(Mishnah): (One is exempt for...) Rove'a or Nirva... (We learn from "Lifnei Mishkan Hash-m.")

Question: These are not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed. Why don't we learn from "v'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed..."?

Answer - part 1: For Rove'a and Nirva, we need another verse to teach about when the Aveirah was done after it was Hukdash;

This answer does not suffice for Ne'evad and Muktzeh. We must say that it was Ne'evad or Muktzeh before Hekdesh, for after Hekdesh, (since an action was not done to the animal itself,) only the owner can forbid it! (Once it is Hekdesh, he ceases to own it.)

Answer - part 2: Also regarding Ne'evad and Muktzeh, another verse is needed to teach about when the Aveirah was done after it was Hukdash;

The case is, the Korban is Kodshim Kalim. The Mishnah is like R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that Kodshim Kalim are considered to be the property of the owner.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "U'Ma'alah Ma'al ba'Shem" includes Kodshim Kalim, which are the property of the owner.

The Isurim of Rove'a and Nirva take effect on Kodshim, for it is Ervah (we learn from "Mashchasam (Arayos or idolatry) Bam Mum Bam");

The Isurim of Ne'evad and Muktzeh take effect on Kodshim Kalim, for it is idolatry;

The Isurim of Mechir, Esnan, Kilayim, and Yotzei Dofen take effect on the child of a Korban;

The Tana holds that the child of a Korban does not become Kodesh until it is born. (The owner can sell or give then until birth. This allows the Isur of Mechir or Esnan to take effect. All of these were considered proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed in the womb, before the Pesul occurred. Therefore, we cannot learn from "v'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed." We need "Lifnei Mishkan Hash-m" to exempt them.)

(Mishnah): (One is exempt for) a Ba'al Mum... for Oso v'Es Beno...

We must teach all these cases;

Had we only taught Ba'al Mum, one might have thought that Chachamim exempt for it because it is repulsive, but Torim (that are too young) are not repulsive. They would admit to R. Shimon that one is liable for them!

If we only taught Torim, one might have thought that R. Shimon obligates for them because they were never fit to be offered, but a Ba'al Mum was fit and Nidcheh. He would admit to Chachamim that one is exempt for it!

If we only taught these two, one might have thought that Chachamim exempt for them because they are intrinsically forbidden, but Oso v'Es Beno is forbidden due to something else (the Shechitah of its mother or son), and they would admit to R. Shimon that one is liable for it!

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): (For anything proper to be offered later, one transgresses a Lav, but there is no Kares.)

Question: What is his reason?

Answer #1 (R. Ilai): "Lo Sa'asun k'Chol Asher Anachnu Osim Po ha'Yom" - Moshe told Yisrael that when they enter Eretz Yisrael (and set up the Mishkan in Giglal), one may offer "Kol ha'Yashar b'Einav" (voluntary offerings, i.e. Nedarim and Nedavos), but not obligatory offerings;

Obligatory offerings will be Mechusar Zeman, for they may not be offered until a Mikdash will be built in Shilo, and a Lav "Lo Sa'asun" forbids them!

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If so, one should be lashed for this;

However, R. Zeira taught that the Torah reduced the severity (of Mechusar Zeman from a Lav) to an Aseh!

Answer #1: R. Zeira's teaching is according to Chachamim. R. Shimon holds that he is lashed.

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): (Even R. Shimon exempts for Mechusar Zeman of obligatory offerings offered in Gilgal.) Since they may be offered only (in "Menuchah", i.e. the Mikdash) in Shilo, it is as if they were offered outside the Mikdash;

He is Mechayev for Shechutei Chutz at the time the Mishkan was in Gilgal.

Answer #2 (to Question (b) - Rabah): R. Shimon learns as follows:

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): "Lo Suchal Lizbo'ach Es ha'Posach" is a Lav against slaughtering Pesach on a private Bamah when Bamos are forbidden;

Suggestion: Perhaps this applies to even when Bamos are permitted!

Rejection: The Lav is only when all of Yisrael enter "b'Echad She'arecha" (one gate), i.e. there is a Mikdash and Bamos are forbidden. (end of Beraisa)

Question: What time is discussed?

Answer #1: It discusses the afternoon (of Erev Pesach).

Rejection: Pesach is fully proper inside the Mikdash. One who slaughters it outside is Chayav Kares!

Answer #2: Rather, it discusses the morning (of Erev Pesach. Even though it is Mechusar Zeman, a Lav forbids it!)

Rejection (and defense of Answer #1): Really, it discusses the afternoon, and at a time when Bamos are permitted.

Question: The Beraisa expounds that the verse discusses when Bamos are forbidden!

Answer: It means, the Pesach is forbidden on this (i.e. a private) Bamah and permitted on another Bamah (of the Tzibur.)

(Mishnah): Mechusar Zeman (of the owner - if a Zav, Zavah or Yoledes offered his (or her) Chatas or Asham, he is exempt.)

Question: These people do not offer an Asham!

Answer (Ze'iri): The text of the Mishnah should include also a Metzora. (He brings an Asham.)

(Mishnah): If he offered his Olah or Shelamim (he is liable...)

Question: These people do not offer Shelamim!

Answer (Rav Sheshes): The text of the Mishnah should include also a Nazir.

People adopted Ze'iri's correction (they would include Metzora when reciting the Mishnah), but not Rav Sheshes' correction. (Tosfos - this is because Nazir is less similar to the others. He is not Tamei.)

(Rav Chilkiya bar Tuvi): (The Mishnah exempts for an Asham Mechusar Zeman, e.g. of a Metzora.) This is only if it was offered Lishmah;

If it was offered Lo Lishmah, he is liable, since if he offered it Lo Lishmah inside, it would be Kosher.

Question: If so, also if it was offered Lishmah he should be liable, since it was proper to be offered inside Lo Lishmah!

Answer: Until one is Oker it (changes it to a different Korban), we consider it like the original Korban, so it cannot be offered inside.