1)

(a)Having taught us that ...

1. ... a pebble in the Kometz invalidates it, our Mishnah nevertheless found it necessary to add a grain of salt - because (unlike the pebble) it is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.

2. ... a grain of salt invalidates it, the Tana nevertheless saw fit to add a particle of Levonah - because (unlike the salt) it is brought together with the Minchah.

(b)Seeing as a Kometz that contains a grain of Levonah is Pasul (because it is Chaser), the Kohen avoids finding grains of Levonah in it - by moving it all to one side before performing the Kemitzah, and then taking the Kometz from the middle.

(c)The Tana could indeed have begun with a particle of Levonah (in which case he could have omitted the pebble and the salt altogether) - only it is normal for the Tana to present a few cases in the form of Lo Zu af Zu (starting with the smaller Chidush and going on to the bigger one).

2)

(a)The Mishnah disqualifies a Kometz which contains a pebble ... because it is Yeser. It might just as well have said because it constitutes a Chatzitzah (the pebble divides, either the flour on either side of it or between the flour and the Kohen's hand).

(b)To explain why the Tana chose the reason of Yeser, Rebbi Yirmiyah says min ha'Tzad, by which he means that - the Mishnah is speaking even where the pebble is at the edge of the Kometz, dividing between the last particle of flour and either the air outside the Kometz, or the thumb or the little finger (neither of which is part of the Kometz, as we will now see, and which does therefore not constitute a Chatzitzah).

(c)He refers to it as min ha'Tzad - because, after placing his hand into the Minchah (palm downwards), filling his palm and closing his fingers over it (as we will see shortly), the Kohen turns his hand round, palm upwards (to prevent any flour of the Kometz from spilling), so that his little finger and thumb are both at the side.

(d)When Abaye asked Rava how the Kohen performed Kemitzah, the latter replied ke'de'Kamtzi Inshi (like people do) meaning - with all five fingers (so that the palm is absolutely full.

3)

(a)We query Rava from a Beraisa however, which lists the names of the five fingers and their meanings (starting from the little finger). The significance of ...

1. ... the Zeres is - to measure the Choshen Mishpat of the Kohen Gadol (which has to measure a Zeres by a Zeres). This constituted the distance between the tip of the little finger to the tip of the thumb, stretched full length (and was equivalent to exactly half an Amah).

2. ... the Kemitzah (the index finger) is - to serve as the outer wall of the Kemitzah (a Tiyuvta on Rava).

3. ... the Amah (the middle finger) is - to determine the length of the sticks (from the elbow to the tip of the Amah when the arm and hand are both outstretched) which were used to measure the Amos of the building and the Keilim of the Beis Hamikdash.

4. ... the Etzba (the forefinger) is - for the Kohanim to dip into the blood for Haza'ah.

5. ... the Godel is - to place the blood of the Asham Metzora and the oil on it.

(b)We answer that all five fingers are needed for the Kemitzah Lehashvos - the thumb and the little finger are used to remove any excess flour that protrudes outside the three fingers which constitute the Kometz.

(c)Rav Zutra bar Tuvya Amar Rav briefly described the process. He explains that - the Kohen covers the palm of his hand with his fingertips until they touch it at the far end, and then performs the Kemitzah.

(d)This is corroborated by a Beraisa, which learns from the Pasuk in ...

1. ... Vayikra "M'lo Kumtzo" that - the palm must be full (by the three fingers touching the far end of the palm and not somewhere in the middle).

2. ... Tzav "Ve'heirim mimenu be'Kumtzo" that - it must be exactly a palm-full, and no more (that the flour may not protrude from the spaces between the fingers or at the sides of the palm.

4)

(a)The Minchah al ha'Machavas and the Minchas Marcheshes differ from a plain Minchas So'les - in that they are first baked in their respective receptacles and broken into pieces, before the Kohen performs Kemitzah.

(b)To perform Kemitzah - the Kohen places his hand sideways inside the K'li (in the same way as he does with a Minchas So'les), and then pushes away the protruding pieces with his thumb and little finger.

(c)We query the Beraisa's statement that the Kemitzah is the most difficult Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash - on the basis of two other Beraisos which refer to the Melikah (of a bird) and the Chafinah (of the Ketores on Yom Kipur) as the most difficult Avodos (so how can three Avodos all be the most difficult Avodah?).

(d)So we amend it to read that - Kemitzah is one of the most difficult Avodos ... .

5)

(a)When Rav Papa said M'lo Kumtzo ke'de'Kamtzi Inshi he meant that - the Kohen pushes his hands sideways into the flour in the way that we explained, and proceeds to fill his palm by moving it across the flour, allowing it to fill the cavity formed by his fingers bent over his palm.

(b)And when he asked what the Din will be if the Kohen performs the Kemitzah ...

1. ... be'Roshei Etzbe'osav, he meant that - the Kohen performs the Kemitzah by pushing his stretched out hand (palm down) into the flour, and then curling them into the palm of his hand, after his palm is full.

2. ... min ha'Tzedadin, he meant that - he places his hand on the flour (palm up), and allows the flour to fall into his palm by sliding his hand across the flour (or that he takes the flour from the side of the K'li and not from the middle).

3. ... mi'Matah le'Ma'alah, he meant that - the Kohen slides the tips of his fingers into the flour (palm up), and then closes them on to the palm of his hand, after his palm is full.

(c)The Kohen Gadol performs the Chafinah (taking the handful of Ketores) on Yom Kipur in the same way as a Kohen takes the Kemitzah. Rav Papa asked the same three She'eilos regarding it as he asked in connection with the Kemitzah, adding the She'eilah as to what the Din will be - if the Kohen Gadol takes half a handful with each hand and then combines them.

(d)The outcome of all these She'eilos is - Teiku (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos).

6)

(a)Rav Papa also asks what the Din will be if the Kohen then sticks the Kometz onto the wall of the K'li Shareis to carry it to the Mizbe'ach, which might be wrong in that - he did not place it inside the k'li, which is maybe what the Torah wants him to do.

(b)And Mar bar Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if he sticks the Kometz on to the floor of the K'li Shareis when it is upside-down (see Shitah Mekubetzes) - or if he turns the K'li upside-down, and places it in the base of the K'li. which is in the form of a receptacle.

(c)What might be wrong with that is - the fact that this is not the conventional way of placing things inside Keilim.

7)

(a)A regular Minchah requires - a Log of oil and a Kometz (a fistful) of Levonah.

(b)Our Mishnah rules that adding too much (Ribah Shamnah), or too little oil (Chasar Shamnah) or Levonah to the Minchah - invalidates it.

(c)Rebbi Elazar establishes Ribah Shamnah as two Login of oil, which we initially take to mean - specifically two Lugin which the owner designated for his Minchah, because it now resembles two Menachos in one.

(d)We extrapolate from Rebbi Elazar that - oil of Chulin or of another Minchah will not disqualify it.

(e)The problem Rav Zutra bar Tuvya has with this, concerning a Minchas Chotei, which we know can become Pasul through the oil is - how that can be, according to Rebbi Elazar, seeing as on the one hand, a Minchas Chotei does not contain oil to begin with (so the owner cannot add to it), whereas on the other, oil from somebody else's Minchah or from Chulin ought not to invalidate it?

8)

(a)So we conclude that when Rebbi Elazar said K'gon she'Hifrish Sh'nei Lugin, he meant that - *even* if the owner designated two Lugin (it still invalidates the Minchah), and how much more so if one adds oil from somebody else's Minchah or from Chulin.

(b)We might otherwise have thought that - since either of the two Lugin is eligible to constitute the required measure of Shemen, neither will invalidate the Minchah.

(c)Rava explains that Rebbi Elazar actually extrapolates this from the words Ribah Shamnah (in our Mishnah) implying that - the owner actually designated more oil than he needed and not that he added other oil later ...

(d)... in which case, the Tana ought to have said Ribah lah Shemen).

9)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah, Levonah she'Chasrah constitutes a minimum of two particles remaining at the time of the Haktarah - Rebbi Shimon requires the last particle to be Chaser for the Minchah to be Pasul.

(b)When we cite the Beraisa Kometz u'Levonah (or Kometz Levonah) she'Chasar Kol-Shehu, Pasul, we are querying Rebbi Shimon, whose name it seems, appears in the original version of this Beraisa (see Shitah Mekubetzes 5).

(c)We therefore amend the Beraisa to read - Koret Levonah she'Chasar Kolshehu ... ).

(d)Alternatively, we resolve the discrepancy (even without amending the text) - by establishing the latter Beraisa by someone who donated Levonah on its own (since the D'rashah permitting part of it, is confined to the Levonah that is brought together with the Minchah, (which is what the Tana'im are arguing about).

10)

(a)We just cited the Machlokes Tana'im, who argue over whether two particles of Levonah must remain for the Minchah to be Kasher (Rebbi Yehudah) or only one (Rebbi Shimon). Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan cites a third opinion, Rebbi Meir, who holds that - the Kometz Levonah must be intact at the time when it is brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan learns this from our Mishnah, which states Chisar Levonasah, Pasul ...

(c)... and we have a principle S'tam Mishnah Rebbi Meir.

(d)All three Tana'im agree that - Lechatchilah, the Levonah must comprise a Kometz.

(e)They all Darshen from the same Pasuk "ve'es Kol ha'Levonah asher al ha'Minchah". Rebbi ...

1. ... Meir interprets the Pasuk to mean that - all the Levonah that is brought together with the Minchah must be sacrificed (and not just part of it).

2. ... Yehudah explains the word Kol (in that Pasuk) - like Kolshehu (even one particle), whereas "ve'es" comes to include a second particle.

3. ... Shimon learns "Kol" like Rebbi Yehudah, but he does not Darshen "ve'es".

11)

(a)According to Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan, the above Machlokes Tana'im is confined to Levonah which is brought together with a Minchah. Even Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon will learn from the Pasuk "ve'es Kol ha'Levonah *Asher al ha'Minchah*" that - the Din of "Kol" and "ve'es" only pertain to Levonah that comes with the Minchah, but not to Levonah that comes on its own.

(b)And Rebbi Yochanan - repeats this latter ruling with regard to the Levonah that comes in the Bazichin.

(c)We think that this is obvious - due to the fact that the Torah does not write "Kol" and "es" by the Bazichin.

(d)It is not so obvious however - when we bear in mind that the Bazichin came together with the Lechem ha'Panim, in which case, we might have attributed to it the Din of Levonah that come together with the Minchah.

(e)Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha argue over Rebbi Yochanan's original statement. One of them holds like him. The other one - does not differentiate between Levonah that comes independently and Levonah that comes together with a Minchah. According to him, the D'rashah of "Kol" and "ve'es" extends to the former as well.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah invalidates Chiser Levonasah, implying that Yatir Levonasah is Kasher. Rami bar Chama reconciles this with the Beraisa which invalidates it - by establishing the latter where the owner designated two Kematzim of Levonah (which is excessive, and no longer appears to be part of the same Korban).

(b)Rami bar Chama goes on to discuss someone who designated two Kematzim of Levonah for his Minchah, and one of them got lost. He draws a distinction between whether it got lost before the Kemitzah - in which case it was not fixed together with the Minchah, and will not disqualify it because of Yiter Levonasah, or after it - where it was already fixed as Yiter Levonasah, and therefore disqualifies the Minchah.

(c)Alternatively, when Rami bar Chama says K'gon she'Hifrish lah Sh'nei Kematzim, he is referring to the Beraisa, which validates it - because both Kematzim are eligible to serve as the required Kometz (a S'vara which we rejected earlier), and it is our Mishnah which holds that a little extra is Pasul (like the Din by Yiter Shamnah).

(d)According to this second interpretation (validating Yiter Levonasah) - in a case where one of the Kemaztim got lost before the Kemitzah, the Minchah will be Kasher, because it is not considered Chiser Levonasah at the time of Haktarah (even according to Rebbi Meir), which it would be if it got lost after the Kemitzah.

13)

(a)And Rami bar Chama draws a similar distinction between someone who designates four Bazichei Levonah for the Lechem ha'Panim, where two of them got lost, whether they got lost before the Siluk Bazichin - in which case they are not fixed together with the Lechem ha'Panim (and are not considered Chiser Levonasah), and do therefore not disqualify it, or whether they got lost after it, in which case they are.

(b)The latter ruling appears to be an obvious extension of the first. Nevertheless, Rami bar Chama is coming to teach us that - based on the fact that the Bazichin are already designated, they ought to be fixed from the time they are due to be burned (to render the Lechem Pasul) even though the Siluk Bazichin has not yet taken place.

(c)If that was the case, we would consider Higi'a Zemanah - from the time the Korban Musaf has been brought.