1)

(a)Our Mishnah lists Chatas ha'Of she'Malkah she'Lo Lish'mah u'Mitzah Damo Chutz li'Zemano or vice-versa, or if both were performed she'Lo li'Shemah (presumably, this latter case is only inserted on account of the other two cases, since it has nothing to do with Pigul) - to include it in the category of she'Lo Kirev ha'Matir ke'Mitzvasan (in which case it is Pasul but not Pigul).

(b)The Din in the equivalent case by an Olas ha'Of will be - Pigul ve'Chayav Kareis ...

(c)... since she'Lo li'Shemo, which is Kasher by an Olah, will not detract from Pigul at all).

(d)The Tana rules that Le'echol k'Zayis ba'Chutz, k'Zayis le'Machar or vice-versa and ka'Chatzi Zayis ba'Chutz, ka'Chatzi Zayis le'Machar, or vice-versa - is Kasher, since Achilah and Haktarah do not combine (as we learned in the second Perek regarding to an animal).

2)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah holds that - whenever the Machsheves Pigul precedes the Machsheves P'sul, Pigul ve'Chayav Kareis.

(b)The Chachamim - do not differentiate (like the Tana Kama [see Mesores ha'Shas]).

(c)Our Mishnah rules that in the case of Le'echol ke'Chatzi Zayis u'Lehaktir ka'Chatzi Zayis (with regard to any of the above combinations) - Ein Achilah ve'Haktarah Mitztarfin (as we also learned in the second Perek).

3)

(a)The Torah writes in Vayikra, (in connection with Olas ha'Of), "Ve'hikrivo", in spite of having already written "ve'Ve'hikriv min ha'Torim". The Beraisa explains that ...

1. ... this is because - "min ha'Torim" itself implies that one may only bring at least two birds. "ve'Hikri*vo*" (in the singular) therefore comes to preclude from that notion.

2. ... the Torah finds it necessary to continue "el ha'Kohen" (prior to the Melikah) - to preclude from the Kal-va'Chomer that if the Shechitah of an Olas Beheimah, which requires Tzafon, does not require a Kohen, the Melikah of an Olas ha'Of, which does not, should certainly not require one.

(b)Rebbi Akiva learns from "ha'Kohen u'Malak" that the Kohen performs the Melikah with his finger-nail. Otherwise, we would have taken for granted that Melikah requires a K'li Shareis - from a Kal-ve'Chomer from Shechitas Beheimah, which does not require a Kohen, yet it requires a K'li Shareis (Kal-ve'Chomer Melikas ha'Of, which does).

(c)This D'rashah is only possible because "ha'Kohen u'Malak" would otherwise be superfluous - since it is obvious that a Zar, who is forbidden to approach the Mizbe'ach, is not eligible to perform Melikah.

(d)And the Beraisa learns from the Hekesh "u'Malak Vehiktir" that - just as the Haktarah of the Olas ha'Of takes place at the top of the Mizbe'ach, so too, does the Melikah (take place above the Chut ha'Sikra).

4)

(a)The Tana also learns that the Melikah of an Olas ha'Of must be performed 'mi'Mul Oref (and not at the front of the neck) from the Gezeirah-Shavah' - "u'Malak" "u'Malak" from Chatas ha'Of (where the Torah specifically writes "mi'Mul Oref".

(b)From ...

1. ... the Hekesh "u'Malak Vehiktir" he learns (apart from the location of the Melikah) that - just as the Kohen burns the body and the head of the bird separately, so too, must he cut both Si'manim in order to separate the head and body.

2. ... the double expression "Vehiktir oso" and "Vehiktir ha'Mizbeichah" he learns that - the body and the head of the bird must be burned separately.

(c)And he learns from ...

1. ... "Venimtzah Damo" (and not 'min ha'Dam') that - the Kohen must perform Mitzuy with all the blood.

2. ... "el Kir ha'Mizbe'ach" that - the blood must be squeezed on the wall of the Mizbe'ach, and not on the wall of the Kevesh or of the Heichal or the Ulam.

5)

(a)The Pasuk "u'Malak Vehiktir, Venimtzah Damo" cannot be understood literally - because how is it possible to perform Mitzuy after the bird has been burned?

(b)In fact, the Torah places "Vehiktir" before "Venimtza" - to teach us that just as the former takes place on top of the Mizbe'ach, so too, does the latter.

(c)Otherwise we would have thought that - if the Olas ha'Beheimah, whose Chatas counterpart is placed above the Chut ha'Sikra, yet it is sprinkled below it, then the Olas ha'Of, whose Chatas counterpart is placed below the Chut ha'Sikra, certainly ought to be!

(d)But we know that the Melikah has to be performed on top of the Mizbe'ach (standing on the Soveiv) - because "Vehiktir Venimtza" also indicates that the Mitzuy (which follows the Melikah) has to take place close to the Haktarah.

6)

(a)The Kohen is permitted to bend down and perform the Melikah below the Soveiv - because up to the Chut ha'Sikra it is permitted, and the Chut ha'Sikra encircles the Mizbe'ach one Amah below the Soveiv.

(b)Rebbi Rebbi Nechemyah and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - require the Melikah to be performed on top of the Mizbe'ach, by the Keren (exclusively).

(c)Even though the Tana Kama agrees with the D'rashah of "Venimtzah Vehiktir", Abaye and Rava explain that this is no problem -since, according to the Tana Kama, one may arrange a Ma'arachah on the Soveiv.

(d)Rebbi Nechemyah and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov however - forbid it.

7)

(a)Another Beraisa learn from the word there "be'Notzasah" that - the Kohen cannot simply cut a window beside the crop and remove the crop without the skin and the feathers that cover it (as he could have done had the Torah just written "Veheisir es Mur'aso").

(b)According to Aba Yossi ben Chanan, the Kohen removes the stomach as well - because the word "be'Notzasah" incorporates dung, something disgusting.

(c)Rebbi Yishmael says be'Notzah Shelah; Kodrah be'Sakin ke'Miyn Arubah by which he means that - the Kohen cuts with a knife and takes out the crop together with the skin and the feathers (but not the stomach [like the Tana Kama]).

(d)He is obligated to use a knife - because if he were to use his hands, he would be bound to tear away more of the skin than that which covers the crop, stealing as it were, from the portion of the Mizbe'ach.

8)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Shimshon and the lion) "Vayeshas'ehu ke'Shesa ha'Gedi" that - splitting the Olas ha'Of (where the Torah writes "Ve'shisa oso") must be done by hand.

(b)We learned in our Mishnah that if the Kohen cut both pipes of a Chatas ha'Of, the Karban is Pasul. The author cannot be Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - who says in a Beraisa Shama'ti she'Mavdilin be'Chatas ha'Of.

(c)Rav Chisda connects their Machlokes to whether Mitzuy is crucial to the Chatas ha'Of or not. Assuming that it is - if in addition, the Kohen cuts two Simanim, it will closely resemble an Olas ha'Of, which is why the Chachamim invalidate it.

(d)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon will hold on the other hand that - if the Kohen cuts both Simanim, he simply omits the Mitzuy (to distinguish it from Olas ha'Of), because in his opinion, Mitzuy is not crucial to the Avodah.

9)

(a)According to Rava, the Machlokes hinges on 'Shehiyah bein Si'man le'Siman'. Normally, if a Shochet delays between the Shechitah of the two Simanim when Shechting ...

1. ... an animal - the Shechitah is Pasul.

2. ... a bird - it is Kasher (since Shechting the second Si'man is anyway dispensable).

(b)It is inevitable to delay between the two Simanim of the Chatas ha'Of - because the Kohen has to cut through the majority of the Basar immediately after cutting the Si'man.

(c)The basis of the Machlokes is whether a delay after cutting the first Si'man of the Olas ha'Of invalidates the Melikah or not. According to the Chachamim - it does not, in which case, the Chatas ha'Of will again resemble it, whereas Rebbi Elazar holds that it is ...

(d)... in which case the Chatas ha'Of is not similar to it at all.

(e)Despite the fact that the Torah requires the cutting of two Simanim by Olas ha'Of, it is not crucial (like it is by an animal) according to the Chachamim - since, unlike the Shechitah of the animal, it is not needed to kill the bird. Consequently, it is required only as a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, and not as part of the killing process. And it is not crucial because there is no Pasuk (as is the rule by Kodshim) to indicate that it is.

10)

(a)Abaye establishes the Machlokes by whether or not, it matters if the Kohen cuts through the majority of the Basar of the neck of the Chatas ha'Of, and the case over which they are arguing is - where the Kohen did not do so prior to cutting the second Si'man.

(b)According to ...

1. ... the Chachamim - it is not crucial. Consequently, when the Kohen cuts both Simanim of the Chatas ha'Of, it once again resembles the Olas ha'Of (where the Kohen never cuts Rov Basar).

2. ... Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - Rov Basar is crucial to the Chatas ha'Of, in which case cutting two Simanim of the Chatas ha'Of cannot resemble the Olas ha'Of.

(c)Even the Chachamim would agree however, that if the Kohen were to cut through Rov first - the Melikah of the Chatas ha'Of would be Kasher.

(d)Abaye and Rava actually argue over the same point as Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Shmuel b'Rebbi Yitzchak - who argue over whether the Tana'im's bone of contention is Shehiyah be'Si'man Sheini be'Olas ha'Of or Rov Basar Me'akev by Chatas ha'Of.

11)

(a)The source for the differences between the Melikah of the Chatas ha'Of and the Olas ha'Of is a Beraisa. According to the Tana, before he actually cuts any Si'man - he cuts through the spinal cord and the skull of the bird (with his thumbnail).

(b)Besides the fact that the Kohen cuts only one Si'man of the Chatas, but two Simanim of the Olah - the Tana requires the cutting of Rov Basar by the Chatas ha'Of, but not by the Olas ha'Of.

(c)The Kohen is not obligated to sever the Si'man of the Chatas ha'Of and the two Si'manim of the Olas ha'Of - only the majority of each Si'man that he cuts.

(d)When they told Rebbi Yirmiyah how the various Amora'im interpretated the Machlokes Tana'im, he cited a statement in the name of Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, who interpreted the Machlokes, based on the Pasuk (by Chatas ha'Of) "Lo Yavdil" - as a concession (for the Kohen not to cut both Simanim if he does not want to); whereas the Chachamim explain it as a prohibition.

12)

(a)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queried Rebbi Yirmiyah's interpretation by citing the Pasuk (in connection with a pit that someone dug in the street) "ve'Lo Yechasen" - whether Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon interprets that Pasuk too, to mean that the owner may cover the pit if he wants to (a rather absurd suggestion).

(b)Rav Ashi replied by citing the Pasuk "Ba'al ha'Bor Yeshalem" in Mishpatim and "Vehikrivo" in Vayikra (by Olas ha'Of, immediately following Chatas ha'Of). We learn from ...

1. ... "Ba'al ha'Bor Yeshalem" that - the Pasuk there comes to obligate the owner of the pit to pay (in which case "ve'Ki Yechasenu" cannot possibly be voluntary).

2. ... "Vehikrivo" that - Olas ha'Of is not included in the Din of "ve'Lo Yavdil" of Chatas ha'Of, but requires the cutting of two Simanim (as Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon explains in Chulin).

(c)This proves that "Lo Yavdil" means 'Eino Tzarich Lehavdil" - because if it was a prohibition - then Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon would have to extrapolate from it that Olas ha'Of is different in that the Kohen is not obligated to cut both Simanim (but that he may if he so wishes).

13)

(a)Following the Mitzuy ha'Dam, the Torah writes "Olah Hu". The Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... "Olah" that - if the Kohen performs Mitzuy ha'Dam with the body but not with the head, the Korban is nevertheless Kasher.

2. ... "Hu" that - if he did the reverse, it is not.

(b)Ravina explains that the Tana learns this way, and not vice-versa - because the majority of blood is contained in the bird's body.