Previous daf

1)

(a) Seeing as Tzafon is written by the Olah, why does our Mishnah begin with the Chatas?

(b) Then why does the Tana begin with the Chata'os Penimiyos and not with the Chata'os Chitzoniyos (which is the subject of the Hekesh to Olah)?

(c) The Torah writes Tzafon in Vayikra by Olas Tzon "Ve'shachat Oso al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach Tzafonah".
What do we learn from the 'Vav' of ve'Im min ha'Tzon" (which follows the Parshah of Chatas Bakar)?

(d) On what grounds do we query this Limud? Does anyone not hold of the principle of 'Vav' Mosif al Inyan Rishon' (that the 'Vav' in such a format acts as a Hekesh)?

(a) What is an Asham Taluy?

(b) Someone who is Mo'el (benefits) from Hekdesh brings an Asham Me'ilos.
What does Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa, learn from the 'Vav' of "ve'Im Nefesh", which (following the Parshah of Asham Me'ilos) introduces the Parshah of Safek Asham Taluy ?

(c) What is the case of Safek Me'ilos?

(d) What do the Chachamim say?

(e) Why do the Tana'im dispute this point at all? Why is a Safek Me'ilos not automatically included in the Parshah of Asham Me'ilos?

(a) How do we initially interpret their bone of contention?

(b) Rav Papa concludes however, that everyone holds that 'Vav Mosif' cuts both ways (finally resolving the source of Tzafon by Chatas ben Bakar).
What do the Rabbanan then learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Mitzvos" (by Asham Taluy) "Mitzvos" from Chatas Cheilev? What is Chatas Cheilev?

(c) Rebbi Akiva applies the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' differently. He says 'Mah Lehalan Chatas Kavu'a, Af Ka'an Chatas Kavu'a'.
What does he mean by that?

(d) On what grounds are we forced to retract from the previous statement? Why can that not be Rebbi Akiva's reason?

(a) We then suggest that perhaps they argue over which is more powerful, a Hekesh (Rebbi Akiva) or a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (the Rabbanan).
On what grounds do we reject this suggestion, too? What do we conclude?

(b) Rebbi Akiva's opinion is based on that conclusion. The Rabbanan disagree, because, in their opinion, the Torah needs to insert the 'Vav' to compare the Asham Taluy to the Asham Me'ilos (with regard to the value of the animal).
What does it teach us?

(c) If not for the 'Vav', what would we otherwise have thought?

(a) We suggest that Rebbi Akiva learns that from "Zos Toras ha'Asham".
How does he learn it from there?

(b) Why then, does he need the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of...

1. ... "be'Erk'cha" "be'Erk'cha" (Asham Taluy from Asham Gezeilos)?
2. ... "be'Ayil" "be'Ayil" (Asham Shifchah Charufah from Asham Me'ilos)? Why can he not learn it from "be'Erk'cha" "be'Erk'cha"?

(c) And on what basis must the Asham Nazir and the Asham Metzora be worth one Sela?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra ...

1. ... (in connection with a Chatas Yachid) "Ve'shachat es ha'Chatas bi'Mekom ha'Olah" (because the Torah could have written "Ve'shachat Osah")?
2. ... "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam" (that is written immediately after Ve'shachat ... ")?

(b) What independent D'rashah does he make from "Ve'lakach"?

(c) And what do we then learn from the Pasuk there (in connection with the Chatas Nasi) "Ve'shachat Oso bi'Mekom Asher Yishchat es ha'Olah"?

(a) We query this latter D'rashah however, from a Pasuk in Tzav. What do we learn from "bi'Mekom Asher Tishachet ha'Olah Tishachet ha'Chatas"?

(b) What do we mean when we suggest that perhaps this Pasuk comes to preclude other Se'irim from Tzafon? Which Se'irim?

(c) On what grounds do we dismiss this suggestion?

(d) We now learn Sa'ir Nasi Le'akeiv (even Bedi'eved) and other Chata'os Lechatchilah.
Why can "Ve'shachat es ha'Chatas bi'Mekom ha'Olah" (in conjunction with "bi'Mekom Asher Tishachet ha'Olah ... ") not serve as a Binyan Av for all Chata'os, even Bedi'eved?

8)

(a) What is the significance of the fact that the Torah compares the Chatas to the Olah both by a Kisbah and by a Se'irah?

(b) And what do we learn from "Oso" (written by the Sa'ir Nasi)?

(c) What is 'Sa'ir Nachshon'?

(d) On what basis do we think that Sa'ir Nachshon would otherwise require Tzafon?

(a) The previous Drashah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.
On what grounds does he include Sa'ir Nachshon in the Din of Semichah from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Sa'ir Nasi) "Ve'samach Yado al Rosh ha'Sa'ir"?

(b) Rebbi Shimon disagrees.
What does he include in the Din of Semichah from " ... al Rosh ha'Sa'ir"?

(c) Ravina asked why we need "Oso", according to Rebbi Shimon. Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari retorts that even according to Rebbi Yehudah, it is unclear why we need it.
Why is that?

(a) On what grounds do we initially refute the suggestion that we need "Oso" to preclude Sa'ir Nachshon from Tzafon, which we would otherwise learn from a 'Binyan Av'from Seri's Yachid, from "Ve'shachat es ha'Chatas"?

(b) Why in fact, do we not learn Semichah from a 'Binyan Av'?

(c) In that case, why will we have to go back on the D'rashah 'Oso ba'Tzafon, ve'Ein Sa'ir Nachshon ba'Tzafon'?

(d) We reject the suggestion that we learn from "Oso", 'Oso ba'Tzafon, ve'Ein Shochet ba'Tzafon', on the grounds that we already know that from Rebbi Achya.
From where does Rebbi Achya learn that the Shochet does not need to stand in the north?

(a) We then try to learn from "Oso" (of the Kisbah of a Chatas Yachid currently under discussion) 'Oso, ve'Lo ben Of'.
Why would we have thought that a ben Of needs to be Shechted in the north?

(b) What 'Pircha' do we ask on that? What Chumra does a Korban Beheimah possess over a Korban Of?

(c) So we suggest that "Oso" comes to preclude the Korban Pesach from Tzafon.
Why does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov in a Beraisa think that the Pesach ought to require Tzafon? What Chumra does it posses over Olas Tzon?

(d) We reject that suggestion too, on the basis of a Chumra that Olah has over Pesach.
Which Chumra?

(a) Why can we not then learn Pesach from ...

1. ... Chatas?
2. ... Asham?
3. ... all three (Olah, Chatas and Asham)?

(b) Finally, we revert to our original contention, that "Oso" comes to preclude the Shochet, who can be standing in the south whilst he Shechts.
What do we then learn from "Ve'shachat Oso" (written by the Olah)?

(c) But did we not learn this on the previous Amud from "Ve'lakach"?

(a) We now have a source for Tzafon by both Shechitah and Kabalah by an Olah, Lechatchilah.
What objection do we raise to Rav Ada bar Ahavah (or Rabah bar Shiloh) who learns even Bedieved, from Chatas 'u'Mah Chatas ha'Ba'ah Machmas Olah Me'akeves ... '?

(b) How does Rav Ada bar Ahavah refute the Kashya? What did he really mean?

(c) Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari asked Ravina on this principle however, from Rebbi Yehudah in a Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini.
What happens to Ma'aser Sheini in Yerushalayim that became Tamei?

(d) The Tana Kama permits the redemption of food that was purchased with money of Ma'aser-Sheini which became Tamei.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(e) How will Rav Ada bar Ahavah reconcile his principle with Rebbi Yehudah?

Next daf