1)
(a)What does the Beraisa say about separating ...
1. ... Terumah from Te'einim on to G'rogros?
2. ... G'rogros on to Te'einim?
(b)The Reisha cannot be speaking in a case where there is a Kohen to whom to give it, due to a Mishnah in T'rumos. What does the Mishnah in T'rumos say about giving Terumah under such circumstances? What is then the problem?
(c)And what is then the problem with the Seifa? What does the Mishnah say there under such circumstances?
(d)How do we therefore reconcile the Reisha with the Seifa?
1)
(a)The Beraisa ...
1. ... permits separating Terumah from Te'einim on to G'rogros, wherever it is common to make G'rogros from Te'einim.
2. ... forbids separating Terumah from G'rogros on to Te'einim, even if it is common to make G'rogros from Te'einim.
(b)The Reisha cannot be speaking in a case where there is a Kohen to whom to give it, due to a Mishnah in T'rumos, which rules that - wherever there is a Kohen, it is better to give the superior quality commodity (and fresh figs are superior to dried ones).
(c)The problem with the Seifa is then - why one does then not give G'rogros, since the Mishnah there rules that wherever there is no Kohen, it is better to give the commodity that lasts longer (and dried-figs last longer than fresh ones).
(d)We therefore reconcile the Reisha with the Seifa - by establishing the former where there are no Kohanim, and the Seifa, where there are.
2)
(a)How else might we have resolved the discrepancy?
(b)What does Rav Papa therefore extrapolate from there?
2)
(a)We might also have resolved the discrepancy - by turning the Beraisa and the Mishnah into a Machlokes Tana'im.
(b)Rav Papa therefore extrapolates from there that - it is preferable to establish two Mishnahs/Beraisos in two different cases, than to turn it into a Machlokes Tana'im.
3)
(a)We already discussed our Mishnah Kol ha'Menachos Niloshos be'Poshrin u'Meshamran she'Lo Yachmitzu. What does the Tana say about someone who kneads, shapes or bakes the Minchah as Chametz, after the Kemitzah has been performed?
(b)He quotes the Pasuk in Tzav "Kol ha'Minchah asher Takrivu la'Hashem Lo Sa'aseh Chametz". To which part of the Mishnah does this pertain?
3)
(a)We already discussed our Mishnah Kol ha'Menachos Niloshos be'Poshrin u'Meshamran she'Lo Yachmitzu. The Tana rules that someone who kneads, shapes or bakes the Minchah as Chametz, after the Kemitzah has been performed - transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh.
(b)He quotes the Pasuk "Kol ha'Minchah asher Takrivu la'Hashem Lo Sa'aseh Chametz" - pertaining to the Reisha of our Mishnah (which refers to before the Kemitzah).
4)
(a)What does Resh Lakish learn from the Pasuk there "Lo Se'afeh Chametz, Chelkam ... "?
(b)Having already written in Vayikra "Lo Se'aseh Chametz" in Vayikra, what does the Beraisa learn from "Lo Se'afeh Chametz" here?
(c)We also include Kituf in this D'rashah. What is Kituf? Why might we have thought that one is not Chayav for performing it alone
(d)How can Resh Lakish learn then learn his D'rashah from the same Pasuk?
4)
(a)Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk there "Lo Se'afeh Chametz, Chelkam ... " that - even the portion of the Kohanim may not be baked as Chametz (the source of the Seifa of our Mishnah).
(b)Having already written "Lo Se'aseh Chametz" in Vayikra, the Beraisa learns from "Lo Se'afeh Chametz" here that - just as one is Chayav for the baking alone, so too, is one Chayav for just kneading or shaping it ...
(c)... even including in this D'rashah Kituf - smoothening the surface of the dough with water, despite the fact that it is not as much as a Melachah as the others.
(d)We therefore conclude that Resh Lakish learns the above D'rashah (not from "Le Se'afeh Chametz", but) - from the juxtaposition of "Chelkam" to the Pasuk.
55b-----------------55b
5)
(a)Bearing in mind Resh Lakish's D'rashah "(Lo Se'afeh Chametz, Chelkam"), how does the Tana know to Darshen a second D'rashah from the same Pasuk (as we just explained)?
(b)We ask how he knows to include all the other Melachos that we discussed. Perhaps one is only Chayav for baking, which the Pasuk in Tzav specifically mentions? What principle do we cite to answer the Kashya?
(c)How does that apply to our case?
(d)We also ask why "Lo Se'aseh Chametz" is not a K'lal, and "Lo Se'afeh Chametz" a P'rat. What if they would be?
(e)What does Rebbi Apturiki answer? Why is it not a Klal u'P'rat?
5)
(a)Despite Resh Lakish's D'rashah "(Lo Se'afeh Chametz, Chelkam"), the Tana knows to Darshen a second D'rashah from the same Pasuk (as we just explained) - because the Torah inverts the order, and writes "Lo Se'afeh Chametz, Chelkam", instead of "Chelkam Lo Se'afeh Chametz".
(b)To answer the Kashya how he knows to include all the other Melachos that we discussed. Perhaps one is only Chayav for baking, which the Pasuk in Tzav specifically mentions, we cite the principle Kol Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal, Ve'yatza min ha'K'lal Lelamed, Lo Lelamed al Atzmo Yatza, Ela Lelamed al ha'K'lal Kulo Yatza (Whatever was included in the initial K'lal, and which the Torah then mentions specifically, it does so with reference to the entire K'lal, not just with reference to itself).
(c)Consequently, in our case - since baking was included in the original Pasuk in Vayikra ("Asiyah"), when the Torah specifically mentions it in Tzav, it does not just apply to itself, but to everything included in the initial K'lal (any Melachah that is included in "Asiyah".
(d)We also ask why "Lo Se'aseh Chametz" is not a K'lal, and "Lo Se'afeh Chametz" a P'rat in which case - we would apply the principle Ein bi'Ch'lal Ela Mah she'bi'P'rat, and one would only be Chayav for baking the Minchah as Chametz (but not for any other Melachah).
(e)Rebbi Apturiki answers that - a K'lal and P'rat that are far apart, are not considered a 'K'lal u'P'rat', and here the K'lal is in Vayikra and the P'rat, in Tzav.
6)
(a)Rav Ada bar Ahavah (or Kadi) queries this answer from a Beraisa. The Torah writes by the Sa'ir Nasi (in Vayikra) "Veshachat oso bi'Mekom asher Yishachet es ha'Olah". What does this teach us?
(b)How do we reconcile this with the Pasuk in Tzav "bi'Mekom asher Tishachet ha'Olah Tishachet ha'Chatas", which seems to be teaching us the same thing?
(c)What alternative might we learn from these two Pesukim, based on the former Pasuk?
(d)And what does the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'shachat es ha'Chatas bi'Mekom ha'Olah" finally come to teach us?
6)
(a)Rav Ada bar Ahavah (or Kadi) queries this answer from a Beraisa. The Torah writes by the Sa'ir Nasi (in Vayikra) "Veshachat oso bi'Mekom asher Yishachet es ha'Olah" to teach us that - Sa'ir Chatas of a Nasi requires Tzafon.
(b)We reconcile this with the Pasuk in Tzav "bi'Mekom asher Tishachet ha'Olah Tishachet ha'Chatas" (which seems to be teaching us the same thing) - by establishing the latter Pasuk as a 'Binyan Av' to incorporate all Chata'os in the Din of Tzafon.
(c)Alternatively, we might learn from these two Pesukim (based on the former Pasuk) - that only the Sa'ir Nasi requires Tzafon, but not other Chata'os.
(d)And we conclude that - the Pasuk "Ve'shachat es ha'Chatas bi'Mekom ha'Olah" is a 'Binyan Av' to include all Chata'os in the Din of Tzafon.
7)
(a)However, were it not for the third Pasuk, we would have learned the first two Pesukim in the way that we explained. How do we think to correlate them?
(b)Why does this pose a Kashya on Rebbi Apturiki?
(c)Rav Ashi refutes this Kashya on the grounds that, even if the one was a P'rat and the other a K'lal, they could not possibly be considered a K'lal u'P'rat. Why not?
(d)What would be the Din if it was a K'lal u'P'rat?
(e)On what basis then, did we suggest that the Din of Shechting a Chatas in the north is confined to the Sa'ir Nasi (from the Pasuk "Ve'shachat oso bi'Mekom ... ")?
7)
(a)However, were it not for the third Pasuk, we would have learned the first two Pesukim in the way that we explained. We think to correlate them - by turning them into a K'lal u'P'rat ...
(b)... even though they are written far apart, thereby posing a Kashya on Rebbi Apturiki.
(c)Rav Ashi refutes this Kashya on the grounds that, even if the one was a P'rat and the other a K'lal, they could not possibly be considered a K'lal u'P'rat - because the Pasuk "Ve'shachat oso" (by Sa'ir Nasi) is written first, in which case it would be a P'rat u'K'lal ...
(d)... which would then include all Chata'os in the Din of Tzafon.
(e)And our suggestion that the Din of Shechting a Chatas in the north is confined to the Sa'ir Nasi is based (not on K'lal u'P'rat, but) on the word "oso", which is a 'Miy'ut'.
8)
(a)Now that we include all Chata'os in the Din of Tzafon (from the third Pasuk), we try to learn from "Oso" 'Oso be'Tzafon, ve'Ein Sa'ir Nachshon be'Tzafon'. Why might we have otherwise thought that Sa'ir Nachshon required Tzafon?
(b)This D'rashah goes like Rebbi Yehudah. What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Sa'ir Nachshon) "Vesamach Yado al Rosh ha'Sa'ir"?
(c)Rebbi Shimon learns from this Pasuk "Lerabos Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim li'Semichah'. What is now the problem according to Rebbi Shimon?
(d)Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari explains that the problem exists even according to Rebbi Yehudah. Why is that? How does he query our initial contention, linking the Din of Tzafon to that of Semichah?
(e)So what is the Kashya?
8)
(a)Now that we include all Chata'os in the Din of Tzafon (from the third Pasuk), we try to learn from "Oso" 'Oso be'Tzafon, ve'Ein Sa'ir Nachshon be'Tzafon'. We might otherwise have thought that Sa'ir Nachshon required Tzafon - because it required Semichah.
(b)This D'rashah goes like Rebbi Yehudah, who learns that the Pasuk "Vesamach Yado al Rosh ha'Sa'ir" - comes to include Sa'ir Nachshon.
(c)Rebbi Shimon learns from this Pasuk "Lerabos Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim li'Semichah'. The problem is then - why we will need to preclude Sa'ir Nachshon from Tzafon from "Oso" (seeing as it does not write Semichah by Sa'ir Nachshon).
(d)Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari explains that the problem exists even according to Rebbi Yehudah. He queries our initial contention, linking the Din of Tzafon to that of Semichah - due to the principle Mai de'Israbi Israbi ... (What the Torah includes [Semichah] it includes ... . But that is no reason to think that we will also include Tzafon).
(e)The Kashya therefore remains - why we need "Oso" to preclude Sa'ir Nachshon from Tzafon.
9)
(a)How do we know that we don't need "Oso" to preclude Se'ir Nachshon from Tzafon, to avoid learning it from a Binyan Av from other Chata'os?
(b)Why, at the end of the day, do we not need a Pasuk to include Sa'ir Nachshon in the Din of Semichah?
(c)What does that prove (with regard to Tzafon)?
9)
(a)We cannot need "Oso" to preclude Se'ir Nachshon from Tzafon, to avoid learning it from a Binyan Av from other Chata'os - because if Se'ir Nachshon was considered a regular Chatas, then the Torah would not need "ve'Samach Yado ... " to include it in the Din of Semichah.
(b)At the end of the day, we need a Pasuk to include Sa'ir Nachshon in the Din of Semichah - because otherwise, we could not learn Sha'ah (a once only Din) from Doros (an ongoing one).
(c)And it is by the same token - that we do not need "Oso" to preclude Sa'ir Nachshon from Tzafon.