[א] "עֹלָה" מה תלמוד לומר? שיכול לא יהיו כל הפסולים אלו נוהגים אלא בעולת נדבה; עולת חובה מנין? ודין הוא! נאמר "הבא עולת נדבה" ונאמר "הבא עולת חובה": מה עולת נדבה כל הפסולים האלו נוהגים בה, אף עולת חובה – כל הפסולים האלו נוהגים בה.
1) (Vayikra 1:3): ("If his offering is) a burnt-offering": Why need this be written? (i.e., It is clear from the context that we are speaking of a burnt-offering.) I might think that all of these p'sulin (invalidating factors: muktza, ne'evad, rovea, etc.) obtain only with a gift burnt-offering. How would I know that they also obtain with a prescribed burnt-offering? (Therefore, "a burnt-offering" is needed.) — But does it not follow (even without the inclusion clause)? It is written that a gift burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that a prescribed burnt-offering is brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a gift burnt-offering, so do they obtain with a prescribed burnt-offering!
[א] "עֹלָה" מה תלמוד לומר? שיכול לא יהיו כל הפסולים אלו נוהגים אלא בעולת נדבה; עולת חובה מנין? ודין הוא! נאמר "הבא עולת נדבה" ונאמר "הבא עולת חובה": מה עולת נדבה כל הפסולים האלו נוהגים בה, אף עולת חובה – כל הפסולים האלו נוהגים בה.
1) (Vayikra 1:3): ("If his offering is) a burnt-offering": Why need this be written? (i.e., It is clear from the context that we are speaking of a burnt-offering.) I might think that all of these p'sulin (invalidating factors: muktza, ne'evad, rovea, etc.) obtain only with a gift burnt-offering. How would I know that they also obtain with a prescribed burnt-offering? (Therefore, "a burnt-offering" is needed.) — But does it not follow (even without the inclusion clause)? It is written that a gift burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that a prescribed burnt-offering is brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a gift burnt-offering, so do they obtain with a prescribed burnt-offering!