Implied Question: [Why are there two volumes of teachings, one called "Seder Eliyahu Rabah" and the other called "Seder Eliyahu Zuta?" Shouldn't they be compiled in one volume and called "Seder Eliyahu?"] Rebbi says that because Eliyahu made a split of two different time periods when he taught Rav Anan, the teachings were split into two different orders. The first time period he learned with him most of the "four hands" (referring to the material covered) he called the first "Seder Eliyahu Rabah" - "The Greater Order of (Teachings from) Eliyahu." He called the second one ""Seder Eliyahu Zuta" - "The Smaller Order of (Teachings from) Eliyahu."

Question: This is difficult. Doesn't the Mishnah state in Bechoros (29b) that the ruling of someone who takes payment to analyze a Bechor (to see whether or not it has a blemish) cannot permit the animal to be slaughtered?

Answer (#1): It is possible to give the same answer as I gave earlier. [Tosfos (105a, DH "Gozrei Gezeiros") explained that those who were permanent judges were allowed to be take a salary for judging, as they were always available to hear cases and had no other livelihood. However, someone who does so once in awhile would not be allowed to take money. Here, too, the people who were constantly available to check Bechoros for blemishes could take a salary and be considered reliable, as opposed to those who did so once in awhile for money (see another answer there in the name of Rabeinu Tam).]

Answer (#2): Alternatively, specifically regarding there is more of a suspicion that a person (checking blemishes) will permit the animal because he is getting paid.

However, our Gemara is discussing people who used to check for blemishes in other Kodshim (Korbanos).

Proof: This (concept that there were people paid to check for blemishes in regular Korbanos) is indeed at the end of the first chapter of Shekalim (7a). The Gemara there says that the ones who checked for blemishes in Korbanos would take their payment from the public funds for the Beis Hamikdash.

Implied Question: It does not mention the laws of Melikah (which one would think would be mentioned as one of the Avodos that had to be taught to the Kohanim). [Why not?]

Answer: This is because they are included in the Gemara's statement regarding the laws of Shechitah.

Implied Question: [What are the seven gates this is referring to?] It is referring to the seven gates of the Azarah ("courtyard" of the Beis Hamikdash).

Observation: Rebbi says that this Tana holds like the Tana in Midos (1:4) who states that there were seven gates in the Azarah: three in the north, three in the south, and one in the east.

Implied Question: The Mishnah there stated previously that there were three places that the Kohanim guarded etc. (Tamid 1:1), [and the Levi'im guarded in twenty-one places, among them] the five gates of the Azarah (see Tamid 27b).

Answer: In Tamid (27a), the Gemara itself asks this question (five or seven gates?). Abaye answers that (while there were five gates that were guarded) two of these (seven) gates did not need to be guarded.

Rava answers that this is an argument among the Tanaim. The Beraisa states, "There is never supposed to be less than [three caretakers and seven head caretakers. Rebbi Nasan says that there is never supposed to be less than] thirteen caretakers opposite the thirteen gates. Taking away the five gates of Har ha'Bayis, that means that there are eight left, which would all be in the Azarah (according to this opinion).

We see that there is one Tana who says that there are eight gates, and one who says that there are five.

Question (#1): This is difficult. Why does Rava say that there is an argument among Tanaim by citing this Beraisa? He could have brought this opinion from a Mishnah in the second chapter of Midos (2:6) that states that there were thirteen places that people bowed in the Mikdash. Aba Yosi ben Chanan says that this was opposite the thirteen gates.

Question (#2): There is an additional difficulty. There is in fact a fourth argument (meaning that there are four opinions of the number of gates, which have so far been five, seven, or eight, and now thirteen). It must be that the Tana who holds that there were thirteen gates in the Azarah cannot hold that there were actually eight after subtracting the five gates of the Har ha'Bayis.

This is evident from the fact that the names of the gates are mentioned, and not one of them is that of the named gates of Har ha'Bayis, which are named in the first chapter of Midos. They are called the two gates of Chuldah in the south, Kipunus in the west, Teddy in the north, and the eastern gate is called the Shushan ha'Birah gate which has a picture on it of (the city of) Shushan.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that really this Tana agrees that the Azarah had seven gates. When the Tana says thirteen, he merely means that including the small gates there were thirteen. He took all of the gates into account.

This is clear from the fact that the small openings of the gate of Nikanor are mentioned. However, there were only seven large gates in the Azarah, and those are explicitly named in the first chapter (of Midos).

One who looks into this principle will find that the Korban gate in the first chapter (of Midos, 1:5) is the same as the Bechoros gate in the second chapter (2:6). The thirteen gates in Midos are also taught in Shekalim (6:3), where the entire Mishnah is stated over. [Additionally,] Aba Yosef ben Chanan's opinion is the same as that in our Mishnah (in Midos).

The Yerushalmi in Shekalim says that the Mishnah there is according to the opinion of Aba Yosef ben Chanan, who says that there were thirteen places to bow down opposite the thirteen gates. According to the Rabbanan, there were (only) seven gates in the Azarah.

According to the Rabbanan, where were the places that they bowed down? This is like the Mishnah that states that there were thirteen openings that the kings of Greece made in the walls of the Azarah, and they (Bnei Yisrael) went back and sealed them. Opposite these thirteen openings they decreed thirteen bowings.

Question: If you will ask, according to the Rabbanan who understood there were seven gates, why does the Gemara ask what was their significance? The Rabbanan also held there were thirteen gates together with the smaller gates, as (Rabeinu Tam) explained above.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answered that because they were not important enough in their eyes that they should be called gates, it is not so logical to say that they would decree that people should bow down because of them. However, according to Aba Yosef ben Chanan who did call them gates this is obviously logical.

Implied Question: However, regarding Beis Garmo and Beis Avitinas' (who taught how to make the Lechem ha'Panim and Ketores respectively, see 106a) the Gemara did not ask (how they could have taken their wages from the "Terumas ha'Lishkah" - "public coffers for matters regarding Korbanos").

Answer: This is because all of those (monies) Bnei Yisrael made Hekdesh for these needs as well, just as they dedicated their money for the purpose of buying the public Korbanos. This is because these were all anticipated (expenses).

This is why it says that their salaries came from the Terumas ha'Lishkah itself, and not from the extra money of the Terumas ha'Lishkah. This is because these monies are not (available for their salaries) because of a condition of Beis Din that permits them to be used for salaries, but rather because of the mindset of Bnei Yisrael (when they donated the monies).

However, according to this answer (that the mindset of the donors determines the monies possible uses) the Gemara is asking its question. The Gemara concludes that where there is no left over monies it is forbidden to use the money for Klei Shares, and where there is leftover money it is permitted. The Gemara therefore asks, what is the difference whether there is leftover money or not? The people obviously did not have the purpose of making Klei Shares in mind when they donated the money, as it is not permitted to make Klei Shares with the money if there is no money leftover.

The Gemara therefore answers that Beis Din makes a condition regarding this money that the leftover money can be used for Klei Shares, and the people give the money as per the mindset of Beis Din (whatever Beis Din deems an appropriate usage for the money).

Explanation: This reference to Terumas ha'Lishkah actually refers to the leftovers of the Terumas ha'Lishkah, as is apparent from the Mishnah (in Shekalim 4:2 quoted by the Gemara later). Rebbi Yishmael there argues on Rebbi Akiva, as it states that (Rebbi Yishmael's opinion was) that the extra monies from the Terumas ha'Lishkah can be used to make Klei Shares.

Question: If you will ask, when the Gemara asks, "and let us say it comes from the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah itself (see next entry)" because the Pasuk states "the rest," why doesn't the Gemara simply answer that "the rest" refers to the leftover money in the Terumas ha'Lishkah?

Note: The Terumas ha'Lishkah, as the name implies, is money that was taken from the Lishkah three times a year in order to pay for the Korbanos (see Shekalim 3:1). Accordingly, there was not always leftover money in the Terumas ha'Lishkah, but there would almost certainly be leftover money in the Lishkah itself. This is called the Shiyarei ha'Lishkah. The leftover money would have to be taken away from the Lishkah before Rosh Chodesh Nisan, when the public Korbanos already had to be brought from money that was given for the new year (see Yavetz on our Tosfos).

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Gemara is trying to establish the Pasuk as discussing the leftover amount in the Lishkah every year. However, there was not always leftover money in the Terumas ha'Lishkah. The Gemara would rather establish the Pasuk as discussing something that was constantly applicable, instead of something that only applied sometimes.

Question: This is difficult. Why is the teaching of Rava ("and he will set up on it the Olah," (Vayikra 6:5) "the Olah" teaches that nothing should be brought before the Korban Tamid of the morning) needed? It could be learned from the same source used by the Mishnah in Zevachim (89a)!

The Mishnah there states, "whatever is more common than its friend comes before its friend. (Therefore) Korban Tamidin come before a Korban Musaf (etc.)." The Gemara asks, how do we know this? The Gemara replies, what do you mean how do we know this? The Mishnah (ibid.) itself explicitly states that this is derived from the Pasuk "besides the Olah of the morning that is for the Olas ha'Tamid" (Bamidbar 28:23).

You might suggest that the Pasuk there is needed to teach that where only one out of two possibilities can be fulfilled, that the Musaf is uprooted before the Korban Tamid.

This is incorrect. This teaching is the source for the entire concept that when something is common and another thing is uncommon, the common thing is done first. This is learned from "like these you should do," (ibid. 28:24) teaching that in every instance where there are multiple things to be done, their order should follow this rule. If the Pasuk would be discussing what nullifies the other, this rule could not be learned by the Pasuk "like these you should do" (ibid.).

Additionally, the first case there is stating a logical concept, that when something is common and another thing is uncommon, the common thing is done first. This is similar to the next concept stated there that when something is holier than something else, the holier thing is done first. For example, the blood of a Korban Chatas is sprinkled before that of a Korban Olah, because the blood of the Chatas causes atonement etc. All of these cases clearly discuss what is first (not what is done if only one out of two things can possibly be done).

It also cannot be answered that if the Pasuk there, "besides the Olah of the morning," was the only teaching, I would think that an Olah is brought before a Korban Musaf because it is more common. However, perhaps a Korban Tamid does not come before a donated Olah that is also quite common. This is why the Pasuk needs to state (Rava's teaching of) "ha'Olah" as well, teaching us that this Olah (Korban Tamid) is always first.

This is because in Menachos (49a) the teaching of Rava ("ha'Olah") is quoted regarding an Olah being offered before a Korban Musaf. The Gemara there states that Rav Chiya bar Aba asked Rav Chisda, if a public does not have a (animal to offer for both the) Tamid and Musaf, which should they bring?

The Gemara concludes that Rav Chisda responded that the lack of Korban Tamid does not hold back the Musaf, and the lack of Korban Musaf does not hold back the Korban Tamid. What is Rav Chisda'a case? If Rav Chisda was referring to a case where the person had both and merely had the wrong one go first, don't we learn in a Beraisa, "how do we know that nothing should be offered before the Korban Tamid in the morning? The Pasuk teaches us, "and he will set up on it the Olah," (Vayikra 6:5) and Rava teaches etc. ("the Olah" refers to the first Olah). Rav Chisda therefore must be talking about a case where he does not have the ability to do both.

If Rav Chisda is talking about the Korban Tamid and Musaf of today, it is obvious that the more common Korban (Tamid) should be first. It therefore must mean that the two choices are either to bring the Korban Musaf of today or the Korban Tamid of the next day. This implies that this is relative to the Olah coming before the Musaf (not negating it completely, as suggested).

This is difficult, as the Gemara should have brought the explicit teaching of our Mishnah from the Pasuk of "besides the Olah of the morning" (Bamidbar 28:23).

The Gemara in Bava Kama (111a) is more difficult. It states that if someone brought a Korban Asham but did not return what he stole he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara derives this from the Pasuk "besides the ram of atonement" (Bamidbar 5:8) implying that the returning of the money must be first (in order for the Korban to achieve atonement).

The Gemara asks, according to this (way of interpreting the Pesukim) the Pasuk "besides the Olah of the morning" (Bamidbar 28:23) should similarly mean that the Musaf is before the Tamid (just as the returning of the money mentioned before "besides the ram of atonement" must be first). However, doesn't the Beraisa states how do we know that nothing etc., and Rava explains we see from the Pasuk of "ha'Olah" that the Korban Tamid is first?

The Gemara should have brought the Mishnah in Zevachim (89a) as on the contrary, the Mishnah there explicitly states that the fact that the Pasuk says, "besides the Olah of the morning" (ibid.) implies that the Olah is first, not the Musaf!

Answer: It appears that the explanation is that the word "ha'Olah" teaches us that the burning of the Korban Tamid is before that of the Korban Musaf. This is because the Pasuk states regarding the burning of the limbs of the Korban "besides the Olah of the morning that is for the Olah of the Korban Tamid." "You should do these," refers to the dealing with the blood (Shechitah through Zerikah), that these Avodos should also be done first before other Korbanos.

Accordingly, the Gemara in Bava Kama could not have quoted the Mishnah in Zevachim. There is no question that the term "besides" means that (returning) the money is a necessary first step to atonement. This is because returning the money is stated first in the Pasuk, and only afterwards it discusses the ram for atonement.

However, regarding the Avodos of the Korbanos we cannot deduce that the Musaf should be first, being that the Pasuk first mentions the Korban Olah, and only then does it mention the Avodah of the Korban Musaf (and then it says "besides" etc.). However, the burning of the Korban Musaf is actually mentioned first. This is why the Gemara in Bava Kama asks from Rava's statement (to show that even though the burning of the Korban Olah is not mentioned first, Rava teaches us that it is still burned first before other Korbanos). However, the Gemara in Menachos (49a) indeed could have brought the Mishnah in Zevachim (89a).