Question: Why does the Gemara not answer like it did earlier - that the Pasuk is needed to teach us that if he transgresses and sacrifices it, he contravenes an Asei?

Answer: The word "Hu" does not imply an Asei as much as "Rak" does.

Text/Explanation #1: This is Rashi's version of the text.

Question #1: Here we see that we need to learn 'Nitak' from a Pasuk, whereas in Pesachim (Perek Eilu Devarim, Daf 73a and 73b) it explains that we need 'Nitak' (sent to graze) because of a decree - after Kaparah on account of before Kaparah? ...

Question #1 (cont.): As it says there, quoting Rav Huna Amar Rav 'An Asham that was Nitak for grazing and that one Shechted S'tam, is eligible to be an Olah, from which we see that it does not require Re'ayah ...

Question #1 (cont.): If so, why does it say "Nitak", the same ought to apply even if it was not Nitak?'

Question #1 (concl.): To which it replies that 'It is a Gezeirah after the Kaparah on account of before the Kaparah'.

Question #2: Here it states that it is eligible to be brought as an Olah, whereas throughout Shas it says that 'Whatever dies by a Chatas must graze by an Asham Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai with regard to an Asham is that it is brought as an Olah ...

Text Explanation #2: And the text here does not read 'Nitak In, Lo Nitak, Lo', but 'Asham she'Nitak li'Re'ayah, and which he Shechted S'tam, is eligible to be brought as an Olah, since the Torah writes "Hu", 'it retains its status' ...

Reason: With reference to its future status as an Olah, and it has that status already now ...

Text/Explanation #2 (cont.): Which is why it is eligible S'tam to be brought as an Olah, even without uprooting (a verbal statement).

Text/Explanation #2 (concl.): It nevertheless requires a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai - without which we would not have known to which status it is referring.

Alternative Explanation: And according to the Lashon which says in Pesachim (Ibid.) 'And he Shechted it as an Olah, it is eligible' - implying that S'tam it will not be eligible, and that it requires uprooting. Why? Because the Pasuk writes "Hu", 'it retains its status' ...

Clarification: Inasmuch as it retains its initial status, and requires Akirah to turn it into an Olah.

Clarification (cont.): It nevertheless requires a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai - without which we would have thought that it is not eligible as an Olah even via Akirah.

Text/Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'even if they are grazing in the pasture-ground when Yom-Tov arrives, he should not say 'I will not bother to go and fetch them but will wait for another occasion'.

Text/Explanation #1 (cont.): Another text reads 'Afilu be'Murgaihu' - meaning that even they are threshing the produce with the threshing-ledge (Until here are the words of Rashi [See Shitah Mekubetzes 31]).

Refutation: This is not correct however, since it is forbidden to work with them.

Text/Explanation #2: The Ri therefore has the text 'Ma'argiyah' - even if the animals are lean-fleshed ...

Reason: Because we would have thought that since they are weak, it is not necessary to bring them to the Beis-ha'Mikdash, seeing as it is not the end of Hekdesh, like babies and Temurah animals).

Source: Targum Yonasan translates the Pasuk in Shmuel (2, 6) "ki Shamtu ha'Bakar", 'Arei ismerigu Tursa' (See Chok Nasan).

Explanation #2 (of first Lashon): And ha'Rav Yitzchak bar Sh'neur explains 'me'Mar'aihu' - that even from a place where it is permitted to graze and rear the sheep - i.e. in Chutz la'Aretz - since it is forbidden to rear a small animal in Eretz Yisrael ...

Explanation #2 (of first Lashon [cont]): And it comes to teach us that Kodshim can be brought from Chutz la'Aretz.

Support: And this D'rashah actually appears in the Sifri ' "Rak Kodoshecha asher Yih'yu lach" - from here we learn that one may bring Kodshim from Chutz la'Aretz ...

Support (cont.): Perhaps this extends even to B'chor and Ma'aser? Therefore the Torah writes "Rak" ...

Support (cont.): And what do you see to include these and to exclude those?

Support (cont.): We include these that do not have Parnasah there where they are - i.e. which cannot be eaten, even with a blemish, in Chutz la'Aretz ...

Support (concl.): And exclude those that do - i.e. which can be eaten with a blemish in Chutz la'Aretz

Clarification: mi'de'Rabbanan, as the Gemara explains, 'in case he rears flocks of sheep from it'.

Question: This requires explanation, since the Chachamim say the same as the Tana Kama (See Hagahos haG'ra)?

Clarification: This speaks where it got lost, he designated another animal to replace it and the first one is found, so that both animals are now standing there.

Clarification #1: Amora'im argue over this in the Gemara - Rabah explains that they probably do not argue that they should not be brought, but that they should ...

Clarification #1 (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, they do not argue that they should be brought, but that they should not.

Clarification #2: According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (See Olas Shlomoh) there are three opinions in the matter ...

Opinion #1: The Tana Kama of Rebbi Shimon according to the Tana Kama holds that they are all sacrificed ...

Opinion #2: Rebbi Elazar holds that they are not ...

Opinion #3: Whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, they all agree that the babies tat are born after the first one are not brought, and they are arguing over the first one.

Conclusion: And the Gemara will explain their respective reasons.

Clarifying Authorship #1: This does not go like Rava, according to whom everyone agrees that the V'lad of the V'lad is brought on the Mizbe'ach.

Clarifying Authorship #2: And according to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi it goes like the Rabbanan ...

Clarifying Authorship #2: Because according to Rebbi Elazar, the first V'lad is not brought at all.

Clarification: This D'rashah is only an Asmachta, since for sure the second V'lad is not brought is only mi'de'Rabbanan - 'in case one will come to rear flocks'.

Conclusion: In fact the Gemara in Pesachim (Daf 96b) learns a different D'rashah from this Pasuk.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not however, ask that he ought to have eaten it from Pesach ...

Answer: Since it may have been premature (before the eighth day).

Clarification: Since had it not been sick on Shevu'os and it would now have been Sukkos, Rav Papayos would have been coming to preclude Rava ...

Clarification (cont.): But now what is he coming to teach us?

Question: We need to look into the meaning of 'Chalipos' ...

Refuted Answer: Because if the Todah that he designated got lost and after he designated a replacement it was found, and they are both now standing there ...

Refutation: We already learned that in the Reisha of the Beraisa?

Answer: We must therefore explain that the Tana inserts it here 'in haste'.

Clarification: Not really its mother ...

Clarification (cont.): But the original Heekdesh from which these stem - which is in fact, a male.

Question: What is the Gemara asking? Perhaps it is different here; and the reason that it is not brought on the Mizbe'ach is ...

Question (cont.): Due to the principle 'Whatever dies by a Chatas, must graze by an Asham' ...

Question (concl.): And since the V'lad of a Chatas dies, by the Asham, it must graze, but it itself, is not brought on the Mizbe'ach?

Answer: The rule that 'the Asham must graze' was only said by those where 'ke'Hilchaso' pertains to the Asham - i.e. where the owner died or was atoned for, or the Temurah of an Asham or where it passed its first year ...

Answer (cont.): Because by all four the term 'Asham ke'Hilchaso' is applicable - but not by the 'Vlad of an Asham' which is not ke'Hilchaso' ...

Reason: Because it is a male, and 'V'lad' is not applicable to it, in which case the Halachah was not said.

Introduction to Question: We can ask from the Rabbanan on the Rabbanan, according to what Rava said earlier - that wherever the mother is brought on the Mizbe'ach, even the Rabbanan agree that the V'lad is brought too - and since here by the V'lad of the Temuras Asham the baby is brought ...

Question: They ought to have said that the V'lad itself is brought?

Answer #1: Rav Chisda here does not concur with Rava's answer earlier; he holds like Rabah bar bar Chanah answers regarding 'Machlokes Shenuyah ve'Rebbi Elazar Hi' ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas Rava who answers earlier that 'Wherever the mother is brought on the Mizbe'ach, even the Rabbanan agree that the V'lad is brought too' will give a different answer here ...

Answer #1 (concl.): As the Gemara will say shortly - that Rava gives a different answer.

Answer #2: Tosfos' Rebbe ha'Rav Mordechai however, that it is possible that Rav Chisda concurs with the answer that Rava gave earlier ...

Answer #2: Because when he said that 'Wherever the mother is brought on the Mizbe'ach, even the Rabbanan agree ... ' that speaks specifically by the v'lad of a Temuras Olah ...

Reason: Because when he said that 'Wherever the mother is brought on the Mizbe'ach, even the Rabbanan agree ... ' that speaks specifically by the v'lad of a Temuras Olah ...

Answer #2 (cont.): But here by the V'lad of a Temuras Asham, where the beginning of its Hekdesh it is brought as an Asham and not as an Olah, it does not follow that the V'lad should be brought as an Olah.

Introduction to Question: And this is also what the Gemara asks on Rebbi Elazar (See Hagahos Tzak 3) who says that someone who designates a female animal as an Olah, that its initial Hekdesh is not brought as an Olah but must graze, yet the V'lad is brought ...

Question: He ought to have said the same with regard to the V'lad of a Temuras Asham ...

Answer #2 (concl.): That even though the basic Hekdesh is not brought as an Olah, the V'lad itself should be (Tosfos' Rebbe, ha'Rav Mordechai).