Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who holds that there is no such thing as 'Tafel Chamur min ha'Ikar', will ascribe the ...

1. ... Kedushah not taking effect on a permanent Ba'al-Mum, whereas Temurah does - to the fact that Kodshim comes from Chulin, whereas Temurah comes from Kodshim.
2. ... Korban Pesach on Pesach not requiring Semichah, Nesachim or Matnas Chazeh ve'Shok to a Kohen, whereas during the rest of the year, it does - to the fact that after Pesach, the Korban Pesach changes its status to a Shelamim.

(b) We might learn from the Pasuk "Ve'shachat es ha'Chatas *bi'Mekom ha'Olah*" - that Tzafon is Me'akev by an Olah.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Asham) "bi'Mekom Asher Yishchatu es ha'Olah Yishchatu es ha'Asham" that the Asham requires Tzafon, from ...

1. ... the Pasuk there "ve'es Damo Yizrok" we learn - that the Kabalas ha'Dam does too, and from ...
2. ... the 'Vav' in "ve'es" - that the Kohen who receives the blood must also be standing in the north.
3. ... the Pasuk (in connection with the Asham Metzora) "ve'Shachat es ha'Keves bi'Mekom Ashar Yishchat es ha'Chatas ... " - that Tzafon is Me'akev?

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ve'Shachat es ha'Keves ... *ki ka'Chatas ha'Asham*" - that the Asham Metzora requires Matan Damim and Matan Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Otherwise, based on the principle 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal ve'Yatza Lidon be'Davar he'Chadash ... ', we would have thought - that since it has the unique Din of placing the blood on the big right thumb, the big toe and the middle section of the right ear, it no longer follows the procedure of a regular Asham.

(c) This poses a Kashya on the previous D'rashah (that "ve'Shachat es ha'Keves ... " teaches us that Tzafon is Me'akev) - because we need that Pasuk for the same reason as we need the continuation, to teach us that an Asham Metzora requires Tzafon even initially.

(d) We answer 'im Kein, Lichtov be'Hai, ve'Lo Lichtov be'Hai' - by which we mean that if that were so, it would suffice to let us know that by the Asham Metzora (from which we would extend it to other Ashamos), but now that the Torah also writes it by "Zos Toras ha'Asham (bi'Mekom Asher Yishchatu .... )", we learn that it is Me'akev.

(a) The previous D'rashah conforms with those who say that apart from the unique Halachah, we can extend whatever the Torah subsequently writes by the Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal to the K'lal. It does not however, seem to conform with those who say that we neither learn it from the K'lal, nor the K'lal from it - because we would then need bi'Mekom Asher Yishchatu .... )" - to teach us Tzafon Lechatchilah by other Ashamos (and not Le'akev).

(b) We reconcile the previous D'rashah even according to that opinion - by establishing that now that the Torah wrote "Ki ka'Chatas ka'Asham" by Asham Metzora, the Torah has indicated that the all Ashamos are like the Asham Metzora, in which case the Pasuk in Tzav comes Le'akev.

(c) Rav Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari asked Ravina that maybe the Torah only reinstates the Asham Metzora regarding the Din of the Matanos, but not regarding the Din of Tzafon - since the Torah writes there ''ka'Chatas ka'Asham Hu la'Kohen", and whereas the Matanos require Kehunah, the Shehitah does not.

(d) Ravina replied - that Rav Zutra's Kashya would have been valid, had the Torah written "ki ka'Chatas Hu ... ", but now that the Torah writes "ki ka'Chatas ka'Asham Hu ... ", the Torah clearly indicates that the Asham Metzora remains like all other Ashamos.

4)

(a) The Torah writes "Ve'shachat es ha'Keves bi'Mekom Asher Yishchat es ha'Chatas ve'es ha'Olah", comparing the Asham both to Chatas and to Olah, because if it only compared it ...

1. ... to Chatas, Ravina explained - we would have learned from there that 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh.
2. ... to Olah, Ravina told Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari - we would still have thought that generally, Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh ...

(b) ... and the reason that the Torah chose here to compare Asham to Olah and not to Chatas, which immediately precedes it is - because it prefers to learn it from the source.

(c) Consequently, the Torah compared Asham both to Chatas and to Olah to teach us categorically - that 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh'.

(a) Rava learns 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh' from another source. The problem with ...

1. ... the Pasuk (in connection with the Eimurim of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) "Ka'asher Yuram mi'Shor Zevach ha'Shelamim" is - that all the Chalavim are specified, so why does the Torah find it necessary to compare it to Shelamim?
2. ... learning Yoseres ha'Kaved by the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim from Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur is - that the Torah does not specify the Yoseres ha'Kaveid and the Sh'tei ha'Kelayos by Par He'elam Davar either, and we only know that they are included from a Hekesh to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach (which suggests that 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh')

(b) The first Kashya however, answers the second - in that due to the superfluous comparison to Shelamim, it is as if the Torah had specified the required parts by Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and 'Im Eino Inyan' (since it is not needed there), it is as if they had been specifically mentioned by the Par He'elam Davar, to teach us 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh'.

(c) When Rav Papa asked Rava why the Torah does not simply insert the Yoseres ha'Kaved and the Sh'tei ha'Kelayos directly in the Parshah of Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur, in which case a Hekesh to Par Kohen Mashi'ach would not be necessary - he replied then we would then not have a source for the principle 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Eino Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh'.

(a) Rebbi Nasan ben Avtulmus in a Beraisa learns 'P'richah' by Tzara'as Begadim with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Karachas ve'Gabachas" "Karachas ve'Gabachas" from Tzara'as Adam on a location of hair. 'P'richah' means - that if the mark of Tzara'as which is otherwise a Si'man Tum'ah, spreads to cover the entire body, it is Tahor.

(b) We learn from "me'Rosho ve'Ad Raglo" - that just as it is a Tahor on the location of the body, so too, is it Tahor on the location of the hair (i.e. if it spreads across the entire head, it is Tahor.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan refutes the proof from there that 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because, as he points out, the question of not learning one Lameid from another is confined to the realm of Kodshim.

(d) He then goes on to prove that by Kodshim, we hold 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Eino Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', from the fact that the Torah writes "Tzafonah" by Asham - because otherwise, why can we not learn it from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah" "Kodshei Kodashim" "Kodshei Kodashim" from Chatas, which in turn, we learn with a Hekesh from Olah.

(a) We attempt to counter Rebbi Yochanan's proof - by claiming that we cannot learn Asham from Chatas, since the latter atones for Chayvei K'riysus, which the former does not.

(b) And we reject the Kashya - on the grounds that seeing as "Kodshei Kodashim" appear a number of times by each one, the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is Mufnah (based on words that are redundant) which is not subject to a 'Pircha'.