1) THE SOURCE THAT A "KORBAN OLAH" MUST BE SLAUGHTERED IN THE NORTH OF THE AZARAH
QUESTION: The Gemara asks why the Torah needs to write explicitly that a Korban Olah must be slaughtered in the north of the Azarah. It would have sufficed to write that a Chatas and an Asham must be slaughtered in the north of the Azarah, and the law of an Olah could have been derived from there. The Gemara answers that the law of an Olah could not have been derived from Chatas and Asham, because a Chatas and Asham are brought for atonement, and an Olah is not.
TOSFOS (DH Lo) asks, why does the Gemara not ask that the law that an Olah must be slaughtered in the north should be derived from Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur?
ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS answers that Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur are not similar to an Olah, because they are brought only at set times, and thus the law of an Olah cannot be learned from the law of Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur.
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that the point of the Gemara is that the law that Kodshei Kodashim must be slaughtered in the north of the Azarah could have been stated with regard to just one Korban, and the law of all other Korbanos of Kodshei Kodashim would have been derived from there. Although the law of an Olah could have been derived from Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, the law of a Chatas and an Asham could not have been derived from the Olah and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, because a Chatas and an Asham are very different from an Olah and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur. A Chatas must be a female animal, while an Olah and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur may be male. An Asham is never brought by the public, while an Olah and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur are public offerings.
The TZON KODASHIM quotes others who extend this line of reasoning and ask, why does the Torah not write the law that Kodshei Kodashim must be slaughtered in the north with regard to Chatas (or Asham) and with regard to Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, and from there (the combination of Chatas (or Asham) with Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur) the law of an Olah (and Asham or Chatas) would be derived?
1. The Tzon Kodashim says that this question is mistaken. The law of Olah could not be derived from a combination of Chatas (or Asham) with Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, because both Chatas (or Asham) and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur have stringencies with Olah does not have. The laws of Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur are stringent in that those Korbanos are brought only at set times. The laws of Chatas (or Asham) are stringent in that the Chatas (or Asham) is brought to attain atonement.
2. The OLAS SHLOMO answers that the Gemara (Pesachim 77b) points out a clear difference between the laws of Olah and the laws of Chatas (or Asham) and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur. The difference is that an Olah has only one Achilah ("eating"), a reference to Achilas Mizbe'ach (when the limbs are placed on the Mizbe'ach to be burned). In contrast, Chatas (or Asham) and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur have two "Achilos" (that of the Mizbe'ach and that of the Kohanim). (Y. MONTROSE)
50b----------------------------------------50b
2) WHY A VERSE IS NEEDED TO TEACH THAT A "KORBAN CHAGIGAH" MUST BE BROUGHT FROM "CHULIN"
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses whether certain Korbanos may be brought from Ma'aser instead of from Chulin. The Gemara derives from various sources that a Shelamim and a Todah may be brought from Ma'aser.
TOSFOS (DH Im Al) asks the following question. The Gemara in Menachos (92a) teaches that just as a Chatas -- which one is obligated to bring -- may be brought only from Chulin, so, too, any Korban which one is obligated to bring may be brought only from Chulin. However, the Gemara in Chagigah (8a) derives from the word, "Misas Nidvas Yadcha" -- "with the tribute of voluntary freewill offerings that you give" (Devarim 16:10) -- that a Korban Chagigah may be brought only from Chulin, not from other donations. Why is the Derashah in Chagigah necessary, if the Gemara in Menachos already derives from Chatas that all obligatory Korbanos (including the Korban Chagigah) must be brought from Chulin?
ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS answers that there are situations in which at least part of the Korban Chagigah may be brought from Ma'aser, as the Gemara in Chagigah mentions. Since part of the Chagigah may be fulfilled with Ma'aser, the verse of "Misas" is necessary to teach that one cannot fulfill his entire Chagigah obligation with Ma'aser.
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos explains that one might have thought that the Korban Chagigah is an exception to the rule that obligatory Korbanos must be brought from Chulin, because the verse (ibid.) says with regard to the Korban Chagigah, "as Hash-m has blessed you," implying that a Chagigah may be brought from Ma'aser. An explicit teaching ("Misas") is needed, therefore, to counter the implication of the verse.
(See the OLAS SHLOMO, who explains that the two answers of Tosfos are actually one answer, and that the two Derashos, in Menachos and Chagigah, complement each other.) (Y. MONTROSE)