What is difficult if "Chitesa" refers to an Olah? Chituy is an expression of being Metaher, like "v'Chit'o ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i" written about Parah Adumah!

Maharsha: Also there, perhaps it is an expression of Chatas. We find that Parah Adumah is called Chatas! The Havah Amina (it is an Olah) is difficult. The previous verses explicitly say that the Par was a Chatas, i.e. of Milu'im!

Why did R. Yochanan say 'in the future, Eliyahu will expound this verse'?

Rashi: No one will be able to explain it before he comes.

Iyun Yakov: Eliyahu offered on a Bamah when this was forbidden (the Beis ha'Mikdash stood). Because most of Yisrael erred and served Ba'al, the Mikdash was destined to be destroyed; in such a case, it is as if it was destroyed, so Bamos were permitted. However, this answer does not help if the first Kedushah was permanent. If it was permanent, they would not need Milu'im in Bayis Sheni. Therefore, Eliyahu will expound that they offered Milu'im, because the Kedushah was not permanent, and he offered when Bamos were permitted. (NOTE: i.e. R. Yochanan understood the verse. Rav Ashi explained R. Yochanan's words. Below, R. Yochanan said 'in the future, Eliyahu will expound this verse' (Kohanim will not eat Neveilah). Iyun Yakov did not explain it. Chasam Sofer cited below explains also there that R. Yochanan understood, just Eliyahu will clarify why he himself ate Neveilah. - PF)

What was the answer 'they offered Milu'im in the days of Ezra, like in the days of Moshe?

R. Gershom: The verse discusses Milu'im that will be offered in the third Mikdash, just like in the days of Ezra they offered Milu'im resembling those of the Mishkan. Also in the future, the Milu'im will be a Chatas, and on Rosh Chodesh.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Shitah Mekubetzes: Had they merited, they would have offered them in the days of Ezra.

Rashi: Yechezkel prophesized that in the future, Ezra will offer Milu'im resembling those of the Mishkan. Just like a calf was offered on Rosh Chodesh for the Mishkan, a bull will be offered on Rosh Chodesh for Bayis Sheni.

Tosfos: Ezra's Milu'im were unlike Moshe's. Moshe's was a calf, and Ezra's was a bull. Also Matanos of blood were different.

Why would I learn from Melikas Chatas ha'Of that Kohanim may eat Neveilos and Treifos? Above (5b), we said that we cannot learn from Minchas ha'Omer, for its Mitzvah is to bring it from Chodosh, which is forbidden to people. Also Melikas ha'Of, its Mitzvah is to be Neveilah! We did not need a verse to forbid Kil'ayim to Kohanim, even though they are permitted Kil'ayim in Bigdei Kehunah.

Rashi (Shabbos 13b): One might have thought that since they may eat Melikah of Kodshim, the same applies to Melikah of Chulin.

Daf Al ha'Daf: If the Havah Amina was only to permit Melikah, which applies only to birds, why does the verse forbid "Min ha'Of u'Min ha'Behemah"? In the Havah Amina that Kohanim are permitted Neveilah and Tereifah, why does a verse say to give them to dogs or a Ger Toshav? Chulin 33a forbids innards of a slaughtered animal to a Goy. (Shechitah has no significance for him, so cutting the Veshet merely cuts the innards from the animal. For him, the animal is alive while it quivers, so the innards become Ever Min ha'Chai.) If a Kohen may eat Neveilah, the same applies to him. Why did the Torah command to give the stomach to a Kohen?! (NOTE: Shechitah applies to Kohanim - it is Metaher from Tum'as Neveilah! Or, he receives Kevah to feed to females in his household, who may not eat Melikah, or sell it to females or Zarim. Perhaps one gives it to a dog or Ger Toshav when there is no Kohen nearby, and it would rot before he will find a Kohen. Likewise, the opinion that the Torah permits to be Mevatel Isur in Heter, must explain that one gives Tereifah to a dog when he does not have two similar Kosher animals in which to be Mevatel it. - PF) Derech Sichah (1 Bamidbar) answered that the Havah Amina was only to permit Melikas Chulin. Had Yechezkel said only Ohf, one could err to think that they are permitted Nivlas Behemah.

Chashukei Chemed: Shai la'Mora says that there was no Havah Amina to permit Stam Neveilah to Kohanim, who are more Kadosh. Rather, it was only for Kodshim that became Neveilah or Tereifah.

Tosfos: The verse in Yechezkel is lest people err to learn from [their Heter to eat Neveilah of Chatas ha'Of].

Daf Al ha'Daf citing v'Im Tomar: "Nefesh" teaches that if one melted Chelev and drank it, he is liable. We could not learn from Neveilah, for Chelev has a leniency - it is totally permitted [in Chayos - Chulin 102a]. Kohanim eat Nevelah of Chatas ha'Of, that is its Mitzvah [so we could not learn from there to Chelev]. If Nevelah is totally permitted to Kohanim, why do we need a verse for Chelev? Also, if Kohanim have no Isur of Neveilah, they could not slaughter, for the Heter of Shechitah does not apply to them! Mechilta (Vayakhel) expounds "uva'Yom ha'Shevi'i Yihyeh Lachem Kodesh", and it is Chol for Hash-m - do not say that Kohanim may do Melachah on Shabbos even outside the Mikdash, just like in the Mikdash. Why is no verse needed for Kil'ayim, lest we err, like verses teach about Neveilah and Shabbos? It is because they are permitted Kil'ayim only at the time of Avodah.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Ahavas Yehonason (Sof Emor) asks, why would we think that Yisrael may eat Neveilah? He explains based on Kidushin 22b. Kohanim may not take Eshes Yefas To'ar because the Torah gave extra Kedushah to Kohanim, so we cannot learn from Yisrael. Also "u'Vatim Mele'im Kol Yuv", which permits all Isurim at a time of war, is only for Yisrael. Perhaps Yechezkel teaches that Neveilah and Tereifah are forbidden to Kohanim even in war. Lekach Tov (10) infers from Ahavas Yehonason that the stringency of Kohanim is not limited to Mitzvos of Kehunah.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Kli Chemdah (Vayikra) says that we cannot learn from Eshes Yefas To'ar - this was a concession to the Yetzer ha'Ra, and one who is lenient is punished with a Ben Sorer u'Moreh! However, the Torah permitted Isurim during war. The Ramban holds that they are totally permitted. And even according to the Rambam, who permits only when hungry, surely this is also for Kohanim. The Torah permits them to eat Neveilah (Chatas ha'Of)! Bi'ah is different; the Torah is more stringent about Kohanim for Isurei Bi'ah. However, perhaps the Torah was lenient only in Milchemes Mitzvah, and since Kohanim and Leviyim do not receive a share in the land, the Heter learned from "u'Vatim Mele'im Kol Yuv" does not apply to them. We cannot learn from the spoils that Kohanim received from Midyan; it applied only then. And even according to Bahag, who says that it is a Mitzvah for all generations, it is only for optional wars. "Chelek v'Nachalah Lo Yihyeh Lo" excludes Milchemes Mitzvah.

Chashukei Chemed: Chasam Sofer (Chulin 5a) says that one might have thought that Kohanim may eat Neveilah, for we find that Eliyahu (a Kohen) ate meat that ravens brought from Achav's house. Achav was a Mumar to idolatry; what his men slaughtered is Neveilah! Yechezkel needed to refute this. However, some say that Eliyahu was not a Kohen (Tosfos Bava Metzi'a 114b). Therefore, R. Yochanan said that Eliyahu will explain this. (A Hora'as Sha'ah permitted him.) In the Havah Amina, perhaps Kohanim are permitted Neveilah, but in any case they refrain due to Tum'ah, just like the Torah permitted pork during the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, but people refrained because it blunts the heart. The Torah said to give Neveilos to a Ger Toshav, for Kohanim do not eat them. Why would the Torah permit something that harms the body and Nefesh? In the Havah Amina, since the Torah permitted it to them, it would not harm them. Maharam Shik (YD 9) says that the Havah Amina was that Kohanim have no Lav of Neveilah, but they have an Isur Aseh - "v'Zavachta mi'Bekarcha umi'Tzonecha", and not what was not slaughtered. (NOTE: That verse does not include fowl! Some Meforshim discuss whether the Aseh of eating Kodshim is Docheh the Lav of eating Melikah (Neveilah). An Aseh is not Docheh an Aseh! - PF)

Shevet Sofer (YD 26): In Pesachim (21), R. Avahu expounds that "Lo Yochal" forbids also benefit. Perhaps Yechezkel teaches that Kohanim may not benefit from Neveilah and Tereifah! Since Ravina has another way to expound, we should not say that the Torah's Isur Achilah and Heter Hana'ah were said only for Yisrael. R. Yochanan did not know how to expound the verse - he argues with R. Avahu (Yerushalmi, and Bavli Nazir 29, according to the Rosh). However, Tosfos (Bava Kama 41a) says that all agree that if the verse is not needed to forbid Achilah (e.g. Shor ha'Niskal), it forbids Hana'ah! One answer is that if so, it should have said Lo Yehaneh.

Chidushei ha'Grid (12 DH bi'Yerushalmi): The Yerushalmi (Megilah 1:1) expounds "Divrei Shalom ve'Emes" - we expound Megilas Esther like we expound Torah. We expound all of Nevi'im and Kesuvim! Perhaps we do not expound them with the 13 Midos, except for Megilas Esther. This requires investigation.

Daf Al ha'Daf: V'Im Tomar (1 p.65) asked, how can we learn from Chatas ha'Of that Kohanim may eat Neveilah? The Aseh of eating Kodshim is Docheh the Lav of Neveilah! Tzlach (Doresh l'Tziyon 8) says that if they had a Lav to eat Melikah, according to the opinion that the Torah permits Chetzi Shi'ur, we would not permit one Kohen to eat a k'Zayis. Rather, many Kohanim would all eat less than a k'Zayis, to avoid Dichuy. (NOTE: In Yoma Sof 39a, Tosfos ha'Rosh and Ritva say that Mitzvas Achilas Kodshim is not less than a k'Zayis; Tosfos Yeshanim says that the full Mitzvah requires a k'Zayis, but there is a Mitzvah even with less. Chasam Sofer (Nedarim 17a) says that if together, many Kohanim eat a k'Zayis in all, the Mitzvah was fulfilled. - PF) We do not find an opinion that a Kohen may not eat a k'Zayis! Rather, surely Melikah is permitted without Dichuy. Even though Kil'ayim is permitted to Kohanim in Bigdei Kehunah, we did not need a verse to forbid Kil'ayim to Kohanim, for there, it is Dichuy. To fulfill the Mitzvah of Avodah, they must wear Bigdei Kehunah with Kil'ayim.

Daf Al ha'Daf: R. Yochanan did not know how to expound the verse, for he holds that the Torah forbids Chetzi Shi'ur. If so, we can say that the Torah forbids Melikah, just Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Atvun d'Oraisa (1) says that Melikah is not in place of Shechitah. If it were, there would be no Havah Amina that Kohanim may eat Neveilah! However, perhaps R. Yochanan could not explain the verse, for he holds that it is in place of Shechitah! Zevachim 84b supports this. R. Yochanan exempts one who offers [outside the Mikdash] a bird slaughtered in the Mikdash, i.e. for in the Mikdash the Torah require Melikah for birds, and not Shechitah!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kovetz Ha'aros (10:3): Why should we infer that Kohanim are permitted Neveilah? Will we say that since we may slaughter Korbanos Tzibur on Shabbos, a commoner may slaughter on Shabbos?! He answered, Kohanim eat from Hash-m's table (Chulin 120). Therefore, we may not infer that a commoner may eat Neveilah. Just like the Mizbe'ach consumes only "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" (what Yisraelim may eat), one might have thought that also Nivlas Ohf, which goes on Hash-m's table, must "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael", i.e. for Kohanim may eat Neveilah. We need a verse to refute this.

What does the verse teach about seven Shevatim that sinned?

Rashi: If they sinned via following a mistaken ruling of the Great Sanhedrin, they obligate Par Helam Davar.

Tosfos: "V'Chen Ta'aseh" implies that Matanos Dam are the same as what was mentioned above (Milu'im). Matanos of Par Helam Davar are unlike the Milu'im! "V'Chen Ta'aseh" must apply only to bringing a bull. Seemingly, this is unlike R. Yehudah, who obligates a bull for every Shevet. However, it can even be like R. Yehudah - the minority of the Shevet sinned. Refer to Tosfos to Menachos 45 5:c.

Why did he bring so much oil up to the attic?

Rashi: It was for illumination at night, to enable expounding.

Maharsha: Perhaps this is like it says in Shabbos (13b) 'these are among the Halachos said in the attic of Chananyah ben Chizkiyah... they decreed 18 things that day.'

Why did they want to bury the entire Sefer? They could bury only the problematic verses! One may write a partial Sefer due to "Es La'asos la'Shem Heferu Sorasecha." This is better than removing a Sefer from Tanach!

Iyun Yakov (Shabbos 13b): We infer from here that if we find in a Sefer matters that contradict Torah, the entire Sefer should be buried, even if it has proper matters, even if the author was established to be a Navi. However, before burying it one must contemplate - perhaps the reader does not understand due to his limitations! This is why great authors write about earlier Chachamim 'I did not understand the depth of his intent' or similar expressions, in the way of humility. Recently, some authors aggrandize themselves and disgrace earlier Chachamim. We should learn from Chananyah, who resolved Divrei Yechezkel even though they seemed to contradict Torah!

Daf Al ha'Daf (Shabbos 13b, citing Igros Moshe YD 3 115): Since great Chachamim could not resolve parts of Yechezkel, they were concerned lest commoners err about other parts of the Sefer, even though Chachamim did not see other problems. Once they resolved the difficulties, they were not concerned; people will believe Chachamim that there are no problems in the Sefer. A Perush on the Torah attributed to R. Yehudah ha'Chasid, heretics added to it matters of Kefirah. The entire Sefer must be burned; it is not enough to remove the Kefirah, lest we miss other matters that must be removed.

Rav Elyashiv (Shabbos 13b): Yechezkel was established to be a Navi Emes. Why should they bury his Sefer, even if we do not know how to resolve it with Torah? Rather, since it seems to contradict Torah, there is concern lest people come to stumble. It would not help to bury the matters that contradict, for it is one Sefer; people will stumble via the matters that contradict. (NOTE: Perhaps he means that even if we bury the matters that contradict, and from now and onwards people will not write them in Sefer Yechezkel, we are concerned for existing copies. People will think that since the Sefer was accepted, they may rely on everything in it. The Gemara (Gitin 60a) said that we may write a partial Sefer due to "Es La'asos", just like R. Yochanan relied on the verse. It is not clear if Chachamim relied on this already in the time of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai, when they thought to bury Sefer Yechezkel. - PF)