Some he'oros from the Ayeles haShachar this week because I am preoccupied. In some cases I left out his answers and some of the shakla v'terya:
1) Rashi comments (21:1) לא יטמא בעמיו – בעוד שהמת בתוך עמיו, יצא מת מצוה that a kohen can be mitamei to bury a meis mitzvah. The Chofetz Chaim writes that so long as there is another jew who can do the burial, it's not a meis mitzvah. The implication is that if there are only aku"m available, a kohen can be metamei himself. R' Shteinman asks: the din is that it is preferable to bury a meis by an aku"m on Y"T rishon rather than delay the burial until Y"T sheni. If the fact that the burial is being done by an aku"m is not enough reason to allow for halanas ha'meis, why is it enough reason to allow for tumas kohanim?
2) וְלַאֲחֹתוֹ הַבְּתוּלָה הַקְּרוֹבָה אֵלָיו - presumably the only way to know that she is a besula is because she has a chazakah as such. Why does the gemara (Ch 10) never suggest this as the makor for the principle of chazakah? (True, the gemara talks about examinations that can be performed to ascertain whether someone is a besulah, but it would be a dochak to say that the pasuk is speaking about the specific case that such an exam was done just before aveilus set in.)
3) The gedarim of "v'kidashto" are a bit unclear. The PM"G (OC 53:14) writes that ideally a kohen gets first dibs to be the sha"tz for davening. There is a a Keren Orah (Horiyos 12) that says if a kohen and a Yisrael have a bris milah on the same day, the mohel should do the bris of the kohen first. Ah"S raises the question of two burials on the same day. Does the mitzvah of v'kidashto apply even to a meis (like the din of kibud av v'eim, which continues after death) or not?
4) A kohen asked the Steipler whether he should train his left handed son to be a righty because m'heira yibaneh ha'mikdash and a lefty can't do avodah (Bech 45). The Steipler quoted a midrash that says all mumim will be healed when mashiach comes, so he has nothing to worry about. The Ah"S asks: the Rambam brings down the halachos of what constitutes a mum, implying that these halachos are and will be noge'a l'maaseh.
5) The gemara equates the fact that a lulav with a split ti'yomes is pasul on Y"T with the fact that it is a shinuy which is koneh in dinei mamonos. However, R' Elchanan in Koveitz Shiurim (B"K 112) points out that not every mum constitutes a shinuy, e.g. a nick in the ear of a korban is a mum that disqualifies but is not a shinuy that would be koneh. How do you distinguish between these cases?
Yesh lachkor whether the presence of a mum is the sibah which pasels a korban, or whether the mum is a siman that the object is changed from its original state and therefore no longer acceptable?
The nicked ear falls into the former category. The animal is essentially the same animal, but the presence of the nick disqualifies it. The split ti'yomes falls into the latter category. It's not the fact that it is pasul which proves that it is a shinuy, but aderaba, it's the fact that it is a shinuy which creates a psul because the object is a different object.
Which category does the mumim of kohanim fall into? Rashi writes (21:21) that a mum is posel only while it is present מום בו – בעוד מומו בו פסול, הא אם עבר מומו, כשר. R' Shteinman argues that this proves that it is the presence of the mum which is the psul, not the fact that it indicates a shinuy, otherwise even if the mum is removed, the psul should still remain. (Why this is true is a but unclear to me, but I think he means is that when something is acquired through a shinuy, if the shinuy is removed, the object does not revert back to the original owner. So too, if mum is a psul because it indicates that there is a shinuy, it is the fact that the shinuy happened which is the psul, it is the change which occurred, irrespective of whether it can be undone or not.)
6) וּמִיַּד בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ אֶת לֶחֶם אֱלֹקיכֶם מִכׇּל אֵלֶּה כִּי מׇשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם לֹא יֵרָצוּ לָכֶם. (22:25) Is there a din of "ritzuy" by the korban of an aku'm? The gemara (Zev 45b) writes that עובדי כוכבים לאו בני הרצאה נינהו: Similarly the Hagahos Ashr"I in Baba Basra explains the reason that we cannot accept tzedakah from an aku"m but can accept korbanos nedava from them is because there is no kaparah associated with korbanos nedava [tzedakah is a mechapeir!] Some therefore explain that the end of our pasuk is not talking about the particular case of korbanos aku"m, but in a more general sense.
7) The gemara writes that the issur of oso v'es bno only applies when shechita is done, but not if you just stab the animal. The gemara doesn't mean davka shechita, but rather means whatever the halachically proper way to kill the animal is, as we see from the fact that oso v'es bno applies to the sa'ir la'Azazel pushed off the cliff on Y"K. Yesh lachkor according to R' Akiva who holds (Chulin 17a) that during the 40 years in the midbar shechita was not required on non-korban meat, was there an issur of oso v'es bno? Does the gemara mean there was no din of shechita then, or for those 40 years was stabbing the animal the equivalent of shechita?
8) בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם פֶּסַח לַה׳. (23:5) 14 Nisan is not a moed. Why is it listed here?
9) Yesh lachkor whether וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים is a tnai in the mitzvah of lekichas lulav, and therefore if someone is noteil lulav but is not b'simcha while doing so his mitzvah of netilas lulav is lacking, or whether וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים is its own mitzvah which netilas lulav is one element of fulfilling. (According to the Bikurei Yaakov's understanding of the Rambam the mitzvah of netilas lulav for 7 days applies in Yerushalayim even today.)
10) Does someone who is sitting in the sukkah have to leave to go inside and shower for Shabbos? Would we not apply the rule of oseik b'mitzvah patur min ha'mitzvah here?
11) The gemara writes that there was (at one point in time) a special bracha associated with lechem ha'panim so that even if a person ate only a small portion (less than a k'zayis) he would feel satiated. Yesh lachkor in that case whether a person would have to say birkas ha'mazon. On the one hand it is "v'savata" from the eating, but on the other hand less than a k'zayis is not considered a maaseh achila.
12) וַיַּנִּיחֻהוּ בַּמִּשְׁמָר (24:123) Was that just so he would not run away, or is there a din that required putting such a person in prison?
13) Rashi comments on וְרָגְמוּ אֹתוֹ כׇּל הָעֵדָה that from here we learn כל העדה – במעמד כל העדה, מכאן ששלוחו של אדם כמותו. R' Akiva Eiger (Kid 41) points out that the gemara never suggests this as a source for the din of שלוחו של אדם כמותו. Interestingly the Sifra which is the source for the first half of Rashi's statement -- בְּמַעֲמַד כָּל הָעֵדָה -- omits the second half. As Ah"S points out, if everyone (כל העדה) was in fact present, then you don't need a din of shlichus here. The first half of Rashi/Sifra seems to contradict the second half.