Previous daf

1)

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

1. ... Kedushah does not take effect on a permanent Ba'al-Mum, Temurah does?
2. ... a Korban Pesach on Pesach does not require Semichah, Nesachim or Matnas Chazeh ve'Shok to a Kohen, during the rest of the year, it does?

(b) What might we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'shachat es ha'Chatas *bi'Mekom ha'Olah*"?

(c) From the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Asham) "bi'Mekom Asher Yishchatu es ha'Olah Yishchatu es ha'Asham" we learn that the Asham requires Tzafon.
What do we learn from ...

1. ... the Pasuk there "ve'es Damo Yizrok"?
2. ... the 'Vav' in "ve'es"?
3. ... the Pasuk in Metzora (in connection with the Asham Metzora) "ve'Shachat es ha'Keves"?

(a) What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "ve'Shachat es ha'Keves ... *ki ka'Chatas ha'Asham*"?

(b) Why do we need this Pasuk? Why would we have otherwise thought that the Asham Metzora does not require Matan Damim and Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach?

(c) What Kashya does this pose on the previous D'rashah (that "ve'Shachat es ha'Keves ... " teaches us that Tzafon is Me'akev)?

(d) We answer 'im Kein, Lichtov be'Hai, ve'Lo Lichtov be'Hai'.
What do we mean by that?

(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.
Why does it not seem to conform with those who say that we neither learn it from the K'lal, nor the K'lal from it?

(b) How do we reconcile the previous D'rashah even according to that opinion?

(c) Rav Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari asked Ravina that maybe the Torah only reinstates the Asham Metzora in the Din of the Matanos, but not in the Din of Tzafon.
On what grounds did he say that?

(d) What did Ravina reply?

4)

(a) The Torah writes "Ve'shachat es ha'Keves bi'Mekom Asher Yishchat es ha'Chatas ve'es ha'Olah".
Why does the Torah need to compare the Asham both to Chatas and to Olah, why not just ...

1. ... to Chatas?
2. ... to Olah?

(b) But surely if the Torah held 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh Chozer u'Melamed be'Hekesh', then it would rather have compared Asham to Chatas, which immediately precedes it?

(c) So what is the outcome of the Sugya? What do we learn from the fact that the Torah compares Asham both to Chatas and to Olah?

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

1. ... the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Eimurim of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) "Ka'asher Yuram mi'Shor Zevach ha'Shelamim"?
2. ... learning Yoseres ha'Kaved by the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim from Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur?

(b) How does the first Kashya answer the second?

(c) 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.
What did Rava reply?

(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.
What does 'P'richah' mean?

(b) What do we learn from "me'Rosho ve'Ad Raglo"?

(c) How does Rebbi Yochanan refute the proof from there that 'Davar ha'Lamed be'Hekesh, Chozer u'Melamed bi'Gezeirah-Shavah'?

(d) How does he then go 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? What is he referring to when he cites the 'Gezeirah-Shavah" "Kodshei Kodashim" "Kodshei Kodashim"?

(a) How do we attempt to counter Rebbi Yochanan's proof? What 'Pircha' do we ask on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (Asham from Chatas)?

(b) On what grounds do we reject the Kashya?

Next daf