Explanation: The Torah would write [Shechitah in] the north explicitly regarding Chatas and Asham.

Question: The Torah should have written [Shechitah in the north] regarding Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, and we would learn Olah from them!

Answer: We can challenge this. You cannot learn from Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, for they have a fixed time (Shavu'os);

Also, we could not learn Chatas from them for they are males, and we could not learn Asham, for it does not apply to the Tzibur.

Question: Why do we need a Hekesh below (55a) of Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur to Olah? The Binyan Av should suffice!

Suggestion: It is to teach that they are Kodshei Kodoshim, like Olah.

Rejection: We could have learned from the Hekesh to Chatas below (55a)!

Answer #1: We could challenge it, for [Olah, and also Chatas and Asham] are Tadir (more frequent than Kivsei Atzeres), like it asks in Pesachim (66a that we cannot learn Pesach from Tamid, for the Tamid is Tadir).

Answer #2: We could challenge it, for [Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur] are called Shelamim, which do not require the north.

Question: In Shevuos (9a) we learn Se'ir Rosh Chodesh from the outer goat [of Yom Kipur], which is Mechaper only for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav, and it says "since this comes at a fixed time"...

It discusses the outer goat, like Rashi explained there, for if it were the inner, it should have asked that its blood is brought inside [the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim]!

Also, just the contrary (if it discusses the inner goat), we should rather learn from Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach that it is Mechaper for other Aveiros!

However, now that we learn from the outer goat, this is fine, for [Se'ir Rosh Chodesh and the outer goat] resemble each other more than Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach [and Se'ir Rosh Chodesh].

Summation of question: If so, we should resolve that something learned from a Hekesh returns to teach through a Binyan Av, for the outer goat itself we know only through a Hekesh to the inner!

Answer: We say there that it is a mere Giluy Milsa.

Question: How do we learn in Beitzah (20a) Semichah on Shalmei Chovah through a Binyan Av from Olas Chovah? We know Olas Chovah from "ka'Mishpat", which is a Hekesh!

Answer: It is a mere question that we ask there, what is the source that Beis Hillel [learn Shalmei Chovah from Shalmei Nedavah?] Perhaps they learn from Olas Chovah, i.e. if you will say that something learned from a Hekesh returns to teach through a Binyan Av.

Question: In Menachos (21b), it says "bring a Minchah, and bring salt", and it says "bring a Minchah, and bring wood." Just like wood is from the Tzibur, also salt is from the Tzibur;

Wood itself we know only from the Hekesh to the Mizbe'ach, for it is written "Al ha'Etzim Asher al ha'Mizbe'ach" - just like the Mizbe'ach is from the Tzibur...

Question #1 (Ri of Orlins): Below (98a) and in Menachos (83a) it was taught "just like Chatas is brought only from Chulin..."

Why do we need [to learn from Chatas]? Shelamim and Todah and Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad (two verses, one of which teaches something that we could have learned from the other), and they do not teach [to elsewhere. Just the contrary, the law applies only to them!]

Question #2: How can we learn there from Chatas, since there are Shelamim and Todah, which can come from Ma'aser? We learn them the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah" only something that can apply to everything mentioned in the verse!

Source: This is why we need a verse in Beitzah (20a) that Olas Chovah needs Semichah, and we do not learn from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah", for Semichah is not required for all of them;

Bechor and Ma'aser do not require Semichah, like a Mishnah in Menachos (92a) teaches.

Answer: Every obligation we equate to Chatas. Just like Chatas is an obligation and it is brought only from Chulin, like is proven in Menachos (83a, also every Chovah).

Question: What is the source that Minchas Nedavah comes only from Chulin?

Question: In Chagigah (8a) we expound "mi'Sas" to teach that one brings his Chagigah from Chulin. Why do we need this? It is a Chovah. I already know from the Hekesh!

Answer #1: Because it says there that Chagigah comes also from Ma'aser, we need "mi'Sas" to teach that it cannot come totally from Ma'aser, rather, from both Chulin and Ma'aser.

Answer #2: Because it says Ka'asher Yevarechecha at the end of the verse, one might have thought that it comes from Ma'aser. Therefore, mi'Sas is needed.

Explanation (Rashbam): Did you say? Perhaps you want to say that (what is learned does not return to teach) only if both of them (the Lamed and Melamed) are Kodesh?

Alternative text: R. Tam's text says "Ami Amrah." Ami is the name of a Chacham;

Source: In Yevamos (80a) it says "we heard Ami say that anyone who was stricken from his mother's womb (i.e. from birth), and in Kesuvos (44b) Rava said 'Ami taught a Beraisa "Besulas Yisrael", and not Besulas Gerim.'

Question #1: According to Mar Zutra, the question was not settled. In Menachos (76a), we say that Lachmei Todah and Nezirus, we bring 10 loaves of each kind. This is written explicitly regarding Lachmei Todah;

Explanation: It is written "Mimenu Echad mi'Kol Korban Terumah la'Shem", and it says in Menachos (77b) "it says here "Terumah", and it says there about Terumas Ma'aser "Terumah". Just like there it is one of 10, also here it is one of 10;

[There (76a),] we learn Nezirus from a Hekesh, for it was taught "Al Zevach Todas Shelamav" to include Shalmei Nazir. I.e. all laws of Lachmei Todah apply - we use 10 Yerushalmi Kavim [of fine flour], half a Log of oil, and 10 [loaves].

Inference: The law of [10 loaves of] Todah is learned from a Gezeirah Shavah, and it returns to teach through a Hekesh!

Question #2: Earlier in that Sugya, we learn that all Menachos come 10 [loaves] through a Binyan Av from Lachmei Todah, which is learned from a Gezeirah Shavah from Terumas Ma'aser;

If so, we should resolve that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Binyan Av!

In that Sugya itself, it asks "if we hold that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Binyan Av, we should learn from Chavitei [Kohen Gadol]!

Answer: Terumas Ma'aser there is Chulin, like it says here that Ma'aser of grain is Chulin. (Therefore, we may learn Lamed from Lamed.)

Question: However, this latter question is difficult for Ravina, who holds that it depends on the Lamed (if it is Kodesh, it cannot return to teach). Below, we say Teiku (the question was not resolved)!

Poor answer: According to Ravina, also the question below (if something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah can teach through a Binyan Av) is resolved from Menachos.

Question #1: How can we learn from here that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah returns to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah, that we learn from Par Yom Kipur has dissection without flaying from Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and dissection of Par Kohen Mashi'ach we learn from Olah?

In such a case, even something learned from a Hekesh returns to teach through a Hekesh! Since we expound it regarding [dissection] without flaying, which is not learned for Par Kohen Mashi'ach through a Gezeirah Shavah, we learn dissection along with it, and it is [learned] from it and something else!

Question #2: We learn without flaying regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach from a Hekesh of skin and meat to Peresh (excrement), like Rashi explained, and something learned from a Hekesh does not return to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah!

Answer #1 (to Question #2): Perhaps it is not a Hekesh, rather, a mere Giluy Milsa.

Answer (to Question #1, and Answer #2 to Question #2): Without flaying was mentioned Agav. We need not learn it [from Par Kohen Mashi'ach], for we learn it in Par Yom Kipur itself!

It is written "v'Sarfu va'Esh Es Orosam v'Es Besaram v'Es Pirsham." The skin and meat are equated to Peresh.

Implied question: Above (48b), Rav Ada bar Ahavah learned that Tzafon is Me'akev for Olah from a Kal v'Chomer from Chatas, and then he learned Asham, for it is equated to Olah!

Answer: He learned l'Chatchilah, for l'Chatchilah it is written regarding Olah;

However, since Asham is equated twice to Olah, we learn that it is Me'akev in Asham.

Implied question: In Yoma (32a), it connotes that Kidush (washing) the hands and feet, which is learned from a Kal v'Chomer, returns to teach through a Hekesh!

R. Shimon ben Elazar makes a Kal v'Chomer. In a place where Tevilah is not needed, Kidush is needed. Where Tevilah is needed, all the more so Kidush is needed!

Afterwards, he says that we equate removing [garments] to putting on. Just like putting on requires Kidush, removing requires Kidush!

Answer: This is not called Kodshim. Only the Korban itself is called Kodshim.

Explanation #1: We should not learn and go so far.

Question: Since it is a Kal v'Chomer, why can't we learn properly as much as we can learn, just like we learn through Gezeirah Shavah, even if there are 100?

Explanation #2: It is Ben Beno of a Kal v'Chomer because initially he asks whether something learned from a Kal v'Chomer returns to teach through Kal v'Chomer. How does he come to prove this method through a Kal v'Chomer from a Gezeirah Shavah, which [we learned at the top of this Amud] returns to teach through Kal v'Chomer, and we learned this (about Gezeirah Shavah) through a Kal v'Chomer!

If so, you come to judge a Kal v'Chomer via a Kal v'Chomer, i.e. through a matter learned from a Kal v'Chomer. This is the matter you were unsure about!

Explanation (Rashi): In Taharos (1:1) it connotes that according to R. Meir, both Shechitah of a Chulin bird, and Melikah of Kodshim, is Metaher a Tereifah from [Tum'as] Neveilah, and R. Yehudah holds that neither is Metaher.

Question: In Chulin (56a) we say that R. Yehudah would check [for a weasel's bite], by hand, and R. Nechemyah checked with a needle;

[R. Nechemyah,] who checked with a needle, said to [R. Yehudah, who] checked by hand "how long will you cause Yisrael to eat Neveilos?!" (Sometimes there is a small hole, and you cannot feel it by hand. The Gemara asked) "do you think that they are Neveilos? They were slaughtered!"

What was the question? According to R. Yehudah, indeed they are Neveilos, like it connotes here that Shechitah of a [Tereifah] bird is not Metaher it!

Answer: He should not have asked [using an expression] according to R. Yehudah, since Rabanan argue with him [and say that it is only Tereifah].

Question: You cannot learn from Neveilah of a Behemah, which is not Metamei in Beis ha'Bli'ah!

Answer: R. Meir's primary reason is from the Hekesh "Zos Toras ha'Behemah veha'Of", like below (89b), like Rashi explained.

Explanation: We reject this. Both of them learn from Shechitah of Chulin;

I.e. we learn Melikah of Kodshim from a Mah Matzinu from Shechitah of a bird, which is only in Chulin, and we learn Shechitah of a Chulin bird from Shechitah of a Chulin animal.

Question #1: How do we learn Melikah of a bird from Shechitah of a bird? You cannot learn from Shechitah, which permits Chulin!

Question #2: (R. Yirmeyah resolved our question from the Beraisa.) What is his source that [R. Meir] learns Melikah of a bird from [a Binyan Av from] Shechitah of a bird, and Shechitah of a bird [was learned from a Kal va'Chomer] from Shechitah of an animal?

Perhaps [R. Meir] learns Melikah of a bird from Shechitah of an animal, for Melikah of a bird of Kodshim is like Shechitah of a Chulin animal!

Answer: If so, (he learns Melikah from Shechitas Behemah), he would have learned from a Kal v'Chomer, like he learned Shechitas Ohf [from Shechitas Behemah].

Support: The reason why he does not learn [from a Kal v'Chomer from Shechitas Behemah] is because there are two differences - Melikah from Shechitah, and a bird from an animal. This is from R. Baruch.