Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan invalidates a Minchah that is mixed (with oil) outside the precincts of the Azarah. Resh Lakish declares it Kasher.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'yatzak Allah Shemen ... Ve'hevi'ah el B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim Ve'kamatz" - that a Zar is eligible to perform any Avodah before the Kemitzah i.e. Yetzikah and Belilah (pouring in the oil and mixing it with the flour).

(a) Resh Lakish extrapolates from the precious D'rashah - that since these Avodos do not require Kehunah, they do not require P'nim (inside the Azarah) either.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan argues that - on the contrary, since they require a K'li Shareis, they require P'nim.

(c) We quote a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yochanan. The Tana there states - 'Balelah Zar, Kesheirah; Chutz le'Chomas ha'Azarah, Pesulah'.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, if a Minchah became Chaser before the Kemitzah - the owner should fetch more flour and supplement it ...

(b) ... because it is the Kemitzah that turns a Minchah into a Minchah. Before that, whatever goes missing can be supplemented.

(c) Resh Lakish invalidates the Minchah - because, in his opinion, it is the placing it in the k'li Shareis that turns it into a Minchah.

(d) The basis of their Machlokes is how to interpret the D'rashah from the Pasuk "min ha'Minchah" - 'P'rat le'she'Chasrah' (to exclude one that became Chaser, which is Pasul).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan asked on Resh Lakish from a Beraisa, where the Tana rules, in a case where the Log Shemen shel Metzora became Chaser before the Kohen poured it into his left palm - that the owner should supplement it.

(b) Resh Lakish has no answer to that - so we remain with a 'Tiyuvta'.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Shirayim she'Chasru bein Kemitzsah le'Haktarah, Maktir Kometz Aleihen' - Resh Lakish disqualifies the Kometz.

(b) The two parties do not dispute Rebbi Eliezer, who rules in a Mishnah in ha'Kometz Rabah that a Minchah, whose Shirayim became Tamei, burned or lost - is Kasher.

(c) Their dispute is based on the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua, who rules - that it is Pasul.

(d) The basic Machlokes of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua concerns Zevachim. Rebbi Eliezer holds - 'Dam, Af-al-Pi she'Ein Basar', whilst Rebbi Yehoshua holds - 'Im Ein Basar, Ein Dam' (and the Kometz without Shirayim, is like Dam without Basar).

(e) Resh Lakish certainly follows Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion. Rebbi Yochanan reconciles his opinion with Rebbi Yehoshua - by differentiating between the Mishnah, which speaks when nothing is left at all of the blood, whereas he speaks when a k'Zayis remains.

(a) In fact, Rebbi Yehoshua himself in a Beraisa, corroborates Rebbi Yochanan's opinion. In a case where a little Basar or Cheilev remain, he permits the Kohen to go ahead with the Zerikas Dam - provided a 'k'Zayis remains, but not if less than a k'Zayis remains.

(b) He even permits half a k'Zayis of Basar and half a k'Zayis of Cheilev - by the case of an Olah, which is all burned, in which case there is no reason to distinguish between the Basar and the Cheilev (so that both can combine to make up a k'Zayis), but not by other Korbanos (where Achilas Mizbe'ach and Achilas Adam do not combine).

(c) Rav Papa explains Rebbi Yehoshua's statement 'u've'Minchah, Af-al-Pi she'Kulah Kayemes, Lo Yizrok' - to refer to a Minchas Nesachim, to teach us that even if a k'Zayis of the Minchah remains, if there is no Basar or Cheilev, the Korban is Pasul.

(d) Otherwise, we would have thought - that since the Minchah comes together with the Zevach, it is considered as much part of the Korban as the Basar and the Cheilev.

7)

(a) Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk "Ve'heirim ha'Kohen min *ha'Minchah* es Azkarasah Ve'hiktir ha'Mizbeichah" - that the Kometz is only burned on the Mizbe'ach, if the Minchah remains complete (i.e. that the Shirayim did not become Chaser between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah); otherwise not.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan interprets "min ha'Minchah" to mean - that it must have been complete at the time of the Kemitzah (as we explained earlier).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan questions Resh Lakish from the Beraisa (that we already discussed above), which rules that if Lechem ha'Panim breaks after being removed from the Shulchan (which is equivalent to after the Kemitzah of a Minchah) - the Lechem is Pasul, but the Bazichin are nevertheless burned on the Mizbe'ach.

(d) According to Resh Lakish - the Bazichin ought to become Pasul, just like the Kometz in the equivalent case by Minchah (see Shitah Mekubetzes).

(a) To refute the Kashya - Resh Lakish establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer (who is Machshir the Kometz like he is Machshir the Dam even if there is no Basar (as we learned earlier).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan did not accept that however, because it is a S'tam Mishnah, and had the author been Rebbi Eliezer, the Beraisa ought to have presented a case where the Lechem ha'Panim got burned or lost (and not just broken).

(c) Resh Lakish reacted to Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya - with silence (because he had no answer).

(d) We ask why Resh Lakish did not answer that the Lechem ha'Panim is different, seeing as it is a Minchas Tzibur - in which case, we ought to permit Chaser, just as we permit Tum'ah.

(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah answered - that from the fact that Resh Lakish did not answer that, it is evident that Chaser is comparable (not to Tum'ah, which is permitted by a Tzibur, but) to a 'Ba'al-Mum (which is not).

(b) When Rav Papa repeated the previous Kashya (regarding the distinction between a private Minchah and the Lechem ha'Panim [see also Shitah Mekubetzes]), Rav Yosef expressed surprise. Who says, he asked - that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish are not arguing by the Minchas ha'Omer, which is a Minchas Tzibur (and even there, Resh Lakish disqualifies the Kometz).

(a) Rav Malkiyo cites two Beraisos, which quote two individual Pesukim. The ...

1. ... first Beraisa learns from "mi'Saltah, u'mi'Shamnah" - that a Minchah, whose flour or oil becomes Chaser (even a Kol-she'Hu) is Pasul.
2. ... second Beraisa learns from "ve'ha'Noseres min ha'Minchah" - that a Minchah which becomes Chaser (irrespective of whether it is the Minchah itself or the Kometz, or if the Levonah is not brought on the Mizbe'ach at all) is Pasul.

(b) Both Beraisos are referring to a Minchah that became Chaser at one point. The problem with this is - why we need two Pesukim to invalidate the Minchah itself which became Chaser (since the second Pasuk does not specifically mention the oil)?

(c) Rav Malkiyo asks on Rebbi Yochanan on two scores - because, establishing that one Beraisa is referring to a Minchah that became Chaser before the Kemitzah, and the other, to a Minchah whose Shirayim became Chaser after the Kemitzah, he focuses on the aspects of the cases where Rebbi Yochanan declares the Minchah, Kasher (the first case, where the owner supplemented it; the second case, with regard to sacrificing the Kometz. Even those cases, he asks, the Tana is stringent.

(d) We counter that however, by switching to the aspects of the same two cases which Rebbi Yochanan agrees are Pasul (the first case, where the owner failed to supplement the missing Minchah; and the second with regard to eating the Shirayim).

(a) They asked whether, according to Rebbi Yochanan (who is Machshir the Kometz), if the Shirayim became Chaser between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah, the Kohanim may eat the Shirayim. Ze'eiri and Rebbi Yanai argue over this point (neither, it appears, saw the previous Beraisa) based on Pesukim in Tzav.

1. Ze'iri resolves the She'eilah from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Noseres min ha'Minchah" - 've'Lo ha'Noseres min ha'Noseres'.
2. Rebbi Yanai (assuming that he argues with Ze'iri's basic ruling) resolves it from "min ha'Minchah" - 'Minchah she'Haysah K'var' (i.e. as long as the Minchah was complete at the time of the Kemitzah [like Rebbi Yochanan Darshened earlier, but regarding the Kometz]).

(b) We might also interpret Rebbi Yanai's words to mean that the Kohanim are only permitted to eat the Shirayim, if the Minchah (i.e. the Shirayim) is intact at the time of the Haktarah, in which case, he agrees with Ze'iri in principle, only arguing with him as to the source.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Kamatz bi'Semol, Pasul'. Initially, we learn that from the Pasuk (in connection with the Milu'im) "Va'yakrev es ha'Minchah Va'yemalei *Chapo* Mimenah", because, bearing in mind the Pasuk (in connection with the Asham Metzora Ashir) "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Log ha'Shemen Ve'yatzak al *Kaf* ha'Kohen ha'Semalis", it teaches us - that it is only there that the left palm is eligible for the Avodah of a Kohen, but everywhere else, the Kohen must use his right palm.

(b) We answer the Kashya that we need the Pasuk to teach us the intrinsic Halachah - by pointing to a second "Semalis" to teach us the second Halachah.

(c) The problem with that (that forces us to answer that ...

1. ... a third "Semolis" is mentioned there) is - that two consecutive 'Miy'utin' (such as the two times "Semalis" here), usually come to include (and not exclude ['Ein Miy'ut Basar Miy'ut Ela Lerabos']), in which case, they will come to permit using even the right palm.
2. ... a fourth "Semalis" is - that maybe after the first two "Semalis" include the left-hand, maybe the third "Semalis" comes to permit using the left-hand for all other Avodos?

(d) We will find - two of those "Semolis" by Metzora Ani and two, by Metzora Ani.

Next daf