisa as Tana de'bei Levi (who holds that even a Ba'al-Mum me'Ikaro is subject to Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah, as we learned earlier).

(d)Rav Papa objected to this answer however, on the grounds that Rav Yehudah Amar Rav ought then to have then said - 'Zu Divrei Rebbi Shimon u'Machlekaso' (incorporating the Rabbanan).

10)

(a)Abaye answered that Rav could not have said 'Zu Divrei Rebbi Shimon u'Machlekaso', because he holds like Resh Lakish, who says that - according to the Rabbanan, Kodshei Mizbe'ach are not subject to Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah.

(b)Consequently - since the Seifa of the Mishnah in Bechoros ('Aval Kodshim she'Kadam Hekdeishan es Muman, Im Meisu Yikaveru', not quoted above) does not go like them, he declines to establish the entire Mishnah like them.

(c)Alternatively, Abaye establishes Rav like Rebbi Yochanan - and he simply amends Rav's statement to read 'Zu Divrei Rebbi Shimon u'Machlekaso'.

11)

(a)Our Mishnah lists the things that require Kevurah and those that require Sereifah. The first list includes a still-born Kodshim baby, even if it consists of only a placenta - because of the principle Ein Shilya be'Lo V'lad (every Shilya must contain a baby).

(b)Shor ha'Niskal, Eglah Arufah and Tziprei Metzora are also included in this list. These, plus the other five items that the Tana inserts, all have in common - the fact that they are Isurei Hana'ah.

(c)One of those remaining five items is Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah, which Rebbi Shimon includes in the list of Nisrafin - because, seeing as there is no way of discerning between them and Kodshim that became Pasul, Chazal issued a decree, requiring them to be burned, to avoid people becoming confused, and burying Kodshim that became Pasul.

(d)We learn from the Pasuk "ba'Kodesh, ba'Eish Tisaref" that - Kodshim that became Pasul, must be burned and not buried.

(e)The Tana gives Chayah she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah - the same Din as Beheimas Chulin she'Nishchatah ba'Azarah (even though the reason that applies there does not apply here), presumably due to the principle of Lo P'lug (not to differentiate between Beheimos and Chayos).

12)

(a)The Mishnah includes in its list of Nisrafin Chametz ba'Pesach, Terumah Teme'ah K'lai ha'Kerem and Orlah. The source for burning ...

1. ... Chametz on Pesach is - Nosar (from which we learn it in Pesachim with a Binyan Av).

2. ... Terumah Teme'ah is - the fact that it is not Asur be'Hana'ah, in which case one may as well benefit from it whilst getting rid of it.

3. ... K'lai ha'Kerem and Orlah is - the Pasuk in Kedoshim (written in connection with K'lai ha'Kerem) "Pen Tukdash (the acronym of Tukad Eish) ha'Melei'ah" written by the former, and we learn the latter from the former.

(b)And the Tana sees fit to then add 'u'Madlikin be'Pas ve'Shemen shel Terumah' - to preclude from the notion that Terumah Temei'ah is Asur be'Hana'ah, like the cases together with which it is listed.

(c)And he also inserts Asham Taluy in the list - which only needs to be burned (and not eaten by the Kohanim) if, before the Zerikas Dam, one discovers that he did not sin (rendering it Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah [see Rashash]).

(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah - an Asham Taluy is buried (and not burned).

13)

(a)Finally, the Tana Kama rules that a Chatas ha'Of that comes on a Safek - (for example, if a woman who had a miscarriage does not know whether it was a baby or not) must be burned.

(b)We are not worried about the fact that the Kohen is sprinkling the blood of a Chulin bird on the Mizbe'ach - since the bird will not be eaten anyway.

(c)The reason that the bird cannot be eaten Mah Nafshach is - because if the miscarriage was not a baby, then the bird is considered Chulin, which does not become permitted to eat through the Melikah of a Kohen.

(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah, it is thrown into the Amah (the stream) which passes through the Azarah. We are not afraid that someone might find it and derive benefit from it - because the flesh of a bird is so frail that it will simply disintegrate in the flowing water of the Amah.

14)

(a)The Nikbarin may not be burned, nor may the Nisrafin be buried. The reason for the latter ruling is - because somebody might come across it and eat it (see Gilyon ha'Shas).

(b)Rebbi Yehudah - permits one to adopt the Chumra of burning Nikbarin.

(c)The Chachamim - forbid it.