1)

(a)We explained in our Mishnah why, in the Reisha (in the case of one Kos), ba'Chutz ve'Chazar ve'Nasan bi'Fenim is Chayav. The reason that he is Chayav in the case of bi'Fenim Ve'he'elan ba'Chutz, despite the fact that the blood that remains is only Shirayim is - because the author of the Mishnah is Rebbi Nechemyah.

(b)And we reconcile this with the Seifa (in the case of two Kosos), where the Tana rules Echad bi'Fenim ve'Echad ba'Chutz, Patur, by establishing it like the Tana Kama of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon who holds in a similar case, that - one cup renders the other one Dachuy (rejected).

(c)This latter Machlokes (which we already quoted in the third Perek) concerns a case where the Kohen received the blood of a Chatas in four cups - and then performed all four Matanos from one of them.

2)

(a)The Tana compares the case of two cups to the case of someone who finds the Chatas that became lost after he already designated a second one. The problem with that is - why it is necessary. What is it coming to teach us?

(b)And we answer by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi, who draws a distinction between the case in our Mishnah - where the animal that is designated after the first one becomes lost and must die, once the original one is found, and a case where the owner originally designates two Chata'os - where once one of them is brought on the Mizbe'ach, the second one becomes an Olah.

(c)This does not mean that it is actually brought as an Olah - but that it is set free in the field ('Nitak le'Re'ayah') until it becomes blemished, and then sold, and the proceeds are used to purchase an Olah.

3)

(a)Nevertheless, it is only Kasher because of a statement by Rav Huna Amar Rav, who said - Asham she'Nitak le'Re'ayah, ve'Shachto S'tam, Kasher.

(b)The reason that, in the case of two Chata'os, Rebbi renders him Chayav for the Shechitah of the second Chatas ba'Chutz is - because Bedieved, the second animal is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, (based on the principle 'Im Alah, Lo Yeired').

(c)And we can only compare the second Chatas (which is generally a female) to the Asham of Rav Huna Amar Rav, which is a male animal - because the Tana is talking about the Sa'ir of a Chatas Nasi, which is also a male.

4)

(a)According to the Rabbanan - in the case of two Chata'os, there is no difference whether the owner originally designated them together or whether he designated the second one only after the first one got lost. Either way, we will apply the Din of Yir'eh ... , in which case, the second animal is Kasher Bedieved, and someone who Shechts it ba'Chutz will be Chayav.

(b)And the reason that the Mishnah finds it necessary to insert the case of two Chata'os here is - to establish the Limud from two Kosos like Rebbi.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that - someone who Shechts a Paras Chatas or the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, ba'Chutz is Patur.

(b)The Tana extrapolates this from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (in connection with Shechutei Chutz) "ve'el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" - which implies an animal that is fit to bring to the Ohel Mo'ed (which they are not, though we will query this with regard to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach later).

(c)And from the Pasuk there "Lehakriv Korban Lifnei Mishkan Hash-m" he learns that a Rove'a, Nirva, Muktzah, Ne'evad, M'chir Kelev and Esnan Zonah - are not subject to Shechitas Chutz either.

(d)The other three Pesulim that the list incorporate are - Kil'ayim, T'reifah and Yotzei Dofen.

6)

(a)One is not Chayav on Shechutei Chutz for Shechting an animal with a permanent blemish, and according to the Tana Kama - one is not Chayav on a passing one (a Ba'al-Mum Over) either.

(b)Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Tana Kama - in the case of a Ba'al-Mum Over ...

(c)... because, even though it is not subject to Kareis, it is subject to a Lo Sa'aseh ...

(d)... seeing as it will be fit to go on the Mizbe'ach after is has healede.

7)

(a)The Tana Kama in our Mishnah rules that someone who Shechts ba'Chutz young pigeons or old doves is - Patur.

(b)According to Rebbi Shimon - he has transgressed a Lo Sa'aseh, but is not subject to Kareis (or a Chatas).

(c)The Mishnah now discusses Oso ve'es B'no and Mechusar Z'man. The same Tana'im repeat the same Machlokes with regard to someone who Shechts (the second of) Oso ve'es B'no or Mechusar Z'man ba'Chutz - the Tana Kama holds Patur; Rebbi Shimon, that he has transgressed only a La'av.

(d)Besides an old dove, Mechusar Z'man incorporates - bringing a Korban before the owner is due to bring it (Mechusar Z'man be'Ba'alim [as we will explain shortly]).

8)

(a)We just cited Rebbi Shimon (who holds that even though all cases of Mechusar Z'man do not carry a Chiyuv Kareis, they are subject to a La'av). According to the Chachamim - wherever there is no Kareis, there is no La'av either.

(b)Mechusar Z'man be'Ba'alim refers to - a Zav, Zavah or a Yoledes who brought their respective Korbanos prematurely (the first two during the days of counting, the third during her days of Taharah).

(c)The Tana rules that - if a Zav ... brings his Chatas ve'Asham ba'Chutz prematurely, he is Patur, whereas if he brings his Olah u'Shelamim ba'Chutz, he is Chayav ...

(d)... because if they send the latter as a Nadavah through a Shali'ach, they will be accepted, whereas the former will not.

9)

(a)The Tana rules that someone who brings ba'Chutz Basar Kodshim or Kodshim Kalim, Mosar ha'Omer, Sh'tei ha'Lechem, Lechem ha'Panim or Sheyarei Menachos - is Patur.

(b)Having already listed Basar Chatas and Asham, when the Tana mentions Kodshei Kodshim independently, he is referring to - the Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur (that is brought on Shavu'os).

(c)The Tana also rules that a Kohen who pours oil on the Minchah, breaks up the Minchas Ma'afeh-Tanur, mixes the flour and the oil, salts, waves of brings the Minchah to the Mizbe'ach, arranges the Lechem ha'Panim on the Shulchan, prepares the Menorah in the morning, takes a Kemitzah or receives the blood of a Korban, ba'Chutz - is Patur, as well.

(d)All those mentioned in both of the above lists are not subject to the strict punishment of Zarus, Tum'ah, Mechusar Begadim or performing them without the Kohen washing his hands. A Zar is Patur from ...

1. ... the first list (the Basar of Kodshei Kodshim ... ) - because all of them are eaten (and whatever is not fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach bi'Fenim is Patur Bachutz).

2. ... the second list (ha'Yotzek, ve'ha'Bolel ... ') - because a Zar is only Chayav for an Avodah which is final (but not for one which is followed by other Avodos).

(e)We learn she'Lo Richutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim from Mechusar Begadim regarding the previous Halachah - and Mechusar Begadim from the Din of Zar (since a Kohen Mechusar Begadim who performs the Avodah is considered a Zar).

10)

(a)When the Torah writes (with regard to the Korbanos that were brought prior to Matan Torah) "Vayishlach es Na'arei B'nei Yisrael", it is referring to - the Bechoros.

(b)The two major changes that took place regarding the Avodas ha'Korbanos when the Mishkan was erected were - a. that private Bamos became forbidden and b. the Kohanim took over the Avodah from then on.

(c)Kodshei Kodshim where then eaten - within the hangings of the Azarah, and Kodshim Kalim, anywhere within Machaneh Yisrael.

11)

(a)When they arrived in Gilgal, Bamos became permitted once more, and Kodshei Kodshim had to be eaten within the hangings. The Tana is talking about - a Bamas Tzibur ...

(b)... because on a Bamas Yachid one could only bring Nedarim and Nedavos, and the only Kodshei Kodshim that are brought as a Neder or Nedavah is an Olah (which is not eaten).

(c)The only Neder and Nedavah that could not be sacrificed on a Bamah was - a Minchah.

(d)Kodshim Kalim could then be eaten anywhere - because seeing as they were no longer located in one spot, the concept of Machaneh Yisrael no longer existed.

(e)The Tana does not mention Ma'aser Sheini - because all Ma'asros only came into effect after they had captured and distributed the land (which occurred only after the era of Gilgal came to an end).

12)

(a)The era of Gilgal - which lasted - fourteen years, until they conquered and distributed the land, was succeeded by the era of Mishkan Shiloh.

(b)The Torah refers to Mishkan Shiloh as - Menuchah.

(c)The structure of Mishkan Shiloh was unusual inasmuch as - although it comprised a stone building, instead of a roof, it had only curtains.

(d)They now ate ...

1. ... Kodshei Kodshim - within the hangings of the Azarah.

2. ... Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheini - within any point from which one could see Shiloh.

(e)The era following Shiloh was - that of (first) Nov and (then) Giv'on - where exactly the same Halachos applied as those that applied in Gilgal (except that there, Ma'aser Sheini were added to Kodshim Kalim).

13)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei ...

1. ... "Ki Lo Ba'sem ad Atah el ha'Menuchah ... Lo Sa'asun ke'Chol asher Anachnu Osin Poh Imanu ha'Yom ... Ish Kol ha'Yashar be'Einav" that - once they arrived in Gilgal, they would be permitted to bring only what was voluntary (Nedarim and Nedavos).

2. ... "Viyeshavtem ba'Aretz ... Hishamer l'cha Pen Ta'aleh Olosecha be'Chol Makom asher Tir'eh" that - once they had conquered and distributed the land, they would be forbidden to build private Bamos once more.

(b)The event that caused the abolition of Shiloh - was the capture of the Aron by the P'lishtim in the days of Eli ha'Kohen.

(c)We know that, after the destruction of Shiloh, the Bamah Gedolah was situated in Nov - because Achimelech (the Kohen Gadol), informed David ha'Melech that the only bread they had was the Lechem ha'Panim, a clear indication that the Shulchan (and therefore the Menorah, too) was there.

(d)It was moved to Giv'on - after Shaul ordered all its priestly residents killed.

14)

(a)The Torah refers to Shiloh as 'Menuchah'. When it writes 'Nachlah' - it is referring to Yerushalayim.

(b)Once Yerushalayim was chosen - Bamos became forbidden forever.

(c)Kodshim Kalim were now eaten - within the walls of Yerushalayim.

15)

(a)Kodshim that were sacrificed ba'Chutz during the period when Bamos were forbidden, assuming that they were sanctified during the period of ...

1. ... Isur Bamos - were subject to Kareis, a La'av ("Hishamer l'cha Pen Ta'aleh ... ") and an Asei ("Vehevi'um la'Hashem").

2. ... Heter Bamos - were subject to the La'av and the Asei (but not to Kareis).

(b)Whereas Kodshim that were sanctified during the period that Bamos were permitted and sacrificed after they became forbidden - were only subject to the Asei (which one contravened by not sacrificing them when one could have done so).

16)

(a)The Mishnah rules that - Korbanos that were sanctified for the Mishkan (whilst it was standing in Gilgal) - had to be brought in the Mishkan (and not on a Bamah).

(b)This pertains to Korb'nos Tzibur S'tam. But Korb'nos Yachid ...

1. ... S'tam - could be brought on a Bamah, though if ...

2. ... one sanctified them specifically for the Mishkan - they had to be brought in the Mishkan.

(c)When the Tana adds ve'Im Hikrivam be'Bamah, Patur he means that - although one was Patur from the punishment of Shechutei Chutz, he nevertheless contravened the La'av in Ki Seitzei "Motzei Sefasecha Tishmor Ve'asisa" (for breaking his word).

17)

(a)The Tana lists the various distinctions between a Bamas Yachid and a Bamas Tzibur. After Semichah, Shechitas Tzafon and Sh'tei Matanos she'Hein Arba, he adds - Tenufah and Hagashah (which also pertain to Menachos).

(b)Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the last two - inasmuch as, in his opinion, a Minchah cannot be brought on a Bamah at all.

(c)To the above list, which applies exclusively to a Bamah Gedolah, the Tana adds Kehunah, Bigdei Shareis, Re'ach Nicho'ach, Mechitzah le'Damim and Richutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim. By ...

1. ... Re'ach Nicho'ach, he comes to preclude - the prohibition of placing limbs that have been pre-roasted on the Mizbe'ach and by ...

2. ... Mechitzah le'Damim - the Chut ha'Sikra that divided between the Haza'os of the Chata'os, and the Zerikas ha'Dam of the Olah.

(d)The Mishnah's finally rules that - Z'man (Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano), Nosar and Tamei pertain equally to both categories of Bamah.