Clarification: Since we do not find the Kohanim becoming Pasul with age ...

Clarification (cont.): Only the Rabanan gave the Shi'ur - 'until the Kohen begins to shake' ...

Reference: In 'ha'Kol Shochtin' (Chulin, Daf 24b).

Carification: Resh Lakish leans it, in 'ha'Choletz' (Yevamos, Daf 40a, See Tosfos there, DH 'Achilah'), where he says that 'Someone who eats Achilah Gasah on Yom Kipur, is Patur' - from the Pasuk "Lo Se'uneh".

Question: In Perek MI sha'Amar Hareini Nazir ve'Shama ... (Nazir, Daf 23a & 23b) Rabah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rebbi Yochanan 'What does the Torah mean when it writes "Tzadikim Yeilchu bam, u'Posh'im Yikashlu bam"? ...

Question (cont.): This can be compared to two people who roasted their Pesachim; one of them ate it for the sake of the Mitzvah, the other one for the sake of Achilah Gasah, about the latter one the Torah writes "u'Posh'im Yikashlu bam".

Question (concl.): Resh Lakish said to him 'Do you call him a Rasha? Granted he has not fulfilled the M itzvah ideally, but a Mitzvah he has performed? - implying that he has fulfilled his obligation?

Answer #1: He does not mean that he has fulfilled his obligation, only that he is not considered a Rasha.

Answer #2: Moreover, it nis not speaking there where he really ate it with an Achilah Gasah, only that he ate it, not in order to fulfill the Mitzvah, but in order to be satiated.

Proof: Proof of this lies in the fact that he did not say 'Achilah Gasah', but 'le'Shem Achilah Gasah'.

Answer #3: Alternatively, there are two levels of Achilah Gasah (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Clarification: The Gemara is asking on Rav Sheishes, who says in the first Perek of Yoma (Daf 6b) that Tum'ah is Dechuyah be'Tzibur' (i.e. permitted Bedi'eved), so that if there are Teme'im and Tehorim, the Teme'im are not allowed to bring it.

Other Opinion: And there are others who argue there, who hold that 'Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur' (permitted Lechatchilah), in which case even if there are Teme'im and Tehorim, the Teme'im are permitted to bring it.

Question: Why does skin belong to the Ba'alei Mumin? (See Hagahos haa'G'ra).

Question: Why does the Gemara not query Rav Sheishes from the Mishnah that permits a Tamei person to bring a Korban Tzibur?

Question: Why does the Gemara not say here that it comes to preclude from Rava, like it said earlier?

Question: How can one possibly say 'Zeh Kefel', seeing as is only Chayav here on account of his admission, as the Torah writes (in Bamidbar, 5) "Ve'hisvadu", and one is not Chayav Kefel when one admits (as we learned on Daf 106a).

Clarification: And he is able to then bring the Asham immediately and place it before Yehoyariv for his atonement, even though the money is given to Yedayah ...

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah 'If he gave the money to Yehoyariv and the Asham to Yedayah, he is Yotzei'.

Question: Why does the Gemara not resolve the She'eilah from his (Rava's) own statement earlier, where he said that if there is not sufficient Gezel ha'Ger that each one receives a P'rutah, he is not Yotzei ...

Question (cont.): From which we see that they are Mekablei Matanos ...

Question (concl.): Because, if they were Yorshin, why would he not be Yotzei (See Maharav Renchberg). seeing as what their father left them, that is what he gave them?

Answer: We therefore need to say that one of the two reads 'Rabah'.

Reference: This Sugya is explained in Perek ha'Zero'a (Chulin, Daf 133b).

Question: How can Gezel ha'Ger possibly be considered among 'the ten bi'Gevulin'? ...

Question cont.): Because just as Rava says that one is not Yotzei if one returns it at night or in halves - since the Torah refers to it as an "Asham". so too, should he not be Yotzei if he returns it in the Gevulin (outside Yerushalayim), like the Din of an Asham?

Inference: From here it appears that a Kohen is not able to be Mochel, since it is a Kaparah.

Clarification: It speaks where she fell (to Yibum) from the betrothal ...

Reason: Because if it was from the marriage, she definitely entered into the betrothal in order to marry her husband ...

Reason (cont.): Since after her husband's death it does not enter her mind not to be married ...

Clarification (concl.): So it must be speaking where she was betrothed ...

Reason: Since sh gains nothing from the betrothal.

Question: If the article that one purchases from one's ffriend becomes spoilt, why does the sale not become invalid, seeing as he did not purchase it on that condition?

Answer: There, it does depends, not solely on the purchaser, but also on the seller, who sells it even on that condition ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here where the betrothal depends entirely on her, since he couldn't care less what she has in mind when she becomes betrothed ...

Precedent #1: And likewise in the case of 'Makdish', it depends entirely on the Makdish.

Precedent #2: And so too, in the case of the one who returns the theft, it depends entirely on him (See Tosfos Kesuvos, 47b, DH 'she'Lo'),