Question: What is Chachamim's reason?

Answer: "V'Yatzak Aleha Shemen...ve'Hevi'ah El Bnei Aharon ha'Kohanim v'Kamatz" - only after Kemitzah, Kohanim must do the Avodah, but Yetzikah and Belilah of a Zar are Kesherim.

(Implied question): Why does R. Shimon argue?

Answer #1: He expounds "Bnei Aharon ha'Kohanim" to discuss what precedes it (Yetzikah) and after it (Kemitzah).

Objection: Elsewhere, R. Shimon does not expound what comes before and after!

(Beraisa): "V'Lakach...b'Etzba'o" teaches that Kabalah must be with the right hand.

"B'Etzba'o v'Nasan" teaches that Zerikah must be with the right hand.

R. Shimon: It does not say 'Yad' regarding Kabalah, therefore, if it was done with the left hand it is Kosher.

(Abaye): They argue whether we expound "b'Etzba'o" to discuss what comes earlier (Kabalah) and/or later (Zerikah) in the verse.

Answer #2: R. Shimon says that the 'Vov' ("*v*'Yotzak... ve'Hevi'ah El Bnei Aharon") connects the latter Parshah (Kemitzah) to the former (Yetzikah), i.e. also Yetzikah requires Kehunah.

Question (Beraisa): "V'Shachat... v'Hikrivu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohanim" - from Kabalah and onwards, Kohanim must do the Avodah;

This teaches that a Zar may slaughter.

If R. Shimon expounds a 'Vov' to connect Parshiyos, he should also expound "v'Shachat... v'Hikrivu Bnei Aharon" to disqualify Shechitah of a Zar! (Surely, if he did, there would be a Mishnah or Beraisa teaching this!)

Answer: There it says "v'Samach... v'Shachat"- just like Semichah of a Zar is Kosher, also Shechitah.

Question: If so, we should say that just like the owner must do Semichah, also Shechitah!

Answer #1: A Kal va'Chomer teaches that the owner need not slaughter:

Zerikah is the primary Mechaper, yet the owner need not do it. Shechitah is not the main atonement. All the more so the owner need not do it!

Objection: Perhaps we cannot learn from Zerikah, for the owner cannot do it (unless he is a Kohen), for it requires Kehunah, but the owner could slaughter!

Answer #2: "V'Shachat Es Par ha'Chatas Asher Lo - the Par of Yom Kipur must belong to the slaughterer (the Kohen Gadol), but normally, the owner need not slaughter it.

(Rav): Wherever the Torah says 'Torah' and 'Chukah', it is Me'akev.

We are thinking that this is only when it says both of them, e.g. "Zos Chukas ha'Torah..."

Question #1: Regarding Nazir, it says only Torah, yet Rav taught that it is Me'akev that a Nazir do Tenufah!

Answer #1: There it says "Ken Ya'aseh." It is as if it says Chukah.

Question #2: Regarding Todah, it says only Torah;

(Mishnah): A Todah is brought with four kinds of bread. They are Me'akev each other.

Answer #1: Todah is Hukash to Nazir;

"Al Zevach Todas Shelamav" includes Shalmei Nazir.

Question #3: Regarding Metzora, it says only Torah;

(Mishnah): The four species used for Taharas Metzora (cedar, hyssop, scarlet thread and birds) are Me'akev each other.

Answer #1: There it says "Zos Tihyeh Toras ha'Metzora." It is as if it says Chukah.

Question #4: Regarding Yom Kipur, it says only Chukah;

(Mishnah): The two goats of Yom Kipur are Me'akev each other.

Retraction (and Answer #2 to questions (b), (d) and (f)): Rather, Rav meant that wherever the Torah says 'Torah' or Chukah', it is Me'akev.

Question: Regarding other Korbanos, it says "Zos ha'Torah la'Olah la'Minchah...", yet Haktaras Eimurim (of Zevachim) and Hagashah (of Menachos) are not Me'akev!

Retraction: When it says Torah, it is not Me'akev unless it also says Chukah. When it says Chukah, even without Torah, it is Me'akev.

Question: Rav said 'wherever the Torah says 'Torah' or Chukah''!

Answer: He meant that even if it says Torah, it is Me'akev only if it also says Chukah.

Question: Regarding Menachos it says Chukah, yet Rav taught that wherever the Torah repeats something regarding a Minchah, it is Me'akev;

Inference: A matter that is not repeated is not Me'akev!

Answer #1: It says Chukah regarding eating Menachos. This does not teach Ikuv for Hakravah (offering).

Objection: It says Chukah regarding eating Lechem ha'Panim (yet we learn Ikuv for Hakravah from this)!

(Mishnah): The two Sedarim are Me'akev each other. The two Bazichim are Me'akev each other.

Conclusion: Even when it says Chukah regarding eating, this teaches Ikuv for Hakravah!

Answer #2: Menachos are different, for it says "mi'Garshah umi'Shamnah" - only Geresh (i.e. fine flour) and oil are Me'akev.

(Rav): Wherever the Torah repeats something regarding a Minchah, it is Me'akev.

(Shmuel): Only Geresh and oil are Me'akev.

Question: Does Shmuel really hold that when the Torah repeats something, it is not Me'akev?!

Answer: Surely, he agrees that when the Torah repeats something, it is Me'akev. Rather, he and Rav argue about "Melo Kumtzo" and "b'Kumtzo":

(Beraisa): "Melo Kumtzo" and "b'Kumtzo" teach that Kemitzah must be done with the hand. A Kohen may not use a Kli that holds as much as his Kometz.

Rav says that this is Me'akev, for the Torah repeated it - "va'Yakrev Es ha'Minchah va'Ymalei Chapo Mimenah";

Shmuel does not learn from the latter verse, which discusses the Milu'im. We do not learn Kodshei Doros (that apply to all generations) from Kodshei Sha'ah (those that applied only temporarily).

Question: Shmuel does learn Kodshei Doros from Kodshei Sha'ah!

(Mishnah): Klei Lach (Klei Shares that hold liquids) are Mekadesh liquids. Dry measures are Mekadesh dry (Kodshim);

Klei Lach are not Mekadesh dry. Dry measures are not Mekadesh liquids.

(Shmuel): This applies only to (liquid) measures, but buckets (even though they hold liquids, i.e. blood) are Mekadesh dry;

We learn from the Menachos in the buckets donated by the Nesi'im - "Shneihem Mele'im Soles." (They were Mekadesh the flour.)

Answer: There is different. Since it is repeated 12 times, we learn Doros from Sha'ah.

Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi): The Torah repeated Hagashah, yet it is not Me'akev!

Question: Where is it repeated?

Answer: "Zos Toras ha'Minchah Hakrev Osah... Lifnei Hash-m".

Answer: There it is repeated to teach about where Hagashah is done.

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "Lifnei Hash-m" teaches that Hagashah is in the west!

Rejection: It says "El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach".

Suggestion: Perhaps "El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach" teaches that Hagashah is in the south!

Rejection: It says "Lifnei Hash-m";

To fulfill both verses, it suffices to do Hagashah at the edge of the southwest corner.

Suggestion (R. Eliezer): Perhaps Hagashah may be done at the southern or western side of the southwest corner!

Rejection: If there are two verses and we can fulfill both of them, we do so, rather than fulfilling one in a way that precludes fulfilling the other;

If Hagashah would be on the west side, we would not fulfill "El Pnei (south of) ha'Mizbe'ach";

We do it on the south, and we also fulfill "Lifnei Hash-m" (in front of the Heichal).

(Rav Ashi): R. Eliezer holds that the entire Mizbe'ach is in the north. (The south side is in front of the opening of the Heichal. It is "Lifnei Hash-m". The first Tana disagrees. He holds that the south of the Mizbe'ach was in the south half of the Azarah, opposite the wall of the Heichal. The only place on the south side that is considered Lifnei Hash-m is the southwest corner, from which one can see the opening of the Heichal.)