Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Ivya asks on Rav (who, in the realm of Kodshim, requires repetition for something to be Me'akev) from Melach - which is Me'akev (as we shall now see), even though Melichah is not repeated.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, comments on the Pasuk "B'ris Melach Olam Hi" - that Hashem made a covenant with salt, that it will never cease from the Korbanos.

(c) Rebbi Shimon learns from the fact that the Torah writes "B'ris" by salt, just like it writes "B'ris Kehunas Olam" - that just as there can be no Korbanos without Kohanim, so too, can there be no Korbanos without salt.

(d) Practically, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon do not argue - only over 'Mashma'os Dorshin' (the source).

(e) In answer to Rav Ivya's Kashya, Rav Yosef explains - that Rav holds like our Tana, who says 'Lo Malach, Kasher'.

(a) The Melichah took place - on top of the Mizbe'ach (beside the Ma'arachah).

(b) We interpreted 'Lo Yatzak Kasher' in our Mishnah to mean - 'Lo Yatzak Kohen Ela Zar'.

(c) We cannot interpret 'Lo Malach Kasher' in the same way (to answer Rav Ivya's Kashya on Rav) - because, since we just learned that Melichah took place on top of the Mizbe'ach, it goes without saying that a Zar (who is forbidden even to enter that section of the Azarah, let alone ascend the Mizbe'ach), cannot perform it.

(d) The alternative answer to Rav Ivya's Kashya, based on the Pasuk "B'ris Melach Olam" itself is - that "B'ris" has the same connotations as repetition.

(a) The problem that the Pasuk "ve'Chol Korban Minchascha ba'Melach Timlach" creates with the current Suya is - how we can then claim that Melach is not repeated?

(b) To answer the Kashya, we cite a Beraisa, which explains how this Pasuk is needed. The Tana learns from ...

1. ... "Minchascha" - that only a Korban like a Minchah, which requires firewood to burn it, must be salted, but not a Korban Eitzim or Dam (of Korbanos), which are independent.
2. ... the continuation of the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sashbis Melach ... *me'al Minchasecha*" - 've'Lo me'al Damcha' (that the blood of a Korban does not require salting [in case we try to learn Dam, which is Matir, from Minchah i.e. the Kometz, which is Matir, too).
3. ... "Korbancha"- that the Sheyari Minchah do not require salting.

(c) The Beraisa learns that the Levonah which comes with the Minchah requires salting too - from the fact that it is brought together with the Minchah in the same K'li.

(d) The Tana incorporates in the Melichah, Levonah that comes by itself, as well as the Levonah in the Bazichin, the Ketores, the Minchas Kohanim, the Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach and the Minchas Nesachim - (which are all completely burned, from the Pasuk in Vayikra "al Kol Korbancha Takriv Melach".

(a) The Tana's source for salting ...

1. ... the Eimurin of all Korbanos and the Eivarim of the Olah is - the same Pasuk ("al Kol Korbancha Takriv Melach"), and so is his source for salting ...
2. ... the Olas ha'Of.

(b) Having listed Eimurei Chatas and Eimurei Asham, the Tana nevertheless added 'Eimurei Kodshei Kodshim' - to include Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur (on Shavu'os), which ...

(c) ... we know are Kodshei Kodshim - because whereas Shalmei Yachid can be eaten for two days, they can be eaten for only one.

(a) In spite of having included in the salting, whatever requires wood to burn it, from "ve'Chol Korban Minchascha be'Melach Timloch", we need the S'vara that Levonah came together with the Minchah, in order to incorporate it too, because we might have otherwise precluded it - on the grounds that "Korban" is a 'K'lal', and "Minchascha", a 'P'rat' (and we would apply the principle 'Ein bi'Chelal Ela Mah she'bi'Perat' [to the exclusion of the current S'vara]).

(b) We know that this is not the case - because "al Kol Korbancha Takriv Melach" is a second 'K'lal' from which we include whatever is similar to the 'P'rat'.

(c) And this also explains - why we are able to include all the items that the Tana learns from "al Kol Korbancha Takriv Melach" (which would otherwise have been precluded from the 'K'lal u'P'rat').

(d) And we learn from the 'P'rat' (Minchah) - that whatever requires wood requires salting.

(a) We suggest that perhaps we should learn from the 'P'rat' whatever has an accompanying Chovah (i.e. Levonah), which would include the Dam in the Din Melichah - since it too, is accompanied by Nesachim.

(b) And we suggest that in fact, the Nesachim accompany the Eimurin (and not the Dam) - because if 'Kevayachol', the Eimurim are considered Hashem's food, the Nesachim are the drink.

(c) We counter that argument however, by suggesting that the Nesachim might go better with the Dam than with the Eimurin - because after the Kaparah comes the Simchah.

(d) We finally reject the suggestion that Dam requires salting because of the Nesachim, just like the Minchah requires salting because of the Levonah - since the latter are brought together in the same K'li, whereas the former are not.

(a) We ask why we do not learn from the P'rat the Levonah in the Bazichin exclusively. To arrive at that conclusion, we would have to Darshen - 'Mah ha'P'rat Mefurash she'Acherim Ba'in Chovah Lah (wood) u'Materes (the Minchah)'.

(b) Our answer is based on the D'rashah "me'al Minchasecha", 've'Lo me'al Damcha' - from which we can extrapolate that if not for this Drashah, we would learn Dam from Minchah, even though it is similar to it in only one way (inasmuch as it is Matir), and not two (as we currently suggesting), and so it is regarding all the other things that we learn from the Minchah.

8)

(a) The Tana just Darshened "me'al Minchasecha", 've'Lo me'al Damcha'. The alternative D'rashah we suggest is - "me'al Minchasecha", 've'Lo me'al Eivarecha'.

(b) And we cite six similarities between Eivarim and Minchah. Four of them are 'Acherim Ba'in Chovah Lah, Ishim, ba'Chutz and Nosar'. 'ba'Chutz' means - that Eivarim, like Kemitzah, are always sacrificed outside the Heichal (in the Azarah), whereas Dam is sometimes sprinkled bi'Fenim.

(c) The remaining two are - Tum'ah and Me'ilah, which do not apply to Dam.

(d) There is no Nosar, Tum'ah or Me'ilah by Dam - because the Torah writes three Pesukim to preclude Dam from these three things (as we learned in Zevachim).

(a) We conclude that in spite of the two similarities between Dam and Minchah, the similarities between Eivarim and Minchah outweigh them. One of those two similarities is 'Matir' - the other, is 'Nifsal bi'Sheki'as ha'Chamah'.

(b) The Eimurin become Pasul - the following morning.

(c) We know that - because we learn from the Parshah of Terumas ha'Deshen that it is a Mitzvah to burn the Eivarim and Eimurin all night.

(a) The Beraisa precluded Eitzim and Dam from Melichah, even though they are considered a Korban. The Tana who considers Eitzim a Korban is - Rebbi.

(b) Rebbi in a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk "Nefesh ki Sakriv *Korban* Minchah" - that Eitzim is called a Korban.

(c) We also find wood referred to as a Korban - in Nechemyah, who writes "ve'ha'Goralos Hipalnu al Korban ha'Eitzim".

(d) The minimum Shiur that someone who donates a Korban Eitzim must bring is - two large blocks of wood.

(a) According to Rebbi, a Korban Eitzim (which he considers to be a Korban Minchah) requires salt - and Hagashah (to the south-western corner of the Mizbe'ach).

(b) Rava adds that it also requires Kemitzah, and Rav Papa adds to that - Eitzim.

(c) The question then arises how the Beraisa can then preclude a Korban Eitzim from salt, to which we answer - 'Sami mi'Ka'an Eitzim' (erase Eitzim from the Beraisa).

(d) Neither does "Minchah" come to preclude Dam, seeing as we ultimately learn Dam from "me'al Minchasecha". "Minchah" ('Kol she'Acherim Ba'in Lahem Chovah') therefore comes to preclude - Nesachim, which do not require wood.