Question (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari): We find Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar. Ma'aser Sheni (produce) can be redeemed, but produce bought with money of Ma'aser Sheni cannot be redeemed!

(Mishnah): If produce bought with money of Ma'aser Sheni became Tamei, it may be redeemed;

R. Yehudah says, it must be buried. (Rashi - the question is from R. Yehudah, who never allows redeeming produce bought with Ma'aser money. Tosfos - some explain that the question is from Chachamim, who never allow redeeming Tahor produce bought with Ma'aser money, even outside of Yerushalayim.)

Answer: That is not a stringency of produce bought with Ma'aser money. Rather, its Kedushah is too weak to transfer onto money! (We find that it is harder to redeem produce worth less than a Perutah than produce worth more than a Perutah.)

Question: We find Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar regarding Temurah!

Hekdesh does not take effect on a Ba'al Mum (to make it Kedushas ha'Guf), but Temurah takes effect on it.

Answer: Temurah is not more potent, it only imparts Kedushah from Kodshim;

Hekdesh created the Kedushah from Chulin.

Question: We find Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar regarding Korban Pesach!

Pesach does not require Semichah, Nesachim, or Tenufah of the Chazah v'Shok, but (if it was not offered on Pesach it becomes) Mosar Pesach (and) requires these!

Answer: Mosar Pesach becomes a Shelamim. Therefore, it is not considered Tafel to Pesach.

Answer #2 (to Question 5:a, 48b): "Ha'Olah" - its Shechitah and Kabalah must be in the proper place. (If not, it is Pasul.)

Question: What is the source that Tzafon is required for Asham?

Answer: "Bi'Mkom Asher Yishchatu Es ha'Olah Yishchatu Es ha'Asham."

Question: This teaches about Shechitah. What is the source for Kabalah?

Answer: It says "v'Es Damo Yizrok." (Since Zerikah is not in Tzafon,) we use this to teach that Kabalah is in Tzafon.

Question: What is the source that the Kohen who is Mekabel must be in Tzafon?

Answer: "V'Es Damo" is extra to teach this.

Question: We find that l'Chatchilah, all must be in Tzafon. What is the source that this is Me'akev?

Answer: "V'Shachat Es ha'Keves."

Question: This verse teaches something else!

(Beraisa): Something that was part of a Klal (category), and the Torah taught a law about it unlike other elements of the Klal, the laws governing the rest of the Klal do not apply to it unless the Torah explicitly says that they do (returns it to the Klal);

An example is "v'Shachat Es ha'Keves bi'Mkom Asher Yishchat Es ha'Chatas v'Es ha'Olah bi'Mkom ha'Kodesh Ki ka'Chatas ha'Asham Hu";

Question: Why must the Torah teach "ka'Chatas ha'Asham"?

Answer: Because the Torah taught a Chidush about Asham Metzora, that some of the blood is put on the ear, thumb and toe, one might have thought that its blood and Eimurim are not put on the Mizbe'ach;

"Ka'Chatas ha'Asham" teaches that it is like a Chatas, and the blood and Eimurim are put on the Mizbe'ach.

Answer: Had the Torah wanted to teach only the law of this Beraisa, it would have taught Tzafon in this verse and not in "Zos Toras ha'Asham" (which teaches about all Ashamos), and we would have learned the other Ashamos from Asham Metzora.

Question: This is a good answer if we hold that the exception to the Klal is not learned from the Klal, but it teaches to the Klal;

However, if we hold that the exception is not learned from the Klal and does not teach about the Klal, the Torah must teach Tzafon in other Ashamos!

Answer: Once the Torah teaches that Asham Metzora is like a Chatas, we already know Tzafon;

"V'Shachat Es ha'Keves bi'Mkom..." is extra to teach that Tzafon is Me'akev.

Question (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari): We should say that the Torah returned Asham Metzora to the Klal (of Ashamos) only for Avodos that require Kehunah, such as Zerikah and Haktaras Eimurim, but not regarding (Shechitah in) Tzafon!

Answer: If so, it should have said 'ka'Chatas Hu';

Rather, it says "ka'Chatas ha'Asham" to teach that it is like other Ashamos (they require Tzafon).

Question: (It says "v'Shachat... bi'Mkom... ha'Chatas v'Es ha'Olah.") Why must the Torah equate (the place of Shechitah of) Asham to (that of) Chatas and Olah?

Answer (Ravina): Had the Torah equated it only to Chatas, one might have thought that we can learn from a Hekesh (to something learned) from a Hekesh (even in Kodshim). We would learn Asham from Chatas (which was learned from Olah);

(Therefore, the Torah was Makish also to Olah, to teach that we could not learn from the Hekesh to Chatas, for Chatas itself was learned from a Hekesh.)

Question (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari): It would have sufficed to Makish Asham to Olah!

Answer (Ravina): If so, we would not learn that we cannot learn Hekesh mi'Hekesh.

Suggestion: Perhaps we could deduce this from the fact that the Torah made the Hekesh to Olah, and not to Chatas!

Rejection: No. We would say that even though we can learn Hekesh mi'Hekesh, the Torah preferred to make the Hekesh from the source;

Rather, the Torah made a Hekesh to Chatas and to Olah, to teach that we cannot learn Hekesh mi'Hekesh.

(Rava): The following is the source that we cannot learn Hekesh mi'Hekesh.

Question: What do we learn from "Ka'asher Yuram mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim" (written regarding Par Mashu'ach)?

It need not teach that we offer the Yoseres ha'Kaved and kidneys. It explicitly mentions them!

Answer: We need to learn Yoseres ha'Kaved and kidneys from Par He'elem Davar to Se'iri Avodah Zarah, but we learned them regarding Par He'elem Davar only from a Hekesh to Par Mashu'ach;

Since "Ka'Asher Yuram..." need not teach about Par Mashu'ach, we use it to teach about Par He'elem Davar. It is as if Yoseres ha'Kaved and the kidneys were explicitly mentioned regarding Par He'elem Davar. (We infer that normally, we cannot learn Hekesh mi'Hekesh.)

Question (Rav Papa): Why didn't the Torah explicitly write Yoseres ha'Kaved and the kidneys regarding Par He'elem Davar (instead of the Hekesh)?

Answer (Rava): If so, we would not learn that we cannot learn Hekesh mi'Hekesh.

Suggestion: Perhaps we would deduce this from the fact that the Torah wrote them explicitly regarding Par He'elem Davar, and did not make a Hekesh!

Rejection: No. We would say that even though we can learn Hekesh mi'Hekesh, the Torah preferred to write it explicitly;

Rather, the Torah made a Hekesh where the law was already explicit, to teach that we cannot learn Hekesh mi'Hekesh.

We cannot learn Hekesh mi'Hekesh. We learn this from Ravina or Rava.

Question: Can (something learned from) a Gezerah Shavah teach through a Hekesh?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Noson ben Avtulmus) Question: What is the source that if Tzara'as spreads over an entire garment, it is Tahor?

Answer: It mentions "Karachas" and "Gabachas" regarding (plagued) garments, like it does regarding Tzara'as of the head;

Just like there, if Tzara'as spreads over the entire head it is Tahor, also regarding garments.

Question: What is the source that if Tzara'as spreads over the entire head, it is Tahor?

Answer: Tzara'as of the head is Hukash to Tzara'as of the skin, about which it says "Kulo Hafach Lavan (Tahor Hu)."

(R. Yochanan): We always learn Lamed from Lamed, except in Kodshim.

If we did learn Lamed from Lamed in Kodshim, the Torah would not need to (make a Hekesh to) teach that Asham requires Tzafon. We would have learned from the Gezerah Shavah "Kodshei Kodoshim-Kodshei Kodoshim" from Chatas!

Since the Torah made such a Hekesh, this teaches that (something learned from) a Hekesh (e.g. that Chatas requires Tzafon) cannot teach through a Gezerah Shavah.

Question: Perhaps, normally, we can learn, but here there is a Pirchah (challenge) against it. Chatas atones for Chayavei Kerisus (and Asham does not)!

Answer: Both sides of the Gezerah Shavah "Kodshei Kodoshim-Kodshei Kodoshim" are extra. If we could learn from a Gezerah Shavah to something learned from a Hekesh, we would not ask a Pirchah.