AN OLAH IS SLAUGHTERED IN TZAFON
(Mishnah): The Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur (are slaughtered in Tzafon...)
Question: The Torah explicitly says that Shechitah of an Olah must be in Tzafon. The Tana should have taught Olah first!
Answer: Since we need to expound to learn the law of Chata'os, the Tana treasures this law more, therefore he taught it first.
Question: Why did he teach inner Chata'os before outer Chata'os?
Answer: Because their blood is brought into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, it is more dear to him.
Question: Where does the Torah teach that Shechitah of an Olah must be in Tzafon?
Answer: "V'Shachat Oso... Tzafonah".
Question: That discusses a Seh. What is the source for a bull?
Answer: The Torah teaches about a bull, and then it says "v'Im Min ha'Tzon" to connect the Parshiyos. We learn the former from the latter.
ASHAM TALUY IS LEARNED FROM THE FOLLOWING SECTION
Question: This is like the opinion that we can learn the former from the latter when a 'Vov' connects the Parshiyos. According to the opinion that we can learn only the latter from the former, how can we answer?
(Beraisa - R. Akiva): "V'Im Nefesh..." obligates an Asham Taluy for Safek Me'ilah;
Chachamim exempt.
Suggestion: R. Akiva holds that we can learn the former (Asham Taluy) from the latter (Asham Me'ilah), and Chachamim say that we cannot.
Answer (Rav Papa): No, all agree that we can learn;
Chachamim exempt due to a Gezerah Shavah "Mitzvos-Mitzvos" between Asham Taluy and a regular Chatas, e.g. for eating Chelev;
Just like there it refers to a transgression punishable by Kares (if Mezid) and Chatas (if Shogeg), also Asham Taluy is brought only for such Aveiros. (There is no Kares for Me'ilah)
R. Akiva says, there it refers to a Chatas Kavu'ah (even a poor person must bring an animal). Also Asham Taluy is brought only for such Aveiros.
This excludes a Tamei who entered the Mikdash or ate Kodshim. The Korban for this is Oleh v'Yored.
Chachamim disagree, for we do not learn a Gezerah Shavah only half-way (rather, we learn all possible laws).
Question: R. Akiva should agree that we learn all possible laws from a Gezerah Shavah!
Answer: Indeed, he does. R. Akiva exempts because 'Vov' connects to the next Parshah.
Question: Why do Chachamim argue?
Suggestion: R. Akiva holds that a Hekesh (to the next Parshah) overrides a Gezerah Shavah (to a regular Chatas, which would exclude Me'ilah). Chachamim hold that a Gezerah Shavah overrides a Hekesh.
Answer: No, all agree that a Hekesh is stronger. Chachamim say that the former Parshah teaches to the latter, that one must pay at least two Shekalim for it;
One might have thought that Asham Taluy (for a Safek transgression) should not be more stringent than a Chatas for a definite Aveirah, which can be bought for a sixth of a Dinar (or even less). The Hekesh teaches that this is not so.
Question: What is R. Akiva's source for this law?
Answer: He learns from "Zos Toras ha'Asham" - the same applies to all Ashamos.
Question: There is an opinion that does not expound this Hekesh. What is his source (according to R. Akiva)?
Answer: He learns from a Gezerah Shavah "b'Erkecha-b'Erkecha" from Asham Me'ilah.
Question: This teaches about Asham Taluy and Asham Gezeilah, but not Asham Shifchah Charufah (regarding which it does not say 'b'Erkecha')!
Answer: He learns from a Gezerah Shavah "b'Ayil-b''Ayil" from Asham Me'ilah.
CHATAS IS SLAUGHTERED IN TZAFON
Question: What is the source that Chatas must be slaughtered in Tzafon?
Answer: "V'Shachat Es ha'Chatas bi'Mkom ha'Olah."
Question: This teaches about Shechitah. What is the source for Kabalah?
Answer: "V'Lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas" (presumably, in the same place it was slaughtered).
Question: What is the source that the Kohen who is Mekabel must be in Tzafon?
Answer: We rearrange the letters of "v'Lakach" to spell 'Lo (Yi)Kach' (he will bring himself there).
Question: This teaches that these Avodos should be done in Tzafon. What is the source that this is Me'akev?
Answer: We learn from "v'Shachat Oso bi'Mkom Asher Yishchat Es ha'Olah" (regarding a Sa'ir Chatas of a Nasi):
(Beraisa): (This verse teaches that) Chatas is slaughtered in Tzafon, just like Olah.
Question: We already learned this from "(Zos Toras ha'Chatas) bi'Mkom Asher Tishachet ha'Olah Tishachet ha'Chatas"!
Answer: "Oso" teaches that this is Me'akev. (If it was not slaughtered in Tzafon, it is Pasul.)
Suggestion: Perhaps it does not teach this, but rather, that other Se'irim (Chata'os) require (Shechitah in) Tzafon!
Rejection: "V'Shachat Es ha'Chatas bi'Mkom ha'Olah" is a Binyan Av (precedent). It teaches that all Chata'os require Tzafon.
Question: We learned that Tzafon is Me'akev regarding the Chatas of a Nasi, and that all Chata'os require Tzafon l'Chatchilah. What is the source that this is Me'akev regarding all Chata'os?
Answer: A verse requires Tzafon for a commoner who brings a goat. Another verse requires it when he brings a lamb (and we could have learned one from the other). The extra verse teaches that this is Me'akev.
THE MI'UT OF "OSO
Question: Since this teaches about all Chata'os, why do we need "v'Shachat Oso..."?
Answer #1: It teaches like the following Beraisa.
Beraisa: "Oso" - an obligatory Chatas requires Tzafon. The Chatas of Nachshon (or any other Nasi during the inauguration of the Mishkan) did not require Tzafon;
(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "V'Samach Yado Al Rosh ha'Sa'ir" includes the Se'ir Chatas of Nachshon (it required Semichah).
R. Shimon says, it includes Se'irim (for He'elem Davar) of idolatry.
Summation of answer: Since Se'ir Nachshon required Semichah, one might have thought that it required also Tzafon. "Oso" teaches that this is not so.
Objection #1 (Ravina): This answers for R. Yehudah, who says that Se'ir Nachshon required Semichah. According to R. Shimon, how can we answer?
Objection #2 (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Tavi): This does not answer even for R. Yehudah. We learned only that Se'ir Nachshon required Semichah. This does not suggest that it required Tzafon!
Suggestion: If "Oso" did not exclude this, we would learn it from a Binyan Av (from permanent Chata'os, i.e. that apply for all generations).
Rejection: If so, we would not need a verse to teach about Semichah. We would learn it from the Binyan Av!
We must say that we do not learn (Semichah regarding Korbanos of Chanukas ha'Mishkan) from permanent Korbanos. The same applies to Tzafon!
(Sefas Emes suggests that (b:1) is not a Beraisa, for the Gemara refutes it (Oso is not needed to teach about Se'ir Nachshon). Our Sugya is repeated in Menachos, and it is not called a Beraisa there. Alternatively, it is a Beraisa. It is like R. Shimon, who indeed learns Semichah for Se'ir Nachshon from permanent Korbanos, and needs "Oso" to exclude Tzafon, unlike Ravina.)
Answer #2: "Oso" teaches that the Shechitah (i.e. the animal) must be in Tzafon, but the slaughterer need not be in Tzafon.
Objection: We learn that from R. Achya!
(Beraisa - R. Achya) Question: What do we learn from "v'Shachat Oso Al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach Tzafonah"?
Answer: We know that Kabalah (of Kodshei Kodoshim) and the Mekabel must be in Tzafon. If the Mekabel was in the south, it is Pasul. One might have thought that the same applies to Shechitah;
"V'Shachat Oso..." - it (the Korban) must be in Tzafon, but the slaughterer need not be in Tzafon.
Answer #3: "Oso" teaches that (an Olah must be slaughtered in Tzafon, but) Melikah need not be in Tzafon.
(Beraisa) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Melikah requires Tzafon!
The Torah does not require a Kohen to slaughter a Seh (Olah; a Zar may slaughter it), yet it requires Tzafon. The Torah requires a Kohen for Melikah, all the more so it should require Tzafon!
Rejection: It says "Oso". (Shechitas Olah must be in Tzafon, but Melikah need not be.)
Objection: We do not need a verse for this. The Kal va'Chomer can be refuted!
We cannot learn from an Olah, for this requires a Keli (for the Kabalah and Shechitah; Tosfos - both need a Keli Shares), but Melikah does not! (Sefas Emes - the 'rejections' of this and the coming Beraisa are according to the Tana R. Achya.)
Answer #4: "Oso" teaches that Olah must be slaughtered in Tzafon, but Korban Pesach need not be.
(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Pesach requires Tzafon!
The Torah did not fix a time to slaughter an Olah (a Nedavah), yet it requires Tzafon. The Torah fixed a time for Korban Pesach (the afternoon of Erev Pesach), all the more so it should require Tzafon!
Rejection: "Oso" (Pesach does not require Tzafon).
Question: We do not need a verse for this. The Kal va'Chomer can be refuted!
We cannot learn from an Olah, for it is totally burned on the Mizbe'ach!
Answer #1: We would have learned a Kal va'Chomer from Chatas.
Objection: We cannot learn from Chatas, for it atones for Chayavei Kerisus!
Answer #2: We would have learned a Kal va'Chomer from Asham.
Objection: We cannot learn from Asham, for it is Kodshei Kodoshim!
Olah and Chatas are also Kodshei Kodoshim, so we cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of all three.
Defense of Answer #2 (to Question (a)): Indeed, "Oso" teaches that the animal must be slaughtered in Tzafon.
Question: We learn that from R. Achya's teaching!
Answer: Indeed, we expound like R. Achya. "Oso" in Parshas Olah teaches that the slaughterer need not be in Tzafon;
The Chidush of "Oso" (written regarding Se'ir Nasi) is the inference. The slaughterer need not be in Tzafon, but the Mekabel must be.
Question: We already know this from "v'Lakach" (which we rearrange to spell 'Lo (Yi) Kach')!
Answer: This Tana does not expound "v'Lakach" this way.
SHECHITAH AND KABALAH IN TZAFON. IS ME'AKEV
Question: We find that l'Chatchilah, Shechitah and Kabalah of an Olah must be in Tzafon. What is the source that both are Me'akev?
Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): We learn from a Kal va'Chomer. We learned that Chatas requires Tzafon from Olah, and it is Me'akev regarding Chatas. All the more so it is Me'akev regarding Olah!
Objection: We cannot learn from Chatas, for it atones for Chayavei Kerisus!
Answer (Rava): That refutes a normal Kal va'Chomer;
Rav Ada learns differently, i.e. we never find Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar (what is secondary is more stringent than what is primary; in this case, the matter learned cannot be more stringent than the source)!