Previous daf

1)

(a) Initially, we think that when Rebbi Yehudah says 'she'Hi Meyuchedes she'bi'Menachos' - it is because the Torah mentions it first.

(b) Based on that principle, someone who declares that he will bring ...

1. ... an Olah - ought to give precedence to a bull, because the Torah mentions it first.
2. ... an Olah min ha'Tzon - ought to give precedence to a lamb (over a goat).
3. ... an Olah min ha'Of - pigeons (over young doves), all for the same reason.

(c) The Mishnah later discusses a case where someone undertakes to bring an Olah. According to the Tana Kama, Lechatchilah one should bring a lamb. Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah maintains - that one should give precedence to a pigeon or a young dove.

(d) This Mishnah poses a Kashya on the reason that we just ascribed to Rebbi Yehudah in that - his silence is a clear indication that he agrees with it (despite the fact that the Torah first mentions a bull).

(a) And the reason that Rebbi Yehudah refers to a Minchas So'les as 'Meyuchedes she'bi'Menachos' is - because it is the only Minchah that is called a 'Minchah' S'tam, without a descriptive title (e.g. 'Minchah al ha'Machavas').

(b) When the Beraisa specifically gives Rebbi Yehudah's reason as 'Ho'il u'Pasach Bo ha'Kasuv' - it means to say that the Minchas So'les, which is Meyuchedes she'bi'Menachos because it has no descriptive title, is mentioned first in the Pasuk.

(c) True, Rebbi Yehudah specifically mentions Minchas So'les. Nevertheless, the Tana adds this additional Si'man - to help us remember which Minchah he is referring to.

(a) Rav Papa asks whether someone who declares 'mi'Miynei ha'Minchah' might mean two kinds of Minchah, and when he said 'Minchah', he was referring to all the Menachos, like the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Zos Toras ha'Minchah".

(b) Alternatively, 'Minchah' might mean literally one Minchah, and what the Noder meant when he said mi'Miynei' was - that he would donate one of the five kinds of Minchah.

(c) We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Minchah, Miyn Minchah, Yavi Achas' - implying 'Miynei Minchah, Shetayim'.

(d) We refute the proof from there however, from the Seifa 'Menachos, Miyn Menachos, Yavi Shetayim' - implying 'Miynei Minchah, Achas', leaving us without any indication at all.

(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Miyn Menachos Alai, Yavi Sh'tei Menachos mi'Miyn Echad'. We try to refute the inference 'Ha mi'Miynei Minchah, Chada' (meaning just one Minchah, thereby resolving our She'eilah) - by countering with the inference 'Ha Miynei Minchah, Meivi Sh'tei Menachos mi'Sh'nei Miynim'.

(b) We try to refute this however, by citing the continuation of the Beraisa (or perhaps it is a different Beraisa) 'Miynei Menachos Alai, Meivi Sh'tei Menachos mi'Sh'nei Miynim', from which we extrapolate 'Ha Miynei Minchah - Chada'.

(c) We nevertheless conclude that the Din may well be 'Meivi Sh'tei Menachos mi'Sh'nei Miynim, and the author of the Beraisa (which omits the case of 'Miynei Minchah'), is Rebbi Shimon - who permits the ten loaves of a Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur to comprise five Chalos and five Rekikin (as we have learned many times).

(d) Consequently, we will interpret 'Miynei Minchah' to mean - a Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur comprising two kinds (the 'Chada' implied by the Beraisa).

(a) 'Mechtzah Chalos u'Mechtzah Rekikin' of Rebbi Shimon - incorporates any combination of ten (5+5, 6+4, 7+3, 8+2 and 9+1).

(b) According to Rebbi Yirmiyah therefore, our Mishnah, which rules 'Pirashti, ve'Eini Yode'a Mah Pirashti, Yavi Chamishtan', cannot go like Rebbi Shimon - because he would now have to bring more than just five Menachos.

(c) In fact, assuming that Rebbi Shimon requires ten Chalos for every Minchah (like Rebbi Yehudah), then besides So'les, Machavas and Marcheshes) - the Noder will have to bring eleven Menachos (ten Chalos, ten Rekikin, 9 Chalos and 1 Rakik, 8 Chalos and 2 Rekikin, 7 and 3 and 6 and 4, the same in the reverse, and 5 and 5)

(d) Abaye disagrees. Based on Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa (as we will explain shortly), one could get away with one Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur, even according to Rebbi Shimon - by bringing ten Chalos and ten Rekikin, and stipulating that whatever he declared that he would bring, is included in these twenty loaves, and the remainder will be a Nedavah.

6)

(a) The Beraisa discusses a Safek Metzora Muchlat (and a Safek Nazir Tamei), Safek Tahor. After sixty days - he is permitted to eat Kodshim.

(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, on the sixty-first day, he brings his Asham and Log of oil, and he stipulates that assuming that he was Tahor to begin with - the lamb should be a Shelamim.

(c) Assuming that it is ...

1. ... an Asham, besides the fact that the oil requires placing on the Metzora's right thumb - it must also be Shechted on the north side of the Azarah, and eaten by male Kohanim on that day and the following night (until midnight), Chumros that do not pertain to a Shelamim.
2. ... a Shelamim - then it requires Semichah, Tenufah and Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok (Chumros that do not pertain to an Asham).

(a) Generally speaking, says Mar, Rebbi Shimon would not allow such a procedure Lechatchilah - because assuming that it is a Shelamim, it decreases the time-span during which it may be eaten (which increases the chances of having to burn it, should the Kohanim not manage to eat it in time).

(b) He nevertheless permitted it in the case of a Safek Metzora Tamei - to rectify the Safek Metzora, who will otherwise not be permitted to eat Kodshim.

(c) And this explains why Abaye establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon (which permits making such a condition even Lechatchilah [even thought it is not speaking about a Metzora]), because, since all the S'feikos are Menachos, which may all be eaten for one day and a night, there is no reason for Rebbi Shimon to apply the prohibition to it.

(a) Rav Papa's problem with establishing Rebbi Shimon as the author of our Mishnah (in which case, the Noder brings as the Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur ten Chalos and ten Rekikin on which he stipulates, as we explained) was - that if the Noder undertook to bring ten Chalos or ten Rekikin, then he is now bringing half of each Minchah, and half of each Log of oil (instead of the whole).

(b) To which Abaye answered - that in Rebbi Shimon's opinion, someone who does so is indeed Yotzei.

(a) The problem Rav Papa has with the two Kemitzah is - that in the event that he undertook to bring a Minchah consisting of half Chalos and half Rekikin, he ought to perform one Kemitzah from both combined, and not two.

(b) Abaye requires the Noder to stipulate, when taking one Kometz from the Chalos and one from the Rekikin - that if he undertook to bring Chalos and Rekikin independently, then each Kemitzah will pertain to its own kind; whereas if he undertook half of each, then both what he took from the Chalos and what he took from the Rekikin, should both pertain half to the Chalos and half to the Rekikin.

(c) If, on the other hand, the Noder undertook to bring one Minchah of half Chalos and half Rekikin, Rav Papa asks Abaye, he ought to perform one Kemitzah incorporating the two, to which Abaye replies - that here too, Rebbi Shimon holds that if when making the Kemitzah, the Kohen finds that he has taken the entire Kometz either from the Chalos or from the Rekikin (on behalf of both), he is Yotzei (as we learned in Perek Kol ha'Menachos Ba'os Matzah.

(a) We have a problem with the oil however. In a case of Mechtzah Chalos, Mechtzah Rekikin, the Mosar ha'Shemen is returned to the Chalos (as we learned in Perek Kol ha'Menachos Ba'os Matzah). If there are only Rekikin - it is distributed among the Kohanim.

(b) We answer by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah, who rules that in the case of Mechtzah Chalos, Mechtzah Rekikin too - it is distributed among the Kohanim.