1)

(a)The question as to what we learn from "Oso" (of the Sa'ir Nasi, "Ve'shachat Oso bi'Mekom ... ") remains. We reject the suggestion that we Darshen 'Oso ba'Tzafon, ve'Ein Shochet ba'Tzafon' - because we already know that from an identical D'rashah of Rebbi Achya ...

(b)... but from "Oso" (in connection with the Korban Tamid) "Ve'shachat al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach").

(c)We would otherwise have thought that the Shochet must also stand in the north - based on the fact that the Kohen who receives the blood is obligated to do so.

(d)We then try to learn from "Oso" (of the Sa'ir Nasi) 'Oso, ve'Lo ben Of', which we would have thought needs to be Shechted in the north - because if a Chatas Beheimah, which does not require a Kohen to Shecht it, requires Tzafon, a ben Of, which needs a Kohen to perform the Melikah, certainly should.

(e)We refute this suggestion however, on the grounds that a Chatas Beheimah possesses a Chumra in that it requires a K'li Shareis (both for the Shechitah and for the Kabalas Dam), which the latter does not.

2)

(a)So we suggest that "Oso" (of the Sa'ir Nasi) comes to preclude the Korban Pesach from Tzafon. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov in a Beraisa, thinks that the Pesach ought to require Tzafon - because if an Olas Tzon, which does not have a fixed time to Shecht it, requires Tzafon, a Pesach, which does, certainly ought to.

(b)We reject that suggestion too, on the basis of a Chumra that Olah possesses over Pesach - in thyat that an Olah is completely burned, whereas the Pesach is eaten.

(c)Neither can we learn Pesach from ...

1. ... Chatas - because a Chatas atones for Chayvei K'riysus, or from ...

2. ... Asham - because it is Kodshei Kodshim, or even from ...

3. ... all three (Olah, Chatas and Asham) with a Mah ha'Tzad - because in fact, they are all Kodshei Kodshim (whereas Pesach is Kodshim Kalim).

3)

(a)We finally revert to our original suggestion, that "Oso" (of the Sa'ir Nasi) comes to preclude the Shochet, who can be standing in the south whilst he Shechts, whereas from "Ve'shachat Oso" (of the Korban Tamid) Rebbi Achya extrapolates that - (not Ein Shochet ba'Tzafon, but) - 'Ein Shochet ba'Tzafon, Aval Mekabel ba'Tzafon'.

(b)Although the Sugya in Zevachim learned this from "Velakach" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra, in connection with a Chatas, "Velakach mi'Dam ha'Chatas"), which we Darshen 'Lo Yikach' [he should receive the blood where the Chatas is - Rebbi Achya does not hold of that D'rashah.

4)

(a)Rav Papa rules that someone who bakes the Lechem ha'Panim as Chametz receives two sets of Malkos - because we assume that baking is the final stage of shaping (and therefore incorporates it).

(b)The problem with this (from the Beraisa Mah Afiyah Meyuchedes she'Hi Ma'aseh Yechidi ... ) is - the implication that baking is an independent Melachah (and that it does not incorporate any other Melachos).

(c)So we draw a distinction between a case where the person who baked the dough also cut it (Rav Papa) and where somebody else cut it (the Beraisa [Rabeinu Gershom]).

5)

(a)If a B'chor Beheimah is stricken with Achizas Dam (a blood infection), Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa confines letting its blood to a location which will not result in a blemish - to preclude the ears and the eyes.

(b)The Chachamim permit it even in those two locations - provided they do not use that as an excuse to Shecht it.

(c)A blemish will permit the B'chor to be eaten according to all opinions - if it comes about automatically.

(d)Rebbi Shimon holds like the Chachamim, but he even permits the B'chor to be eaten - because he holds Davar she'Ein Miskaven, Mutar (and creating a blemish for the animal's health, and not in order to be allowed to eat it, is considered Davar she'Ein Miskaven [see also Tosfos]).

6)

(a)The most stringent opinion of all is that of Rebbi Yehudah - who forbids letting the blood of a B'chor even if it will otherwise die ...

(b)... because he holds that when a monetary loss is involved, a person becomes so harassed that if one were to permit him to let blood, he would do so, irrespective of whether the location is one which renders it a Ba'al-Mum or not.

7)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the dual Pesukim (in Vayikra and Tzav respectively) "Lo Se'aseh Chametz ... and "ve'Lo Se'afeh Chametz" that Mechametz Achar Mechametz is Chayav) - even though the person who kneads (for example) the Minchah as Chametz is Chayav, the one who subsequently shapes it is Chayav as well.

(b)And he says the same regarding the Pasuk in Emor "u'Ma'uch, ve'Chasus, ve'Nasuk, ve'Charus" (in connection with the castration of an animal) - a prohibition against squashing the Beitzim, partially severing them, removing them from their bag or severing them completely.

(c)And he learns it - from the fact that the Torah inserts "Nasuk", which we would otherwise know from a Kal-va'Chomer from "Karus".

8)

(a)Whether Matil Achar Matil is also Chayav or not depends on the Machlokes Tana'im regarding letting the blood of the B'chor that has a blood infection (that we are currently discussing). Rebbi Meir holds - Asur, the Rabbanan, Mutar.

(b)Rebbi Meir learns from the word "Kol" (in the Pasuk there "Kol Mum Lo Yih'yeh bo") that making a blemish on a B'chor is Asur under all circumstances; whereas the Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "Tamim Yih'yeh le'Ratzon" that - the prohibition (written later in the Pasuk) is confined to destroying its perfection.

(c)We refute the suggestion that Rebbi Meir learns from "Tamim Yih'yeh le'Ratzon" that a B'chor Ba'al-Mum from birth is precluded from the prohibition - because a Ba'al-Mum from birth has no Kedushah (like a stick), and does not therefore require a Pasuk to preclude it.

(d)We conclude that he learns from there to preclude Pesulei ha'Mukdashin after they have been redeemed, which we would otherwise have included in the prohibition - just like they are included in the prohibition of shearing (for their wool) and working with them.

9)

(a)The Rabbanan, on the other hand, learn from "Kol Mum Lo Yih'yeh bo" that one is not even permitted to cause a blemish to occur on a B'chor. The example the Beraisa gives to illustrate this is - placing a piece of yeast or a fig on its ear, for a dog to come and take it and wound the B'chor's ear in the process.

(b)Rebbi Ami rules that if someone places yeast on a dough of a Minchah and sits down to watch it - he is Chayav like Ma'aseh Shabbos.

(c)We query his concluding words ke'Ma'aseh Shabbos from a statement by Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who said that if someone places meat on to coal on Shabbos - he is Patur unless he turns over the meat.

10)

(a)Rava answers Mai Chayav Nami de'Ka'amar, ke'Ma'aseh Tz'li, by which he means that - he is indeed Chayav for placing the dough on the yeast, since it is comparable to turning over the meat on Shabbos.

(b)The difference between Shabbos and Menachos in this regard is that - with regard to Shabbos the meat requires stoking because otherwise, it will not be properly done (for which one is not Chayav on Shabbos); whereas with regard to Menachos, it will become Chametz whether he attends to it or not.