1)

(a)Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael asks - whether Davar ha'Lameid be'Hekesh, Chozer u"Melameid be'Binyan Av or Eino Chozer u"Melameid be'Binyan Av.

(b)We extrapolate from there that - he holds Davar ha'Lameid be'Hekesh, Chozer u"Melameid be'Kal-va'Chomer (seeing as a Kal-va'Chomer is stronger than a Binyan Av).

(c)Rebbi Yirmiyah tries to resolve the She'eilah based on the same sources as those used by Rebbi Yochanan to prove that Davar ha'Lameid be'Hekesh, Eino Chozer u"Melameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah that - if the Torah held ... Chozer u"Melameid be'Binyan Av, it would have been unnecessary to write "Tzafonah" by Asham (since it could have learned it from a Binyan Av from Chatas).

(d)We counter that, if that is so, we could certainly learn Tzafon by Asham directly from Olah. If we don't, it must be because of a Pircha on the latter Limud, and by the same token, there is a Pircha on the former one, too). We cannot in fact, learn Tzafon by Asham ...

1. ... directly from Olah - because the latter is entirely burned.

2. ... from a Binyan Av from Chatas - because a Chatas comes to atone for Chayvei K'riysus.

2)

(a)We now have three Pesukim which teach us Tzafon by Kodshei Kodshim. We cannot learn ...

1. ... Olah from Chatas and Asham - because they both come to atone (which an Olah does not [because an Asei, which the Olah comes to atone for, is not considered a Kaparah when compared to them]).

2. ... Chatas from Olah and Asham - because they are both male animals (whereas a Chatas Yachid is a female).

3. ... Asham from Olah and Chatas - because they can both be Korb'nos Tzibur as well as Korb'nos Yachid (whereas an Asham can only be brought as a Korban Yachid).

3)

(a)We now ask about 'Davar ha'Lameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah' whether Chozer u"Melameid be'Hekesh'. Rav Papa quotes the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Zos Toras Zevach ha'Shelamim, Im al Todah Yakrivenu". We learn there ...

1. ... that - just as one can use Ma'aser-Sheini money to purchase a Korban Shelamim, so too, can one use it to purchase a Korban Todah.

2. ... from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Sham" "Sham" from Ma'aser Sheini that - one can use Ma'aser-Sheini money to purchase a Shelamim.

(b)

1. Rav Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari refutes the proof from there that Davar ha'Lameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah', Chozer u"Melameid be'Hekesh - on the grounds that Ma'aser Sheini is Chulin (and not Kodshim).

2. And Ravina rejects Rav Zutra's refutation - on the grounds that, even though Ma'aser is Chulin, Shelamim (which is the 'Lameid') is Kodshim.

(c)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether in order to fall under the category of Lameid min ha'Lameid be'Kodshi, one needs both the Melameid and the Lameid to be Kodesh (Rav Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari) or if just the Lameid is sufficient (Ravina).

4)

(a)So Davar ha'Lameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah, Chozer u"Melameid be'Hekesh remains unresolved. Rami bar Chama cites a Beraisa to try and resolve the She'eilah whether ... Chozer u"Melameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah or Ein Chozer u"Melameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah. Besides ten Chametz loaves - three kinds of Matzah loaves accompany the Todah, ten Chalos loaves, ten wafer loaves and ten loaves that have been pre-boiled (Murbeches).

(b)We learn from "So'les Murbeches that - the ten Murbeches loaves consist of So'les (fine flour), and not of Kemach (unrefined flour).

(c)We learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah ...

1. ..."Chalos" "Chalos" from Murbeches that - the same applies to the Chalos.

2. ... "Matzos" "Matzos" that - it applies to the wafer-Chalos, too.

(d)Assuming that the second Limud is from Chalos, Rami bar Chama extrapolates from there that - Davar ha'Lameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah, Chozer u"Melameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah.

(e)Ravina refutes that however - by suggesting that the second Limud is not from Chalos, but from Minchas Ma'afeh-Tanur, where the word "Matzos" is also used, and where "So'les" is mentioned explicitly.

5)

(a)So Rava learns it from another source. The Beraisa which discusses the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, learns from ...

1. ... the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Kirbo u'Firsho ... Ve'hotzi" that - the Par must be taken outside Yerushalayim complete (not cut-up).

2. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Rosho al Kera'av" "Rosho al Kera'av" from Olas Tzon that - it must be cut into pieces before being burned.

(b)And "ve'Kirbo u'Pirsho" (which is written in the same Pasuk as "ve'es Or ha'Par ve'es Besaro") comes to teach us that - just as its dung is burned without being removed from the animal (since it would be disgusting to do so), so too is the skin burned whilst it is still attached to the flesh (without Hefshet), as Rav Papa explains.

(c)Whilst in another Beraisa, Rebbi learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Or u'Basar u'Peresh" from "Or u'Basar u'Peresh" (by Par Kohen Mashi'ach) that - the Par ve'Sa'ir shel Yom ha'Kipurim too must be cut into pieces without the skin being removed.

(d)Rava has proved from here that - Davar ha'Lameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah, Chozer u"Melameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah.

6)

(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah whether Davar ha'Lameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah Chozer u"Melameid be'Kal-va'Chomer or not from Davar ha'Lameid be'Hekesh, Chozer u"Melameid be'Kal-va'Chomer - because if Davar ha'Lameid be'Hekesh (where we say 'Eino Melameid be'Hekesh', yet 'Chozer u'Melameid be'Kal-va'Chomer, then Davar ha'Lameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah, where we say Chozer u"Melameid be'Hekesh, we should certainly say Chozer u'Melameid be'Kal-va'Chomer ...

(b)... though this will only work according to Rav Papa - who goes after the Lameid, because according to those who go after the Melameid (Rav Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari), we concluded Davar ha'Lameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah Eino Chozer u"Melameid be'Hekesh).

(c)We finally resolve the She'eilah from a Kal-va'Chomer from Davar ha'Lameid be'Hekesh, where we say Chozer u"Melameid be'Kal-va'Chomer - even though we hold Eino Chozer u'Melameid be'Hekesh (like itself), then Davar ha'Lameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah, where we say Chozer u"Melameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah (like itself), we should certainly say Chozer u'Melameid be'Kal-va'Chomer.

(d)In response to the She'eilah as to whether Davar ha'Lameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah Chozer u"Melameid be'Binyan Av or not - we remain with - Teiku (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Iba'ayos).

7)

(a)We ask whether Davar ha'Lameid be'Kal-va'Chomer Chozer u'Melameid be'Hekesh or not. We resolve it from Davar ha'Lameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah she'Einah Lemeidah min ha'Hekesh like Rebbi Yochanan - yet we hold Chozer u'Melameid be'Hekesh (like Rav Papa), then Kal-va'Chomer Davar ha'Lameid min ha'Hekesh, should certainly be Chozer Melameid be'Hekesh.

(b)If we don't hold like Rav Papa - then we remain with a Teiku.

(c)We resolve the She'eilah whether Davar ha'Lameid be'Kal-va'Chomer, Chozer u"Melameid ...

1. ... bi'Gezeirah-Shavah, from a Kal-va'Chomer from Ge'zeirah-Shavah sheMelameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah - even though it is Eino Chozer u"Melameid be'Hekesh, then Kal-va'Chomer, ha'Lameid be'Hekesh should certainly be Melameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah.

2. ... be'Kal-va'Chomer from a Gezeirah-Shavah she'Melameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah - even though it is not Lameid from a Hekesh, a Kal-va'Chomer, which is Lameid from a Hekesh, should certainly be MeLameid a Kal-va'Chomer.

8)

(a)When we refer to this is a Kal-va'Chomer ben Kal-va'Chomer, we mean that - we learn this Kal-va'Chomer from a Gezeirah-Shavah ha'Melameid Kal-va'Chomer, which is itself learned from a Kal-va'Chomer (as we just explained).

(b)And when we query this on the grounds that it is not a ben Kal-va'Chomer, but a ben b'no shel Kal va'Chomer, we mean that - even if we were to learn it from something that was not learned from a Kal-va'Chomer, it would be a ben Kal-va'Chomer (seeing as it is to begin with, a Kal-va'Chomer that is learned from a Kal-va'Chomer). Consequently, now that it is learned from something that is learned from a Kal-va'Chomer, it is a ben B'no shel Kal-va'Chomer'.

(c)So we learn it instead from a Hekesh she'Melameid be'Kal-va'Chomer - even though it is not Lameid from a Hekesh, a Kal-'va'Chomer, which is Lameid from a Hekesh, should certainly be MeLameid with a Kal-va'Chomer.

(d)This is not a ben B'no shel Kal va'Chomer - because Hekesh Melameid be'Kal-va'Chomer' is learned, not from a Kal-va'Chomer, but from Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael.

9)

(a)We now discuss whether a Davar ha'Lameid be'Kal-va'Chomer, Chozer u"Melameid be'Binyan-Av. Nivlas Of Tahor - only makes the person who eats it Tamei (Metamei be'Beis ha'Beli'ah [but not by touching, like other Tum'os]).

(b)Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Yirmiyah, rules that if a bird turns out to be T'reifah after the Kohen performed Melikah - it is not Metamei be'Beis ha'Beli'ah.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah rules ...

1. ... in that case that - it is Metamei be'Beis ha'Beli'ah (because Melikas T'reifah does not remove the Tum'as Neveilah), and the same will apply ...

2. ... to a Chulin bird that one Shechts and which then turns out to be a Treifah.

10)

(a)Rebbi Meir Darshens a Kal-va'Chomer from a Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah that turns out to be T'reifah after it has been Shechted, yet the Shechitah removes the Tum'as Neveilah - then the Shechitah of a T'reifah Of Tahor which is not Metamei be'Maga u've'Masa like a Nivlas Beheimah) should certainly remove the Tum'as Neveilah.

(b)And he then learns the Melikah of Of Kodshim - via a Binyan-Av from the Shechitah of Of Chulin, since the former, like the latter, permits the bird to be eaten.

(c)Rebbi Yossi, who concedes to Rebbi Meir that the Shechitah of a T'reifas Of Chulin removes the Tum'as Neveilah - argues by the Melikah of a T'reifas Of Kodshim, because, he says, we cannot learn Melikah from Shechitah.

(d)We are trying to prove from Rebbi Meir that - Davar ha'Lameid be'Kal-va'Chomer, Chozer u'Melameid be'Binyan-Av.

11)

(a)We refute this proof however, on the grounds that Rebbi Meir really derives his ruling from a Hekesh - from the Pasuk in Shemini "Zos Toras ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Of", comparing all birds to animals.

(b)And even if he learns it from a Binyan-Av (as the Beraisa states), we do not have an absolute proof that Davar ha'Lameid be'Kal-va'Chomer, Chozer u'Melameid be'Bimyan-Av (bearing in mind that his source is Shechitah of Chulin) - because, according to those who argue with Rav Papa (and go after the Melameid), this will fall under the category of Lameid min ha'Lameid be'Chulin.