1)

(a)Our Mishnah exempts Dam Kodshim from Nosar and Tum'ah. Granted, someone who drinks blood is Chayav Kareis anyway, but now - if he drinks it be'Shogeg, he would otherwise have been Chayav two Chata'os, whereas now he is Chayav only one.

2)

(a)The Pasuk in Acharei-Mos writes "va'Ani Nasativ Lachem al ha'Mizbe'ach Lechaper ... ki ha'Dam Hu ha'Nefesh". From ...

1. ... "lachem" Ula learn that - she'Lachem Yehei (that Dam Kodshim is not subject to Nosar and Tum'ah), whereas ...

2. ... Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns it from "Lechaper" (le'Chaparah Nesativ, ve'Lo li'Me'ilah [in which case it has a Din of Chulin]), and ...

3. ... Rebbi Yochanan from "hu" ('hu Lifnei Kaparah ke'le'Achar Kaparah').

(b)In the latter case, we cannot say the opposite 'Mah Lifnei Kaparah Yesh bo Me'ilah ... af le'Achar Kaparah ... ' - because of the principle 'Ein l'cha Davar she'Na'asis Mitzvaso u'Mo'alin bo' (wherever the Mitzvah has terminated, Me'ilah is no longer applicable).

(c)The T'rumas ha'Deshen is - the shovel-full of ashes that the Kohanim take down from the Mizbe'ach each morning and place beside the ramp of the Mizbe'ach.

(d)It poses a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan's D'rashah - inasmuch as it is Asur be'Hana'ah, in spite of the fact that its Mitzvah has expired.

3)

(a)We answer the Kashya by adding the Bigdei Kehunah to the list - making this a case of Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad (two Pesukim which come to teach us the same thing, and we have a principle that Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad Ein Melamdin (the ruling cannot be applied to any other cases).

(b)The problem with the second case (of Bigdei Kehunah) is that - according to Rebbi Dosa, the prohibition of wearing them is confined a subsequent Yom-Kipur, but he or a Kohen Hedyot is permitted to wear them during the year.

(c)To make it Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad - we therefore replace Bigdei Kehunah with Eglah Arufah (after its neck has been broken).

4)

(a)We learn from the 'Hey' in "ha'Arufah" (in the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim, in connection with the Eglah Arufah) and the 'Vav' in the word "Vesamo" (in the Pasuk in Tzav, in connection with the Terumas ha"Deshen "Vesamo Eitzel ha'Mizbe'ach") - that one may benefit from all other cases of Davar ha'Na'aseh Mitzvaso.

(b)We learn this from the principle that two Miy'utin (exclusions) actually come to include (see Tosfos DH 'Mishum').

(c)We need the Miy'utim (in spite of the principle Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad, Ein Melamdin) - according to those who hold Sheloshah Kesuvim ... Ein Melamdin, but Sh'nei Kesuvim ... Melamdin'.

(d)According to the first opinion, we require three Pesukim "lachem" "Le'chaper" and "hu"- to preclude Dam Kodshim from three different Isurim. "hu" precludes it from Me'ilah, as we explained, and "lachem" and "Lechaper" - from Nosar and Tum'ah.

(e)We do not need a Pasuk to preclude it from Pigul as well - because we know that already from the principle Kol she'Yesh lo Matirin ... ', and blood is itself a Mechaper (as we learned in the Mishnah earlier).

5)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan explains why the Torah needs to write three times Kareis by Dam Shelamim (in connection with Tum'ah, once in Emor, and twice in Tzav ). By Achas li'Kelal ve'Achas li'Perat, he means that - it is a case of Something (Shelamim) that was part of the K'lal (all Kodshim, which are Chayav Kareis for Tum'ah [see Mesores ha'Shas]), yet the Torah mentions it on its own, to teach us that even the K'lal (like the P'rat), is only Chayav Kareis, by Kodshei Mizbe'ach (like Shelamim), but not by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(b)The third Kareis comes to include things that are not edible - like the opinion of the Chachamim in our Mishnah.

(c)According to Rebbi Shimon (who precludes wood and frankincense from Tum'ah), it comes to include - Chata'os ha'Penimitos ...

(d)... which we might otherwise have thought are not subject to Tum'ah, just as they are not subject to Pigul (Kol she'Eino al Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon ki'Shelamim ... ), according to him.

6)

(a)One of each pair of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, combine to argue over the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan in our Mishnah (regarding Eitzim u'Levonah). One opinion qualifies the Machlokes - by confining it to Tum'as Basar (but if someone eats Eitzin or Levonah be'Tum'as ha'Guf, even the Rabbanan will agree that he does not receive Malkos).

(b)The second opinion maintains that the Machlokes applies to both cases.

(c)Rava supports the second opinion from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Basar asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei (Tum'as Basar), ve'Tum'aso alav (Tum'as ha'Guf)", implying that since the former is subject to Malkos, so too is the latter.

7)

(a)This is the version of Rav Tivyomi. According to Rav Kahana however, the above Machlokes pertains to the Seifa - (to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon).

(b)One of the above opinions establishes the Machlokes by Tum'as ha'Guf. With regard to Tum'as Basar however - Rebbi Shimon will agree with the Rabbanan that he is Chayav.

(c)The second opinion holds ke'Machlokes be'Zu, Kach Machlokes be'Zu. Rava concurs with that on the grounds that - seeing as the Pesukim are written next to each other, it stands to reason that since Eitzim and Levonah are precluded from "ve'Tum'aso alav", they are also precluded from "ve'ha'Basar asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei".

(d)And we reconcile Rebbi Shimon with the D'rashah "ve'ha'Basar", 'Larabos Eitzim u'Levonah' - by diminishing it to an Asmachta, because in reality, the Isur of Tum'ah by Eitzim and Levonah is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah lists six things that the Kohen must specifically have in mind when he Shechts Kodshim; Zevach, Zove'ach, Hash-m and Ishim - Re'ach and Nicho'ach (which will all be explained in the Sugya).

(b)By ...

1. ... le'Shem Zevach, the Tana means that - the Shochet has in mind the correct Korban (an Olah), and not a different one (a Shelamim).

2. ... le'Shem Zove'ach - he has in mind the correct owner, and not somebody else.

(c)In the case of a Chatas and an Asham, the Tana adds - the sin for which the Korban is coming to atone.

9)

(a)According to Rebbi Yossi, even if the Shochet Shechts S'tam, the Korban is Kasher - due a Takanas Chachamim to Shecht S'tam, because someone who specifically Shechts with a Kavanah li'Shemo, may come to do so she'Lo li'Shemo ...

(b)... invalidating the Korban, even if the owner thinks li'Shemo - because our Tana holds that P'sul Machshavah depends on the person who is performing the Avodah, and not on the owner.

10)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns le'Shem Zevach from the Pasuk "Olah le'Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Hashem". Even though this Pasuk is not written in connection with the Shechitah, we learn that the Shechitah requires le'Shem Zevach - from Shelamim, where it is ...

(b)... and the reason that we cite the Pasuk by Olah and not by Shelamim is - because even though the other four are all mentioned by Shelamim, Re'ach Nicho'ach is not.

(c)The definition of ...

1. ... le'Shem Ishim is that - he intends the Korban to be burned to a cinder, and not just into pieces of grilled meat.

2. ... le'Shem Re'ach that - he roasts the meatin such a way that the aroma of roasting meat should pervade the Azarah (as opposed to placing it on the Ma'arachah after having already roasted it).

3. ... le'Shem Nicho'ach that - he intends the Korban to please Hash-m, who ordered it to be sacrificed.

11)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules that a Chatas that one Shechts as an Olah - is Pasul, whereas one that one Shechts as Chulin is Kasher.

(b)Rebbi Ila'i extrapolates Rav Yehudah's ruling from the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Lo Yech'lalu es Kodshei b'nei Yisrael" - implying that Kodshim profane Kodshim (but Chulin don't).

(c)Rabah poses a Kashya on Rav from Rebbi Yossi, from whose ruling Af Mi she'Lo hayah be'Libo le'Shem Echad mi'Kol Eilu, Kasher, he extrapolates that - if the Shochet has in mind le'Shem Chulin, the Korban is Pasul (a Kashya on Rav).

(d)We qualify the inference however, to read that if he had in mind le'Shem Chulin, it is Kasher, even though it does not atone, (and that is also what Rav meant when he said Kasher).

12)

(a)Rebbi Ila'i agrees with Rav's previous ruling. But Chatas she'Shachtah Mishum Chulin - (where the Shochet actually thinks that he is Shechting Chulin) is Pasul ...

(b)... because, since he does not even mean to Shecht Kodshim (which is not the case by Chatas she'Shachtah le'Shem Shelamim) - it falls under the category of Misasek, which is Pasul by Kodshim.

13)

(a)When Shmuel asked Rav Huna for the source for the P'sul of Mis'asek by Kodshim, he cited the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Shachat es ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hash-m" - which implies that the Shochet must know that he is Shechting a Kodshim bull (and not a Chulin one).

(b)Shmuel was not satisfied with Rav Huna's reply however - because he knew it already, and what he was looking for was a second Pasuk, rendering the Korban Pasul even Bedieved.

(c)Rav Huna therefore quoted the additional Pasuk in Kedoshim - "li'Retzonchem Tizbachuhu", to teach us the P'sul of Mis'asek is even Bedi'eved.