DID SE'IR NACHSHON REQUIRE TZAFON?
Objection #1 (Ravina): This answers for R. Yehudah, who says that Se'ir Nachshon required Semichah. How can we answer for R. Shimon?
Objection #2 (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Tavi): This does not answer even for R. Yehudah. We learned only that Se'ir Nachshon required Semichah. This does not suggest that it required Tzafon!
Suggestion: If "Oso" did not exclude this, we would learn it from a Binyan Av (from Chata'os of Doros that apply to all generations).
Rejection: If so, we would not need a verse to teach about Semichah. We would learn it from the Binyan Av!
We must say that we do not learn (Semichah for Korbanos of Chanukas ha'Mishkan) from permanent Korbanos (i.e. that apply to all generations). The same applies to Tzafon! (Our Sugya appears also in Zevachim 48b. There, b:1 is called a Beraisa. Sefas Emes suggests that it is not really a Beraisa, for the Gemara refutes it (Oso is not needed to teach about Se'ir Nachshon). Alternatively, it is a Beraisa. It is like R. Shimon, who indeed learns Semichah regarding Se'ir Nachshon from permanent Korbanos, and needs "Oso" to exclude Tzafon. This is unlike Ravina.)
Answer #2: "Oso" teaches that the Shechitah (i.e. the animal) must be in Tzafon, but the slaughterer need not be in Tzafon.
Objection: We learn that from R. Achiya!
(Beraisa - R. Achiya) Question: What do we learn from "v'Shachat Oso Al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach Tzafonah"?
Answer: We know that Kabalah (of Kodshei Kodoshim) and the Mekabel must be in Tzafon. If the Mekabel was in the south it is Pasul. One might have thought that the same applies to Shechitah;
"V'Shachat Oso..." teaches that the Shechitah must be in Tzafon, the Shochet (one who slaughters) need not be in Tzafon.
Answer #3: "Oso" teaches that (an Olah must be slaughtered in Tzafon, but) Melikah need not be in Tzafon.
(Beraisa) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Melikah requires Tzafon!
The Torah does not require a Kohen to slaughter a Seh (a Zar is Kosher), yet it requires Tzafon (for an Olah). The Torah requires a Kohen for Melikah, all the more so it should require Tzafon!
Rejection: "Oso" (teaches that Melikah need not be in Tzafon).
Objection: We do not need a verse for this. The Kal va'Chomer can be refuted!
We cannot learn from an Olah, for it requires a Kli (for the Kabalah and Shechitah; Tosfos - both need a Kli Shares), but Melikah does not! (Sefas Emes - the 'rejections' of this and the coming Beraisa are according to the Tana R. Achiya.)
Answer #4: "Oso" teaches that Olah must be slaughtered in Tzafon, but Korban Pesach need not be.
(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Pesach requires Tzafon!
The Torah did not fix a time to slaughter an Olah (of Nedavah), yet it requires Tzafon. The Torah fixed a time for Korban Pesach (the afternoon of Erev Pesach). All the more so it should require Tzafon!
Rejection: "Oso" (teaches that Pesach does not require Tzafon).
Question: We do not need a verse for this. The Kal va'Chomer can be refuted!
We cannot learn from an Olah, for it is entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach!
Answer #1: We would have learned a Kal va'Chomer from Chatas.
Objection: We cannot learn from Chatas, for it atones for Chayavei Kerisus!
Answer #2: We would have learned a Kal va'Chomer from Asham.
Objection: We cannot learn from Asham, for it is Kodshei Kodoshim!
Olah and Chatas are also Kodshei Kodoshim, so we cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of all three.
Defense of Answer #2 (to Question (k)): Indeed, "Oso" teaches that the Shechitah must be in Tzafon, but the Shochet need not be.
Question: We learn that from R. Achiya's teaching!
Answer: R. Achiya does not come to exclude that the Shochet need not be in Tzafon. Rather, he says as follows. The Shochet need not be in Tzafon, but the Mekabel must be.
Question: We already know this from "v'Lakach"! (We rearrange it to spell 'Lo (Yi)Kach')!
Answer: This Tana does not expound "v'Lakach" this way.
LIABILITY FOR STEPS IN THE BAKING PROCESS
(Mishnah): One is liable for (every step, for) kneading, arranging the loaves and for baking.
(Rav Papa): If he baked, he is liable twice, for arranging and for baking. (Rashi - baking is the culmination of arranging; Tosfos - some arranging is (almost inevitably) done at the time of baking.)
Question: The Beraisa (55b) said that baking is a single step. One is liable for it by itself!
Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: Rav Papa discusses when different people arranged and baked. In the Beraisa, one person did both. (We cannot obligate him twice for arranging.)
Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer: Rav Papa discusses when Reuven baked and also arranged (a bit). In the Beraisa, he did not arrange at all. (E.g. Shimon put the dough in a cold oven, and Reuven ignited it.)
MAKING A MUM IN A BA'AL MUM
(Beraisa - R. Meir): If a Bechor had too much blood, we may let blood only from a place where the wound will not be considered a Mum (blemish);
Chachamim say, we may let blood even from a place that will cause a Mum. (This disqualifies it from being offered. It will be eaten like Chulin);
However, one may not slaughter the animal until it develops another Mum. (This is a decree, lest people let blood when there is no need.)
R. Shimon says, one may slaughter it based on this Mum;
R. Yehudah says, we may not let blood even if this is the only way to save its life.
(R. Chiya bar Aba): (Even though Tana'im argue about making a Mum in a Ba'al Mum,) all agree that one is liable for Mechametz (fermenting) after Mechametz, for it says "Lo Se'aseh Chametz" and "Lo Se'afeh Chametz." (We learned from these that one is liable for every step);
All agree that one is liable for Mesares (castrating) after Mesares - "u'Ma'uch v'Chasus v'Nasuk v'Charus." (The verse discusses Mumim of castration. It ends "...uv'Artzechem Lo Sa'asu.")
Question: If one is liable for Kores (disconnecting the testicles), all the more so for Nosek (Tosfos - totally cutting them off, but they are still in the sac; Rashi - removing them from the sac! Why did the Torah need to say "v'Nasuk"?)
Answer: This teaches that one is liable for Nosek after Kores.
They argue only about making a Mum in a Ba'al Mum;
R. Meir obligates for this - "Kol Mum Lo Yihyeh Bo";
Chachamim exempt - "Tamim Yihyeh l'Ratzon." (Since a Ba'al Mum cannot be offered l'Ratzon, the Lav of making a Mum does not apply.)
Question: How does R. Meir expound Chachamim's verse?
Answer #1: It excludes a Ba'al Mum from the beginning (before it became Kodesh).
Rejection: Such an animal has no Kedushas ha'Guf (to be offered. Obviously the Lav does not apply!)
Answer #2: Rather, it excludes Pesulei ha'Mukdashim (blemished Korbanos) after redemption;
Since one may not work with or shear Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, one might have thought that the prohibition to blemish them also remains. The verse teaches that this is not so.
Question: How do Chachamim expound R. Meir's verse?
Answer (Beraisa): "Kol Mum Lo Yihyeh Bo" forbids directly making (Yehayei) a Mum;
Question: What is the source to forbid causing a Mum, e.g. sticking food to the ear? (This incites dogs to eat the food, and they cut the ear.)
Answer: It could have said only 'Mum'. "Kol Mum" is extra to include this.
FOOD THAT COOKED OR FERMENTED BY ITSELF
(R. Ami): If Reuven put Se'or on a dough and it fermented by itself, he is liable, just like for Melachah on Shabbos.
Question: One is exempt for such Melachah on Shabbos!
(Rabah bar bar Chanah): If one left meat over coals (on Shabbos) and turned over the meat, he is liable. If he did not turn it over, he is exempt.