1)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Chavitei Kohen Gadol - the twice daily Minchah consisting of a tenth of an Eifah brought by the Kohen Gadol (called by that name because it was baked on a flat pan, known as a Machavas), mingled with oil, cannot be sanctified in halves.

(b)The ramifications of this ruling are that - if the Kohen Gadol does sanctify them half at a time, they remain Chulin.

(c)According to Resh Lakish - they may be sanctified in halves.

(d)Even though, as we just saw, Resh Lakish holds that blood cannot be sanctified in halves, he holds that the Chavitei Kohen Gadol can - because he does not learn Minchah from Dam.

2)

(a)Rebbi Elazar rules that - Minchah she'Kamtzah be'Heichal is Kasher ...

(b)... because he learns it from Siluk Bazichin.

(c)Nevertheless, he does not learn Chavitei Kohen Gadol Minchah from Dam - because he only learns one Minchah from another, but not Minchah from Dam.

3)

(a)If one of the twelve Lechem ha'Panim breaks - the Beraisa invalidates all twelve loaves.

(b)Assuming the loaf breaks ...

1. ... before the loaves have been removed from the Shulchan (ad she'Lo Parkah) - the Bazichin cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach either.

2. ... after they have been removed (mi'she'Parkah) - they can.

(c)Rebbi Elazar interprets ad she'Lo Parkah to mean - before the loaves are due to be removed (during the week) and mi'she'Parkah to mean - after they become due (on Shabbos).

(d)If a Minchah became Chaser before the Kemitzah has been taken from it (even though it is due to be taken), the Minchah is Pasul - and the Kometz, should it subsequently be taken, is Pasul too.

4)

(a)This latter Halachah appears to clash with Rebbi Elazar's previous statement - because, if as we just said, Rebbi Elazar learns Minchah from Minchah, then (bearing in mind that the Kometz of the Minchah is already due to be placed on the Mizbe'ach with the bringing of the Minchah) why does he not learn the Minchah from the Lechem ha'Panim, and validate the Kometz?

(b)The difference between a regular Minchah and the Lechem ha'Panim, however, is that - in the latter case, the Bazichin are already separate (so Rebbi Elazar considers them as having been taken the moment the time falls due); whereas in the case of the Minchah (the Kometz has not yet been separated from the Minchah (and it is therefore Mechusar Ma'aseh [lacking the act of separation]).

(c)We answer the Kashya on Rebbi Elazar, that in any case, the Bazichin should be Pasul, like Shirayim she'Chasru bein Kemitzah le'Haktarah are Pasul (even though here, it is not the Shirayim that became Chaser, but the Minchah itself) - by referring to a Machlokes Tana'im in this point (which we will discuss later). In any event, Rebbi Elazar holds like the Tana who says Shirayim she'Chasru bein Kemitzah le'Haktarah, Maktir Kometz aleihem.

5)

(a)A little earlier, we quoted the Machlokes whether Chavitei Kohen Gadol, Kedoshah la'Chatza'in (Resh Lakish) or Einah Kedoshah la'Chatza'in (Rebbi Yochanan). Rebbi Yochanan learns his ruling from the Pasuk in Tzav "Minchah Machtzisah ba'Boker u'Machtzisah ba'Erev" which implies that - the Kohen Gadol takes half from the whole Minchah, and not sanctify it in halves.

(b)The Beraisa seems to support Rebbi Yochanan. According to the Tana, to permit bringing the Minchas Chavitin in halves, the Pasuk would have had to write - " ... Machtzis ba'Boker u'Machtzis ba'Erev".

(c)Resh Lakish agrees with Rebbi Yochanan's D'rashah - only he confines the Beraisa's ruling to Lechatchilah, whereas he is speaking Bedieved.

(d)Rav Gevihah from Bei Kasil asked Rav Ashi from the fact that the Torah writes Chukah ("Chok Olam") with regard to the Minchas Chavitin (and "Chukah" always means that the Halachah on hand is crucial), a Kashya on Resh Lakish (and even on Rebbi Yochanan, who requires a special Pasuk). Rav Ashi replied - by confining "Chukah" to the obligation of the Kohen Gadol to bring the Minchah complete from his house; whereas the Machlokes Amora'im pertains specifically to sanctifying it in halves after it arrives intact in the Beis-Hamikdash.

6)

(a)The minimum Shi'ur of a Minchah is - one Isaron (a tenth of an Eifah [forty-three and a fifth egg-volumes]).

(b)Rav forbids designating half an Isaron for a Minchah, with the intention of adding the other half to it later - Rebbi Yochanan permits it.

(c)The problem concerning Rebbi Yochanan's previous ruling is - why there, he forbids the Kohen Gadol to sanctify the Chavitin in halves, whereas here, in the case of a regular Minchah, he permits it?

(d)To answer the Kashya, we suggest that - Rebbi Yochanan does not learn one thing from another by Kodshim.

7)

(a)The Torah writes in Vayikra (in connection with Shelamim) "u'Shechato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed". Rebbi Yochanan rules that - in that case, one can certainly Shecht them inside the Heichal, because it would be illogical for the Tafeil (the Azarah) to be more eligible than the Ikar (Heichal) which has a higher Kedushah than the Azarah).

(b)We see from there that - Rebbi Yochanan does learn one thing from another by Kodshim.

(c)We therefore ascribe his previous ruling, permitting one to designate half an Isaron for a Minchah, with the intention of adding the other half to it later (in spite of his ruling by Chavitin) to the fact that - his intention to add later is in itself, considered as if he had sanctified the two halves together.

8)

(a)The Beraisa explains the Pasuk in Naso (in connection with the Chanukas ha'Mizbe'ach) "Sheneihem Mele'im So'les" that - the Nesi'im brought all the measurements (the flour, the wine and the oil for each respective Korban) in full.

(b)To which Rebbi Yossi adds that - this would only have been necessary as long as long as they did not intend to add to any half measure that they might have brought. If they had, it would have been Kasher (the source of Rebbi Yochanan's ruling).

(c)Rav maintains that a Minchah can be sanctified ...

1. ... without oil - from the Lechem ha'Panim, which contains no oil.

2. ... without frankincense (though it must be added later) - from a Minchas Nesachim, which contains no frankincense.

3. ... without either - from a Minchas Chotei, which contains neither.

(d)Rav just learned that even if one intends to add to the Chatzi Isaron, it is Pasul. When we say that he must hold like Rebbi Yochanan regarding Chavitin, we mean that (now that he learns one thing from the other) - he cannot hold like Rebbi Elazar, who permits sanctifying a Minchas Chavitin in halves. Otherwise, he would be Machshir the Minchah, like the Chavitin.

9)

(a)Rav also learns that it is possible to sanctify ...

1. ... the oil of a Minchah without the frankincense - from the Log Shemen of a Metzora, which does not contain frankincense.

2. ... the frankincense without the oil - from the Bazichei Levonah (which does not contain oil).

(b)According to Rebbi Chanina, it is not possible to sanctify the Minchah, the oil or the frankincense, one without the other.

(c)When we ask that according to Rebbi Chanina, why were the Isaron and the Log anointed? we mean to ask that - since the Isaron of flour, plus the oil and the frankincense, must have amounted to more than just an Isaron, both measures would have been too small to sanctify the Minchah. So what purpose did they serve?

(d)And we answer that - the Isaron was used to sanctify the Minchas Chotei, and the Log, the Log Shemen of a Metzora.

10)

(a)The Mishnah in Zevachim rules that - K'lei ha'Lach sanctify liquids and Midos ha'Yavesh, solids, but not vice-versa.

(b)Rebbi Chanina will establish Midos Yavesh Mekadshin Yavesh - by a Minchas Chotei (which requires no oil or frankincense, as we learned earlier).

11)

(a)Shmuel confines the ruling of the Mishnah in Zevachim to Midos (measuring vessels). He proves from the Pasuk (in connection with the silver dish and the silver bowl [which we quoted earlier]) "Sheneihem Mele'im So'les ... " that the Mishnah's ruling does not extend to the bowls used for the Avodah - since they are used for the blood, yet they sanctify the flour of a Minchah.

(b)We prove from there that Shmuel holds like Rav with regard to a Minchah being sanctified on its own - because the Pasuk is referring to Minchos Nesachim, yet Shmuel maintains that the bowls sanctify the flour of the Menachos on their own.

(c)When Rav Acha from Difti queried Shmuel's proof on the grounds that a Minchah is wet because it contains oil, Ravina answered - that Shmuel was referring to the dry part of the Minchah (since there are bound to be parts of the Minchah which are not wettened by the oil).

(d)The second answer, even assuming that the entire Minchah is mixed with oil is that - compared to blood, the Minchah is dry, and we can assume that the bowl sanctifies dry flour, too.

12)

(a)We cited earlier a Beraisa which learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'kamatz mi'Sham" mi'Makom she'Raglei Zar Omdos - referring to the first eleven Amos of the Azarah, where a Zar is permitted to go.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah initially thinks that this poses a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar's ruling Minchah she'Kamtzah be'Heichal, Kesheirah - because he interprets it to mean that the Kemitzah may only be performed in the Azarah (and not in the Heichal).

(c)To answer the Kashya, Rebbi Yirmiyah himself (or Rebbi Ya'akov) explains that the Beraisa comes to include permission to perform the Kemitzah anywhere in the Azarah, and not to exclude performing it in the Heichal.

(d)We reject the suggestion that we would otherwise have compared it to other Kodshei Kodshim, which all require Tzafon. We could not learn it via a Binyan-Av from ...

1. ... Olos - because they are completely burned.

2. ... Chata'os - because they come to atone for Chayvei K'riysus.

3. ... Ashamos - because they are Zevachim (animal sacrifices, which require Zerikas ha'Dam, which in turn, is the major ingredient of Kaparah), and for the same reason, we could not even learn it from ...

4. ... all of them via a Tzad ha'Shaveh.

13)

(a)In the end, we need the Pasuk to preclude learning from Hagashah that - the Kemitzah must take place by the south-west corner of the Mizbe'ach (which was the final destination of the Hagashah).

(b)In this context, the significance of the Pasuk in Vayikra "Vehikrivah el ha'Kohen, Vehigishah el ha'Mizbe'ach, Vekamatz" is that - were it not for the additional word "mi'Sham", we would learn from there that the Kemitzah must take place there where the Hagashah ends, as we explained.

14)

(a)We query Rebbi Yochanan, who validates a Shelamim that is Shechted in the Heichal (she'Lo Y'hei Tafeil Chamur min ha'Ikar), from a Beraisa. Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira there learns from the Pasuk in Korach "be'Kodesh ha'Kodashim Tochlenu" that - in case of emergency (if the enemy have surrounded the Azarah) the Kohanim may eat Kodshei Kodshim in the Heichal.

(b)The Pasuk (which in any event, cannot be referring to the actual Kodesh Kodshim) must be referring to the Heichal and not the Azarah - since the Pasuk in Tzav has already taught us "ba'Chatzar Ohel Mo'ed Yochluhah".

(c)The problem with this D'rashah, according to Rebbi Yochanan is - why we need a Pasuk for this. Why can we not apply the S'vara she'Lo Yehei Tafeil Chamur min ha'Ikar?

(d)And we answer that - the S'vara applies to Avodah, because the closer one is to one's Master, the more it is natural to serve him; but when it comes to eating, it is not considered Derech Eretz to eat in front of one's Master.