1)

(a)Our Mishnah declares Kasher a Chatas ha'Of that the Kohen brings below the Chut ha'Sikra ke'Ma'aseh Chatas - by means of Melikah of one Si'man, Haza'ah and Mitzuy, le'Shem Chatas.

(b)Seeing as this what the Kohen is supposed to do - there is no Chidush ...

(c)... and the Tana only inserts it - on account of the other cases.

(d)The Tana then rules that a Chatas ha'Of which the Kohen brings ...

1. ... below the Chut ha'Sikra ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Olah or ke'Ma'aseh Olah le'Shem Olah - is Pasul.

2. ... above the Chut ha'Sikra, even ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas - is Pasul, too.

(e)When the Tana says ke'Ma'aseh Olah, he means that - the Kohen cuts both Simanim and performs Mitzuy, but not Haza'ah.

2)

(a)The Tana rules that an Olas ha'Of that the Kohen brings ...

1. ... above the Chut ha'Sikra ke'Ma'aseh Olah le'Shem Chatas - is Kasher, but the owner has not fulfilled his duty.

2. ... above the Chut ha'Sikra ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Olah, or ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas - is Pasul.

(b)And he rules that - an Olas ha'Of that the Kohen brings below the Chut ha'Sikra - is Pasul whatever the circumstances.

3)

(a)The Tana concludes ve'Chulan Ein Metam'in Begadim be'Beis ha'Beliyah - a Tum'ah that renders Tamei whoever eats it (even though he did not touch it), which is the only Tum'ah that pertains to the Neveilah of a Tahor bird.

(b)He is coming to teach us that - even though the Melikah is Pasul, it nevertheless removes the bird from the realm of Neveilah.

(c)... and he adds to this ruling - u'Mo'alin bahen.

(d)The only exception to this of the above cases is Chatas ha'Of she'As'ah Le'matah le'Shem Chatas - where the Melikah is Kasher, and which therefore permits the Chatas to be eaten by the Kohanim (and whatever is fit to be eaten is not subject to Me'ilah).

4)

(a)Initially, we establish the Reisha of the Mishnah Chatas ha'Of she'As'ah le'Matah in the case of Ma'aseh Olah le'Shem Chatas, by Melikah (where the Kohen cut both Simanim). And the problem that our Mishnah, which rules that it is Pasul, will then not go like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - is not really a problem, since we have already established the previous Mishnah not like him (so it is feasible to also establish this Mishnah not like him).

(b)Nevertheless, we suggest that Ma'aseh Olah might mean that - he omitted the Haza'ah, thereby enabling us to establish the Mishnah even like Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon

5)

(a)The change in the Seifa As'ah Lema'alah ke'Ma'aseh Kulan, Pesulah (incorporating Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas), cannot refer to the Kohen's having performed the Melikah above the Chut ha'Sikra - because we already learned that the Melikah may be performed anywhere on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)So it must be referring to - the Kohen's having omitted the Haza'ah.

(c)We refute the proof that, seeing as the change in the Seifa refers to the Haza'ah, so too, does the change in the Reisha - on the grounds that this is simply not necessarily so, since 'Ha ke'de'Iysa, ve'Ha ke'de'Iysa' (Melikah and Haza'ah each speaks in its own respective case).

6)

(a)In the Seifa, we learned Olas ha'Of she'Asah Lema'alah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Olah, Pesulah. Besides the Melikah of only one Si'man, Ma'aseh Chatas might refer to - the omission of Mitzuy.

(b)We object to this interpretation however, because then the Seifa (ve'Chulan ... u'Mo'alin bah) would not go like Rebbi Yehoshua, who rules (in the following Mishnah) - Ein Mo'alin bah.

7)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer (Mo'alin Bah) and Rebbi Yehoshua (Ein Mo'alin bah) in the following Mishnah, actually argue over Olas ha'Of she'Asah Lematah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas. ke'Ma'asesh Chatas refers to the Melikah (only one Siman) and not to the Mitzuy (which the Kohen omitted) - because Rebbi Yehoshua's reason (that cutting one Si'man Le'matah turns the bird into a Chatas, as we will later conclude), is not applicable to a case where the Kohen cut two Simanim before omitting the Mitzuy.

(b)We just established the Seifa (Olas ha'Of ... Lematah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas) by Melikah. We established ...

1. ... the Reisha (Chatas ha'Of ... Lema'alah le'Shem Olah') by Melikah.

2. ... the Metzi'asa (Olas ha'Of ... Lema'alah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas) by Mitzuy.

(c)We deal with this seemingly strange sequence - by accepting it.

8)

(a)We already cited the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua regarding Olas ha'Of she'Asah le'Matah ke'Ma'aseh Chatas le'Shem Chatas. Rebbi Eliezer holds Mo'alin bah - since the Heter Achilah that would have removed the Me'ilah by a Kasher Chatas does not apply in this case.

(b)He tries to prove his opinion from a Kal va'Chomer - because if Me'ilah applies to a Chatas that one changes to an Olah (even though the Chatas itself is not subject to Me'ilah), then how much more so will it apply to an Olah (which is subject to Me'ilah) that one changes to a Chatas.

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua refutes this proof however, on the grounds that one cannot prove an Olah le'Shem Chatas from a Chatas le'Shem Olah - because whereas, in the latter case, the Olah that he is changing to is subject to Me'ilah, the Chatas in the former case, is not.

9)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer then tries to prove his point from Kodshei Kodshim that were Shechted in the south (as Shelamim) - whose Basar is also not normally subject to Me'ilah, yet someone who derives Hana'ah from them is Mo'el.

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua refutes this proof too however - based on the fact that Me'ilah is applicable to a Shelamim via its Eimurin, whereas a Chatas ha'Of (which we are discussing) is not subject to Me'ilah at all.