1)

(a)We just established our Mishnah 'u've'Mukdashin' like the Tana - Rebbi Yehudah later in the Perek, who holds that the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh applied to the b'nei No'ach before Matan Torah.

(b)We also learned in our Mishnah that Gid ha'Nasheh applies to both legs, though Rebbi Yehudah will say (in a Beraisa) - that it is confined to the right one.

(c)To reconcile the contradiction, we establish the Mishnah like a Tana who holds like him regarding one issue but not regarding the other.

(d)We query this explanation too however, based on the fact that regarding the Chumra of she'Kein Isuro Noheg bi'Venei No'ach, Rebbi Yehudah is referring to its taking effect on a Beheimah Teme'ah, which is only a La'av - which he may well not hold with regard to taking effect on the Isur of Mukdashin, for which one is sometimes Chayav Kareis (if one eats them be'Tum'ah, or if one eats Pigul or Nosar).

2)

(a)So we confine Mukdashin in our Mishnah to a B'chor, thereby solving our problem - because even if Gid ha'Nasheh cannot take effect on other Kodshim, that is because we assume that they are Kadosh already when they are formed (and the Gidin only come later, as we explained earlier). A B'chor on the other hand, is Kadosh only from birth, in which case the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh precedes it.

(b)This answer goes even according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds Gid ha'Nasheh Eino Noheg bi'Shelil - because even according to him, both Isurim will take effect simultaneously, when the baby is born.

(c)Alternatively, we establish the Mishnah by V'lados Kodshim, like we tried to do earlier. However, the Tana would then have to hold - Kodshim be'Havayasan hein Kedoshim (that Kodshim become holy only from birth [like B'choros], and not from the time that they are formed, as we assumed until now).

(d)The term be'Havayasan is based on the word "asher Yih'yu l'cha" (in the Pasuk in Re'ei "Rak Kodoshecha asher Yih'yu l'cha Tisa u'Vasa") - from which we learn that the fetus of Kodshim adopts the Kedushah of Kodshim when it is born.

3)

(a)According to Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, Gid ha'Nasheh is confined to Kodshim that are eaten (Chatas, Asham and Shelamim), but not to Olos. Rebbi Yochanan maintains - that there is no difference, and both are subject to Gid ha'Nasheh.

(b)Rav Papa explains that there is no Machlokes - because Rebbi Yochanan is speaking with regard to Malkos, and Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, with regard to bringing it on the Mizbe'ach ...

(c)... which is not forbidden since the Torah forbids us to eat it, but not the Mizbe'ach.

(d)According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak however, Rebbi Yochanan does indeed argue with Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, in that - he even forbids it to be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

4)

(a)According to other texts, Rav Papa says 'Ka'an Lechaltzo, Ka'an Leha'aloso', which means that - Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef permits bringing it on the Mizbe'ach still attached to the thigh, whereas Rebbi Yochanan is speaking when it has already been detached.

(b)And when Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak now says that they do in fact argue, he means that - according to Rebbi Yochanan, it is even a Mitzvah to remove the Gid ha'Nasheh from the thigh of the Olah before bringing it on the Mizbe'ach, whilst Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef holds that it is not.

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's source lies in a Beraisa, which cites a Machlokes Tana'im. One Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Re'ei "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" that - the bones, the nerves, the horns and the hooves that have been removed from a Kodshim animal may not be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

2. ... in Vayikra "Vehiktir ha'Kohen es ha'Kol ha'Mizbecha" that - as long as they have not been removed ('Mechubarin'), they may.

5)

(a)The Tana Kama in another Beraisa Darshens from the Pasuk in Vayikra, that even if the bones and the nerves ... have been removed from the animal, they must be burned on the Mizbe'ach. And the Pasuk in Re'ei he establishes by Pok'in - once they burst from the flames and fall off the Mizbe'ach, they need not be returned on to the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Rebbi is the author of the first Beraisa, - and that is how he Darshens the two Pesukim currently under discussion (see Tosfos DH 'Pirshu').

(c)The Rabbanan decline to learn like Rebbi - because, in their opinion, the Pasuk in Vayikra cannot be coming to teach us that what is joined to the animal does not need to be removed from the Mizbe'ach - since that is obvious (because they are no worse than the head of the Olah, which is brought whole on the Mizbe'ach, together with the many bones that it contains). Consequently, the Pasuk must be speaking about the bones and the nerves ... that fell off the Mizbe'ach.

(d)Rebbi counters that however - by conceding that most bones (which are Mechubarin de'Heteira) do not require a Pasuk, and the Pasuk is coming to teach us a Heter regarding the Gid ha'Nasheh which is still attached to the thigh (because it is Mechubarin de'Isura').

6)

(a)The Rabbanan do not accept Rebbi's answer however - because, based on the Pasuk in Yechezkel "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" (which forbids bringing on the Mizbe'ach anything that is forbidden to a Yisrael), the Torah would not have permitted the Gid ha'Nasheh.

(b)And they refute Rebbi's counter argument, that it is no different than Cheilev and Dam, which the Torah also permits on the Mizbe'ach (even though they are not 'mi'Mashkeh Yisrael), in that - Cheilev and Dam constitute the main part of the Korban (whereas Gid-ha'Nasheh does not).

7)

(a)According to Rav Huna, the Kohanim would remove the Gid ha'Nasheh from the Olah and burn it on the Tapu'ach - an area in the center of the Mizbe'ach where they would pile up all the ashes (like an apple), before carrying them to the Beis ha'Deshen outside Yerushalayim.

(b)Rav Chisda argues that - the Torah forbids Yisrael to eat the Gid ha'Nasheh, but not the Mizbe'ach (as we learned earlier).

(c)Rav Huna counters Rav Chisda's Kashya - with the Pasuk "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael", forbidding on the Mizbe'ach anything that a Yisrael is forbidden to eat (as we also explained earlier).

8)

(a)Another Beraisa relates how they - remove the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Shelamim and throw it into the Amah (the stream that passed through the Beis-Hamikdash)

(b)It does not require burning because of Nosar - since Nosar only applies to parts of the Korban that are fit to eat.

(c)The other difficulty with the Beraisa is that - seeing as a Shelamim can be eaten anywhere in Yerushalayim, why does the Tana mention specifically the Amah in the Beis-Hamikdash.

(d)To answer the Kashya, we might amend the text to Chatas ve'Asham (instead of Shelamim). Alternatively, we might establish the Beraisa even with regard to a Shelamim - in that the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Shelamim, is given to the Kohanim together with the (Chazeh ve')Shok, and the Kohanim would thrown it into the Amah, since they virtually live in the Beis-Hamikdash (see Ya'avatz) during the period that they serve there.

9)

(a)Rav Huna explains the continuation of the Beraisa 've'shel Olah Ma'aleihu' to mean that - one takes the entire thigh together with the Gid ha'Nasheh on to the Mizbe'ach, and only then does one remove it.

(b)This is necessary - because taking the uncut thigh on to the Mizbe'ach is more esthetic, and, based on the Pasuk in Malachi, one should not present Hash-m with anything that one would not present a human king.

(c)We rule like Rav Huna - because he has the support of a Beraisa.

10)

(a)Rava comments that the Mishnah in Tamid, which states that sometimes, there was as much as three hundred Kur (nine thousand Sa'ah) of ashes piled up on the Tapu'ach - is a Guzma (an exaggeration).

(b)And he makes the same comment regarding the Mishnah there - which describes how they used to water the Korban Tamid from a gold cup (in order to facilitate the subsequent flaying [but why gold?]).

(c)Following Rava's comment, Rebbi Ami cites this Mishnah, as well as a Pasuk in Devarim, and a Pasuk in Melachim - to prove that we find Lashon Guzma in Torah, in Nevi'im and in the Lashon Chachamim.

(d)Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeni Amar Shmuel refers to three cases of Chazal as a Guzma; Tapu'ach, Gefen (shel Zahav) and Paroches. He does not include the case of watering the Tamid with a golden cup - because, based on the principle One does not feign poverty in a place where there is wealth, it would have been quite normal to actually use a gold cup.

11)

(a)The Gefen shel Zahav - was a golden-vine arbor, on which anyone who donated a golden grape or a cluster of golden grapes, would hang it.

(b)Shmuel referred to as a Guzma - the statement of Rebbi b'Rebbi Tzadok that - they once required three hundred Kohanim to clear it.

12)

(a)In a Mishnah in Shekalim, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the name of Rebbi Shimon ha'Segan, describes the Paroches. It was a Tefach thick and was woven on seventy-two Nirin ((the leashes to which the threads of the warp are fastened). Each thread of the Paroches consisted of twenty-four individual threads. The Paroches itself measured - forty Amos (corresponding to the height of the entrance) by twenty Amos (corresponding to the width of the entrance between the Heichal and the D'vir.

(b)Besides the Paroches ha'Kodesh, the Paroches currently under discussion, might be referring to - the Paroches that was hung at the entrance to the Ulam (from the Azarah) for Tz'niyus.

(c)It consisted of eight hundred and twenty thousand threads. This number might also represent - the number of young maidens who wove it.

(d)The Tana also informs us that they would manufacture two Parochos annually. Shmuel considers a Guzma - the Tana's concluding statement, that it took three hundred Kohanim to Tovel it.

13)

(a)Our Mishnah which ascribes the Din of Gid ha'Nasheh to both the right and the left thighs. According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa - it pertains to only one of them.

(b)When he concludes 've'ha'Da'as Machra'as she'Hi shel Y'min', he means either that this is indicated in the Torah (the ultimate Da'as [as we will see later]), or that - this is what he suggests ...

(c)... because when, in a wrestling match, Reuven makes Shimon lame, he probably does it by wrapping his right arm around Shimon's body until he reaches his right thigh and strikes it.

14)

(a)The Beraisa rules that bones, Gidin, and Nosar of a Korban Pesach - must be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan.

(b)The Tana is referring to - bones that contain marrow (otherwise they would not be subject to burning).

(c)The problem with Gidin is which kind of Gidin the Tana is referring to. If they are ...

1. ... Gidei Basar - then they should have been eaten together with the Basar?

2. ... leftovers of Gidei Basar - then they are included in Nosar?

15)

(a)Rav Chisda therefore establishes Gidin - as the right and left Gid ha'Nasheh ...

(b)... according to Rebbi Yehudah.

(c)We try to prove from here that - Rebbi Yehudah must be uncertain as to which Gid the Torah is referring (like the second side of our She'eilah), because if he was sure, then one ought to eat the left Gid, and throw away the right one (as we learned earlier on the Amud).

(d)Rav Ika bar Chin'na however, establishes the case even according to the first side of the She'eilah - where, even though they originally knew which Gid was which, the two got mixed up, in which case, mi'Safek, both Gidin need to be burned.