TAKING MOIST OR DRY FIGS TO BE TERUMAH
Question: The Seifa is difficult for Rav!
(Seifa - R. Elazar): R. Yosi would take 10 dry figs to exempt 90 moist figs.
According to Shmuel, who follows the original volume, this is a tenth;
Rav follows the current volume. This is less than a tenth!
Answer (Rav Dimi): Dry figs are different (than meat). One can return them to their original state through cooking.
(Beraisa): Moist figs may be made Terumah on (Rashi - an equal number of) dry figs, in a place where people normally dry their figs;
Dry figs may not be made Terumah on (Rashi - an equal number of) figs, even in a place where people normally dry figs.
Inference: The Beraisa permits tithing figs on dry figs in a place where people normally make dry figs. Elsewhere, it is forbidden.
Question: What is the case?
Answer #1: There is a Kohen in the area who can eat them.
Rejection: If so, it is permitted even where people do not normally make dry figs!
(Mishnah): In a place where there is a Kohen, we take the nicest produce to be Terumah (even if it does not last so long.)
Answer #2: There is no Kohen in the area.
Question: The Seifa forbids making dry figs Terumah on figs, even where people normally make dry figs;
If there is no Kohen, this is permitted!
(Mishnah): In a place where there is no Kohen, we take (for Terumah) produce that will last a long time.
Answer: We must say that the Seifa discusses a place where there is a Kohen.
(Rav Papa): This answer shows it is better to establish a Beraisa in a difficult way (e.g. different clauses discuss different situations) than to say that different Tana'im taught the clauses.
MENACHOS MAY NOT BE MADE CHAMETZ
(Mishnah): All Menachos are kneaded with lukewarm water. (Tif'eres Yisrael - this is best for bread, but it speeds up Chimutz. Therefore,) we must guard them from becoming Chametz - "Kol ha'Minchah Asher Takrivu la'Shem Lo Se'aseh Chametz."
If one ferments Shirayim, he transgresses a Lav;
He is liable for (every step, i.e.) kneading, arranging the loaves and for baking.
(Gemara) Question: What is the source of the second law?
Answer (Reish Lakish): "Lo Se'afeh Chametz Chelkam" - even the Kohanim's portion (Shirayim) may not be made Chametz.
Question: We use this verse to teach a different law!
(Beraisa) Question: What do we learn from "Lo Se'afeh Chametz Chelkam"? It already says "Lo Se'aseh Chametz"!
Answer: Had it said only "Lo Se'aseh Chametz", one might have thought that one is lashed only once for all steps of fermenting a Minchah. Therefore, it says "Lo Se'afeh";
Baking was already forbidden, for it is part of making Chametz. It was singled out to equate all steps of making Chametz to it:
Just like baking is a single step in making Chametz and one is liable for it by itself, one is liable for kneading, arranging and for every single step;
These extra words allude to Kituf (Rashi - smoothing out the surface of the dough with water; R. Gershom - taking pieces for individual loaves from the (big) dough). One is liable for it.
Answer: Reish Lakish learns from "Chelkam". (The Beraisa learns from "Lo Se'afeh Chametz.")
Question: Perhaps the verse teaches only Reish Lakish's law!
Answer: If so, it should have said 'Chelkam Lo Se'afeh Chametz;
Rather, it says "Lo Se'afeh Chametz Chelkam", to teach both.
Suggestion: We should say that "Lo Se'afeh Chametz" obligates for baking alone, and also one Chatas for all the other steps!
Answer: Baking is a 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Chlal v'Yatza' (a matter that was part of a general rule), and received a new law). The new law applies to the whole Klal. (Every step is just like baking.)
Question: We should say that "Lo Se'aseh" is a Klal, "Lo Se'afeh" is a Prat. From a Klal u'Frat we learn only the Prat (baking!)
Answer (R. Aftoriki): Because the Klal and Prat are written in different places, we do not expound Klal and Prat.
KLAL AND PRAT THAT ARE SEPARATED
Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): We do expound Klal and Prat that are separated!
(Beraisa): "V'Shachat Oso (Chatas Nasi) bi'Mkom Asher Yishchat Es ha'Olah Lifnei Hash-m Chatas Hi" - just like Olah is slaughtered in the north, also Chatas.
Question: We learn this from "bi'Mkom Asher Tishachet ha'Olah Tishachet ha'Chatas"!
Answer: "V'Shachat Oso" teaches that this is Me'akev. If it was slaughtered in the south, it is Pasul.
Question: Perhaps this rather teaches that a Nasi's Chatas requires (Shechitah in) the north, but other Chata'os do not!
Answer: "V'Shachat Es ha'Chatas bi'Mkom ha'Olah" is a Binyan Av. It teaches that all Chata'os are slaughtered in the north.
Question: Why would we have thought (without this verse) that only Se'ir Nasi requires the north?
Answer #1: Even though the Klal and Prat are distanced, we expound Klal u'Prat! (This culminates Question (a). The coming rejection does not answer Question (a), for if we expound Prat u'Chlal even when they are distanced, surely the same applies to Klal u'Frat!)
Rejection (Rav Ashi): The Prat precedes the Klal. We should rather expound Prat u'Klal. The Klal expands the Prat to include everything!
Answer (and Answer #2 to Question a:6 - Rav Ashi): Rather, the Tana thought to learn from "Oso" that Se'ir Nasi is the only Chatas that must be slaughtered in the north.
Question: In conclusion, "v'Shachat Es ha'Chatas..." teaches that all Chata'os are slaughtered in the north. What do we learn from "Oso"?
Answer (Beraisa): "Oso" - an obligatory Chatas requires Tzafon, but the Chatas of Nachshon (or any other Nasi during Chanukas ha'Mishkan) did not require Tzafon;
Since Se'ir Nachshon required Semichah, one might have thought that it also required Tzafon. "Oso" teaches that this is not so.
Question: What is the source that it required Semichah?
Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "V'Samach Yado Al Rosh ha'Sa'ir" includes the Se'ir Nachshon. (It required Semichah.)
R. Shimon says, it includes Se'irim (for He'elam Davar) of idolatry.