Previous daf

1)

(a)

1. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Minchah al ha'Machavas) "So'les Belulah" - that the Belilah takes place whilst the Minchah is still in the flour stage.
2. Rebbi learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur) "Chalos ... Belulos" - that it takes place after the Chalos have been baked.

(b) The Chachamim counter Rebbi from the Korban Todah, where it would be impossible to mix the oil after the loaves have been baked (since the ten Chalos there require a mere a quarter of a Log of oil [as we will learn in the next Perek]).

(c) According to the text that reads 'Shapir Ka'amri Leih Rabbanan le'Rebbi' ([in question form] with regard to their proof from the Korban Todah), Rebbi replies - by conceding to the Chachamim by the Chalos of the Todah, but insisting that the Chalos of other Menachos (where their argument is not applicable), require Belilah after they have been baked.

(a) According to the Chachamim, the Belilah is followed by kneading the dough, which are followed in turn - by baking, breaking into pieces (Pesisah), adding oil (Yetzikah) and Kemitzah.

(b) According to Rebbi - the Belilah is performed between the Pesisah and the Yetzikah.

(a) From the Pasuk (in connection with the Minchah Ma'afeh Tanur) ...

1. ... "Chalos ... Belulos" - the Beraisa precludes Rekikin from Belilah ...
2. ... and from "Rekikin ... Meshuchin ba'Shemen" - he precludes Chalos from Meshichah.

(b) We would otherwise have thought that ...

1. ... the Rekikin require Belilah, too - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Chalos, which do not require Meshichah (yet they require Belilah).
2. ... the Chalos require Meshichah - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Rekikin, which do not require Belilah (yet they require Meshichah).

(c) Both "Belulos" and "Meshuchin" cannot pertain to both Chalos and Rekikin - because if they did, the Pasuk would have been bound to mention Meshichah by Chalos and Belilah by Rekikin, at least once.

(a) The Beraisa discusses a Minchah that consists of half Chalos and half Rekikin - with reference to a Minchah Ma'afeh Tanur, and according to Rebbi Shimon, who permits half Chalos and half Rekikin.

(b) According to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, the Rekikin are anointed like a Greek 'Chi' (as we described in our Mishnah [see also Tosfos DH 'ke'Miyn Chi']), whilst the remainder of the oil is eaten by the Kohanim. According to Tana Kama however ...

1. ...the half Log of oil - is smeared across the entire surface of the Rekikin ...
2. ... whilst the remainder of the oil is added to the Chalos.

(c) Another Beraisa discusses a Minchah Ma'afeh Tanur that consists of Rekikin only. According to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah, one follows the same procedure with the oil as one did in the previous case. According to the Tana Kama however, since there are no Chalos to which to add the remainder of the oil - the Kohen simply smears the oil over the surface of the Rekikin over and over again, until it has all been used up.

(a) Our Mishnah categorizes the Menachos that require Pesisah as - all those that are prepared in a K'li ...

(b) ... precluding the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim, as Rav Papa explains.

(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with a Minchah al ha'Machavas) ...

1. ... "Pasos Osah Pitin ... *Minchah*" - that all Menachos (i.e. the Minchah al ha'Machavas, and the Minchah Ma'afeh Tanur).
2. ... "Osah" - that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim are exempt from Pesisah.

(a) From "Ve'yatzakta Alehah Shemen ... *Minchah*" (in the same Pasuk) the Beraisa learns - that Yetzikah extends to all Menachos (as we just explained).

(b) This time, the Tana precludes a Minchah Ma'afeh Tanur from Yetzikah from "Alehah". And he then learns from "Minchah *Hi*" - that both the Chalos and the Rekikin are precluded from Yetzikah (one from each Limud).

(c) And the reason that the Tana precludes the Minchah Ma'afeh Tanur from Yetzikah, and not the Minchas Kohanim, says Rabah, is - because that is the only Korban that requires two Pesukim (one for the Chalos, and one for the Rekikin). It is not clear however, why, based on the principle 'Hei Minaihu Mafkas' one Pasuk will not suffice to preclude both.

(d) The reason that the Tana does not also preclude the Minchah Ma'afeh Tanur from Pesisah (from "Osah"), rather than the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim is - because we will later include the Minchah Ma'afeh Tanure in the Din of Pesisin (despite the fact that it is not prepared in a K'li, as we learned on the previous Amud).

7)

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah describing the Pesisah, states - that one folds the loaf into two and the two into four?

(b) The Minchah of a Yisrael, he rules, must then actually be divided, but not the Minchah of ...

1. ... a Kohen (since it does not need Kemitzah).
2. ... the Kohen Mashi'ach - which does not even require folding.

(c) Rebbi Shimon disagrees on two scores. He ...

1... exempts even a Minchas Kohen from Pesisah, since it does not require Kemitzah.
2. ... requires the pieces to be folded and broken into pieces the size of a 'k'Zayis (see also Tif'eres Yisrael).

(d) He might also explain 've'Chulan Posesan k'Zeisim' to mean - that each the ten Chalos made out of the Isaron of flour must comprise at least a k'Zayis.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Pasos" - that the Minchah must be divided into two.
2. ... "Pitim" - that the two must be divided again into four.
3. ... "Osah" - that its pieces should not be folded and broken into more than four pieces.

(b) Rabah reconciles the Beraisa, which prescribes Pesisah for the Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach with our Mishnah, which exempts it - by obligating the Kohen to fold it twice, but not four times (like the other Menachos).

(a) According to Rav Yosef, if the pieces of bread that are cooked in the Chavita (a dish containing pieces of bread) are larger than a 'k'Zayis' - one recites 'ha'Motzi', but if they are smaller than that - then one recites 'Borei Miynei Mezonos'.

(b) He proves this from a Beraisa (based on Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah), which obligates a Kohen who is bringing a Minchah to recite two B'rachos. He will recite 'Shehechiyanu', either because he is bringing a Minchah for the first time - or because he brought the Minchas ha'Omer from the new crops for the first time that year.

(c) When he then picks it up to eat, the Tana obligate him to recite - 'ha'Motzi'.

(d) Rav Yosef now proves his point from Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah, who requires pieces of a 'k'Zayis' - from which can infer that on pieces of less than a k'Zayis, one recites 'Mezonos', and not 'ha'Motzi'.

(a) Abaye queries Rav Yosef from Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who rules in a Beraisa - that one grinds the pieces back into flour before performing the Kemitzah.

(b) Abaye now asks on Rav Yosef from there - whether according to Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, the Kohanim will not recite 'ha'Motzi' either?

(c) And he tries to prove conclusively that the B'rachah of 'ha'Motzi' is applicable to pieces of even less that a k'Zayis, from a Beraisa. The Tana there rules that someone who on Pesach, collected and ate crumbs of ...

1. ... Chametz - is Chayav Kareis.
2. ... Matzah - he has fulfilled the Mitzvah of eating Matzah (even though, in both cases, the crumbs are smaller than a 'k'Zayis').

(d) We refute Abaye's proof however, by establishing the case there 'be'she'Irsan', meaning - when he rolled them into one piece.

(a) We reject this explanation, however, from a second Beraisa, which sets the time limit (in the first Beraisa) - as a k'Zayis in the time it takes to eat a P'ras (half a loaf of eight k'Zeisim) for the eating to be effective.

(b) The problem with the word in the Beraisa 've'Hu *she'Achlan* ... ' is - that if, as we just suggested, the person who ate the crumbs rolled them into one, then the Beraisa ought to have said 've'Hu she'Achlah' (in the singular).

(c) So we explain the Beraisa (to refute Abaye's Kashya) even assuming that he ate crumbs of less than a k'Zayis - when part of the loaf from which the crumbs came is still intact, rendering the crumbs 'Chashuv' (but otherwise, the B'rachah will be 'Mezonos', like Rav Yosef explained).

(d) Rav Sheishes concludes however, that one recites 'ha'Motzi' even on crumbs of less than a k'Zayis (not like Rav Yosef). Rava adds the condition - that the crumbs still retain the formation of bread (but not if they have become completely soggy, or ground into flour).