1)

(a)Rebbi Zeira asks whether, if an Olas Bamas Yachid that was taken into the confines of a Bamas Tzibur after the Shechitah, and then taken out again - we say Keivan de'Ayla, Kaltah lah Mechitzos (and it nevertheless retains the Din of an Olas Bamas Tzibur) or Keivan de'Hadar, Hadar (and it reverts to its original status of an Olas Bamas Yachid.

(b)We try to connect this She'eilah with the Machlokes Rabah and Rav Yosef in connection with a Mishnah in Me'ilah, which rules that - even if Kodshei Kodshim are Shechted in the south of the Azarah - they are subject to Me'ilah.

(c)The Chidush is that - we do not say that Shechting them in the south is akin to killing them without Shechitah (in which case they would no longer be subject to Me'ilah).

(d)Rabah maintains that if they were subsequently taken up on the Mizbe'ach, Im Alu, Yerdu. Rav Yosef rules - Im Alu, Lo Yerdu.

2)

(a)Similarly, we suggest, in our case too, Rabah will hold Keivan de'Hadar, Hadar (since Shechitah in the wrong place removes their Kedushah; whereas Rav Yosef, who holds that it does not, holds Im Alu, Lo Yerdu.

(b)We reject this suggestion however - in that ...

1. ... Rabah might well confine his ruling to the case of the Mizbe'ach in the Beis-Hamikdash, (conceding that in our case, we will say Keivan she'Hichnisah, Kaltah lah Mechitzos) - because the Mizbe'ach only sanctifies Kodshim that are fit for it (as we already learned in ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh), whereas the Bamah Gedolah is Mekadesh even Kodshim that are not.

2. ... Rav Yosef confines his ruling to the case of Mizbe'ach (conceding that in our case, we will say Keivan de'Hadar, Hadar) - because both Kodshim that are Shechted in the north and Kodshim that are Shechted in the south, are brought on the same Mizbe'ach, whereas Kodshei Bamas Tzibur and Kodshei Bamas Yachid are brought on different Mizb'chos.

(c)What was obvious to Rabah (one way) and Rav Yosef (the other), was not so obvious to Rebbi Yanai (see Shitah Mekubetzes and Hagahos Rav Yitzchak Iyzak Chaver), who ask - whether the limbs of a Bamas Yachid that were taken up on to the Mizbe'ach of a Bamas Tzibur, must be taken down again.

(d)We remain with a She'eilah (Teiku), though we do qualify the She'eilah. It is obvious (to Rebbi Yanai) that - if the majority of the limb is already burning Im Alu, Lo Yerdu (and the She'eilah pertains to a case where it is not.

3)

(a)Rav and Shmuel argue over Shechitas Laylah by a Bamah Ketanah - one validates it, the other, doesn't.

(b)Rebbi Elazar referred to an apparent discrepancy between two Pesukim in Shmuel - where on one occasion, when they were preparing for war, Shaul specifically ordered the people to Shecht by day, and then the Pasuk records that they actually Shechted by night.

(c)Rav and Shmuel answer the Kashya differently. One of them establishes the first Pasuk by Kodshim, and the second, by Chulin (because he holds that Shechitas Laylah is forbidden regarding Kodshim even by a Bamas Yachid) - the other establishes the first Pasuk by Kodshei Bamah Gedolah (which require day, even though they are being brought on a Bamah Ketanah); and the second Pasuk, by Kodshei Bamah Ketanah (which do not).

4)

(a)According to Rav, Kodshei Bamas Yachid do not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach. Rebbi Yochanan says that - they do.

(b)They argue over a statement by Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who says that - the Olah which Yisrael brought in the desert - at Har Sinai, did not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach.

(c)He concludes his statement with she'Ein Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach Ela me'Ohel Mo'ed, which Rebbi Yochanan takes to the letter. Rav qualifies his words - confining them to a Bamah Gedolah, but not to a Bamah Ketanah.

5)

(a)After listing the differences between a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah, the Beraisa (which we cited already in Perek ha'Shochet ve'ha''Ma'aleh) lists the Halachos that they share. The Tana rules that ...

1. ... Kiyor ve'Kano - applies to a Bamah Gedolah, but not to a Bamah Ketanah.

2. ... Shechitah - applies to both Bamos, as does ...

3. ... Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach and ...

4. ... Dam Matir u'Mefagel.

(b)This Beraisa - proves Rebbi Yochanan right.

6)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that Z'man and Lan (Nosar) apply equally to a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah. We would otherwise learn from a Binyan Av from Yotzei, that Lan is Kasher by a Bamah Ketanah. We already know that it has the same Din as Yotzei - regarding the obligation to burn it.

(b)We know that Yotzei is Kasher by a Bamah Ketanah - since a Bamah Ketanah does not require Mechitzos.

(c)We refute this Limud however by learning a Kal va'Chomer from Ofos - which do not become Pasul by means of a blemish, whereas Kodshei Bamas Yachid do ...

(d)... in which case, if Z'man applies to Ofos, Kal-va'Chomer to Kodshei Bamas Yachid.

7)

(a)We refute this Kal-va'Chomer however, on the grounds that Ofos also posses a stringency, inasmuch as - a Zar is forbidden to sacrifice Ofos, though he is permitted to sacrifice Kodshei Bamas Yachid.

(b)We finally learn the Din of Z'man from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Zos Toras Zevach ha'Shelamim" which teaches us that - all Shelamim share the same Halachos, irrespective of whether they are brought on the Mizbe'ach or on a Bamas Yachid.

(c)We confine this Limud specifically to Z'man, and not to all the other Dinim of Shelamim - because the Limud pertains to the Halachos that are dealt with in that Parshah, which include Z'man and Pigul.

(d)And we extend this ruling to ...

1. ... Nosar - based on the Gezeirah-Shavah "Avon" "Avon" from Pigul.

2. ... Tamei - because it too, is written in that Parshah.