1) BIRDS NOT VALID FOR “KORBANOS”

(a) Answer (Rava – Beraisa): These exclude the beginning of yellowness, which is Pasul among both.
1. This is like the latter understanding;
2. But if they are Pesulim only because of doubt, we would not need a verse to disqualify this!
(b) Rejection: Really, we are in doubt which is valid; the verse is needed to disqualify a Nirva (a bird with which a man had relations) and a Ne’evad (worshipped);
1. One might have thought to learn that they are acceptable, because it says “Mashchasam Bahem Mum Bam” (this will be explained);
2. (Tana d’Vei R. Yishmael): ‘Hashchasah’ always refers to incest and idolatry.
i. Incest – like it says “All flesh Hishchis (corrupted) its way on the land”.
ii. Idolatry – like it says “Lest Tashchisun and you will make an idol…”
3. Seemingy, the verse equates blemishes with incest and idolatry, to teach that incest and idolatry only disqualify Korbanos that are disqualified by a blemish;
i. One might have thought, since blemishes do not disqualify birds, neither does incest or idolatry – the Beraisa teaches, this is not so.
2) OTHER INTERMEDIATE CASES
(a) Question (R. Zeira): If Reuven vowed to bring an Olah of a ram or lamb and he brought a Palgas (a sheep in its 13th month) – did he fulfill his vow?
1. According to R. Yochanan, clearly he did not.
i. (Mishnah): If one (was obligated to bring a ram or lamb, and he) offered a Palgas, he brings the Nesachim (accompanying flour and wine offerings) of a ram; he did not fulfill his obligation.
ii. (R. Yochanan): “Or for a ram” – this teaches that the Nesachim of a ram are also brought with a Palgas. (This shows that he holds that a Palgas is neither a ram nor lamb.)
2. The question is according to Bar Pada, who says that he brings the Nesachim of a ram and stipulates (that if a Palgas is truly a lamb, the extra Nesachim are Nedavos).
23b—————————————23b

i. Is it enough to stipulate ‘If a Palgas is really a lamb…’?
ii. Or, must he also stipulate ‘If a Palgas is not a lamb nor ram, but rather a new classification (for which no Nesachim are needed), all the Nesachim are Nedavos’?
(b) R. Zeira’s question is unresolved.
(c) Question (R. Zeira): Reuven vowed to bring breads of a Todah (thanksgiving offering) from Chametz or Matzah; he brought Sei’or (bread which began fermenting) – did he fulfill his vow?
1. Question: According to which Tana does he ask, and which definition of (what level of fermentation is considered) Sei’or does he use?
i. Suggestion: If he asks according to R. Yehudah, using R. Meir’s definition – R. Yehudah considers it to be Matzah (clearly, he fulfilled his vow)!
ii. Suggestion: If he asks according to R. Meir, using R. Yehudah’s definition – R. Meir considers it to be Chametz (clearly, he fulfilled his vow)!
iii. Suggestion: If he asks according to R. Meir, using R. Meir’s definition of Sei’or – R. Meir says one is lashed for eating it on Pesach, this shows that he considers it to be Chametz (clearly, he fulfilled his vow)!
2. Answer: He asks according to R. Yehudah, using R. Yehudah’s definition.
i. Is R. Yehudah in doubt if it is Chametz or Matzah (but either way, he fulfilled his vow)?
ii. Or, does R. Yehudah consider Sei’or to be neither, and he did not fulfill his vow?
3. Question: How could Reuven fulfill his vow if he does not know if it is Chametz or Matzah?
i. (Rav Huna): If one accepted to bring the breads of a Todah, he must bring a Todah and (all) the accompanying breads.
ii. Summation of question: Reuven cannot rely on the Sei’or to exempt himself from bringing the Chametz that accompanies a Todah (perhaps it is not Chametz); similarly, he must bring all the Matzah of a Todah – the Sei’or did not exempt him from anything!
4. Answer #1: The case is, Reuven accepted to exempt Shimon from the need to bring Chametz or Matzah.
5. Objection: But the above reasoning shows that Shimon must still bring all the breads, Reuven did not exempt him from anything!
6. Answer #2: Rather, Reuven accepted to bring Chametz or Matzah that Shimon must bring, but he did not accept to exempt Shimon of his obligation.
(d) R. Zeira’s question is unresolved.
3) “PARAH ADUMAH” AND “EGLAH ARUFAH”
(a) (Mishnah): The proper way to kill Parah Adumah is invalid for Eglah Arufah (the calf brought for a found corpse); the proper way to kill Eglah Arufah is invalid for Parah Adumah.
(b) (Gemara – Beraisa): The Parah Adumah is slaughtered; if it is Arufah (its neck is cleaved from the back), it is invalid; the calf is Arufah, if it is slaughtered; it is invalid.
1. What is valid for Parah Adumah is invalid for Eglah Arufah; what is valid for Eglah Arufah is invalid for Parah Adumah.
(c) Suggestion: A Kal va’Chomer should teach that Arifah is valid for Parah Adumah.
1. Eglah Arufah may not be killed by slaughtering, only by Arifah -Parah Adumah may be slaughtered, all the more so, Arifah is Kosher!