1)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan invalidates a Minchah that has been mixed with oil outside the precincts of the Azarah. Resh Lakish - declares it valid.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Veyatzak alehah Shemen ... Vehevi'ah el B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim Vekamatz" that - a Zar is eligible to perform any Avodah before the Kemitzah (Yetzikah and Belilah [pouring in the oil and mixing it with the flour]).

2)

(a)Resh Lakish extrapolates from the precious D'rashah that - since these Avodos do not require Kehunah, they do not require P'nim (inside the Azarah) either.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan argues that - on the contrary, since they require a K'li Shareis, they also require P'nim.

(c)We quote a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yochanan, which states - Bal'lah Zar, Kesheirah; Chutz le'Chomas ha'Azarah, Pesulah.

3)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, if a Minchah becomes Chaser before the Kemitzah - the owner should fetch more flour and make up the Shi'ur ...

(b)... because it is the Kemitzah that turns the flour into a Minchah. Before that, whatever goes missing can be supplemented.

(c)Resh Lakish disagrees - because, in his opinion, it is the placing it in the k'li Shareis that turns it into a Minchah.

(d)The basis of their Machlokes is how to interpret the D'rashah from the Pasuk "min ha'Minchah" - P'rat le'she'Chasrah (to exclude one that became Chaser, which is Pasul).

4)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish from a Beraisa, where the Tana rules, in a case where the Log Shemen shel Metzora became Chaser before the Kohen poured it into his left palm that - the owner should supplement it.

(b)Resh Lakish has no answer to that Kashya - so we remain with a Tiyuvta.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan holds that if Shirayim become Chaser between the Kemitzah Haktarah, one may go ahead and burn the Kometz. According to Resh Lakish - the Kometz is Pasul.

(b)The Machlokes is not according to the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, who rules in a Mishnah in the third Perek that a Minchah whose Shirayim become Tamei, burned or lost - is Kasher.

(c)Their dispute is based on the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua, who rules that - it is Pasul.

(d)The basic Machlokes of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua concerns Zevachim. Rebbi Eliezer holds - Dam, Af-al-Pi she'Ein Basar, whilst Rebbi Yehoshua holds - Im Ein Basar, Ein Dam (and the Kometz without Shirayim, is like Dam without Basar).

(e)Resh Lakish certainly holds like Rebbi Yehoshua. Rebbi Yochanan reconciles his opinion with Rebbi Yehoshua - by establishing the Mishnah, where nothing is left at all of the blood, whereas he is speaking where a k'Zayis remains.

6)

(a)In fact, Rebbi Yehoshua himself in a Beraisa, corroborates Rebbi Yochanan's opinion. Discussing a case where a little Basar or Cheilev remains, he permits the Kohen to go ahead with the Zerikas Dam - provided a k'Zayis remains, but not if it is less than a k'Zayis.

(b)He even permits half a k'Zayis of Basar plus half a k'Zayis of Cheilev - by the case of an Olah, which is all burned, in which case there is no reason to distinguish between the Basar and the Cheilev (so that both can combine to make up a k'Zayis), but not by other Korbanos (where Achilas Mizbe'ach and Achilas Adam do not combine).

(c)Rav Papa explains Rebbi Yehoshua's statement u've'Minchah, Af-al-Pi she'Kulah Kayemes, Lo Yizrok - wit reference to a Minchas Nesachim (which accompanies a Korban), to teach us that even if a k'Zayis of the Minchah remains, if there is no Basar or Cheilev, the Korban is Pasul ...

(d)... and the case is - where only the Minchah remains, but no Basar or Cheilev remain,.

(e)We would otherwise have thought - that since the Minchah comes together with the Zevach, it is considered as much part of the Korban as the Basar and the Cheilev.

7)

(a)Resh Lakish learns from the words "min ha'Minchah" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Veheirim ha'Kohen min ha'Minchah es Azkarasah Vehiktir ha'Mizbeichah") that - the Kometz is only burned on the Mizbe'ach if the Minchah remains complete (that the Shirayim did not become Chaser between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah); otherwise not.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan interprets "min ha'Minchah" to mean that - it must have been complete at the time of the Kemitzah (as we explained earlier).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan questions Resh Lakish from the Beraisa (that we already discussed above), which rules that if Lechem ha'Panim breaks after being removed from the Shulchan (which is equivalent to after the Kemitzah of a Minchah) - the Lechem is Pasul, but the Bazichin are nevertheless burned on the Mizbe'ach.

(d)According to Resh Lakish - the Bazichin ought to become Pasul, just like the Kometz in the equivalent case by Minchah (see Shitah Mekubetzes).

8)

(a)To refute the Kashya - Resh Lakish establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer (who is Machshir the Kometz like he is Machshir the Dam even if there is no Basar (as we learned earlier).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan did not accept that however, because it is a S'tam Mishnah, and had the author been Rebbi Eliezer, the Beraisa ought to have presented a case where the Lechem ha'Panim got burned or lost (and not just broken).

(c)Resh Lakish reacted to Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya - with silence (because he had no answer).

(d)We ask why Resh Lakish did not answer that the Lechem ha'Panim is different, seeing as it is a Minchas Tzibur - in which case, we ought to permit Chaser, just as we permit Tum'ah.

9)

(a)Rav Ada bar Ahavah answered that - from the fact that Resh Lakish did not answer that, it is evident that Chaser is comparable (not to Tum'ah, which is permitted by a Tzibur, but) to a Ba'al-Mum (which is not).

(b)When Rav Papa repeated the previous Kashya (regarding the distinction between a private Minchah and the Lechem ha'Panim [see also Shitah Mekubetzes]), Rav Yosef expressed surprise - because Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish may well be arguing by the Minchas ha'Omer, which is a Minchas Tzibur (and even there, Resh Lakish disqualifies the Kometz)?

10)

(a)Rav Malkiyo cites two Beraisos, which quote two individual Pesukim. The ...

1. ... first Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "mi'Saltah, u'mi'Shamnah" respectively that - a Minchah, whose flour or oil becomes Chaser (even a Kol-she'Hu) is Pasul.

2. ... second Beraisa learns from the Pasuk there "ve'ha'Noseres min ha'Minchah" that - if a Minchah which becomes Chaser (irrespective of whether it is the Minchah itself or the Kometz, or if the Levonah is not brought on the Mizbe'ach at all) it is Pasul.

(b)The problem with these two Beraisos is - why we need two Pesukim to invalidate a Minchah that became Chaser (since the second Pasuk does not specifically mention the oil or the Levonah).

(c)We try to answer that one Beraisa is referring to a Minchah that became Chaser before the Kemitzah, and the other, to a Minchah whose Shirayim became Chaser after the Kemitzah...

(d)... both of which Rebbi Yochanan validates.

(e)We counter that however, by establishing the first case - where the owner failed to supplement the missing Minchah; and the second, with regard to eating the Shirayim (both of which Rebbi Yochanan concedes are Pasul).

11)

(a)They asked whether, according to Rebbi Yochanan (who is Machshir the Kometz), if the Shirayim became Chaser between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah, the Kohanim may eat the Shirayim. Ze'eiri and Rebbi Yanai argue over this point (neither, it appears, saw the previous Beraisa) based on Pesukim in Tzav.

1. Ze'iri resolves the She'eilah from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Noseres min ha'Minchah" - ve'Lo ha'Noseres min ha'Noseres.

2. Rebbi Yanai (assuming that he argues with Ze'iri's basic ruling) resolves it from "min ha'Minchah" - Minchah she'Haysah K'var (as long as the Minchah is complete at the time of the Kemitzah [like Rebbi Yochanan Darshened earlier, only regarding the Kometz]).

(b)We might also interpret Rebbi Yanai's words to mean that - the Kohanim are only permitted to eat the Shirayim, if the Minchah (the Shirayim) is intact at the time of the Haktarah, in which case, he agrees with Ze'iri in principle, and only argues with him as to the source.

12)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah Kamatz bi'Semol, Pasul. Initially, we learn this from the Pasuk (in connection with the Milu'im) "Va'yakrev es ha'Minchah Va'yemalei *Chapo* Mimenah", because, bearing in mind the Pasuk (in connection with the Asham Metzora Ashir) "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Log ha'Shemen Ve'yatzak al *Kaf* ha'Kohen ha'Semalis", it teaches us that - it is only there that the left palm is eligible for the Avodah of a Kohen, but everywhere else, the Kohen must use his right palm.

(b)We answer the Kashya that we need the Pasuk to teach us the intrinsic Halachah - by pointing to a second "Semalis" to teach us the second Halachah.

(c)The problem with this that forces us to answer that the Torah inserts ...

1. ... a third "Semolis" is that - two consecutive Miy'utin (such as the two times "Semalis" here), usually come to include (and not to exclude [Ein Miy'ut Basar Miy'ut Ela Lerabos]), in which case, they will come to permit using even the right palm.

2. ... a fourth "Semalis" is that - maybe after the first two "Semalis" that include the left-hand, maybe the third "Semalis" comes to permit using the left-hand for all other Avodos?

(d)We will find - two of those "Semolis" by Metzora Ashir and two, by Metzora Ani.

(e)We now Darshen the first two "Semalis", One for itself, the second one to Darshen Here the left hand, but nowhere else - whereas the third indicates that the first two are not a Miy'ut Achar Miy'ut; and the fourth, to teach us that the third "Semalis" does not come to permit the left-hand everywhere else.