1)

(a)We conclude that in fact, the entire Pasuk of "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha ... " is superfluous - because all the cases are mentioned earlier in the Pasuk "va'Haveisem Shamah, Oloseichem ... " ...

(b)... in which case, to teach a La'av by Chutz le'Chomah - it would have sufficed to write "Lo Suchal Le'ochlam" ...

(c)... which would not be a 'La'av she'bi'Kelalus' - since, in the earlier Pasuk, the Torah mentioned each case independently.

(d)A 'La'av she'bi'Kelalus' is - where the incorporated cases are all implied from the La'av, and not specifically mentioned in the Pasuk.

2)

(a)We now learn from the extra La'av by ...

1. ... each of the Korbanos that - one receives Malkos for eating them before the Zerikah.

2. ... Bikurim (by which Zerikah is not applicable) that - a Kohen who eats it before the K'ri'ah will receive Malkos.

(b)All the other cases that R. Shimon mentions - will, at this stage, be forbidden from a 'Kal va'Chomer' but not subject to Malkos, as we explained earlier.

(c)Our Mishnah learns Malkos for eating Kodshei Kodshim outside the hangings of the Azarah - from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "u'Basar be'Sadeh T'reifah Lo Socheilu", incorporating any Korban that left its prescribed borders.

3)

(a)We cited Rava who lists five Isurim by a Zar who eats a piece of Olah before the Zerikah outside the walls of Yerushalayim. The reason that he does not include in the list the La'av of ...

1. ... "ve'Zar Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh heim" (written in Tetzaveh, in connection with the Korbonos of the Shiv'as Yemei ha'Milu'im, which were Kodshei Kodshim) is - because that applies only to Kodshim that a Kohen is permitted to eat (but not to an Olah).

2. ... "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu" (that we just discussed) - because it only applies to Kodshim that a Kohen is permitted to eat within their prescribed borders (but not to an Olah).

4)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer Darshens from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh (in connection with Nosar) "Lo Ye'achel ki Kodesh hu" that - someone who eats Kodshim that became Pasul receives Malkos.

(b)Nevertheless, Rava does not reckon this La'av together with the other five - because it only pertains to Kodshim that were permitted before they became Pasul (but not to an Olah).

(c)Finally, to answer the Kashya as to why Rava does not include the La'av (in Parshas Tzav) of "Kalil Tih'yeh Lo Te'achel" (in Parshas Tzav), we explain that - indeed he does, and that in fact, that is the basic La'av of Olah on which he was commenting.

5)

(a)Rav Gidal Amar Rav initially learns from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "Ve'achlu Osam asher Kupar bahem" that - a Kohen who eats from a Chatas or an Asham before the Zerikah receives Malkos ...

(b)... because, even though the Pasuk itself is an Asei and not a La'av - nevertheless, it implies that the Kohen may not eat it before the Kaparah, and a 'La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal asei (that one extrapolates from an Asei) is a La'av'.

(c)We prove however, from the fact that the Torah writes in Re'ei "Ach es Zeh Lo Sochlu mi'Ma'alei ha'Geirah ... ", after having written "ve'Chol Beheimah Mafreses Parsah ... osah Tocheilu" that - a 'La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei, is in fact, an Asei' (because otherwise, the Torah would not have found it necessary to add the La'av [a Kashya on Rav Gidal Amar Rav]).

(d)In fact, we conclude, what Rav Gidal Amar Rav really said is that a Kohen who ate from a Chatas ve'Asham before the Zerikah does not receive Malkos because of "ve'Zar Lo Yochal ki Kodesh heim". And he extrapolates this ruling from the Pasuk "Ve'achlu osam asher Kupar bahem" - which indicates that the Malkos of the previous Pasuk only applies after the Kaparah has taken place, which is after the Zerikah.

6)

(a)Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya rules that Bikurim that were separated before Succos and left until after Succos - must be left to rot ...

(b)... because - when they were designated, they were initially subject to the Mitzvah of K'ri'ah (reading the Parshah), which can no longer be fulfilled after Succos (since it is no longer the time of Simchah).

(c)To reconcile this with another statement of Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya, where he considers Hanachah as being crucial to the Mitzvah, but not K'ri'ah, we establish his current statement like Rebbi Zeira, who rules that - someone who brings sixty-one Isaron for his Minchah must bring it in two vessels, because it is not possible to mix more than sixty Isaron in one vessel (even though the mixing itself is not crucial to the Mitzvah).

(d)The reason for this is the principle 'Kol she'Einah Re'uyah le'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves bo' (Even though mixing is not crucial to a Minchah, it must be mixable).

(e)Here too - even though Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya does not consider the Mitzvah of K'ri'ah crucial to the Mitzvah of Bikurim, it must be possible to perform it (which, after Succos, it is not).

7)

(a)Rebbi Asi asked Rebbi Yochanan from when the Kohanim are permitted to eat Bikurim, to which he replied 'Bikurim that are subject to K'ri'ah, from after the K'ri'ah'. By 'those that are subject to K'ri'ah', he meant - before Succos (which is the last time for K'ri'ah, as we just explained).

(b)Regarding Bikurim that are not subject to K'ri'ah (after Succos), he ruled that - the Kohen may eat them as soon as they enter the Azarah.

(c)Rav Acha bar Ya'akov cited the statement that Hanachah is crucial to the Mitzvah, but not K'ri'ah, in the name of Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan. This creates a double S'tirah (contradiction) - since in his ruling to Rebbi Asi, Rebbi Yochanan goes 1. after K'ri'ah and 2. not after Hanachah.

8)

(a)In fact, we conclude, we are dealing here with two Machlokos Tana'im. To answer the Kashya 'K'ri'ah a'K'ri'ah', we establish Rebbi Yochanan's ...

1. ... latter ruling - like Rebbi Shimon, who considers K'ri'ah crucial to the Mitzvah of Bikurim (as we learned above).

2. ... earlier ruling which does not- like the Rabanan (of Rebbi Shimon).

(b)To answer the Stirah in Hanachah, we establish Rebbi Yochanan's statement which considers Hanachah crucial to the Mitzvah of Bikurim like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah - who learn this from the repetition of Hanachah ("Vehinachto lifnei Hash-m Elokecha" and "Vehinicho lifnei Mizbach Hash-m ... "), which in the realm of Kodshim, means that it is crucial.

(c)Despite the fact that the Torah writes 'Hanachah' twice, Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the Rabbanan - because, according to him, "Vehinachto" does not come to teach us that Hanachah is crucial, but to require Tenufah (the obligation to wave the Bikurim in all directions).

(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah, the word "Vehinachto" then means - "and he will lead it" (to the four directions).

9)

(a)We establish the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah as Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who learns from the word "mi'Yadecha" (in the Pasuk in Ki Savo "Velakach ha'Kohen ha'Tene mi'Yadecha)" that - Bikurim require Tenufah (and not from the repetition of Hanachah, like Rebbi Yehudah).

(b)Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns that "mi'Yadecha" refers to Tenufah - from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Yad" "Yad" from Shelamim (in Parshas Tzav).

(c)We learn from our Parshah that Tenufah requires the Kohen's participation by a Shelamim, too, and from Shelamim - that the owner must participate by Bikurim.

(d)To combine the two D'rashos - we require the Kohen to place his hand below that of the owner, and they wave it together, both by Shelamim and by Bikurim.