1)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Veshachat es ben ha'Bakar Vehikrivu b'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim es Damo ... " that - the Mitzvah of Kehunah begins only from the Kabalas ha'Dam (and that a Zar may perform the Shechitah).

(b)This ruling poses a Kashya on our current interpretation of Rebbi Shimon, according to whom - we ought to compare the Shechitah to the Kabalah via the 'Vav' in "Vehikrivu" (see Shitah Mekubetzes 4).

(c)We counter this D'rashah however, with that of "ve'Samach ve'Shachat", from which Rebbi Shimon will then learn that - just as Semichah may be performed by a Zar, so too, may Shechitah.

(d)We nevertheless do not require the owner to perform the Shechitah, like he must be the one to perform the Semichah - because if he does not need to perform the Zerikah (which is the major Kaparah), how much more so the Shechitah!

2)

(a)The problem with the current Kal va'Chomer from Zerikah is - how we can learn Shechitah (which a Zar is permitted to perform) from Zerikah (which he is not* [Efshar mi'she'i Efshar]).

(b)We therefore quote the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Veshachat es ban ha'Bakar asher lo" (in connection with the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur) - implying that as far as other Korbanos are concerned, the owner is not required to Shecht his own Korban.

3)

(a)Rav says that wherever the Torah writes "Torah" and "Chukah", it comes Le'akev (to render crucial whatever is written in that Pasuk). Based on the Pasuk "Zos Chukas ha'Torah", we initially explain that - Rav requires both words to be Me'akev (and not just either).

(b)In spite of the fact that the Torah only writes "Torah" by Nazir ("Kein Ya'aseh al Toras Nizro" [and not Chukah]), Tenufah is Me'akeiv - because "Kein Ya'aseh" is considered like "Chukah".

(c)We have a similar problem with the Mishnah in the following Perek, which considers each of the four types of loaves of a Korban Todah crucial to the Todah - despite the fact that the Torah writes only "Torah" there (and not Chukah).

(d)And we answer by quoting Mar, who comments on the Pasuk "Al Zevach Todas Shelamav" - comparing the Shalmei Nazir to a Todah, from which Mar learns the measurements of the flour and oil needed for the loaves that are brought by a Nazir).

(e)Since a Hekesh always applies both ways - we also now learn Ikuv by Torah from Nazir (which we just learned).

4)

(a)By Metzora too, the Torah only writes Torah, yet the Mishnah there considers crucial all four items that the Torah prescribes for his purification - the cedar wood, the crimson thread, the hyssop and the two birds.

(b)And we answer the Kashya by quoting the Pasuk "Zos Tih'yeh Toras ha'Metzora" in that - "Tih'yeh" too, is considered like "Chukah" and is Me'akev.

(c)And we finally query Rav from the Avodah on Yom Kipur, where the Torah writes only "Chukah" from which the Mishnah will later learn that - the two goats are Me'akev the Avodah.

(d)We therefore conclude that - when Rav said Torah ve'Chukah are Me'akev, he meant that either one will suffice.

5)

(a)We now query Rav from the fact that various aspects of other Korbanos are not Me'akev, despite the fact that in Tzav, the Torah writes "Zos ha'Torah, la'Olah ve'la'Minchah ... ". For example, what is not Me'akev by ...

1. ... an Asham is - the burning of the Emurim.

2. ... a Minchah is - Hagashah of the Minchah to the south-western corner of the Mizbe'ach.

(b)We therefore conclude that Rav really holds that - "Chukah" is Me'akev, but not 'Toras' ...

(c)... and when he said "Torah ve'Chukah", he meant - that even though the Torah writes "Toras" it is not Me'akev unless it adds the word "Chukah".

6)

(a)The reason that Rav gives for some of the aspects of the Avodas ha'Minchah mentioned in Tzav being Me'akev, despite the fact that the Torah writes there "Cok Olam" (in the Pasuk "Kol Zachar bi'Venei Aharon Yochlenah, Chok Olam ... ") is - because the Torah repeats in Tzav what it already wrote in Vayikra.

(b)But did we not just learn that - according to Rav "Chukah" alone denotes that it is Me'akev?

(c)We did indeed - only the Pasuk specifically refers to the Din of *eating* the Minchah, whereas Rav is speaking about aspects of the Avodah.

7)

(a)We retract from the previous suggestion however, based on the Mishnah later, which rules that - the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim as well as the two Bazichei Levonah, are Me'akev each other, as are the Lechem ha'Panim and the Bazichei Levonah.

(b)The source for these rulings - is the Pasuk in Emor "Ve'ichluhu be'Makom Kadosh ... Chok Olam" ...

(c)... from which we see that - even "Chukah" that is written with regard to Achilah is Me'akev in other areas of Halachah, too.

8)

(a)And the reason that Rav declines to learn from 'Chukah' by Minchah is because the Torah writes in Vayikra "mi'Girsah u'mi'Shamnah". We learn from the extra 'Hey' in both words that - all the ground flour and the oil of the Minchah must remain intact.

(b)Now if "Chukah" by Minchah was Me'akev - the Torah would not need the two extra 'Heys'. In other words, Chukah by Minchah is La'av Davka', and, besides what we learn from "mi'Girsah u'mi'Shamnah", it is only what the Torah repeats in Tzav that is Me'akev.

9)

(a)We just quoted Rav, who holds that in whichever aspect of the Avodah the Torah repeats itself, it is Me'akev. Shmuel holds that although Geres and Shemen are Me'akev (as we explained earlier), nothing else is.

(b)The problem with this is - why Shmuel disagrees with the principle of Tana bei K'ra Le'akev.

(c)And we conclude that Shmuel agrees on principle that repetition constitutes Le'akev, and he argues with Rav over "M'lo Kumtzo" (in Shemini [where the Torah writes "Vayemalei Chapo mimenah"]) and "be'Kumtzo" (Tzav) - from which we learn that the Kohen may not make a measure for the Kometz (as we learned in the first Perek).

(d)Shmuel declines to learn that it is Me'akev - since the Chidush is written in Shemini, which discusses the Din of the Milu'im (a momentary ruling [Hora'as Sha'ah]), and he does not learn Doros from Sha'ah.

10)

(a)We already cited Shmuel in the first Perek, who learns that even though the liquid measures do not sanctify solids and vice-versa, the bowls (for the blood) do. His source for this is - the Pasuk in Naso (in connection with the Chanukas Mizbe'ach of the Besi'sim) "Sheneihem Melei'im So'les".

(b)Although he declines on principle to learn Doros from Sha'ah (regarding Midah le'Kometz or anywhere else), he nevertheless learns Doros from Sha'ah regarding the Din of K'lei Shareis Mekadshin - because it is repeated, not just once, but twelve times.

11)

(a)When the Pasuk writes in Tzav "Zos Toras ha'Minchah Hakreiv osah b'nei Aharon lifnei Hash-m", it is referring to - Hagashah.

(b)Rav Kahana and Rav Asi queried Rav from this repetition - from our Mishnah, which rules Lo Higish, Kasher.

(c)To which Rav replied that - this Pasuk is not a mere repetition; it is needed to fix the exact location of Hagashah (as we will now see).

12)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Tzav (that we just quoted) ...

1. ... "lifnei Hash-m" that - the Minchah must be brought to the western side of the Mizbe'ach (which faces the Heichal and the D'vir).

2. ... "el P'nei ha'Mizbe'ach that - it must be brought to the southern side (because that is where the Kevesh was situated.

(b)To accommodate both Pesukim - the Minchah had to be brought to the south-western corner (facing the tip of the south-western Keren).

(c)According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Minchah was brought specifically to the southern side of the Mizbe'ach. Rav Ashi bases Rebbi Eliezer's reasoning on the location of the Mizbe'ach - which Rebbi Eliezer holds, was situated on the north side of the Azarah.

(d)Consequently, by taking the Minchah to the south of the Mizbe'ach (which constitutes both "lifnei Hash-m" and "P'nei ha'Mizbe'ach") the Kohen accommodates both Pesukim.