Clarification: The correct text is 'Ze'iri and Rebbi Ami', and not 'Rebbi Asi' ...

Reason: ... seeing as Rebbi Asi is the one who says later that 'Hutzu Rosheihen' means like the total severance of Olas ha'Of.

Clarification: This is learned in connection with 'Beheimah, Chayah and Of' in Maseches Ohalos, and not in connection with Sheratzim, as Rashi explains.

Clarification: It is clear that they argue with Ze'iri above, who maintains that it will suffice to cut the neck-bone and most of the flesh.

Clarification: This means that the head of an Olas ha'Of requires total severance.

Question: In Perek Kodshei Kodshim (Zevachim 65.), the Gemara Darshens from the same word 'Because the Pasuk says "min ha'Torim O min B'nei ha'Yonah", we might have thought that one may not bring less than two birds; therefore the Torah writes "Vehikrivo" (and he shall bring it").

Answer: Here, the Gemara learns (not from the actual word, but) from the juxtaposition of "Vehikrivo" to "u'Malak" that the Melikah of an Olas ha'Of differs from that of a Chatas ha'Of, with regard to Havdalah.

Question: Rashi asks as to why this Tana finds it necessary to say 'ke'Mishpat Chatas Beheimah'? Why not Chatas ha'Of, which the spoke about just before it, which must purchased with Chulin money, and contains all the other specifications of a Chatas Beheimah; and from "Vehikrivo" he will still learn with regard to 'severing the head', as the Gemara says (just like Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon actually Darshen)?

Answer (Explanation #1): And he answers that by Chatas ha'Of, the Torah does not write Chulin explicitly, only by Beheimah, as we will learn later from a Hekesh, since it is called 'Chatas' - and once something is learned from a Hekesh in the realm of Kodshim, one cannot then learn something else from it with a Hekesh.

Support: Rashi is correct in defining "ka'Mishpat" as a Hekesh rather than specific, in the same way as the Gemara in Perek Eizehu Mekoman (Zevachim 49:) considers a Hekesh "Ka'asher Yuram" and "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Par ha'Chatas".

Question #1 (Part 1): In that case however, how can the Gemara learn it from Chatas Beheimah? Bear in mind that when the Gemara says 'ke'Mishpat Chatas Beheimah', it is not referring to the bull of Aharon - which has no place here.

Question #1 (Part 2): ... but rather to the Chatas Beheimah mentioned earlier, as Rashi himself explains, in place of which this Olah is being brought ...

Question #1 (Part 3): And Chatas Beheimah itself is learned from the bull of Aharon, which is called a Chatas. Now that too, is a Lameid min a Lamied' so why is Chatas ha'Of considered more of a 'Lameid be'Hekesh' than Chatas Beheimah?

Question #2 (Part 1): Moreover, in the second Perek of Beitzah (Daf 20a) the Gemara Darshens from the Pasuk "Vayakrev es ha'Olah va'Ya'asehah ka'Mishpat" 'Limeid al Olas Chovah she'Te'unah Semichah ke'Olas Nedavah' ...

Question #2 (Part 2): Why does one now need to learn it from "ka'Mishpat"? Why will the fact that it is called an 'Olah' not suffice?

Question #3: Furthermore, in the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 8a) we do not learn Chatas Nazir from Chatas Cheilev, and we decline to learn one from the other, even though it is called a Chatas, due to the Pircha that the Gemara cites there. In that case, how can we learn Chatas ha'Of from the bull of Aharon, Since we can ask from the fact that the latter requires a. a K'li when Shechting it; b. four Matanos on the four corners of the Mizbe'ach; c. Its Kaparah is more intense, and d. its blood is taken into the Kodesh Kodshim (as the Gemara asks in the first Perek of Shavu'os (Daf 9a)?

Question #4 (Part 1): And besides, how can we learn Chatas Beheimah itself from the bull of Aharon? If it is from a 'Mah Matzinu', we can ask that a. Its Kaparah is more intense, and b. its blood is taken into the Kodesh Kodshim (as we jusr explained)?

Question #4 (Part2): And if it is from the Hekesh of "Zos ha'Torah", from there we can also learn Olas ha'Of, in which case why do we need "ka'Mishpat"?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that the Gemara Darshens from the superfluous phrase in connection with the bull of Aharon, where it writes "es Par ha'Chatas Asher lo", when it could have written "es Par ha'Chatas" and stopped ...

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... since we already know that the bull of Aharon can only be brought from Chulin, seeing as it is entirely burned - just like Olos that must come from Chulin, like we learn in the Sifri in Parshas Re'ei - 'because Ma'aser (Sheini) must be eaten, whereas an Olah is not!

Explanation #2 (Part 3): The Torah therefore inserts "ha'Chatas Asher lo" to teach us that all Chata'os, even a Chatas ha'Of (which is eaten) must come from Chulin, and not from Ma'aser.

Question: ... but why do we then need "ka'Mishpat" with regard to Chulin by an Olas ha'Of, why can we not learn it from the D'rashah of the Sifri (that we just cited), seeing as it is not eaten?

Answer: Because we would otherwise have thought that "Vehikrivo" comes to draw a distinction (between Olas ha'Of and Chatas ha'Of) even with regard to Chulin?

Question: If that is the case, why does the Gemara ask later that we should learn the Din of bringing Olas ha'Of by day from 'ba'Yom Tzavoso"? Perhaps we will learn from "Vehikrivo" that Olas ha'Of is different, and that it can be brought even at night-time?

Answer: Because "be'Yom Tzavoso" is written in connection with "Zos Toras ha'Olah", implying all Olos - even Olas ha'Of.

Question: Just as we learn here the obligation to sever the head of the Olas Of Chovah from the word "Vehikrivo", even though it is written in connection with Olas Of Nedavah, why, by the same token, does the Gemara in the second Perek of Beitzah (Daf 20a), not also learn the Chiyuv Semichah by Olas Chovah from Olas Nedavah?

Answer (Part 1): Semichah is an independent issue (which requires its own clear-cut sources) ...

Answer (Part 2): ... unlike here, where both (kinds of Olah) require Melikah, in which case it is merely a 'Giluy Milsa' (a revelation) for the Torah to indicate exactly how the Melikah of a bird is performed, because severing the head from the body is merely the conclusion of Melikah.

Implied Question: Neither can we learn Semichah by Olas Chovah from the Hekesh of "Zos ha'Torah" ...

Answer: ... because we can only learn the Hekesh with regard to those things that apply to every item in the Pasuk, and Semichah is not applicable by B'chor and Ma'aser ...

Source: ... as we learned in Perek Sh'tei Midos (Menachos 92b [in connection with Semichah]) "Korbano" - 've'Lo ha'Bechor'; "Korbano" - 've'Lo ha'Ma'aser' "Korbano" - 've'Lo ha'Pesach.

Observation: And in Zevachim (7b), the Gemara Darshens from "Lehakriv es Korb'neihem" to compare B'chor, Ma'aser and Pesach to Shelamim (in certain aspects of P'sul Kodshim, since they are otherwise precluded from the Hekesh of "Zos Toras ... ", as we just explained).

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that Rebbi Yishmael learns the S'vara of 'min ha'Chulin' by Olas Chovah from the Hekesh of "Zos ha'Torah", comparing all the Korbanos to one another; And all them, we learn from Chatas (in this regard).

Source: ... and this is what the Gemara learns out in Perek ha'Todah (Menachos 82a).

Explanation #1 (Part 2): And he (Rebbi Yishmael) understands that the Pasuk incorporates both Olas ha'Of and Olas Beheimah.

Explanation #1 (Part 3): According to the Tana Kama however, the Hekesh only incorporates Kodshim of animals - similar to Asham and Shelamim that are mentioned in the Pasuk.

Question: The Gemara will shortly ask (regarding Olas ha'Of) that we learn it from "ba'Yom Tzavoso", implying that Olas ha'Of is included?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore appears that the reason of the Rabbanan is because the Hekesh of "Zos ha'Torah" does not apply to the Din of 'Chulin', since it does not apply to all the Korbanos (mentioned there), seeing as there are Korb'nos Nedavah that do need not to be brought from Chulin).

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... as we also find according to Rebbi Eliezer at the end of Perek ha'Todah (Ibid 82b) who learns Pesach Doros from Pesach Mitzrayim - despite the fact that Pesach is included in the Hekesh ...

Proof: ... as we Darshen in Zevachim (7b) "Lehakriv es Korb'neihem" - to include B'chor, Ma'aser and Pesach (as we explained earlier) ...

Explanation #2 (Part 3): ... from which we can learn that the Rabbanan's reason is due to the fact that there are Korb'nos Nedavah which can come from Ma'aser, as we explained ...

Explanation #2 (Part 4): ... whereas Rebbi Yishmael maintans that we learn the Hekesh regarding 'Chulin', seeing as all the Korb'nos Chovah and Korb'nos Neder come from Chulin.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that, since the Torah writes "Lo Yavdil" and the a bird is Kasher by Shechting one Si'man, the moment one performs more than the Hechsher, it is considered Havdalah ...

Answer to Implied Question (Part 1): ... and seeing as Lechatchilah, the entire Si'man is included in the Mitzvah (even though Bedi'eved, Shechting the majority will suffice) ... , even if one performs Melikah on the entire Si'man, it is not considered Havdalah.

Answer to Implied Question (Part 2): ... as opposed to the second Si'man, which is not even necessary Lechatchilah.

Question: But the Gemara in the second Perek (Daf 27a) specifically states that the Mishnah uses the Lashon of 'ha'Shochet' Bedi'eved, with regard to 'one Sim'an on a bird (implying that Lechatchilah one needs to Shecht two).

Explanation #2: We must explain that, since Bedi'eved it is not necessary to Shecht the second Si'man at all, Havdalah is applicable to it; which it is not with regard to the minority of the first Si'man, which we are not concerned with, seeing as the majority of that Si'man requires Sheechitah.

Question #1 (Part 1): Our Sugya implies that, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, one is only permitted to sever one Si'man by Chatas ha'Of (whilst the second one must remain intact), since we learn from it that by Olas ha'Of, one needs to cut just the majority of two Simanim ...

Question #1 (Part 2): ... whereas in Zevachim in Perek Kodshei Kodshim (Daf 65b) the same Tana learns in a Beraisa ''I heard that one may 'divide' by Chatas ha'Of''?

Implied Question: ... and the reason that the Torah writes "Lo Yavdil" ...

Answer: ... the Gemara explains there is to teach us that it is not necessary to divide (even though one is allowed to).

Suggested Answer: We cannot explain that, when the Beraisa (in our Sugya) states that 'when he holds the head and the body and sprinkles', that is only if he wants to; and likewise when it says 'If like over there, he is Molek only one Si'man' (because if we did), then .

Refutation (Part 1): ... regarding the Beraisa that the Gemara cited earlier that learns 'two (Simanim) or the majority of two', the Gemara explained 'Two according to the Rabbanan, and the majority of two according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon ...

Refutation (Part 2): ... why does it not establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - and two or the majority of two refers to whichever the Kohen prefers?

Question #2 (Part 1): And in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav (Daf 123a) too, with regard to a Talis most of which has torn, which is not considered jopined, and is Tahor, which we establish there by a Tevulas Yom (that was Toveled that same day), and since he did have pity on it and Toveled it (even though water is harmful to the garment), we do not decree that he might be afraid to tear the majority of the garment, in case he comes to tear it completely).

Question #2 (Part 2): ... and the Gemara asks there that, in that case, why do we not decree by Olas ha'Of, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, that one might not cut the majority of the Si'man?

Question #2 (Part 3): Now if Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon forbids cutting both Simanim, the Gemara's Kashya makes sense, seeing as it will not suffice to cut exactly a majority, but rather a half that is distinctly visible, and our fear is justified ...

Question #2 (Part 4): ... but if he is in fact, permitted to cut both Simanim, then what is the point of the decree? What exactly, is the Gemara afraid of?

Answer (Part 1): It therefore seems that it is specifically Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim who holds this S'vara according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon. He is the one who, in the Gemara in Zevachim that we cited earlier, establishes "Lo Yavdil" to mean that it is not necessary to cut both Simanim, but that if one wishes, one may do so, even prior to the Haza'ah.

Answer (Part 2): Whereas our Sugya and the Sugya in ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav go, not like him, but like Rav Chisda, Rava and Abaye, there, who establish "Lo Yavdil" according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - before Haza'ah, and that if one did divide it, one renders the Melikah Pasul.

Answer (Part 3): In their opinion, he does not establish the Pasuk to mean that it is not necessary to divide - after the Haza'ah, but that it is forbidden to do so, before Haza'ah.

Mishnah Zevachim: Here is a brief summary of the Sugya there: The Mishnah there states that if one either made Havdalah by a Chatas ha'Of or did not make Havdalah by an Olas ha'Of, it is Pasul.

Explanation, Gemara Zevachim (Part 1): The Gemara then establishes the Mishnah not like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who says 'I heard that one is permitted to divide by a Chatas ha'Of'.

Explanation, Gemara Zevachim (Part 2): And the basis of the difference between them...

Explanation, Gemara Zevachim (Part 3): ... according to Rav Chisda is - with regards to Mitzuy by a Chatas ha'Of. The Mitzvah of Chatas ha'Of entails Molek, Mazeh and Mitzuy; whereas that of Olas ha'Of does not require Mitzuy, as we learned there in a Mishnah.

Explanation, Gemara Zevachim (Part 4): The Chachamim hold that Mitzuy by Chatas ha'Of is crucial. Consequently, after dividing the second Si'man following the Haza'ah. what he does next is not merely cutting the flesh, but is Pasul, since he did a Ma'aseh Olah by a Chatas, since there is Havdalah and Mitzuy like there is by Olah

Explanation, Gemara Zevachim (Part 5): Whereas Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon maintains that Mitzuy is not crucial to the Mitzvah, in which case since the Mitzvah of the Chatas ha'Of has already been concluded after the first Si'man, what he subsequently does is merely cutting the flesh.

Explanation, Gemara Zevachim (Part 6): According to Rava there, their Machlokes concerns Shehiyah (waiting) between the first and second Simanim of Olas ha'Of; which, according to the Rabbanan, does not render the Olas ha'Of Pasul (as it would by a Beheimah).

Explanation, Gemara Zevachim (Part 7): ... but it does according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon. And it is impossible to avoid waiting by a Chatas (which requires Haza'ah).Consequently, it is not Ma'aseh Olas ha'Of to cut the second Si'man.

Explanation, Gemara Zevachim (Part 8): According to Abaye there, their Machlokes concerns Rov Basar (whether cutting the majority of flesh together with the Si'man) is crucial or not. The Rabbanan hold that it is not, Consequently, the Kohen sometimes does not cut the first Si'man before he Haza'ah, in which case, when he then cuts the second Si'man after the Haza'ah, he has performed a Ma'aseh Olah on a Chatas. And it will be Pasul even if he cut the first Si'man with Rov Basar, we will issue a Gezeirah and declare it Pasul, in case he doesn't.

Explanation, Gemara Zevachim (Part 9): Whereas Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds that Rov Basar is crucial, in which case it is not Pasul by Chatas ha'Of, and since he must have cut Rov Basar with the first Si'man, when he subsequently cuts the second Si'man, it is not Ma'aseh Olah, seeing as, by the time he has made Haza'ah, the bird is already dead, and he is making Havdalah on a dead bird, which is not Ma'aseh Olah.

Explanation, Gemara Zevachim (Part 10): In fact, Abaye follows his reasoning that there is no point in performing Havdalah on a dead bird, as we learned earlier (on Amud Alef), where he retorted 'Why don't you ask on your own S'vara 'What's the point of performing Melikah on a dead bird?"

Explanation, Gemara Zevachim (Part 11): Because he doesn't hold of the Gemara's answer 'In order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Havdalah!'

Explanation, Gemara Zevachim (Part 12): And the Gemara there concludes that when they said this (the answers of Rav Chisda, Rava and Abaye) before Rebbi Yirmiyah, he said to them 'Did they not hear what R. Shimon ben Elyakim said ... When the Torah says "Lo Yavdil", it means that the Kohen does not need to make Havdalah (and they argue over making Havdalah even before Haza'ah'. (Continued on the next Daf.)