What was Rava's reaction when Rav Chananyah quoted a Beraisa 'Yoresh Eino Somech, Yoresh Eino Meimar'?
What did Rav Chananyah suggest?
Why did Rava then reject his suggestion? Like whom did he establish the Beraisa?
When Rav Chananyah quoted a Beraisa 'Yoresh Eino Somech, Yoresh Eino Meimar', Rava reacted - by referring to our Mishnah, which rules 'ha'Yoresh Somech ... u'Meimar'.
Rav Chananyah therefore suggested - that he amend the wording to conform with our Mishnah.
Rava rejected his suggestion - because it was possible to leave the Beraisa intact and to establish it like Rebbi Yehudah, who argues in a Beraisa with our Mishnah.
Rebbi Yehudah learns his opinion from the Pasuk "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Aviv'. That explains the Din with regard to S'michah, but from where does he preclude a father's Korban from Temurah as well?
The Rabbanan include a father's Korban in the Din of Temurah from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Im Hamer Yamir". From where do they then include a father's Korban in the Din of S'michah as well?
Rebbi Yehudah learns his opinion from the Pasuk "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Aviv', explaining the Din with regard to S'michah. As far as precluding a father's Korban from Temurah is concerned - he learns Techilas Hekdesh (Temurah) from Sof Hekdesh (Semichah, which immediately precedes the Shechitah) with a Binyan Av.
The Rabbanan include a father's Korban in the Din of Temurah from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Im Hamer Yamir", and they then learn the Din of S'michah - Sof Hekdesh from Techilas Hekdesh.
Which of the three "Korbano" that we discussed a little earlier does Rebbi Yehudah reject, to be able to learn "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Aviv'?
Alternatively, he maintains all three D'rashos, only he precludes two of the three from the same "Korbano", and 've'Lo Korban Aviv' from the third. Which two D'rashos does he combine?
Why does Rebbi Yehudah require a Pasuk to teach us "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Aviv'? Why is it not included in "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Chaveiro'?
To be able to learn "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Aviv' (that we discussed at the beginning of the Amud) - Rebbi Yehudah rejects the D'rashah "Korbano", 'Lerabos Kol Ba'alei Korban li'Semichah'.
Alternatively, he maintains all three D'rashos, only he precludes two of the three D'rashos from the same "Korbano" - i.e. "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Chaveiro ... ve'Lo Korban Oved-Kochavim', and he precludes 've'Lo Korban Aviv' from the third one.
Rebbi Yehudah requires a Pasuk to teach us "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Aviv' (in spite of the D'rashah "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Chaveiro') - because we might otherwise have thought that since a son inherits his father, it is as if he is his extension ('B'ra Kar'a de'Avuhah' [and is not therefore comparable to 'Chaveiro']).
What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from "ve'Im Hamer Yamir"?
Why is such a D'rashah necessary? Why is a woman not automatically included in the Din of Temurah (bearing in mind that it is a La'av, as well as an Asei that is not determined by time)?
The Rabbanan learn that from the 'Vav' in "ve'Im". What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from there?
Rebbi Yehudah learns from "ve'Im Hamer Yamir" - that a woman is included in the Dinim of Temurah.
She is not automatically included (even though it is a La'av, as well as an Asei that is not determined by time) - because the Parshah speaks in the masculine singular throughout.
The Rabbanan learn that from the 'Vav' in "ve'Im." Rebbi Yehudah - learns nothing from there, since he does consider the extra 'Vav' significant.
Our Mishnah rules that basically, everyone is obligated to perform Semichah on his Korban. What list do a Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan head?
Besides a blind person, a Nochri and an Eved, who else is exempt from performing Semichah on their own Korban?
What does the Tana say about a Shali'ach who is bringing a Korban on behalf of somebody else?
What does the Tana mean when he refers to Semichah as Sheyarei Mitzvah?
Our Mishnah rules that basically, everyone is obligated to perform Semichah on his Korban with the exception of a list of people - that begins with a Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan.
Besides a blind person, a Nochri and an Eved - a woman is Patur from performing Semichah on her own Korban.
The Tana also rules that Shali'ach, who is bringing a Korban on behalf of somebody else - is Patur too.
When the Tana refers to Semichah as Sheyarei Mitzvah, he means - that it is only the remnant of a Mitzvah, and that if one fails to perform it, one is nevertheless Yotzei.
The Tana also requires Semichah with both hands on the head of the Korban. What does he say about the corollary of the Semichah to the Shechitah ...
... location-wise?
... time-wise?
The latter statement renders the preceding one redundant. How will we later slightly amend it to correlate the two statements?
On what basis does the Mishnah exempt ...
... a Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan from Semichah?
... a Nochri from making Semichah on his own Korban?
Rav Chisda and Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi argue over the source of the Din exempting a blind person from Semichah. They both learn it from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' 'Semichah' 'Semichah'; one of them, from 'Ziknei ha'Eidah'. In which connection is ...
... this written?
... the second "Semichah" written?
The Tana also requires Semichah with both hands on the head of the Korban. And he rules that ...
... one performs the Semichah in the same location where one performed the Shechitah (without moving the animal from the spot).
... 'Teikef li'Semichah Shechitah' (i.e. the Shechitah should follow the Semichah immediately).
The latter statement renders the preceding one redundant. To correlate the two statements - we simply add 'she' to 'Teikef li'Semichah Shechitah' (thereby turning it into the reason for the first statement (rather than an independent ruling).
The Mishnah exempts ...
... a Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan from Semichah - on the basis of their not being B'nei Da'as (mature).
... a Nochri from making Semichah on his own Korban - due to the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Olas Nedavah) "B'nei Yisrael ... Ve'samach", from which the Chachamim Darshen 'B'nei Yisrael Somchin, ve'Ein Nochrim Somchin'.
Rav Chisda and Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi argue over the source of the Din exempting a blind person from Semichah. They both learn it from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' 'S'michah' 'S'michah'; one of them, from ...
... 'Ziknei ha'Eidah' - which is written in connection with the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur.
... whilst the second S'michah is written in connection with - the Olas Re'iyah (which each person brings on Yom-Tov).
On what grounds does ...
... the second opinion prefer to learn the obligation of a blind person to perform S'michah from Olas Re'iyah rather than from Ziknei ha'Eidah?
... the first opinion learns it from Ziknei ha'Eidah rather than from Olas Re'iyah?
The Beraisa learns the Din of S'michah by Olas Re'iyah from a Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with the eighth day of the Milu'im). How does the Tana derive it from "Vayakrev es ha'Olah Vaya'asehah ka'Mishpat"? What does "ka'Mishpat" mean?
What does this have to do with Olas Re'iyah?
The reason that ...
... the second opinion prefers to learn the obligation of a blind person to perform S'michah from Olas Re'iyah rather than from Ziknei ha'Eidah is - because he prefers to learn Yachid from Yachid (rather than Yachid from Tzibur).
... the first opinion learns it from Ziknei ha'Eidah rather than from Olas Re'iyah is - because he prefers to learn it from a source where the Torah specifically writes "S'michah" (rather than from one which itself, is only learnt it from another source).
The Beraisa learns the Din of S'michah by Olas Re'iyah from a Pasuk (in connection with the eighth day of the Milu'im). The Tana derives the Olah of the Milu'im from "Vayakrev es ha'Olah Vaya'asehah ka'Mishpat", which Chazal Darshen to mean - 'ke'Mishpat Olas Nedavah' (which requires Semichah).
And we compare Olas Re'iyah to the Olah of the Milu'im - because it is an obligation just like it is.
Whom does the Beraisa preclude from Semichah, based on the Pasuk "ve'Samach Yado" besides one's Eved and one's Shali'ach?
Having taught us ...
... 'Avdo', why does the Tana find it necessary to add 'Sh'lucho'?
... 'Avdo' and 'Sh'lucho, why does the Tana find it necessary to add 'Ishto?
From the Pasuk "ve'Samach Yado", the Beraisa precludes a man's Eved, his Shali'ach - and his wife from making Semichah on his Korban.
Having taught us ...
... 'Avdo', the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to add 'Sh'lucho' - because, unlike the former, he is Chayav Mitzvos like himself (and if not for a special Pasuk, we would apply the principle 'Sh'lucho shel Adam Kamoso').
... 'Avdo' and 'Sh'lucho, the Tana finds it necessary to add 'Ishto - because we would otherwise apply the principle 'Ishto ke'Gufo' (in which case it is as if he himself had performed it).
What problem does the Beraisa have with the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Olah) "Ve'samach ... Ve'nirtzah"?
So how does the Tana explain the Pasuk?
In connection with which other Mitzvah does the Tana ask the same Kashya and give the same answer?
The problem the Beraisa has with the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Olah) "Ve'samach ... Ve'nirtzah" is - that it is not the Semichah that attains the Kaparah, but the Zerikas ha'Dam.
The Tana therefore explains the Pasuk to mean - that even though Semichah is only a Sheyarei Mitzvah, someone who does not perform it, has not done the Mitzvah properly (as if he did not perform it at all).
The Tana asks the same Kashya and gives the same answer in connection with the Mitzvah of - Tenufah (by which the Torah uses a similar expression, even though it too, is only a Sheyarei Mitzvah).
From the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'samach es Yado al Rosh ... ", the Beraisa learns "Yado al ha'Rosh" 've'Lo Yado al ha'Tzavar'. What does 'ha'Tzavar' mean?
Which two other locations do we preclude from two of the other times that the Torah uses the same expression?
Having precluded ...
... the Tzavar, why does the Tana need to add the back?
... the Tzavar and the back, why does he need to add the chest?
From the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'samach es Yado al Rosh ... ", the Beraisa learns "Yado al ha'Rosh" 've'Lo Yado al ha'Tzavar' - meaning the underside of the neck (i.e. the location of the throat).
The two other locations that we preclude from two of the other times where the Torah uses the same expression, are - the back and the chest.
Having precluded ...
... the Tzavar, the Tana nevertheless needs to add the back - because unlike the former, it is in line with the head (and may therefore have been included with it).
... the Tzavar and the back, he nevertheless finds it necessary to add the chest - because, it is included in the Din of Tenufah (whereas the Tzavar and the back are not).
We ask whether the side is included in Semichah or not. What do we mean by 'the side'?
And we answer with a Beraisa. What does Aba Bira'ah b'Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov say about this?
How do we resolve the She'eilah whether a cloth is considered Chatzitzah regarding Semichah, or not?
We ask whether the side- (of the head) is included in Semichah or not.
And we answer with a Beraisa, where Aba Bira'ah b'Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - specifically precludes the side from the Din of Semichah.
And we resolve the She'eilah whether a cloth is considered Chatzitzah regarding Semichah or not - with a Beraisa, which forbids any interruption between the person performing Semichah and the head of the animal.
The Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (in connection with the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach) writes "ve'Samach Aharon es Sh'tei Yadav al Rosh ha'Sa'ir ... ". What is strange about the spelling of the word "Yadav"?
What principle does Resh Lakish learn from this?
How does this affect our Mishnah?
What did Rebbi Elazar do that made Resh Lakish angry?
The Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (in connection with the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach) "ve'Samach Aharon es Sh'tei Yadav al Rosh ha'Sa'ir ... " - spells "Yadav" without a 'Yud' (as if it was meant to be singular).
Resh Lakish learns from this - that wherever the Torah spells "Yadav" in that way it always means two hands (as if it had written 'Sh'tei' in front of it).
In fact - this is the source of the ruling in our Mishnah, that requires Semichah to be performed with both hands.
Rebbi Elazar made Resh Lakish angry - by citing this Halachah without mentioning his name.
How many times does the Torah write the word "Yadav" spelt with the 'Vav' (such as "Yadav Tevi'enah" (in Tzav, in connection with the Tenufah of the Shelamim), "Yadav Rav Lo" (in Vayechi, in connection with Yehudah's B'rachah) and "Sikeil es Yadav" (ibid. in connection with the B'rachah of Menasheh and Efrayim)?
What problem did Resh Lakish have with this?
How did he catch Rebbi Elazar out with this Kashya? What should Rebbi Elazar have replied?
What did he achieve with that?
How did he go on to refute a second Kashya from the Pasuk in Pinchas (in connection with Yehoshua) "Vayismoch es Yadav alav Vayetzaveihu"?
The Torah writes the word "Yadav" with the 'Vav' (such as "Yadav Tevi'enah"(in Tzav, in connection with the Tenufah of the Shelamim), "Yadav Rav Lo" (in Vayechi, in connection with Yehudah's B'rachah) and "Sikeil es Yadav" (ibid. in connection with the B'rachah of Menasheh and Efrayim) - twenty-four times.
The problem Resh Lakish had with thatis was - that having just said that "Yadav" without a 'Yud' means 'two hands', why does the Torah ever need to write it with a 'Yud'?
He caught Rebbi Elazar out with this Kashya, in that - the latter ought to have answered by confining Resh Lakish's principle to "Yadav" when it appears next to Semichah (but not to other places, such as the above).
Having caught Rebbi Elazar out - his anger abated.
He went on to refute a second Kashya from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Vayismoch es Yadav Alav Vayetzaveihu" - by confining his principle to Semichah on the head of an animal (whilst this Pasuk refers to Moshe leaning it on the head of Yehoshua bin Nun).
Our Mishnah now discusses the Chumros of Semichah over Tenufah and vice-versa. The only Chumra of Semichah over Tenufah concerns a Korban belonging to Shutfim (partners). What is it?
Tenufah on the other hand, has three Chumros over Semichah. To begin with, it applies to Korb'nos Tzibur as well as to Korb'nos Yachid (whereas Semichah is restricted to a Korban Yachid). To which Korban ...
... does Tenufah generally apply, and to which ...
... Korban Tzibur?
It also applies to live animals as well as to Shechted ones. Which Korban is waved alive (as well as after it has been Shechted)?
What is the third Chumra of Tenufah over Semichah?
Our Mishnah now discusses the Chumros of Semichah over Tenufah and vice-versa. The only Chumra of Semichah over Tenufah is - that regarding a Korban belonging to Shutfim (partners), each Shutaf is obligated to perform Semichah, whereas one of them may perform Tenufah on behalf of all of them.
Tenufah on the other hand, has three Chumros over Semichah. To begin with, it applies to Korb'nos Tzibur as well as to Korb'nos Yachid (whereas Semichah is restricted to a Korban Yachid). Generally, it applies to ...
... (the Chazeh ve'Shok and the Eimurim) of a Shelamim, and ...
... of the Korb'nos Tzibur, to Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur (the Shalmei Tzibur that is brought on Shavu'os).
It also applies to live animals as well as to Shechted ones. Once again, the only Korban that is waved alive (as well as after it has been Shechted) is - the Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur.
The third Chumra of Tenufah over Semichah is - that it pertains to Kodshim other than animals (e.g. to the Omer and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, and to the Lachmei Todah and Lachmei Nazir).