What are the implications of the word "Olah"?
Rashi (Shemos 18:12): It is called "Olah" because it is entirely burned (It all goes up to Hashem).
If "Zachar" comes to preclude a female animal from the realm of Olah, why does the Torah repeat it (in Pasuk 10)?
Rashi: In comes to exclude also a Tumtum 1 (whose sexual organs are covered) and an Androginus (an animal that is bi-sexual).
Gur Aryeh: Tumtum was taught without need (because it is normally taught with Androginus). It is a Safek male. The verse need not exclude a Safek! (Perhaps it teaches that it Vadai did not become Kadosh, or disqualifies even if after Shechitah it was found to be male! - PF)
What does "Tamim" mean (in connection with Korbanos)?
Rashi: It means un-blemished.
What does the Torah mean by "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed?
Rashi (Eruvin, 2a and Zevachim, 26a): "Ohel Mo'ed" refers to the [Mishkan, or in the Beis ha'Mikdash, the] Heichal 1 , and Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, the Azarah.
Which houses the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, the Shulchan and the Menorah (Rashi).
What are the ramifications of "el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Yakrivenu"?
Rashi: It implies that the owner remains responsible for the animal 1 until it reaches the Azarah.
To replace it should it get lost or die.
Why does the Torah repeat the phrase "Yakriv oso"?
Rashi: To teach us (a) that, if Reuven's Korban became mixed up with Shimon's, the Kohen brings each animal in the name of its owner, 1 and (b) that if his Korban became mixed up with Chulin, one sells the Chulin to someone who needs an Olah, and follows the same procedure.
Da'as Zekenim, Rosh, Moshav Zekenim: One should not tell a Kohen 'buy an animal and offer it.' This is not honorable to Hashem! Rather, the owner buys a Korban, and brings it in front of the king. 2
Even though he does not know which animal belongs to which owner.
There were boxes in the Mikdash in which people would leave coins, and Kohanim would buy and offer Korbanos with the money (Shekalim 6:5)! Perhaps that was for people who could not bring animals themselves. Or, those were for birds, or Mosaros (which are offered as Olos), perhaps they are unlike one who volunteers Olas Behemah. (PF)
Why does it add the suffix "nu" to "Yakriv"?
Rashi: Even though if Korbanos of different people became mixed, we offer each for its owner, one may not do so if it became mixed with a Pasul or a different kind of Korban. 1
Moshav Zekenim: E.g. the bloods became mixed. (This enables doubt about all mixtures. If the animals became mixed, often it is clear which is the Pasul, e.g. a Ba'al Mum or Tereifah. However, below Rashi learns about blood that became mixed from "ha'Dam" and "Damo"! Refer to 1:5:4:1, 1:5:5:1, - PF)
What are the implications of "li'Rtzono"?
Rashi: The owner must offer it willingly.
Rashbam: If he brings a healthy, unblemished male animal 1 to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed, his Korban will be accepted with goodwill.
As the Navi writes in Mal'achi, 1:8 "If you were to bring it to your prince, would he accept it ... ?!"
How do we reconcile "Yakriv Oso" (implying that Beis-Din force him to bring it - even against the owner's will) with "li'Rtzono"?
Rashi: To solve the problem, we combine the two statements - by forcing the owner (even physically if necessary) until he acquiesces.
What can we learn from the juxtaposition of "v'Samach Yado" (in Pasuk 4) to "Lifnei Hashem"?
Why does it say "Min ha'Bakar"? The previous verse said so!
Rashi (2): To preclude a Tereifah. 1
Moshav Zekenim (2): I.e. a lion or other [venomous] Chayah was Toref (scratched) it. (I.e. this is how it can be Tereifah, but not a Ba'al Mum. Alternatively, it fell from the roof, or most of the ribs were broken (Chulin 42a - PF).
Why is li'Rtzono written only regarding a bull?
Moshav Zekenim: Since one must spend much money for it, it warns extra to make ir acceptable, for it has great reward. For the same reason, Lifnei Hashem is written twice regarding a bull.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Bakar" excludes a Tereifah It is forbidden to Yisrael. "Mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" (Yechezkel 45:15).disqualifies it for a Korban!
Moshav Zekenim (2), Riva (2): Our verse teaches about when it became Tereifah after it was Hukdash.
Rashi writes that "Zachar" (in Pasuk 10) excludes also a Tumtum and an Androginus. We find that "Zachar" itself excludes them (Nidah 40a)!
R. Chaim Paltiel: Only when both Zachar and Nekevah are written, we say that they come to exclude Tumtum and Androginus.
