1)

(a)Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi suggests that we need "min ha'Bakar" to preclude a T'reifah from the 'Mah ha'Tzad' of Melikah and Cheilev ve'Dam, from which we would otherwise learn that it is permitted to Gavohah. We reject Rav Shisha's suggestion however, due to a Pircha on the Mah ha'Tzad - Mah le'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'bahen she'Kein Mitzvasah be'Kach (as we rejected the previous explanation).

(b)All the cases that we brought were really to counter the original 'Kal Chomer' from 'Ba'al-Mum', which rendered the Pasuk redundant. Rav Ashi tries to refute the Kal-va'Chomer itself - inasmuch as the P'sul of Ba'al-Mum applies to the Makriv (the Kohen) no less than to the Nikrav (the Korban), which is not the case by T'reifah.

(c)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava refutes this from the case of Yotzei Dofen - an animal born by cesarean section ...

(d)... which does not apply to the Kohanim either, yet it is permitted to a Hedyot, but forbidden to Gavohah. So we try to learn T'reifah from a Kal-va'Chomer from a Yotzei Dofen.

(e)We query ...

1. ... this too however in that - a Yotzei Dofen is not subject to the Din of B'chor, whereas a T'reifah is.

2. ... the Mah ha'Tzad from Ba'al-Mum and Yotzei Dofen (which are permitted to a Hedyot and forbidden to Gavohah) on to T'reifah, which is forbidden to a Hedyot - in that T'reifah is Hutrah mi'Kelalah (enjoys a special concession), which they do not.

2)

(a)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queries the Pircha however, inasmuch as the leniency of Hutrah mi'Kelalah by T'reifah cannot pertain to the Melikah of Olas ha'Of (which goes to Gavohah) - because as far as birds are concerned, they too, enjoy the concession of ... ve'Ein Tamus (ve'Zachrus) be'Of (Ba'alei-Mum and even T'reifos of birds are permitted to Gavohah, too).

(b)If it does not refer to the Melikah of Olas ha'Of, we suggest that it refers to - the Melikah of Chatas ha'Of, which is a concession to the Kohanim.

(c)It cannot in fact, refer to Chatas ha'Of (la'Kohanim) either - because what the Kohanim receive is from Hash-m's table, in which case it remains a concession to Gavohah (and not to the Kohanim).

(d)The problem, if we cannot break the Tzad ha'Shaveh is - why we need the Pasuk "min ha'Bakar", seeing as we already know from the Tzad ha'Shaveh, that a T'reifah is Pasul as a Korban.

3)

(a)We conclude that the Tzad ha'Shaveh (from Ba'al-Mum and Yotzei Dofen) is different, because their blemish is discernible, whilst a T'reifah is not necessarily so, and we need the Pasuk - to invalidate a T'reifah that is not discernible during the animal's life-time, but is discovered after the Shechitah.

(b)We also learn from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" and from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "mi'Kol asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet" (by Ma'aser Beheimah) that - a T'reifah is Pasul.

(c)Having written ...

1. ... "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" (which speaks about a blemish from birth, the Torah needs to add the Pasuk "Kol Asher Ya'avor ... " - to include an animal that became a T'reifah after birth.

2. ... "Kol asher Ya'avor" (which speaks when the blemish preceded the Hekdesh), it found it necessary to write "min ha'Bakar" - to invalidate an animal that became a T'reifah after being declared Hekdesh.

(d)We establish the Pasuk ...

1. ... "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" by Mumin from birth - because Orlah and K'lai-ha'Kerem (which are certainly Asur from their inception) appear in the same Pasuk.

2. ... "Kol asher Ya'avor ... " by a T'reifus that preceded the Ma'aser - because the word that precludes T'reifos from Ma'aser is "Ya'avor" (because a T'reifah, which has no life, is not capable of 'passing').

4)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... a Minchah whose Kemitzah was performed by a Zar, an Onein, a T'vul-Yom, a Mechusar Begadim or a Mechusar Begadim ...

2. ... a 'she'Lo Rachatz Yadayim ve'Raglayim', an Areil, a Tamei and someone who is sitting - is Pasul.

3. ... there is no difference between a Minchas Chotei and all other Menachos in this regard.

(b)The Tana also invalidates a Kemitzah that is performed whilst standing on - a vessel, an animal or on another Kohen's foot.

(c)The last P'sul listed by the Tana Kama is Kamatz bi'Semol.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira maintains that - he should return the Kometz to the Minchah, and perform it again with the right hand ...

(e)... and the same applies to all the other cases.

5)

(a)The Tana rules that a Kometz that include a pebble, salt or Levonah - is Pasul ...

(b)... because the Kometz is then Chaser.

(c)The Tana defines Yeser as Mevuratz - meaning either heaped up or interrupting between the Kohen's fingertips and the palm of his hand.

(d)And he defines Chaser as - where the Kohen performed the Kometz only with his fingertips.

6)

(a)The problem with the Lashon Echad Minchas Chotei, ve'Echad Kol ha'Menachos is - why the Tana needs to mention Minchas Chotei at all. Why is it not included in Kol ha'Menachos?

(b)And we answer that the Tana needs to write this because of Rebbi Shimon, who comments that ...

1. ... on the one hand, oil and frankincense ought to be included in a Minchas Chotei, and Nesachim in a Chatas - so that the sinner should not benefit (financially), from his sin.

2. ... on the other, they are not - so that his Korban should be inferior.

(c)And the Tana inserts Minchas Chotei independently to teach us that - even Rebbi Shimon does not permit a Zar to make Kemitzah in order to denigrate the Minchas Chotei.

7)

(a)Based on what we just said, we ask the opening Mishnah in Zevachim (Kol ha'Zevachim she'Ninizbechu she'Lo li'Sheman, Kesheirim). Why did the Tana not add 'Echad Chatas Cheilev ve'Echad Kol ha'Zevachim ... ' there as well, in order to accommodate Rebbi Shimon.

(b)And we answer that - we already know that, from the fact that the Tana says 'Kol ha'Zevachim', without adding 'Chutz mi'Chatas Cheilev'.

(c)The fact that our Mishnah too, writes ve'Echad *Kol ha'Menachos* without adding Chutz mi'Minchas Chotei however, will not suffice to accommodate Rebbi Shimon, seeing as, having already established the Reisha of the Mishnah (regarding she'Lo li'Shemah) not like Rebbi Shimon (at least according to Rabah and Rava), had the Tana not specifically included Minchas Chotei, we would have established the Seifa not like him either (in spite of the Lashon Kol).

8)

(a)To reconcile Rav's statement Zar she'Kamatz, Yachzir with our Mishnah Zar she'Kamatz, Pasul- we establish the latter to where the Kometz has not yet been returned.

(b)The problem with this is that - that is the opinion of ben Beseira.

(c)If, as we suggest, the Rabbanan agree with ben Beseira when the Kometz is still available, then the basis of their Machlokes is - whether the owner must bring the missing ingredients from his home and add it to the Shirayim, and the Kohen should once again take the Kemitzah, with his right hand (ben Beseira) or not (the Rabbanan).

(d)The Rabbanan's reason is - because once the K'li sanctifies the Minchah, and it subsequently becomes Pasul, it cannot then be transformed into a Kasher Minchah.

9)

(a)We query the above explanation in that - ben Beseira only spoke about re-taking the Kemitzah, making no mention about bringing anything from his house.

(b)So we establish Rav like ben Beseira. Initially, we answer the Kashya P'shita by explaining that - ben Beseira does not only argue by Kamtzah bi'Semol, but extends his ruling to all the other cases in the Mishnah, as well (as we explained earlier).

(c)We would otherwise have thought that ben Beseira permits only Kamatz bi'Smol - because the concession of S'mol has a precedent on Yom Kipur, when the Kohen Gadol walks into the Kodesh Kodshim holding the Machtah in his right hand, and the Kaf in his left ...

(d)... and we counter the Kashya that, just as S'mol is permitted on Yom Kipur, so too, is a Zar permitted to perform Shechitah (in which case ben Beseira ought to validate the Kemitzah of a Zar, as well) - by pointing out that Shechitah is not an Avodah.

10)

(a)The reason Rav gives for the ruling Rebbi Zeira cites in his name Shechitas Parah be'Zar, Pesulah is - because the Torah writes in connection with Parah "Elazar" and "Chukah" (both of which generally render the current ruling crucial).

(b)We try to prove from there that - Rav considers Shechitah to be an Avodah (a Kashya on what we just said in his name).

(c)We refute this proof in that Parah Adumah is different - inasmuch as it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (which do not require Avodos).

(d)We persist however, by Darshening a Kal-va'Chomer, because if the Shechitah of a Zar is Pasul by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, where Avodah is not applicable, then how much more so by the Shechitah of Kodshei Mizbe'ach, which is.

11)

(a)Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi answers this Kashya by comparing Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis to Mar'os Nega'im - which have nothing to do with Avodah, yet they require specifically a Kohen.

(b)Clearly then, there are times when the Torah requires Kehunah from a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, which is the case by Parah Adumah (and we cannot learn a Kal-va'Chomer from a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv).

(c)So we try to use Bamah - as a precedent for a Zar (in which case ben Beseira ought to validate Kamtzah Zar too).

(d)We reject that proof too, however on the grounds that - we cannot learn Mizbe'ach from Bamah, since at that stage Aharon had not yet been sanctified [see Tosfos DH 'she'Harei']), and the Avodah was still performed by the Bechoros.

12)

(a)The Beraisa learns that Yotzei is included in the Din of Im Alah, Lo Yeired from - Bamah.

(b)Nevertheless, we apply the principle mi'Bamah Lo Yalfinan - because the Limud from Bamah is no more than a support for the real Limud, which is from the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Olah", which teaches us Torah Achas le'Chol ha'Olin (she'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu).

(c)If not for Rav, we would have confined ben Beseira's ruling to Kamatz bi'Semol. We query this from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - specifically extend his ruling to all the cases in our Mishnah (and not only to Kamatz ba'Laylah).

13)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ve'kamatz mi'Sham" that - unlike the Shechitah of a Zevach, the Kemitzah may be performed anywhere in the Azarah ("mi'Sham", mi'Makom she'Raglei ha'Zar Omdin Sham), even in the south, despite the fact that a Minchah is Kodesh Kodshim.

(b)ben Beseira learns from there that - in a case where he performed the Kemitzah with his left hand, or any other P'sul (such as Zar she'Kamatz) with regard to the Minchah from which the Kohen already took the Kemitzah once, he should take it again.

(c)This too, poses a Kashya on Rav - seeing as Rebbi Shimon has specifically stated what Rav is ostensibly coming to teach us.

(d)Even though ben Beseira mentions only Kamatz bi'Semol, we know that he is referring to all Pesulin, and not just to Kamatz bi'Semol - since there is no indication that the Pasuk is speaking about one P'sul more than the other.

14)

(a)So we present Rav's Chidush as the fact that even though the Kohen was already Mekadesh the Minchah in a K'li, ben Beseira holds Yachzir ... . We might have thought otherwise - because Tana'im in a Beraisa actually say the opposite (as we will now see).

(b)Rebbi Yossi ben Yasian and Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nachtom say that - ben Beseira speaks exclusively where the Minchah was not sanctified in a K'li, but if it was, the Minchah will remain Pasul, even according to ben Beseira.

(c)In the second Lashon - Rav establishes ben Beseira specifically where there has been no Kidush K'li.

(d)We query this opinion mi'Mah Nafshach - if Kemitzah Pesulah ...

1. ... is an Avodah - what does Kidush K'li add?

2. ... is not an Avodah - then what is its significance?

15)

(a)Rav Nachman presumes that Kemitzas Pesulin is an Avodah, and ben Beseira holds that - the Avodah is not complete until Kidush K'li has been performed.

(b)The problem with thatis is that, from the moment whoever performed the Kemitzah returns the Kometz to the K'li - it ought to become Kadosh and Pasul (irrespective of the fact that it is being placed in the same K'li as before).

(c)We extrapolate from there that - since it does not, Kidush K'li only sanctifies what one places inside it, if one has the express intention of sanctifying it.

(d)We reconcile this with Rebbi Yochanan, who told Resh Lakish that K'lei Shareis Ein Mekadshin es ha'Pesulin Likarev Lechatchilah' - by inferring from his words Ein Mekadshin Likarev, but Mekadshin Lipasel.