Previous daf

1)

(a) Despite the fact that Tzafon is written by the Olah, our Mishnah begins with the Chatas - because whatever is learned through a D'rashah (a Hekesh to Olah in this case) is particularly precious in the eyes of the Tana.

(b) And the reason that the Tana begins with the Chata'os Penimiyos and not with the Chata'os Chitzoniyos (which is the subject of the Hekesh to Olah) is - because since their blood enters the Kodesh Kodshim, it too, is precious in the eye of the Tana.

(c) The Torah writes Tzafon in Vayikra by Olas Tzon "Ve'shachat Oso al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach Tzafonah". We learn from the 'Vav' of ve'Im min ha'Tzon" (which follows the Parshah of Chatas Bakar) - that an Olas ben Bakar too, requires Tzafon.

(d) We query this Limud however (in spite of the fact that everyone holds of the principle of 'Vav' Mosif al Inyan Rishon) - because we initially believe that a 'Vav Mosif' comes to compare the latter Parshah to the former one, but not vice-versa.

(a) An Asham Taluy - is the Korban that is brought for someone who has transgressed a Safek Chatas.

(b) Someone who is Mo'el (benefits) from Hekdesh brings an Asham Me'ilos. From the 'Vav' of "ve'Im Nefesh" - which (following the Parshah of Asham Me'ilos) introduces the Parshah of Safek Asham Taluy, Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa, learns - that a Safek Asham Me'ilos is Chayav to bring an Asham Taluy, too.

(c) The case of Safek Me'ilos is - where someone had two pieces of meat in front of him, one Hekdesh and one Chulin, and after eating one of them, he cannot remember which one he ate.

(d) The Chachamim - exempt him from an Asham Taluy.

(e) The Tana'im dispute this point - because an Asham Taluy is generally brought for a Safek Chatas (which in turn, is a Chiyuv Kareis be'Shogeg), and not for a Safek Asham.

(a) Initially, we interpret their bone of contention as to whether, seeing as the Parshah of Asham Me'ilos precedes that of Asham Taluy, the Hekesh works backwards (Rebbi Akiva), or not (the Rabbanan).

(b) Rav Papa concludes however, that everyone holds that 'Vav Mosif' cuts both ways (finally resolving the source of Tzafon by Chatas ben Bakar), and the Rabbanan learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Mitzvos" (by Asham Taluy) "Mitzvos" from Chatas Cheilev (i.e. a regular Chatas) - that an Asham Taluy is confined to a Chiyuv Kareis which requires a Chatas be'Shogeg.

(c) Rebbi Akiva applies the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' differently. He says 'Mah Lehalan Chatas Kavu'a, Af Ka'an Chatas Kavu'a' - meaning that one only brings an Asham Taluy on a Safek Chatas (or Asham) Kavu'a, but not on a Safek Oleh ve'Yored.

(d) We are forced to retract from the previous statement however - based on the principle 'Ein Hekesh le'Mechtzah' (a Hekesh is generally absolute), in which case, Rebbi Akiva ought to have accepted the Rabbanan's interpretation of the Hekesh as well as his own.

(a) We then suggest that they argue over which is more powerful, a Hekesh (Rebbi Akiva) or a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (the Rabbanan). We reject this suggestion too, however - by concluding that a Hekesh is definitely the stronger of the two.

(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, to teach us - that the Asham Taluy must be worth at least two Sela'im.

(c) If not for the 'Vav', we would otherwise have thought - that seeing as a Chatas (that comes for a Vaday Chiyuv) can be worth as little as a Danka (a small coin), then 'Kal va'Chomer' an Asham, which comes for a Safek ('she'Lo Yehei S'feiko Chamur mi'Vada'o').

(a) We suggest that Rebbi Akiva learns that from "Zos Toras ha'Asham" - which implies that all Ashamos share the same Din (regarding issues that are not specified).

(b) He nevertheless needs the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of ...

1. ... "be'Erk'cha" "be'Erk'cha" (Asham Taluy from Asham Gezeilos) - to accommodate those who do not hold of the D'rashah from "Toras".
2. ... "be'Ayil" "be'Ayil" (Asham Shifchah Charufah from Asham Me'ilos). He cannot learn it from "be'Erk'cha" "be'Erk'cha" - because "be'Erk'cha" is not written in connection with the Asham Shifchah Charufah.

(c) The Asham Nazir and the Asham Metzora must be worth one Sela - because they are all rams (in their second year), they are lambs (in their first year). It therefore stands to reason that they also carry half the minimum price-tag of the other Ashamos, which are all rams.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

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") - that the Chatas must be Shechted in the north.
2. ... "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam" (written immediately after Ve'shachat ... ") - that the Kabalas ha'Dam must also take place in the north.

(b) And he learns from "Ve'lakach" - that the Kohen who receives the blood (unlike the Shochet) is also obligated to stand in the Tzafon.

(c) And from the Pasuk there (in connection with the Chatas Nasi) "Ve'shachat Oso bi'Mekom Asher Yishchat es ha'Olah", we learn - that Shechitas Tzafon is crucial by Chatas.

(a) We query this latter D'rashah however, from a Pasuk in Tzav "bi'Mekom Asher Tishachet ha'Olah Tishachet ha'Chatas" - which teaches us that the Shechitas Chatas requires Tzafon.

(b) When we suggest that perhaps this Pasuk comes to preclude other Se'irim from Tzafon, we are referring to - the Sa'ir of Yom ha'Kipurim, the Se'irim of Avodas-Kochavim and the Se'irim of the Musaf of Yamim-Tovim.

(c) We dismiss this suggestion however - on the basis of the first Pasuk "Ve'shachat es ha'Chatas bi'Mekom ha'Olah", which serves as a 'Binyan Av' requiring all Chata'os to be Shechted in the north.

(d) We now learn Sa'ir Nasi Le'akeiv (even Bedi'eved) and other Chata'os Lechatchilah. "Ve'shachat es ha'Chatas bi'Mekom ha'Olah" (in conjunction with "bi'Mekom Asher Tishachet ha'Olah ... ") cannot serve as a Binyan Av for all Chata'os, even Bedi'eved - because it is needed to include all the above-mentioned Se'irei Chatas in the Din of Tzafon, as we just explained.

8)

(a) The significance of the fact that the Torah compares the Chatas to the Olah both by a Kisbah and by a Se'irah is - that this then is the source from which we learn that Tzafon is crucial to the Shechitah of a Chatas.

(b) From "Oso" (written by the Sa'ir Nasi) we - preclude Sa'ir Nachshon from Tzafon.

(c) 'Sa'ir Nachshon' is the goat that Nachshon and his fellow Nesi'im brought to inaugurate the Mizbe'ach in the desert.

(d) We think that Sa'ir Nachshon would otherwise require Tzafon - because the Torah already includes it in the Din of Semichah (as we shall now see).

(a) The previous Drashah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who includes Sa'ir Nachshon in the Din of Semichah from the Pasuk (in connection with the Sa'ir Nasi) "Ve'samach Yado al Rosh ha'Sa'ir" - due to the fact that the word "ha'Sa'ir" is superfluous (since the Torah could have written "al Rosho").

(b) Rebbi Shimon disagrees. According to him, " ... al Rosh ha'Sa'ir" comes to include - Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim in the Din of Semichah.

(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 - since it is not because the Torah already includes it in the Din of Semichah (the basis of Rebbi Yehudah's D'rashah), that it should also be included in Tzafon ('le'Mai de'Israbi Israbi, u'le'Mai de'Lo Israbi, Lo Israbi').

(a) Initially, we refute the suggestion that we need "Oso" to preclude Sa'ir Nachshon from Tzafon, which we would otherwise learn from a 'Binyan Av' from Se'iras Yachid, from "Ve'shachat es ha'Chatas" - because then why would we not also learn Semichah from the same 'Binyan Av'?

(b) We do not, in fact, learn Semichah from a 'Binyan Av' - because we cannot learn 'Sha'ah mi'Doros' (a unique occasion [such as Sa'ir Nachshon] from a regular Halachah [a Se'iras Yachid]).

(c) In that case, we will have to go back on the D'rashah 'Oso ba'Tzafon, ve'Ein Sa'ir Nachshon ba'Tzafon' too - because, for the same reason, we would not need a Pasuk to teach us that.

(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 - who learns it from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Olas Tzon) "Ve'shachat Oso al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach".

(a) We then try to learn from "Oso" (of the Kisbah of a Chatas Yachid currently under discussion) 'Oso, ve'Lo ben Of', which we would have thought needs to be Shechted in the north - because if a Chatas Beheimah, which does not require a Kohen to Shecht it (since Shechitah Kesheirah be'Zar), requires Tzafon, 'Kal-va'Chomer' a ben Of, which does require a Kohen to perform the Melikah.

(b) We refute this suggestion however, by citing the Chumra that Chatas Beheimah possesses over ben Of, namely, that it requires a K'li Shareis (both for the Shechitah and for the Kabalas Dam), which a ben Of does not.

(c) So we suggest that "Oso" comes to preclude the Korban Pesach from Tzafon. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov in a Beraisa, thinks that the Pesach ought to require Tzafon - because if an Olas Tzon, which does not have a fixed time, requires Tzafon, 'Kal-va'Chomer' a Pesach, which does.

(d) We reject that suggestion too, on the basis of a Chumra that Olah possesses over Pesach - namely, that an Olah is completely burned, whereas the Pesach is eaten.

(a) We cannot learn Pesach from ...

1. ... Chatas - because a Chatas atones for Chayvei K'riysus, from ...
2. ... Asham - because it is Kodshei Kodshim.
3. ... all three (Olah, Chatas and Asham) - because in fact, they are all Kodshei Kodshim (whereas a Pesach is Kodshim Kalim).

(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, whereas from "Ve'shachat Oso" (written by the Olah) we learn - 'Oso ba'Tzafon, ve'Ein Shochet ba'Tzafon', Aval Mekabel ba'Tzafon (not like Rebbi Achya).

(c) This Tana does not hold of the D'rashah (that we made on the previous Amud), which learns it from "Ve'lakach".

(a) We now have a source for Tzafon by both Shechitah and Kabalah by an Olah, Lechatchilah. We object 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 .... ' - on the grounds that we cannot learn Olah from Chatas, which atones for Chayvei K'riysus, which Olah does not.

(b) What Rav Ada bar Ahavah really means however, is - that nowhere do we find that the derivative is more stringent than its source (so if Tzafon is crucial by Chatas, it goes without saying that it is crucial by Olah.

(c) Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari asked Ravina on this principle however, from Rebbi Yehudah in a Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini. Ma'aser Sheini that became Tamei - may be redeemed even in Yerushalayim (from the Pasuk "Lo Suchal Se'eiso).

(d) The Tana Kama permits the redemption, even in Yerushalayim, of food that was purchased with money of Ma'aser-Sheini which became Tamei. Rebbi Yehudah - requires it to be buried.

(e) Rav Ada bar Ahavah reconciles his principle with Rebbi Yehudah - by ascribing the latter's ruling to the weakness of the Kedushah of what is redeemed by Ma'aser Sheini money (in which case it is because it less Chamur, rather than more).