Previous daf

1)

(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael asks - whether 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Chozer u'Melamed be'Binyan Av' or ''Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Binyan Av'.

(b) We extrapolate from there - that he must hold 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh (which is stronger than a 'Binyan Av'), Chozer u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer'. Otherwise, Binyan Av would be obvious.

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah attempts to resolve the She'eilah based on the same sources as those used by Rebbi Yochanan to prove that 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Eino Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah'; namely - that if the Torah held ' ... Chozer u'Melamed be'Binyan Av', it would have been unnecessary to write "Tzafonah" by Asham (since it could have learned it from a 'Binyan Av' from Chatas).

(d) We counter that, in that case, we could certainly learn Tzafon by Asham directly from Olah. If we don't, it must be because of a Pircha on the latter Limud, and by the same token, there is a Pircha on the former one, too). We cannot in fact, learn Tzafon by Asham ...

1. ... directly from Olah - because it is entirely burned.
2. ... from a Binyan Av from Chatas - because a Chatas comes to atone for Chayvei K'riysus.

1. ... Olah from Chatas and Asham - because they both come to atone (which an Olah does not [because an Asei, which the Olah comes to atone for, is not considered a Kaparah when compared to them]).
2. ... Chatas from Olah and Asham - because they are both male animals (whereas a Chatas Yachid is a female).
3. ... Asham from Olah and Chatas - because they can both be Korbanos Tzibur as well as Korbenos Yachid (whereas an Asham can only be brought as a Korban Yachid).

(a) We now ask about 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh'. Rav Papa quotes the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Zos Toras Zevach ha'Shelamim, Im al Todah Yakrivenu". We learn there ...

1. ... that just as one can use Ma'aser-Sheini money to purchase a Korban Shelamim, so too, can one use it to purchase a Korban Todah.
2. ... from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sham" "Sham" from Ma'aser Sheini - that one can use Ma'aser-Sheini money to purchase a Shelamim.

(b)

1. Rav Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari refutes the proof from there that 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh' - on the grounds that Ma'aser Sheini is Chulin (and not Kodshim).
2. And Ravina rejects Rav Zutra's refutation - on the grounds that even though Ma'aser is Chulin, Shelamim (which is the 'Lameid') is Kodshim, and that is sufficient to place it in the category of 'Lameid min ha'Lameid be'Kodshim').

(a) So 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh' remains unresolved. Rami bar Chama cites a Beraisa to try and resolve the She'eilah whether ' ... Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah' or 'Ein Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah'. Besides ten Chametz loaves - three kinds of Matzah loaves accompanied the Todah, ten Chalos loaves, ten wafer loaves and ten loaves that were pre-boiled.

(b) We learn from "So'les Murbeches - that the ten Murbeches loaves consisted of So'les (fine flour), and not of Kemach (unrefined flour).

(c) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah ...

1. ..."Chalos" "Chalos" from Murbeches - that the same applies to the Chalos.
2. ... "Matzos" "Matzos" - that it applies to the wafer-Chalos, too.

(d) Assuming that the second Limud is from Chalos, Rami bar Chama extrapolated from this - that 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah, Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah'.

(e) Ravina refuted that however - by suggesting that the second Limud is not from Chalos, but from Minchas Ma'afeh-Tanur, where the word "Matzos" is also used, and where "So'les" is mentioned explicitly.

(a) So Rava learns it from another source. The Beraisa which discusses the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, learns from ...

1. ... the Pasuk "ve'Kirbo u'Firsho ... Ve'hotzi" - that the Par must be taken outside Yerushalayim complete (uncut).
2. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Rosho al Kera'av" "Rosho al Kera'av" from Olas Tzon - that it must be cut into pieces before being burned.

(b) And "ve'Kirbo u'Pirsho" (which is written in the same Pasuk as "ve'es Or ha'Par ve'es Besaro") comes to teach us - that just as its dung is burned without being taken out (since it would be disgusting to do so), so too is the skin burned without removing it from the flesh (Hefshet), as Rav Papa explains.

(c) In another Beraisa, Rebbi learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Or u'Basar u'Peresh" from "Or u'Basar u'Peresh" - that the Par ve'Sa'ir shel Yom ha'Kipurim too must be cut into pieces without the skin being removed.

(d) Rava has proved from here - that 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah, Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah'.

6)

(a) We attempt to resolve the She'eilah whether 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah Chozer u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer' or not from 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Chozer u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer' - because if 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh' (where we say 'Eino Melamed be'Hekesh', yet 'Chozer u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer', then 'Davar ha'Lamed b'Gezeirah-Shavah', where we say 'Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh', we should certainly say 'Chozer u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer' ...

(b) ... though this will only work according to Rav Papa - who goes after the Lameid, because according to those who go after the Melamed (Rav Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari), we concluded 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh').

(c) We finally resolve the She'eilah from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh', where we say 'Chozer u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer' - even though we hold 'Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh' (like itself), then 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', where we say 'Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah' (like itself), we should certainly say 'Chozer u'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer'.

(d) We ask whether 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah Chozer u'Melamed be'Binyan Av' or not, and we remain with - 'Teiku' ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Iba'ayos').

(a) We ask whether 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Kal-va'Chomer Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh' or not and we remain with 'Teiku'. We resolve it according to Rav Papa from 'Davar ha'Lamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah she'Einah Lemeidah min ha'Hekesh' like Rebbi Yochanan - yet we hold 'Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh' (like Rav Papa), then 'Kal-va'Chomer 'Davar ha'Lamed min ha'Hekesh', should certainly be 'Melamed be'Hekesh'.

(b) We resolve the She'eilah whether Davar ha'Lamed be'Kal-va'Chomer, Chozer u'Melamed ...

1. ... bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from 'Ge'zeirah-Shavah she'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah' - even though it is 'Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh', then 'Kal-va'Chomer, ha'Lamed be'Hekesh' should certainly be 'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah'.
2. ... be'Kal-va'Chomer' from 'Gezeirah-Shavah' she'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah' - even though it is not Lameid from a Hekesh, a 'Kal-va'Chomer', which is Lameid from a Hekesh, should certainly be Melamed a 'Kal-va'Chomer'.

(a) When we refer to this is a 'Kal-va'Chomer ben Kal-va'Chomer', we mean that we learn this 'Kal-va'Chomer' from 'Gezeirah-Shavah ha'Melamed Kal-va'Chomer', which is itself learned from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' (as we just expained).

(b) And when we query that on the grounds that it is not a 'ben Kal-va'Chomer', but a 'ben b'no shel 'Kal va'Chomer', we mean - that even if we were to learn it from something that was not learned from a 'Kal-va'Chomer', it would be a 'ben Kal-va'Chomer' (seeing as it is to begin with, a 'Ka'l-va'Chomer' that is learned from a 'Kal-va'Chomer'). Consequently, now that it is learned from something that *is* learned from a 'Kal-va'Chomer', it is a 'ben b'no shel Kal-va'Chomer'.

(c) So we learn it instead from a 'Hekesh she'Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer' - even though it is not 'Lameid from a Hekesh', a 'Kal-'va'Chomer', which is Lameid from a Hekesh, should cetainly be 'Melamed a Kal-va'Chomer'.

(d) This is not a 'ben b'no shel 'Kal va'Chomer' - because 'Hekesh Melamed be'Kal-va'Chomer' is learned, not from a 'Kal-va'Chomer', but from Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael.

(a) We now discuss whether a 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Kal-va'Chomer, Chozer u'Melamed be'Binyan-Av'. Nivlas Of Tahor - only makes the person who eats it Tamei (Metamei be'Beis ha'Beli'ah [but not by touching, like other Tum'os]).

(b) Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Yirmiyah, rules that if a bird turns out to be T'reifah after the Kohen performed Melikah - it is *not Metamei be'Beis ha'Beli'ah*.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah rules ...

1. ... in that case - that it *is* (because Melikas T'reifah does not remove the Tum'as Neveilah, and the same will apply ...
2. ... to a Chulin bird that one Shechted which then turned out to be a Treifah?

(a) Rebbi Meir Darshens a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from a Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah that turned out to be T'reifah after it was Shechted, yet the Shechitah removed the Tum'as Neveilah - then the Shechitah of a T'reifah Of Tahor which is not Metamei be'Maga u've'Masa like a Nivlas Beheimah) should certainly remove the Tum'as Neveilah.

(b) And he then learns the Melikah of Of Kodshim - via a 'Binyan-Av' from the Shechitah of Of Chulin, since the former, like the latter, permits the bird to be eaten.

(c) Rebbi Yossi, who concedes to Rebbi Meir that the Shechitah of a T'reifah Of Chulin removes the Tum'as Neveilah - argues by the Melikah of a T'reifah Of Kodshim, because, he says, we cannot learn Melikah from Shechitah.

(d) We are trying to prove from Rebbi Meir - that 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Kal-va'Chomer, Chozer u'Melamed be'Bimyan-Av'.

(a) We refute this proof however, on the grounds that Rebbi Meir really derives his ruling from a 'Hekesh' - from the Pasuk in Shemini "Zos Toras ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Of", comparing all birds to animals.

(b) And even if he learns it from a 'Binyan-Av' (as the Beraisa states), we do not have not an absolute proof that 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Kal-va'Chomer, Chozer u'Melamed be'Bimyan-Av' (bearing in mind that his source is Shechitah of Chulin) - because, according to those who argue with Rav Papa (and go after the Melamed), this will fall under the category of 'Lamed min ha'Lamed be'Chulin.