1) TAKING MOIST OR DRY DATES TO BE “TERUMAH”

(a) Question: The Seifa is difficult for Rav
1. (Seifa – R. Elazar): R. Yosi would take 10 dry dates to exempt 90 moist dates.
i. According to Shmuel, who says that we follow the original volume, this is a tenth;
ii. But according to Rav, we follow the current volume – this is less than a tenth!
(b) Answer (Rav Dimi): Dry dates are different (than meat), they can be returned to their original state through cooking.
(c) (Beraisa): Dates may be made Terumah on (Rashi – an equal number of) dry dates, in a place where people normally make dry dates;
1. Dry dates may not be made Terumah on (Rashi – an equal number of) dates, even in a place where people normally make dry dates.
(d) Inference: The Beraisa permits tithing dates on dry dates in a place where people normally make dry dates – elsewhere it is forbidden.
(e) Question: What is the case?
(f) Answer #1: There is a Kohen in the area that can eat them.
(g) Rejection: If so, it is permitted even where people do not normally make dry dates!
1. (Mishnah): In a place where there is a Kohen, we take the nicest produce to be Terumah (even if it does not last so long.)
(h) Answer #2: There is no Kohen in the area.
(i) Question: The Seifa forbids making dry dates Terumah on dates, even where people normally make dry dates;
1. If there is no Kohen, this is permitted!
2. (Mishnah): In a place where there is no Kohen, we make Terumah produce that will last a long time.
(j) Answer: We must say that the Seifa discusses a place where there is a Kohen.
(k) (Rav Papa): This answer shows it is better to establish a Beraisa in a difficult way (e.g. different clauses discuss different situations) than to say that different Tana’im taught the clauses.
2) “MENACHOS” MAY NOT BE MADE “CHAMETZ”
(a) (Mishnah): All Menachos are kneaded with lukewarm water (Tif’eres Yisrael – this is best for bread, but it speeds up Chimutz, therefore) we must Shomer them from becoming Chametz – “Kol ha’Minchah Asher Takrivu la’Sh-m Lo Se’aseh Chametz”.
(b) If one makes Shirayim Chametz, he transgresses a Lav;
1. He is liable for (every step, for) kneading, arranging the loaves and for baking.
(c) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of the second law?
(d) Answer (Reish Lakish): “Lo Se’afeh Chametz Chelkam” – even the Kohanim’s portion (Shirayim) may not be made Chametz.
(e) Question: We use this verse to teach a different law!
55b—————————————55b

1. (Beraisa) Question: What do we learn from “Lo Se’afeh Chametz Chelkam” – it already says “Lo Se’aseh Chametz”!
2. Answer: If it only said “Lo Se’aseh Chametz”, one might have thought that one is lashed only once for all steps of making a Minchah Chametz – therefore, it says “Lo Se’afeh”;
i. Baking was already forbidden, for it is part of making Chametz – it was singled out to equate all steps of making Chametz to it:
ii. Just like baking is a single step in making Chametz and one is liable for it by itself, one is liable for kneading, arranging and for *every single step*;
iii. These extra words allude to Kituf (Rashi – smoothing out the surface of the dough with water; R. Gershom – taking pieces for individual loaves from the (big) dough), one is liable for it.
(f) Answer: Reish Lakish learns from “Chelkam” (the Beraisa learns from “Lo Se’afeh Chametz”.)
(g) Question: Perhaps the verse only teaches Reish Lakish’s law!
(h) Answer: If so, it should have said ‘Chelkam Lo Se’afeh Chametz;
1. Rather, it says “Lo Se’afeh Chametz Chelkam”, to teach both.
(i) Suggestion: We should say that “Lo Se’afeh Chametz” teaches that one is liable for baking alone, and also one Chatas for all the other steps!
(j) Answer: Baking is ‘Davar she’Hayah bi’Chlal v’Yatza’ (a matter that was part of a Klal (general rule), and received a new law) – the new law applies to the whole Klal (i.e. every step is just like baking.)
(k) Question: We should say that “Lo Se’aseh” is a Klal, “Lo Se’afeh” is a Prat – from a Klal and Prat we only learn the Prat (baking!)
(l) Answer (R. Aftoriki): Because the Klal and Prat are written in different places, we do not expound Klal and Prat.
3) “KLAL” AND “PRAT” THAT ARE SEPARATED
(a) Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): We do expound Klal and Prat that are separated!
1. (Beraisa): “V’Shochat Oso (Chatas Nasi) bi’Mkom Asher Yishchat Es ha’Olah Lifnei Hash-m Chatas Hi” – just like Olah is slaughtered in the north, also Chatas.
2. Question: We learn this from “Bi’Mkom Asher Tishachet ha’Olah Tishachet ha’Chatas”!
3. Answer: “V’Shochat Oso” teaches that this is Me’akev, if it was slaughtered in the south it is Pasul.
4. Question: Perhaps this rather teaches that a Nasi’s Chatas requires (slaughter in) the north, other Chata’os do not!
5. Answer: “V’Shochat Es ha’Chatas Bi’Mkom ha’Olah” is a Binyan Av teaching that all Chata’os are slaughtered in the north.
6. Question: Why would we have thought (without this verse) that only Se’ir Nasi requires the north?
7. Answer #1: Even though the Klal and Prat are distanced, we expound Klal u’Prat! (This culminates Question (a).)
8. Rejection: (Rav Ashi): The Prat precedes the Klal, we should rather expound Prat u’Klal, the Klal expands the Prat to include everything!
(b) Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 6 – Rav Ashi): Rather, the Tana thought to learn from “Oso” that Se’ir Nasi is the only Chatas that must be slaughtered in the north.
(c) Question: In conclusion, “V’Shochat Es ha’Chatas…” teaches that all Chata’os are slaughtered in the north – what do we learn from “Oso”
(d) Answer (Beraisa): “Oso” – an obligatory Chatas requires Tzafon, the Chatas of Nachshon (or any other Nasi during Chanukas ha’Mishkan) did not require Tzafon;
1. Since Se’ir Nachshon required Semichah, one might have thought that it also required Tzafon – “Oso” teaches that this is not so.
2. Question: What is the source that it required Semichah?
3. Answer (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): “V’Samach Yado Al Rosh ha’Sa’ir” – this includes the Se’ir Nachshon (that it required Semichah).
4. R. Shimon says, it includes Se’irim (for He’elam Davar) of idolatry.