Question: ha'Rav Rebbi Ya'akov asks why do we need to say that it is de'Rabanan? Perhaps it is mi'd'Oraysa? ...

Reason: Seeing as we include a Nochri in the Din of Nedarim (regarding Korbanos) like a Yisrael, from "Ish" "Ish" (See Tzon Kodshim).

Precedent: Since we say a similar S'vara in Me'ilah (Daf 7b) regardin g Shelmei Yisrael - that they are Asur be'Hana'ah mi'd'Oraysa, even though they are not subject to Me'ilah (See Tzon Kodshim).

Answer: We must therefore say that since they are not Kadosh with regard to Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, they are not Kadosh with regard to being Asur be'Hana'ah d'Oraysa.

Clarification: And the Torah writes (in Emor) by Tum'ah "ve'Yinazru B'nei Yisrael mi'Kodshei ... ", ' and not Nochrim'.

Clarification (cont.): And the simple P'shat in the Pasuk concerns eating Kodshim be'Tum'ah, as it writes at the end of the Parshah "Asher Yochal Min ha'Kodshim".

Question: The Ram asks why we cannot learn Nosar via "Chilul" "Chilul" from a Tamei, who served in the Beis-ha'Mikdash be'Tum'ah? ...

Question (cont.): As the Gemara says in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 15b) that Kodshei Akum cannot be brought be'Tum'ah.

Source: Because it says there 'But to preclude a Nochri? - If the Tzitz does not atone - since Mar said 'By Nochrim it is not Mechaper either be'Shogeg or be'Meizid', how can it be brought be'Tum'ah?!'

Answer: It is preferable to learn it from (the eating of) Tum'ah, seeing as Nosar and Tum'ah are written together (See Olas Shlomoh) ...

Source: As it says in Zevachim (Perek Beis Shamai, Daf 45b) in the Beraisa cited by Levi - 'From where do we know that the Pasuk is speaking about 'P'sul Z'man'? ...

Source (cont.): 'Therefore the Torah writes "ve'Lo Yechal'lu es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael" - the Pasuk is referring to two 'Chilulin', 1. the P'sul of Nosar and 2. that of Tum'ah' (See Shitah Mekubetzes 32).

Clarification: The Torah writes "B'nei Yisrael", 'and not Nochrim' ...

Clarification: And it is Rebbi Shimon who holds this D'rashah ( See marginal note)...

Conclusion: But the Rabanan disagree with him - and the first Lashon goes according to them.

Introduction to Question #1: The Gemara (in Sanhedrin Daf 84a) states that Me'ilah be'Meizid is subject to a warning' (i.e. Malkos), since we learn "Chet" "Chet" from T'rumah' ...

Question #1: It ought to have said, like it says here, 'Just as T'rumah is Kedushas ha'Guf ... ', in which case the warning of Me'ilah would be confined to Kodshei Mizbe'ach ...

Question #1 (cont.): Yet we Pasken that even Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are subject to the La'av as well

Question #2: Moreover, the Mishnah says in Maseches K'risus (Daf 13b) that 'One can be Chayav four Chata's and one Asham for eating one item - and it reckons Pesulei ha'Mukdashim?

Question #3: And in the same manner, many D'rashos that the Gemara Darshens in the last Perek of Me'ilah (Daf 18b) 'Pogem', 'Neheneh' and 'a Shali'ach who did his Shelichus', which we learn from T'rumah - we should have said that they do not pertain to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis?

Answer: The reason that we preclude Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis here is because the Torah writes "la'Hashem" (See Tosfos, Sanhedrin 84a DH 'Gamar').

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask the same Kashya on Motzi Shem Ra and Eidim Zomemin - which are La'avin she'Ein bahem Ma'aseh - yet they are subject to Malkos?

Answer: It does not want to ask on cases by which the Torah specifically writes Malkos.

Question: In Maseches Makos (Daf 4b) Rebbi Yehudah learns from Motzi Shem Ra that 'A La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, Lokin alav'; and the Gemara asks that 'Whereas Motzi Shem Ra is a K'nas?' ...

Question (cont.): Why does the Gemara not bring a Yochi'ach from Meimar or from one of the other cases cited in our Sugya?

Answer #1: It could have done so, but it answered the Kashya satisfactorily anyway.

Answer #2: Or perhaps the cases here are not comparable to those there.

Question: When the Gemara asks here 'But Meimar is a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh ... ?' - Why does the Gemara not answer that he performs a Ma'aseh with his speech, as the Gemara will say later?

Answer: The Gemara could have answered that, but it answers the Kashya satisfactorily anyway (See Shitah Mekubetzes 35).

Reason #1: Later (on Daf 4a) the Gemara will ascribe tis to the Pasuk "Mele'ascha ve'Dim'acha Lo Se'acher" ...

Reason #1 (cont.): "Mele'ascha" refers to Bikurim, "ve'Dim'acha", to Terumah, and the Torah concludes "Lo Se'acher".

Reason #2: Whereas the Sifri, which Rashi cites later (on Daf 4a DH 'Mipnei'), offers a different reason - 'Give Bikurim precedence, since it has four names ... '.

Clarification: It deliberately mentions 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal' first ...

Reason: Because had it reversed the order - 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal' - he would be Chayav two sets of Malkos ...

Reason (cont.): Seeing as 'she'Lo Ochlenah' implies the whole loaf, and when he then adds 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal', it implies that he will not eat any of it.

Question: In Shevu'os (Daf 27b) the Gemara excplains why the Tana says 'she'Lo Ochlenah' twice ...

Answer: Because if he releases the first Shevu'ah, the second one still stands.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains 'Mai Sh'na' - that it precludes 'Ochal' and he did not eat, from Malkos, and includes 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' from the Seifa, that he is Chayav a Korban.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because now that he says 'to include Ochal', and he did not eat, there is no Kashya ...

Refutation (cont.): Where if he said the other way round, this would pose a Kashya ...

Refutation (concl.): In which case, why does it ask 'Mai Sh'na?'? What sense does it make to ask 'Mai Sh'na?' to query Rebbi Yochanan, who will simply answer 'to preclude "Ochal" ', in order to answer the Kashya.

Authentic Explanation: The Ri therefore explains 'Mai Sh'na' - that the Gemara explains it like Rebbi Akiva? Why not establish it like Rebbi Yishmael, and the Reisha precludes 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' from a Korban, and the Seifa, 'Ochal' and he did not eat from Malkos? (See Tzon Kodshim).

Conclusion: And the Gemara answers 'It is speaking about the future ... '.

Source: "Im Lo Sishmor La'asos ... ve'Hiflah" (Ki Savo 28).

Azharah #1: And the warning (for Malkos) from "Lo Sekalel Cheresh" (Kedoshim 19).

Azharah #2: Alternatively, from this Pasuk itself.