Daf 66

1) Shechita of the Pesach supersedes Shabbos, as we learn a Gezeira Shava (Moed, Moed) from the Tamid. [Tosfos asks: why is it needed? Why don't we learn it from a Mah Hatzad between Tamid and Milah, or alternatively, between one of these and Shtei Halechem?]

2) If they forgot to bring a knife from Erev Shabbos [Tosfos: during the time that Yerushalayim was a Reshus Harabim since its walls were breached], they stuck the knife within the sheep's wool to carry it, or, if it was a goat, between its horns. [Tosfos says: although they need to Shecht with a Kli Sharies; we must say that they were Makdish the knife.] They wouldn't have a problem that they're using Hekdesh by having the Korbanos carrying for them and transgress Meila. After all, they did it like Hillel's opinion that they don't Makdish the animal until they reach the Azarah to make sure that they don't end up accidentally doing Meila before that. [Tosfos says: it's not a problem of bringing Chulin to the Azarah, like it's no problem to bring Chulin to the Azarah to eat so that you can eat the Menachos when you're full. The only reason the Gemara in Bava Basra says that it's problematic bringing Safeik Bikkurim (because it might not be Bikkurim and it would be Chulin in the Azarah); that's because you're doing some form of Avodah, like waving the Bikkurim.

However, the Yerushalmi answers why there is no Meila for having the Korbanos carry the knife: there is no Meila if it's done for the Korban's need, just like there is no problem for putting something on a Parah Aduma to make sure that its secured and guarded.]

3) Although it's a rabbinical prohibition to make something Hekdesh on Shabbos; that's only for Korbanos that don't have a certain day to bring it, but you're allowed to Mekadesh a Pesach on the Shabbos that you need to bring it, and the same is that you can Mekadesh a Chagiga on Yom Tov.

4) Although he's leading an animal that's carrying, which is a Torah prohibition; but it's not here, since the animal is carrying the knife in a strange way. [Tosfos says: the Gemara could have said that the way out is to place it on the animal when it starts to move, and remove it from it when it stops (to make sure that the animal doesn't make the Akira (i.e., uprooting) of the knife, and therefore, not doing the full Melacha of carrying.] Although, even leading the animal carrying in a strange way is rabbinically forbidden [Tosfos: also, there's a prohibition to use an animal, which includes placing items on it], they didn't decree these prohibitions for a Mitzvah. [Tosfos says: although we see in the Mishna that we don't allow regular rabbinical prohibitions for a Pesach, like to ride the animal or bring it from outside the T'chum; but here they permit since it's done by an animal. (R' Akiva Eiger asks: how would this answer the problem that you're transgressing the rabbinical prohibition of placing the knife on an animal on Shabbos?)]

Daf 67

5) Someone who is Tamai from a dead person, or from a Sheretz, he needs to leave the Mikdash (the camp of the Shechina). If he's Tamai because of a Zav and a Keri, he needs to leave the camp of the Leviyim (Har Habayis). A Metzorah must also leave the camp of the Yisraelim (the city). R' Yehuda learns the Halacha of Metzorah from the Pasuk "the Metzorah should sit by himself," i.e., outside, where there is no other Tamai person stands there. R' Shimon learns it from "you should send out of the camp all Metzoros, all Zavs and all Tamai people from a dead person." Why does the Pasuk need to list all three? After all, we can extrapolate sending out a Metzorah from sending out a Baal Keri (which is learned from the extra 'all' Zavs), and we can extrapolate Zav from Tamai Sheretz (which is learned from the extra 'all' Tamai people from a dead person). Therefore, we must say that the reason they're all spelled out is to send them out of the next camp from the one before it. Therefore, we must say that the Pasuk of "the Metzorah should sit by himself," is to give an Asei to fix the Lav so that, if the Metzorah enters the Yisrael's camp, he doesn't get Malkos. However, R' Yehuda, who needs that Pasuk to say that the Metzorah needs to be outside an extra camp (and not to fix the Lav), you would give Malkos to the Metzorah that enters the Yisrael's camp.

6) [Tosfos explains: this is not the same type of Asei "fixing a Lav" like by divorcing the woman you raped, that you fix it by taking her back, like Rashi says; since there you don't get Malkos because the Lav seems to only be that you shouldn't send her away forever, but here, the Lav seems to include any second that the Metzorah enters into the camp. Also, it can't be compared to the Asei of sending away the mother bird that you took from off the eggs, since that Asei was said right after the Lav, so it seems that it's coming to fix the Lav. Therefore, we must explain: since the Lav has other prohibitions of other Tumos, like Zav, and a person Tamai from a corpse; therefore, the Asei is coming to remove it from the Lav, that it doesn't refer to it, but to the other cases. However, in regular cases, we would consider this prohibition written this way as consisting of a Lav and an Asei, where you get Malkos for the Lav.]

7) [Tosfos says: this only refers to not getting Malkos from entering the Yisrael's camp, however, a Metzorah gets Malkos for entering the Leviyim's camp since he's no better than a Zav. Also, he gets Kareis for entering the Beis Hamikdash for that reason, since he's no better than someone who still needs to bring a Korban to finish his Tahara.]

8) R' Yehuda learns from the Pasuk of R' Shimon that you only get Kareis for a Zav or Metzorah entering the Mikdash when someone who is Tamai from a corpse also would get Kareis for entering. However, when they're bringing the Pesach while they're Tamai, when those who are Tamai from a corpse is not sent away, there is no Kareis if a Metzorah and Zav enter. (However, there is a prohibition to enter since the Pasuk only allows a Tumah from a corpse to bring the Pesach).

9) [Tosfos says (to reconcile the contradictions of the Gemara): that a Metzorah only makes Tamai through sitting, and riding, on an object to make food Tamai, but not to make people and utensils Tamai.]

10) Tunnels under the Mikdash was not made Kodesh [Tosfos: if it's also open to the outside that's not Kodesh, but it's Kodesh if it's only opened into the Mikdash.]

Daf 68

11) Pushing the waste out of the intestines supersedes Shabbos. R' Huna explains: to poke holes into the intestines in order for the liquid waste to seep out. Chiya b. Rav says that you scrape out the waste that's sticks to the intestines by pressing a knife against it.

12) Burning its limbs supersedes Shabbos even though you can wait until after nightfall to burn it. Thus, we see how dear a Mitzvah is in its proper time is, since we don't wait until nightfall to burn them.

13) The Chachumim say that riding the animal, or bringing it from outside the T'chum, or cutting off its wart (so it shouldn't be blemished), don't supersede Shabbos even though they're only rabbinically prohibited. R' Eliezer permits it.

14) Although we see a Mishna in Eiruvin that you can cut a wart in the Mikdash with your hands, but not with a utensil; we have an argument between R' Elazar and R' Yossi b. Chanina how to reconcile them. One says that it's only permitted when the wart is all dried up, but not by one that's not dried out. The other says that it's permitted to cut off one that's not dried up, and when we forbid here, it means with a utensil. However, a dried up one is completely considered as cracked apart, (and is not considered attached anymore to his body) [Tosfos: and you may even cut it off with a utensil.]

15) R' Eleizer says that you can make a Kal V'chomer that these rabbinical prohibitions are permitted since even Shechita, that's usually forbidden from the Torah, is permitted. [Tosfos explains: although these rabbinical prohibitions are different since they can be done before Shabbos, but R' Eliezer held; still, since it's only rabbinic, we should allow it. The Rabanan held that, since they could have been done before Shabbos, we can't permit it. However, R' Eliezer said this Kal V'chomer for the Rabanan, but he permits even without this Kal V'chomer. After all, he holds that all preparations for the Korban Pesach may be done on Shabbos even if they involve Torah prohibitions even if it's possible to do them from before Shabbos.]

16) R' Yehoshua says that Yom Tov disproves this Kal V'chomer, since Shechita is permitted on it, but all preparations to be able to facilitate it is forbidden if it was possible to do it before Yom Tov. [Tosfos says: R' Eliezer agrees to this Halacha. Although he allows one to suspend a wine-strainer over a utensil on Yom Tov even though he may do it before Yom Tov; he only allowed it by the strainer since it's not too similar to a Melacha.]

17) R' Eliezer answered back: how can you compare Simchas Yom Tov that's voluntary, to a Korban Pesach that's a Mitzvah. Therefore a rabbinical prohibition by a Mitzvah is better than what's only voluntary. However, R' Yehoshua holds that Simchas Yom Tov is also a Mitzvah, since he holds that you need half the day for Hashem and half for yourself. However, R' Eliezer held that, either you should have it completely for Hashem or completely for yourself, so you don't need Simchas Yom Tov at all. However, R' Eliezer admits that you need to have for yourself on Shvuos (to show how happy you are for the day that the Torah was given). [Tosfos says: however R' Eliezer wouldn't consider Shvuos as a disproof to his Kal V'chomer since the obligation for Simcha is from logic and not from the Torah.] Also, everyone agrees that you need to have pleasure on Shabbos and you need to eat on Erev Yom Kippur. As the Pasuk considers those who eat on Erev Yom Kippur as if they fasted both days. Also, everybody holds you eat on Purim since they're days of partys and Simcha.

Daf 69

18) R' Akiva holds that sprinkling the Parah Aduma waters will disprove R' Eliezer's Kal V'chomer. After all, the sprinkling doesn't supersede Shabbos, even though it's only forbidden rabbinically for someone may carry it four Amos in the Reshus Harabim. [Tosfos explains: even though you might say that there is logic here that he won't carry it, since carrying it will make him Tamai, and then he will, in return make the Parah Aduma waters Tamai; still, he might carry it since he can avoid making the water Tamai by carrying it in a stone vessel.] Not only wouldn't it supersede Shabbos for Trumah since Trumah itself doesn't supersede Shabbos, (as you can't separate Trumah on Shabbos) [Tosfos: and we don't learn from all we said earlier that it should supersede, since it's not necessary for today, since you can fulfill the Mitzvah to eat it on a later day], but it won't even supersede for a Korban Pesach.

19) However, R' Eliezer held that you can bring the Korban Pesach even without sprinkling the waters. As he holds that you can sprinkle the blood of a Korban Pesach for someone who is Tamai from a Sheretz, since he has the ability to make himself Tahor by going to the Mikvah before nightfall. Therefore, the same applies to someone who's Tamai from a corpse on his seventh day. Even though, since he won't end up being Tahor that night (since they won't end up sprinkling the Parah waters on him) and he won't be able to eat it; but that doesn't prevent him from being Yoitza his Korban. When the Torah says that someone who can't eat can't bring a Korban; that's only those who can't fix themselves to eat, like the elderly and sick. [Tosfos explains: this is only by someone who can become Tahor that day and could eat it that night, however if he's too early in his Tumah that it's impossible for him to be Tahor that night, it's Pasul since he can't eat, since he's similar to an elder and sick who can't eat.]

20) However, if he's uncircumcised, he's considered not fit to eat and can't bring a Korban Pesach. [Tosfos explains: we don't consider him as someone who is possible to eat since he can fix himself by having a Mila; since he needs an action on his body to fix him.] Therefore, if he doesn't fix himself by having a Mila, he's Chayiv Kareis. The same by a Tamai person if he didn't Toivel himself, according to the opinion that you can't Shecht for someone who's currently Tamai because of Sheretz. [Tosfos says: however, if he Toivels, although he still can't eat Kodshim yet, you can Shecht for him since he'll automatically be fit to eat at night, since he becomes completely Tahor when the sun sets.] However, if you have most of the Jews Tamai, you can bring the Korban Pesach in Tumah even if they could have Toiveled themselves, but didn't.

21) A child is considered fit to do a Milah, whether he's weak or strong, even if he doesn't have hot water to strengthen him to be able to withstand the Milah (according to R' Eliezer who holds that all preparations for the Milah supersedes Shabbos) since he'll be fit to receive the Milah after cooking up the water. This is even true after we conclude that R' Eliezer holds that even an uncircumcised person is considered obligated in Pesach, and gets Kareis for not doing Milah in order to have the Korban Pesach, and we don't consider him not fit since his body is not fit for the Pesach as is.

22) The Halacha is like R' Akiva here (even though you're Chayiv Kareis if you don't bring a Pesach), and also by the preparations of Milah (despite being a special Mitzvah that Hashem made thirteen treaties with us over it).

23) The Mishna says that the Chagiga of the fourteenth is only brought when the fourteenth falls on a weekday, and when the Pesach is brought by Tahorim, and only when there are a small amount of Korban Pesachs are brought (and you need other meat so that the Pesach will be eaten when they're full). However, they're not brought on Shabbos, nor when they're Tamai, or you have many Korban Pesachs (and not many people on each one and everyone can get a big share of meat). Also, they could be brought from animals that a Pesach can't be brought from, like cattle or females. Also, it could be eaten for two days and one night.

Daf 70

24) This opinion holds that the fourteenth Chagiga is not an obligation [Tosfos but is only rabbinic] in order to eat the Pesach when he's full [Tosfos quotes Yerushalmi: so, not to break the bones when you hungrily scrape the meat around the bones. However, Tosfos concludes: according to Ben Teima and his Chachumim (later), this Chagiga is a Torah obligation, and it supersedes Shabbos. After all, the Rabanan only argue with Ben Teima that there is no Hekish to a Korban Pesach, so it doesn't need to have the same Halachos as a Pesach.]

25) Ben Teima says that we have a Hekish between the Korban Pesach and the fourteenth Chagiga. Therefore, the Chagiga needs all the Halchos like the Korban Pesach. I.e., it needs to be eaten that night, and can only be eaten roasted. (As we'll say later that the Mishna that says that one of the four questions of the Mah Nishtana that, tonight, we only it roasted; is like Ben Teima.) It can only be brought from a lamb or goat, and from males. It can only be brought within its first year and is only eaten by those who joined the group before its brought.

26) There is an unresolved inquiry if, according to Ben Teima, there's a prohibition to break the Chagiga's bones. After all, when the Pasuk says by a Korban Pesach "you can't break its bones;" does 'its' come to exclude a Chagiga that it's not compared to a Pesach in this aspect. Or, does it only exclude a Pasul Korban, that the Pasuk is saying that, only as it is when it's Kosher is there a prohibition to break the bones, but Chagiga is still completely similar to a Pesach.

27) You can't bring a proof from the following: if you find a knife on the fourteenth, you can Shecht with it right away, and you don't need to suspect it's Tamai, since you assume that it was Toiveled the day before, since the owner couldn't have waited for this day to Toivel since it would be a T'vul Yom. However, when you find it on the thirteenth, you need to Toivel it, since the owners could have pushed its Tevela off for later on in the day. However, if you find a cleaver (that's main use is to break bones), you need to Toivel it even on the fourteenth. (However, if the fourteenth was on Shabbos, (or you found it on Yom Tov), you can assume that it was Toiveled on an earlier day since you can't Toivel it on Shabbos and Yom Tov, and they need it to be completely Tahor by the fifteenth in order to chop the bones of the fifteenth Chagiga.)

So, the very fact you don't need the cleaver completely Tahor on the fourteenth shows that you don't use it on that day at all, which would only fit according to Ben Teima and it's a proof that you can't break the bones on the fourteenth Chagiga.

28) The Gemara pushes off the proof. Perhaps it's really the Rabanan who argue with Ben Teima. The scenario was that the Nassi was deathly ill on the thirteenth. If he would die, everyone would become Tamai to him, and in turn, will bring the Pesach while he's Tamai. Therefore, we can assume that he Toiveled the knife from a Safeik, that maybe the Nassi won't die and he'll need a Tahor knife. However, he wouldn't bother Toiveling the cleaver since he has two Safeiks that he might not need it. One, perhaps the Nassi will die. Two, even if he doesn't die, perhaps he'll have ample meat from the Korban Pesach for everyone that he doesn't need to bring a Chagiga. Therefore, we can't assume that it was Toiveled.

29) Ben Dorsai left Yerushalayim, since he Darshened not like the Chachumim and holds that the Chagiga supersedes Shabbos [Rashi: the fourteenth Chagiga. However, even though Ben Teima held it's like a Pesach in all aspects, he would agree that it's not like it in this aspect because of the Drasha brought later.] As Ben Dorsai Darshen: the Pasuk says; "you should Shect the Pesach.... sheep and cattle." 'Cattle' must refer to the Chagiga, (since the Pesach is not brought from cattle), and it has a Hekish to Pesach, so it supersedes Shabbos like the Pesach. However, the Rabanan Darshens this differently. That the leftover money of a Korban Pesach goes for something that you bring cattle for, i.e., a Shlomim.

30) The reason that Chagiga does not supersede Shabbos despite being a communal Korban [Tosfos: that has a set time to bring], because the Pasuk says "you should make a Chag for seven days," implying not for eight days. Therefore, we see it doesn't supersede Shabbos. [Rashi says: even though the Pasuk refers to the fifteenth Chagiga; we must say that logic tells us that we should compare all Chagigos to have the same Halacha. However, Tosfos disagrees. After all, in the beginning of the Sugya, we say that, only according to the opinion that the fourteenth Chagiga is not an obligation, it doesn't supersede Shabbos. Also, the rule in Yuma is that all Korbanos that have a set time supersedes Shabbos. Rather, the fourteenth Chagiga supersedes Shabbos according to Ben Teima. However, Bein Dorsai learns his Drasha to tell us that the fifteenth Chagiga supersedes Shabbos. (He didn't want to learn his Drasha to refer to the fourteenth Chagiga since he holds it's not a Torah obligation.) The reason he left Yerushalayim and didn't wait until later in the week to bring a make-up Chagiga; since he doesn't hold that there is a make-up Korban. Since it has a Hekish to Pesach, just like there is no make-up that week for a Korban Pesach, so too by a Chagiga.]

31) If you Shecht a Shlomim on Erev Yom Tov, everyone agrees that he's not Yoitza Chagiga. [Tosfos says: this is even if he was Mekadesh it, and Shechted it, explicitly for a Chagiga.] As we see, it's something that's an obligation and can't be brought but from Chulin money (and not from Maasar money). [Tosfos explains: since you need to Mekadesh it for a Chagiga, logic tells us that you need to Shecht it only at the time of Chagiga.]

Daf 71

32) Ulla quotes R' Elazar: you're not even Yoitza with the above Korban the obligation of Simcha since it wasn't Shechted at the time of Simcha. However, Ravin quotes R' Elazar that he's Yoitza and he doesn't need the Shechita at the time of Simcha.

33) There's no proof from the Drasha of "it should only be for Simcha," to include the night of Shmini Atzeres for Simcha. [Tosfos says: it, of course, includes all the other nights of Chol Hamoed. The Chiddush is that it includes even Shmini Atzeres that's considered as a separate Yom Tov, and I would have thought that the Korban brought the day before is brought before this Chag.] The word 'only' comes to exclude the first night of Sukkos, that there is no Simcha. Anyhow, we can't say the reason is since all Korban meat would have been Shechted before Sukkos and is not in the time of Simcha [Tosfos: and the word 'only' is to teach us that this is even true on the first night where it's impossible to have any meat Shechted on Yom Tov.] After all, we can say that we Darshen it that way, not because you can't have Korban meat on the first night, but because it's better to include the night of Shmini Atzeres that has days of Simcha before it, than the first night that there is no days of Simcha before that.

34) [Rashi says: even though we include the night of Shmini Atzeres for Simcha, but the day is not included. Tosfos says that Shmini Atzeres day is included. After all, if not, you won't have Simcha for eight days (but for seven days, and for seven nights only). Also, when we say Simcha and Hallel is eight days, Simcha is taught to be similar to Hallel that it's mainly during the day. Also, the Gemara should ask according to everyone; if the seventh day falls out on Shabbos, we should only have seven days of Simcha. Rather, we must say there is Simcha during the day of Shmini Atzeres.]

35) Even according to Ullah, this, that we see that Simcha is only seven days when the first day falls out on Shabbos, we can still have it without meat, by wearing clean clothes and by drinking old wine. (However, you can't answer that they can be Yoitza with the Chatos meat of the Musafim, since it would only answer for the Kohanim, but not for the Yisraelim who can't eat Chatos meat. Also, even the Kohanim won't be Yoitza since they can only eat them raw and not roasted, since their cooking doesn't supersede Shabbos.)

36) Although we find that you can be Yoitza Simcha with a fourteenth Chagiga; according to Ullah, we must say it's only in the scenario that you didn't bring it in the right time and was Shechted during Yom Tov.

37) The limbs of the fifteenth Chagiga becomes Pasul when leftover past its time. [Tosfos says: and, this, that we see that all Korbanos limbs become Pasul past their given time, is extrapolated from the Chagiga..]

38) The fourteenth Chagiga is eaten for two days and a night [Tosfos: like the Rabanan, but Ben Teima holds that it can be only eaten that night since there is a Hekish between it and a Pesach. Although we see in Zevachim from a Drasha that a Shlomim that comes for a Pesach is eaten a day and a night; it can't be like Rashi explains there that it refers to a fourteenth Chagiga. After all, the Rabanan say it's two days and a night, and Ben Teima doesn't need a special Drasha for this, since he learns it from the Hekish from Pesach. Rather, Tosfos explains: it refers to a Shlomim that's brought from the leftover money of a Pesach.]

39) If you Shecht a Pesach with the intent that it should be a different Korban (Shelo L'shma) on Shabbos, you're Chayiv Chatos.[Tosfos prefaces: according to the opinion that, if you made a mistake to uproot a Korban from its proper type of Korban is not a true uprooting] we must say that he intended purposely to uproot the title of the Korban.

40) If you Shecht other Korbanos on Shabbos with the intent for it to be a Pesach; if it's the same type of animal that you bring a Pesach from; R' Eliezer holds he's Chayiv, and R' Yehoshua holds that he's exempt. We must say that he made a mistake, but if he intentionally did this, even R' Yehoshua held him to be Chayiv.

Daf 72

41) According to the side we said that our Mishna refers to intentionally changing the Korban, R' Eliezer who doesn't differentiate between intentional and mistakenly changing the Korban, says we can learn a Kal V'chomer from our Mishna's case to this case. After all, if a Korban Pesach that's permitted to be brought L'shma, is Chayiv when brought Shelo L'shma; of course other Korbanos that you're Chayiv when brought L'shma, should be Chayiv if brought Shelo L'shma (i.e., for a Pesach). However, it's not difficult to R' Yehoshua who differentiates between intentionally and mistakenly changing, since our Mishna refers to uprooting its status on purpose, and our case was when he mistakenly changed the Korban. [Tosfos adds: also, it's not difficult since this Braisa held like R' Shimon who holds that R' Yehoshua only exempts if he ended up doing some Mitzvah at the end (even if it's not one that supersedes Shabbos).Therefore, a Pesach Shelo L'shma is Pasul, so he didn't end up doing a Mitzvah, so he's Chayiv. However, other Korbanos are Kosher when done for a Pesach according to R' Yehoshua. However, he needed to answer the way he did according to R' Eliezer who holds other Korbanos for a Pesach is Pasul. Alternatively, R' Shimon only holds that you need to fulfill some Mitzvah if he wasn't doing his action with the object that its Mitzvah supersedes Shabbos. However when he brings a Pesach, which this animal can be brought on Shabbos, he's exempt even if he didn't end up doing a Mitzvah.]

42) Even according to R' Eliezer, we can say that there is a difference when you change the Korban to a Pesach, which is something that could be brought on Shabbos, then when you change it for other Korbanos that may not be brought on Shabbos. [Tosfos says: even though R' Eliezer's mistake is equivalent to R' Yehoshua's intentional change, and R' Yehoshua says that you're Chayiv if you intentionally change; we must say that R' Eliezer can combine two factors to exempt, even though each one itself is not enough to exempt him. One, it was done unintentionally, second, it was changed to a Korban that's permitted on Shabbos.]

43) R' Eliezer brings a different proof from someone being Chayiv for Shechting a second Tamid on Shabbos. R' Yehoshua pushes that off by saying that a Tamid is different since there is a set amount that you need to bring, so there is no rush that caused him to bring another one. (R' Meir holds that R' Yehoshua would exempt even by a Tamid.) Even though he exempts by switching babys that need Milahs on different days; we must say we refer to a case where you did the Milah for the one that should have had it on Erev Shabbos, and he still has the obligation to do a Milah on Shabbos, since the one that needed a Milah on Shabbos still needs that Milah. However, here, it refers to the case where you already Shechted the first Tamid, so Shabbos is no longer given over to supersede for it.

44) According to R' Meir who holds that you're Chayiv even if you already Shechted the first Tamid; since the Shabbos was originally given over to be superseded by it. Therefore, he also exempts by switching the children unless he gave the Milah on Friday to the child that needed his Bris on Shabbos, that, when entering Shabbos, it wasn't given to be superseded. Although there are other children in the world who need a Bris on this Shabbos, and this Shabbos is superseded by them; but it's not given to be superseded by this Mohel who doesn't have any more children that he can do Milah on today.

45) R' Shimon holds that he's only exempt if he brought a Korban that is a type of animal that could be brought for a Pesach. However, R' Meir held that he's exempt even if he brought a calf since he was in tumult to bring the Korban. He even exempts if it was the type of animal that you bring a Pesach from, even if the animal was Chulin, since he may confuse it with a Pesach. However, R' Meir agrees that he's Chayiv if it's a blemished animal since he wasn't tumult to bring such animals, and he won't confuse it with an animal that can be brought.

46) Reish Lakish says: if someone switches Nossar with Kosher Kodshim and eats it, he's Chayiv, since he made a mistake in doing a Mitzvah, but didn't end up doing the Mitzvah.

47) R' Yochanan says: someone is Chayiv if he has relations with his wife when she's a Nidda, but not with his Yavama. Some say that, of course he would hold that he's Chayiv in a case where he ate the Nossar since, in that case, he didn't do a Mitzvah. Others say: he exempts by the case of Nossar even if he didn't do a Mitzvah, since he's only Chayiv here when he could have asked his wife if she's a Nidda.

48) The difference between a wife and a Yevama: although you have a Mitzvah to have relations with your wife to have children, and even if she's already pregnant, you have a Mitzvah to have relations at the schedule time, and even when it's not those times, it's a Mitzvah if she shows she desires it; sill, since he's very familiar with her [Tosfos adds that the Gemara could have explained: and wouldn't be embarrass to ask, he should have asked her if she was a Nidda. (However, he's embarrassed to ask his Yevama, so, it's not so negligent that he didn't ask.) Even] if he was only in doubt if his wife was close to her set time for bleeding (Veset), it would be forbidden and would obligate him in a Chatos. [Tosfos says: even if he knows that she didn't become a Nidda yet. However, if he knows for sure she's close to her Veset (set time), even if he knows that she didn't became a Nidda yet, he's Chayiv even by his Yavama, since she's forbidden when she's close to her Veset. When we say that all women are assumed permitted to their husbands, that's only when it's known that she's not close to her Veset (and we don't need to worry that her set time changed).]

49) [Tosfos points out that, when the Gemara asks that he should be exempt by his wife too, it was only going according to the second version that he's exempt even if he ended up not doing a Mitzvah, since there is no Mitzvah to give attention and relations to a Niddah. (However, this seems difficult, since in the first version we say the difference between a Niddah and Nossar, that you don't do a Mitzvah by eating Nossar.)]

50) R' Yochanan's opinion is not necessarily like R' Yossi who exempts when you carry out a Luluv, or like R' Yehoshua who exempts by Shechting the wrong Kodshim, or do Milah to the wrong child, since in those cases, he has limited time, so he's perturbed trying to fulfil it, but they wouldn't exempt by a Yevama where there is no rush to do the Mitzvah.

51) Even according to R' Yehoshua who holds that, if a Kohein ate Trumah, and then he's found to be a Ben Grusha or Chalutza, he's exempt to pay the principle and fifth, (and R' Eliezer holds he's Chayiv) is no proof to R' Yochanan. After all, we can explain the scenario too where there was a rush to fulfill the Mitzvah, like when it's Chametz Trumah on Erev Pesach. Alternatively, since eating Trumah is called an Avodah, and R' Yehoshua holds that all Avodos that a Kohein does, and is then found to be a Ben Grusha or Chalutza, the Avodah is valid. (R' Eliezer holds that it's invalid.) As the Pasuk says "Hashem will bless 'Cheilo' (lit. his multitudes), and He accepts the work of their hands." He Darshens, even the Chalalim's work is accepted. So, it's not connected to the exemption of making a mistake by a Mitzvah.

Daf 73

52) If you Shechted it on Shabbos for those who couldn't eat it, or if you found it to be blemished, you're Chayiv. However, if you find it to be a Treifa in a hidden area (i.e., inside the animal), you're exempt, [Tosfos: according to R' Meir who exempts when making a mistake for a Mitzvah even if you don't fulfill the Mitzvah.] According to the opinion that you're exempt for doing the Melacha of wounding when it's only ruining, we must say he's only Chayiv when Shechting in these cases when there is some improvement to the animal.

[Tosfos explains: the opinion that you're exempt when you ruin the animal when you wound it is like R' Yochanan in Mesechta Shabbos that says, even according to R' Shimon, you're exempt if you ruin it completely. He only holds that R' Shimon doesn't require a real improvement like usual, but even if there is abnormal improvement through the Melacha, like wounding an animal to feed the blood to your dog, and regarding burning, even if you burn a pile of hay because you need the ashes. (R' Avahu there argues and says that R' Shimon holds he's Chayiv even for complete ruinings.) However, R' Yehuda holds that you need a complete improvement like all other Melachos, and therefore, Meleches Machsheves (thoughtout and important) applies to wounding as well. Therefore, anytime when you mix up animals that aren't fit, you would be exempt because of Misasek (i.e., you're exempt when you think you're doing Melacha to one object, and it's really a second object.) Only according to R' Shimon who holds that you're Chayiv in some ruining, then Meleches Machsheves doesn't apply to wounding, so Misasek doesn't apply either. However, Tosfos remains with a question: R' Shimon requires that the Melacha of wounding be needed for its own use (Tzricha L'gufa), and what use do you have here?]

Therefore, the improvement that Shechting for those who can't eat it is that, if you do bring it on the Mizbeach, you don't take it down. The same by a blemished animal according to R' Akiva by a membrane growing in the eye, that you don't need to take it off the Mizbeach, since it's Kosher by a bird Korban. Even a Treifa that you're Chayiv if it was able to be seen from the outside, and if you bring it up on the Mizbeach, you need to take it down; still you made and improvement through Shechita that it doesn't become Tamai for being a Neveila.

53) If someone Shechts a Chatos on Shabbos outside the Mikdash for an idol is Chayiv three Chatos; (for Shechting outside the Mikdash, for Shabbos, and for idol worshipping). The improvement done by such a Shechita can't be that it bit Tamai by being a Neveila, since it even has a stronger Tumah of a sacrifice to an idol that even makes all the items in the whole tent Tamai. [Tosfos explains: it's only difficult according to the side that it's a Torah Tumah, but if it's only rabbinical, the Shechita prevents someone who becomes Tamai with it to be Chayiv when entering the Mikdash.] The Gemara answers: the improvement is that it removes it from being Ever Min Hachai (meat from a living animal), and a non-Jew would be exempt if he ate it.

54) R' Huna quotes Rav: an Asham that was placed out to graze (after a different Asham was brought for his obligation), and then was Shechted as a Korban without any other thought, it's a Kosher Olah. You don't need to officially uproot it to be an Olah. [Tosfos explains: if you need to uproot it to an Olah, we can say the placing to graze is needed as a distinction to remind you to uproot it. However, now that you don't need to uproot it], the only reason why it needs to be placed out to graze before this, since they decreed to need it after a different Asham was brought because you'll come to permit even without you bringing a different Asham (and this animal is still designated as an Asham).

The same we see from the following: it needs to be placed out to graze until it gets blemished. After it's blemished, you sell it; and the money, according to the Tanna Kama, goes for a public Olah, and to R' Yehoshua, as a private Olah. The practical difference whether the Olah is for the public or it's personal if the owner needs to do Smicha and bring Nesachim for it. (However, R' Eliezer says that you starve it to death in a room, since he holds an Asham is like a Chatos.)

[Tosfos explains: when we said before it's a Kosher Olah, that's only B'dieved if it's Shechted, but L'chatchila, you need to wait until it gets a blemish because we're worried if we allow it after another Asham was brought, he'll come to be lenient before he brings another Asham. Even according to the side that you need to uproot the name of the Asham by officially calling it an Olah, you still need to come onto this idea that we're worried if we allow it after another Asham was brought, he'll come to be lenient before you have brought another Asham. After all, for just to remind you to uproot the title of the Korban, it's enough to have the distinction of it being put out to graze. Therefore, the only reason we L'chatchila say to wait until it gets a blemish is that we're worried if we allow it after another Asham was brought, he'll come to be lenient before he brings another Asham.]

55) [Tosfos asks on Ri's assumption that you need to put an animal out to graze if you need to uproot its title: After all, a Korban Pesach year round needs to be uprooted to be a Shlomim, and we don't ever see that they decreed for it to go out to graze before you uproot it.]

56) [Tosfos asks: we find a Gemara in Menachos that brought a Pasuk that you need to put an Asham out to graze. As the Pasuk says "it is," i.e., it always has its original status (until you change it); so, you need to uproot the title from the Torah. Tosfos answers: that refers to before he brought a different Asham in its place, but after it was brought, it's only rabbinically needed. R' Tam explains: that Gemara was wondering how can it be a Kosher Korban when there is a Halacha L'Moshe Misinai that you must place it to graze? On that, the Gemara says: since the Pasuk says "it is," to say it's Kosher as a Korban as is. (Alternatively, it teaches us that grazing is only a Mitzvah L'chatchila. Alternatively, without the Pasuk, I would say that you need to wait for a blemish until you bring a Korban from its proceeds, so the Pasuk teaches us that you can bring the actual Korban for an Olah, and you don't need to wait until it gets a blemish.)]

57) We see that R' Chiya b. Gamda holds that you don't need to uproot it since it's automatically uprooted. After all, he says that if he's Tamai by Pesach Rishon, you need to uproot the Korban to be a Shlomim since we assume that it's designated to be brought by Pesach Sheini. This implies that, regularly, when it's not needed to be a Pesach Sheini, it's automatically uprooted to be a Shlomim.

58) We learned in the Mishna: if they Shechted the Pesach on Shabbos and they found that the owners removed themselves from the Pesach beforehand, or the owners had become Tamai, the Kohein is exempt. We learned on it: if it was Shechted during the week, you may burn it right away. So, if you say that it needs to be uprooted, I can understand why you can burn it right away, since it's a P'sul in the actual Korban. However, if you hold that it's automatically uprooted to become a Shlomim, it's difficult. [Tosfos: the reason why it's a Shlomim since it couldn't be fit for a Pesach anymore before Shechita. Although we say that a person can be counted on it until it's Shechted, that's only if someone always remains designated for it the whole time. However, once everyone leaves it and there is no one on it at a given time, no one else can now be counted to be a member of its group.] After all, the only reason it's Pasul is because it was brought after the afternoon Tamid, which is a side P'sul, like if there is something wrong with the owner or blood, and we would need for it to "lose its form" (i..e, leave it overnight that it should be Nossar, and is a P'sul on the actual Korban) in order to burn it.

59) The Gemara answers: since the author is Yosef b. Chunoy who holds like R' Eliezer regarding a Shlomim Shechted for a Pesach is Pasul (and it's a P'sul in the actual Korban). However, he agrees with R' Yehoshua that you're exempt if you make a mistake by a Mitzvah. (This is why we can't establish it like R' Eliezer himself, since he holds you're Chayiv even when you make a mistake in a Mitzvah.)

60) However, you can't establish the case that he separated the Pesach before noon, and he died after noon, which was originally fit, and then it became unfit, so it can't become fit again by being a Shlomim; since Rav made the original statement, and he holds that live animals don't become always unfit because of this. (Therefore, this is only true if he first Shecht it and then it became unfit.) [Tosfos asks: even according to Rav, there is one opinion that holds it remains unfit, and that is R' Yehuda. Why can't he establish the Mishna to be like R' Yehuda?]

61) You can't say that Rav holds like R' Yishmael the son of R' Yochanan b. Broka who holds (that the Kohein is only exempt if he didn't have time to find out if the owners left this Pesach or became Tamai) and also need to be left over night to burn it (and argues with the Braisa earlier that you burn it right away). After all, his reason is that he holds of the Brasia taught by Rabba b. R' Avahu that holds that even a P'sul of the Korban itself like Pigul needs to wait overnight to burn it. After all, why else if the owner was Tamai by the time of the Pesach Rishon do you need to wait overnight to burn. After all, it's not a Shlomim since everyone agrees here that it retains being a Pesach since he needs it for Pesach Sheini.