Question: If so, it should teach Olah at the end, like it asks in Yevamos (3a) regarding Achos Ishah (for it is explicit in the Torah, and need not be expounded)!

Answer: Since Olah is brought b'Tzibur, it is taught together with Chata'os, which come b'Tzibur, and later it teaches Asham, which only individuals bring.

Question: Above (32b) we expound Ben Bakar Lifnei Hash-m, but the Shochet need not be Lifnei Hash-m. We did not ask what is the source for Ben Tzon?

Also for several Drashos we do not obligate two verses for Ben Bakar and Ben Tzon!

Answer #1: Perhaps he relies on this Drashah of Vov Mosif [Al Inyan Rishon].

Answer #2: Because it is written regarding Ben Tzon "Oso" to exclude, we need here to include (but elsewhere, there is no exclusion, so we do not need an inclusion);

However, in the case of Ben Bakar Lifnei Hash-m, and Semichah and flaying, it is fine that it does not say "what is the source for Ben Tzon", for obviously we learn the latter Parshah from the former. However, the Havah Amina was that we do not learn the former from the latter.

Question: How do we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah Mitzvos-Mitzvos? Chatas Chelev itself is learned from a Hekesh, like it says "the entire Torah is equated to Avodah Zarah"!

Answer: In such a case it is not considered something learned from a Hekesh which does not return to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah, since if not for the Hekesh, we would establish it for everything, and the Hekesh comes only to say that we discuss only [Aveiros] of Kares.

Question: We say in Gitin (41b) that all agree that a Gezeirah Shavah is stronger [than a Hekesh]!

Answer #1: We say [here] that all agree that a Hekesh is stronger, i.e. it is better that we make a Gezeirah Shavah half-way than to totally nullify the Hekesh;

However, there we equate "Oh Chupashah", i.e. a document [of freedom] to "Hefdah Lo Nifdasah", i.e. [freedom through] money, to teach that one who half-frees an Eved [Kena'ani] through a document, it helps just like through money;

It says that the Gezeirah Shavah "Lah-Lah" from [divorce of] a woman is stronger. Just like for a woman, half [divorce] does not help (also for a slave).

There, the Hekesh is not totally nullified. Perhaps it is needed for other matters.

Answer #2: We know a document [of freedom] for a Shifchah Kena'anis only through the Gezeirah Shavah "Lah-Lah" from a woman. Therefore, it says that the Gezeirah Shavah is stronger;

It is better to make the Gezeirah Shavah so that a document for a Shifchah will be like a Get of a woman, so halfway will not help, than to make it like money which is taught nearby [via a Hekesh] v'Hefdah, for we learn a document of freedom Get Ishah. This is primary. This is from R. Baruch.

Explanation (Rashi): Danka (a sixth of a Dinar) is not precise. Rather, it is cheap. The Torah did not fix an amount.

Support: He is correct, for it says so explicitly in Kerisus (27a) regarding "why didn't the Torah give a Shi'ur for Mechusar Kipurim?" It asks "according to this, Chatas Chelev should have a Shi'ur!"

Question: In Kerisus (10b) it connotes that [the Shi'ur is] a Sela, regarding one who says "it is Alai (incumbent on me) to bring [a Korban] to the Mizbe'ach for a Sela, he brings a lamb, for only a lamb is offered for a Sela!

This Sela is without the Nesachim, for it says that the Torah had mercy on [an Oni] to bring [birds for a quarter Dinar,] one part in 16 of what an Ashir brings. (An Ashir does not bring Nesachim with his Chatas.)

Answer: There it is the ideal Mitzvah [to bring for a Sela, but one may be Yotzei through a Korban of any value].

Explanation: This is an argument in Menachos (3b).

Observation: We could have asked also according to Rabanan, what is their source that Asham must cost two Shekalim for all Ashamos, since they do not expound Zos Toras.

Question: If Rabanan have the Gezeirah Shavah b'Erkecha-b'Erkecha, what do they learn from "v'Im Nefesh"?

And if they do not have it, what is their source that Asham Gezeilos must cost two Shekalim?

Answer (R. Tam): Even though they have the Gezeirah Shavah, they need "v'Im Nefesh" so the Safek will not be more stringent than the Vadai.

Support: It says like this in Kerisus (22b). Rabanan [hold that] even though it is written Zos Toras, they need "v'Im Nefesh"... for if [we learned only from] Zos Toras, I would say that this is for other Ashamos, but Asham Taluy, the Safek should not be more stringent than the Vadai.

Question: According to Rabanan, from the Gezeirah Shavah b'Erkecha they should learn also Asham Taluy for Safek Me'ilah!

Answer: B'Erkecha connotes to equate only regarding two Shekalim of silver.

Support: For this reason, R. Akiva needs "v'Im Nefesh" for Safek Me'ilah.

Reference: In Toras Kohanim, it learns Asham Shifchah for two Shekalim from a Gezeirah Shavah Asham-Asham. [It continues] perhaps [we learn] even Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora...! It says "Hu".

The reason it excludes Asham Nazir and Metzora more than other Ashamos is because they are yearling lambs, like Rashi explained. (Others are second-year rams.)

Question: Why do we need a verse? [The Shochet] need not even be Lifnei Hash-m, like we expounded above (32b) "Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hash-m", and not the Shochet Lifnei Hash-m!

Answer: Here he holds like R. Shimon ha'Temani, who expounds this verse ("Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hash-m") differently there.

Question: Why don't we ask [this Pircha] in Kidushin (36b), which learns a Kal v'Chomer "the Torah did not require a Kohen for Shechitah of Ben Tzon, but it requires a Kohen for its Haza'ah. The Torah requires a Kohen for Melikah of a bird. All the more so it should require a Kohen for its Haza'ah!"

Answer #1: There, the entire Kal v'Chomer is about [requiring] a Kohen. It is not applicable to ask from a Kli.

Answer #2: Since the Kal v'Chomer is from Haza'ah, it is not applicable to ask from a Kli for Shechitah.

Question: We should make a Kal v'Chomer from place! For Ben Tzon, [the Torah] did not fix [Shechitah] on the Mizbe'ach, but it fixed a place in the north;

The Torah requires Melikah of a bird on the Mizbe'ach, like we expound (below, 65a) just like Haktarah is on top of the Mizbe'ach, also Melikah. All the more so it should require the north for Melikah!"

Note: This refers to Olas ha'Of, for which Melikah and Haktarah are on top of the Mizbe'ach. Melikas Chatas ha'Of is not on top of the Mizbe'ach, and it has no Haktarah! The coming words of Tosfos refute a potential source for Chatas ha'Of, that its Melikah should be in the north.

Implied question: A bird, since the Torah called it Chatas, should require the north, due to "Zos Toras ha'Chatas"!

Answer: Perhaps "Zos Toras" discusses only Korbanos that require Shechitah.

Question: Also this we learn from Rav Achya! Since he needs to exclude Shochet, this implies that Kabalah in the north!

If Kabalah were not in the north, why would we need a verse to exclude Shochet, like Rav Achya says "since we find that Kabalah is in the north, perhaps also this (Shechitah)"?!

Answer: Perhaps Rav Achya expounds "v'Lakach" - Lo Yikach" (he will take himself to the north), but we do not expound so.

Explanation (Rashi): This is like he said "but the Mekabel is in the north."

Question #1: We expound from "Oso" written regarding Olah "and not the Shochet in the north", and we expound from "Oso" written regarding Chatas "but the Mekabel is in the north." If so, what is the source that l'Chatchilah, for Olah the Mekabel is in the north? (Tosfos did not ask about Kabalah of Olah. Shitah Mekubetzes - the Torah taught that Chatas is slaughtered in the place of Olah, and it says v'Lakach, i.e. also Kabalah is in the same place. Alternatively, for Olah it says "v'Shachat... v'Hikrivu." V'Hikrivu teaches about Kabalah, we learn that Kabalah is in the place of Shechitah.)

Question #2: Regarding Asham we need two verses for l'Chatchilah - for Kabalah and the Mekabel! (Even if we learn about the Mekabel, we cannot learn from it Kabalah.)

Question #3: What is the source that Mekabel [in the north] is Me'akev for Chatas? We find that the Torah repeated only regarding Shechitah and Kabalah, but not for the Mekabel!

Answer (to Question #3): Since we find that l'Chatchilah, Mekabel (is in the north), likewise it is Me'akev. (Tosfos does not answer his first two questions.)

Support: We say like this above (4a) "it says Zevichah regarding Shinuy Kodesh, and Zevichah regarding Shinuy Ba'alim. Just like you do not distinguish..."