Question: This is very astounding. These verses about Shechitah and Kabalah, i.e. "v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" and "v'Lakach ha'Kohen", are written about a Stam Chatas, e.g. Chatas Chelev in Parshas Vayikra (4:33-34), regarding a female lamb;

And this verse "v'Chiper Alav ha'Kohen me'Chataso" is written about the Chatas of Shevu'as ha'Edus (swearing that one does not know testimony) and Bituy Sefasayim (a Shevu'ah that one will or will not do an action). However, regarding Chatas Chelev it is not written me'Chataso, rather, Al Chataso!

And in Toras Kohanim, in the same Parshah itself of Chatas Chelev, it expounds from the verse "me'Chataso", even though it is not written in that Parshah! This is astounding that it abandoned the verse "Al Chataso" written in that Parshah!

Answer #1: Perhaps it is because Al Chataso is written after Haktaras Eimurim.

Question: Below, it connotes that all these verses are written about Chatas Chelev, for it says "we find Chatas Chelev, but what is the source for Chatas Shevu'as ha'Edus and Bituy Sefasayim?"!

Answer: Below, it says as follows. We find about Chatas Chelev that Shinuy Kodesh is Me'akev in Shechitah and Kabalah;

We learn other Avodos like it says above (7b) - just like Shelamim, you do not distinguish between Shechitah and other Avodos l'Chatchilah, also here we do not distinguish to be Me'akev. Also Kabalah did not need to be written. However, what is the source for Shevu'as ha'Edus?

Implied question: (Why is this difficult?) It is written [about Shevu'as ha'Edus] "v'Chiper Alav [ha'Kohen] me'Chataso", and we expounded above l'Shem Chatas, i.e. Shinuy Kodesh regarding Zerikah!

Answer: We should not say "you did not distinguish" regarding Zerikah, since it is the primary Kaparah.

Answer (d) (cont.): Shinuy Ba'alim in Chatas Chelev we learn from Shevu'as ha'Edus, for there is no challenge. (The only source for Shinuy Ba'alim in Shevu'as ha'Edus is Zerikah! Tzon Kodoshim - regarding Shinuy Ba'alim, we say "you did not distinguish" even regarding Zerikah, and learn from it.)

Answer #2 (to Question (a)): Some say that "me'Chataso" discussed refers to Sa'ir Nasi, also about which it says me'Chataso, and it refers also to Chatas Chelev.

Question: [We cannot learn from there, for] it is written after Haktaras Eimurim (which is not Me'akev)! So it seems to me, R. Baruch.

Answer #3: He could not expound from "v'Chiper Al Chataso Asher Chata" written about Chatas Chelev, because it means "for his Pesha (Aveirah) that he sinned", and it does not refer to his Korban Chatas, and [likewise] not from Sa'ir Nasi, about which it says "me'Chataso v'Nislach Lo", i.e. from his Pesha and Chet, and he will be forgiven;

However, in Shevu'as ha'Edus it is not written this (Asher Chata) or that (v'Nislach Lo) rather, me'Chataso, i.e. from his Korban.

Question: From this verse "v'Chiper Alav ha'Kohen me'Chataso" we expound both of them - Zerikah with Shinuy Kodesh, and Shinuy Ba'alim;

If so, from Chatas Chataso (i.e. the Torah wrote did not write Chatas, rather, Chataso) we should learn also that Shinuy Kodesh is Me'akev, just like Shinuy Ba'alim, for it refers to both of them!

Version #1: This is Rashi's text. According to this text, first we establish [the verse] to be Me'akev regarding Shinuy Kodesh, before we would establish for a Mitzvah regarding Shinuy Ba'alim, through Im Eino Inyan.

Objection: Our entire Perek connotes unlike this. Above, regarding Shelamim (4b) and Pesach (7b), it says "we find Shinuy Kodesh. What is the source for Shinuy Ba'alim?", and we establish the Reisha to teach about Shinuy Ba'alim through Im Eino Inyan, rather than establish the verse to teach that [Shinuy Kodesh] is Me'akev!

Answer: We can say that here is different, for we already found a verse for Zerikah with Shinuy Ba'alim.

Version #2: The text in some Seforim says 'Im Eino Inyan for Shinuy Kodesh, which we learn from there, use it to teach about Shinuy Ba'alim. This teaches a Mitzvah. What is the source that it is Me'akev? Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua said "Chatas- Chataso."'

Support #1: According to this text, we no longer need the verse above for Zerikah.

Support #2: Now it is fine that above, the text says 'like Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua said - "Chatas- Chatas"', which connotes that his primary teaching was not said about that, i.e. because at the end it is not established (to teach about this).

Explanation: We do not expound from this verse. (Teshuvah Menachos 44b DH Minchasam (1) - Temurah 4b proves that really, we learn from "Devar Yom b'Yomo Milvad Shabsos Hash-m.")

Question: Why must it write in all of them? It should write [a Drashah for Shinuy] in one, and we learn all of the others from "Zos Toras ha'Chatas" - there is one law for all Chata'os, like below (9b) in the Sugya of [Rav's teaching in the name of] Mavog!

Answer: In the conclusion, this [Drashah from "Zos Toras ha'Chatas"] does not last (we retract from it).

Implied question: Below (92a), a Mishnah teaches "one Torah (law) for all Chata'os"!

Answer: That is for the matter written there, "Asher Yazeh mi'Damah Al ha'Beged."

Disclaimer: However, some hold that R. Shimon holds like this (there is one law for all Chata'os even regarding Shinuy), in Menachos (3b).

Question: Why did the Torah need to write an Ikuv in all Avodos? It should write in one, and we should say "just like regarding Shelamim, you do not distinguish for a Mitzvah (Shinuy is forbidden), also regarding Chatas do not distinguish!", like it says above!

Answer #1: In such a case, sometimes the Torah toiled to write (explicitly what we could have expounded).

Answer #2: [The Ikuv in all Avodos] comes for another Drashah.

Question: What is the source for a Ikuv of Shinuy Ba'alim regarding Chatas Nazir?

Answer: We learn from Chatas- Chataso;

Even though above, this was not sustained, the primary challenge was "do we learn them from each other?!"

Alternative text: It says in some Seforim Chatas Avodah Zarah and Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav.

Rebuttal: Even though [Tum'as Mikdash has] Kares like [Chelev], one can ask that Chatas Chelev is different, for it does not have Dalos (a cheaper Korban for poor people), like we ask above about Chatas Metzora.

Explanation: It does not say "l'Chataso" regarding the offering [of the Chatas for Shevu'as ha'Edus]. What is the source that it is Me'akev? However, it says l'Chatas regarding other matters, and this is no problem.

Question (R. Tam): We cannot learn from these, for they do have Dalei Dalos (a Minchah for very poor people who cannot afford even birds). You cannot learn to these (which have)!

Answer (R. Tam): Since Dalei Dalos itself is Pasul Lo Lishmah, i.e. Minchas Chotei, which is Pasul Lo Lishmah, like the Mishnah in Menachos (2a) teaches, that we learn from "Ki Chatas Hi"...

... It is unreasonable that the law of Dalei Dalos should cause that a rich person's Korban is Kosher Lo Lishmah, since Dalei Dalos itself is Pasul [Lo Lishmah].

Question: If so, above that it asked regarding Metzora "these do not have Dalos. Will you learn to Metzora?!"

What was the question? Dalos is Chatas ha'Of. Chatas ha'Of Lo Lishmah is Pasul, like the Mishnah below (64b), and we derive it in Toras Kohanim from "Chatas Hi";

Since Dalos is Pasul [Lo Lishmah], how can it cause a rich person's Korban to be Kosher Lo Lishmah?!

Question: We learned Chatas Chelev from Shelamim through a Hekesh for a Mitzvah. How do we learn other Chata'os from a Tzad ha'Shavah?

This is a question below (50a), whether the learned from a Hekesh can later teach through Binyan Av!

Answer: This is not a question at all, for also all Chata'os we learn l'Chatchilah from Shelamim, and we learn to be Me'akev from other Chata'os, from those in which an Ikuv was written.

Question #1: Chata'os ha'Tzibur, such as goats of Rosh Chodesh and Mo'adim, what is their source? We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, for Shinuy Ba'alim disqualifies [the sources, i.e. Chata'os Yachid], but not a Korban Tzibur!

Source: It says above (4a) that Shinuy Ba'alim does not apply the Tzibur like to an individual.

Implied question: Shinuy Ba'alim could not apply to the Tzibur (everyone is the owner)!

Answer: Even so, it is a proper question, like we find in Kidushin (5b) "you cannot learn from Kesef, for it redeems Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheni, but Chupah cannot", and in Bava Kama (88a) "you cannot learn from a woman, for she has no Mitzvah of Bris Milah."

Question #2: Inner Chata'os, according to R. Shimon who says that anything that is not [offered] on the outer Mizbe'ach, Pigul does not apply to it, we can ask "Pigul applies to [outer Chata'os]. You cannot learn from them to inner Chata'os!"

Answer (to both questions): Regarding Par Helam Davar, it says "Chatas ha'Kahal Hi", and in Toras Kohanim we expound from this that Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul;

If so, we find that [Lishmah] is Me'akev regarding a [Chatas] Tzibur, and regarding an inner [Chatas]. We learn l'Chatchilah from Shelamim.

Explanation: This refers to before Pesach, for it requires Akirah (to make it a different Korban). Or, the owners were detained to Pesach Sheni;

However, afterwards, no (it is Kosher), for Pesach during the rest of the year is Shelamim, and he slaughters Shelamim l'Shem Pesach, like it says in Pesachim (64a) and in Chulin (30a).

Remark: However, there is an opinion in Pesachim (73b) that obligates Akirah (even when it can no longer be offered for Pesach).

Explanation: Rashi wrote that it is not proper for its matter (to be offered for Pesach). Rashi changed the text to be like it says in Pesachim (61a) "if they slaughtered it before midday it is Pasul, for it says Bein ha'Arbayim."

Support #1: Several times the Torah fixed the time to be on the 14th Bein ha'Arbayim [so it is Me'akev].

Support #2: The Gemara connotes like this below (11b) regarding Pesach slaughtered in the morning, that "Bein ha'Arbayim" excludes this.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps we exclude this from what we expound here "l'Zevach Shelamim" - he must uproot it to be a Shelamim! (This shows that it is Pasul for Pesach.)

Rejection: Perhaps that is only l'Chatchilah, but it is not Me'akev.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We do not expound an extra verse. Rather, the verse connotes like this.

Question: This is astounding. If we do not bring an extra verse, what is the source to establish it to discuss Pesach?

Explanation #2: We expound an extra verse. There was no need to write "l'Zevach Shelamim", for [the verse] was discussing Shelamim!

Explanation #3: Below (9a) we expound "Kesev" to include Pesach for the law of the tail. Rashi explained that it is extra, for since after this it says regarding Shelamim "v'Im Ez Korbano", which implies that until now, we discussed a lamb;

Also here, we can say that since it says above "Im Min ha'Bakar Korbano", this implies that here we discuss Tzon (goats and sheep). If so, "ha'Tzon" is extra, to teach about Mosar Pesach. This is from R. Baruch.

Observation: It should have said 'had it written [only] "l'Zevach", it would be like you said', for there was no need at all to write Shelamim.

Explanation: The Gemara understands that it is a Ribuy, like it says (Bava Kama 63a) "b'Chol is a Klal. Kol is a Ribuy." It understands that we distinguish between Kol and b'Chol;

Therefore, we do not expound through Klal u'Ferat, rather, through Ribuy u'Mi'ut.