Perek ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah
1)
(a)According to our Mishnah, what does Rebbi Yossi concede in a case where a Kohen performs a Kemitzah with the intention of eating the Shirayim or burning the Kemitzah tomorrow?
(b)If however, the Kohen's intention is to eat the Levonah tomorrow, Rebbi Yossi holds Pasul ve'Ein Bo Kareis. What do the Rabbanan say?
(c)What do the Rabbanan mean when they ask Rebbi Yossi Mai Shanah Zeh min ha'Zevach? Which case are they referring to?
(d)What does Rebbi Yossi answer?
1)
(a)According to our Mishnah, in a case where a Kohen performs a Kemitzah with the intention of eating the Shirayim or burning the Kemitzah tomorrow - Rebbi Yossi concedes that it is Pigul, and whoever eats it is Chayav Kareis.
(b)If however, the Kohen's intention is to eat the Levonah tomorrow, Rebbi Yossi holds Pasul ve'Ein bo Kareis. The Rabbanan hold - Pigul, ve'Chayavin alav Kareis.
(c)When the Rabbanan ask Rebbi Yossi Mai Shanah Zeh min ha'Zevach - they are asking why the current Halachah should differ from the case of a Kohen who Shechts a Korban with the intention of burning the Eimurin tomorrow, where we rule Pigul ve'Chayavin alav Kareis ...
(d)... to which Rebbi Yossi answers that - whereas the Dam, the Basar and the Eimurin are all intrinsic parts of the same Korban, the Levonah is not an intrinsic part of the Minchah.
2)
(a)The Tana says Modeh Rebbi Yossi ba'Zeh ... , based on his ruling in the Seifa. If the Tana had not said it, what might we have thought? What reason would we have ascribed to Rebbi Yossi that would have applied equally to the Reisha?
(b)What, according to Resh Lakish, is Rebbi Yossi's reason?
(c)Similarly, Resh Lakish continues, Rebbi Yossi said that one of the Bazichei Levonah cannot render the other one Pigul, either. Why did he need to say that? What would we otherwise have thought?
(d)What problem do we have with this from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Yossi explicitly said ha'Zevach Damo, u'Vesaro ve'Eimurav Echad, u'Levonah Einah min ha'Minchah?
2)
(a)The Tana says Modeh Rebbi Yossi ba'Zeh ... , based on his ruling in the Seifa. If the Tana had not said it, we might have thought that - Rebbi Yossi's reason is Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir, a principle which applies to the Reisha as well (since the Levonah is as much a Matir as the Kometz).
(b)According to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Yossi's reason is - because one Matir cannot render another Matir, Pigul.
(c)Similarly, Resh Lakish continues, Rebbi Yossi said that one of the Bazichei Levonah cannot render the other one Pigul, either. We might otherwise have thought that - Rebbi Yossi's reason is because the Levonah is not of the same species as the Minchah, whereas the two Bazichin, which are of the same species, can render each other Pigul .
(d)The problem with this is from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Yossi explicitly said ha'Zevach Damo, u'Vesaro ve'Eimurav Echad, u'Levonah Einah min ha'Minchah' - which seems to be the very reason that we just rejected (the components of the Korban are all part of the animal, whereas the Levonah is of a different species than the Minchah).
13b---------------------13b
3)
(a)If Rebbi Yossi is not saying what we just suggested, then what is he saying? What distinction is he drawing between the Dam and the Eimurim (or the Kometz and the Shirayim) on the one hand, and the Kometz and the Levonah, on the other?
(b)If, on principle, the Rabbanan agree that Ein Matir Mefagel Matir, why do they argue with Rebbi Yossi?
(c)In which case do the Rabbanan then rule, like Rebbi Yossi, that one Matir cannot render another, Pigul?
3)
(a)Rebbi Yossi is not saying what we just suggested. What he is saying is that - seeing as (unlike the Eimurin, which can only be brought after the Dam, or the Shirayim, after the Kometz), the Levonah can be brought even before the Kometz, in which case it is a Matir, and a Machshavah on one Matir cannot render another Matir, Pigul (just as Resh Lakish said).
(b)Even though on principle, the Rabbanan agree that Ein Matir Mefagel Matir, that is only when the two Matirin are brought in two Keilim, but they argue with Rebbi Yossi - there where the two Matirin are brought in one K'li, as is the case here ...
(c)... and the Rabbanan rule like Rebbi Yossi - there where the Kohen Shechted one of the Kivsei Atzeres (the lambs of Shavu'os) with a Machshavah to bring the other one Chutz li'Zemano, in which case both lambs will remain Kasher.
4)
(a)What is Likut Levonah?
(b)Rebbi Yanai rules Likut Levonah be'Zar, Pasul. How does Rebbi Yirmiyah explain this ruling, considering that Likut Levonah itself is not an Avodah?
(c)Why is this considered Holachah, seeing as the Zar did not walk with it (see Shitah Mekubetzes 7)?
4)
(a)Likut Levonah is - skimming the Levonah from off the Minchah, to burn it on the Mizbe'ach.
(b)Rebbi Yanai rules Likut Levonah be'Zar, Pasul. In spite of the fact that Likut Levonah itself is not an Avodah, Rebbi Yirmiyah explains that - he is Chayav because of Holachah ...
(c)... and Rebbi Yanai holds - Holachah she'Lo be'Regel Sh'mah Holachah (see Shitah Mekubetzes 7) since by handing it to a Kohen standing nearby, the Zar reduces the distance that the Kohen has to walk with it.
5)
(a)Rav Mari proves that Likut Levonah is indeed an Avodah, from the Mishnah in the first Perek, which lists the four Avodos of a Minchah. Kemitzah, we learned, is equivalent to the Shechitah of a Zevach, Molich, to Molich, and Maktir to Zorek, What is the connection between ...
1. ... Kemitzah and Shechitah?
2. ... Haktarah and Zerikah?
(b)On what grounds do we initially reject the suggestion that Nosen (Kometz) bi'Cheli is an Avodah because it is similar to Kabalah?
(c)What, do we then suggest, turns ...
1. ... Nesinas K'li into an Avodah?
2. ... Likut Levonah into an Avodah?
(d)On what grounds do we reinstate our original suggestion (that Nosen bi'Cheli is an Avodah because it is similar to Kabalah)?
5)
(a)Rav Mari proves that Likut Levonah is indeed an Avodah, from the Mishnah in the first Perek which lists the four Avodos of a Minchah. Kemitzah, we learned, is equivalent to the Shechitah of a Zevach, Molich, to Molich, and Maktir to Zorek. The connection between ...
1. ... Kemitzah and Shechitah is the fact that - both designate the portion of Hash-m (the Kometz and the Dam respectively).
2. ... Haktarah and Zerikah is the fact that - both constitute actually giving that portion to Hash-m.
(b)Initially, we reject the suggestion that Nosen (Kometz) bi'Cheli is an Avodah because it is similar to Kabalah - since the former entails an act, whereas the latter is automatic.
(c)So we suggest that what turns ...
1. ... Nesinas K'li into an Avodah is the fact that - it is indispensable, and that is why we compare it to Kabalah.
2. ... Likut Levonah into an Avodah is - because it too, is indispensable, and is therefore compared to Holachah.
(d)We reinstate our original suggestion (that Nosen bi'Cheli is an Avodah because it is similar to Kabalah) - since, seeing as both entail Kedushas K'li, what difference does it make whether the Kohen performs an act or not?
6)
(a)What does Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah say about a Kohen who Shechts the two Kivsei Atzeres having in mind to eat one of the loaves on the following day?
(b)What parallel case does he present?
(c)What do the Rabbanan say?
(d)Why do the Tana'im not contend with the other Korbanos that are brought at the same time as the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (seven lambs, one bull and two rams)?
6)
(a)Rebbi Yossi rules in our Mishnah that - if a Kohen Shechts the two Kivsei Atzeres having in mind to eat one of the loaves on the following day - that loaf is Pigul, whereas the second loaf is Pasul (but there is no Chiyuv Kareis for eating it).
(b)The parallel case he presents is - if the Kohen sacrifices the two Bazichin with the intention of eating one of the rows of Lechem ha'Panim on the next day (on Sunday).
(c)According to the Rabbanan - both loaves are subject to Pigul (and Kareis).
(d)Neither Tana contends with the other Korbanos that are brought at the same time as the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (seven lambs, one bull and two rams) - because the Kedushah of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem depends on the Shechitah of the two lambs exclusively (as we will learn in the fourth Perek).
7)
(a)What does Rav Huna say about the second thigh of a Korban which the Kohen is Mefagel, having in mind to eat one of the thighs after the allotted time?
(b)He bases this on a S'vara and on a Pasuk. Which S'vara?
(c)And how does he learn it from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles mimenu, Avonah Tisa"?
7)
(a)Rav Huna rules that if the Kohen is Mefagel a Korban, having in mind to eat one of the thighs after the allotted time - the second thigh is not Pigul.
(b)He bases this on a S'vara and on a Pasuk. The S'vara is that - presumably, Machshavah is no better than Ma'aseh, and if one thigh becomes Tamei, the other remains unaffected; likewise Machshavah.
(c)And he learns it from - the Pasuk in Tzav's use of the singular "ve'ha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles *mimenu* Avonah Tisa" ("mimenu", 've'Lo me'Chaveiro').
8)
(a)Rav Nachman queries Rav Huna from a Beraisa. What does he extrapolate from the Beraisa (in connection with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) Le'olam Ein bo Kareis ad she'Yefagel bi'Sheteihen bi'k'Zayis?
(b)Why can the author not be the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi?
(c)Sine the author must then be Rebbi Yossi, what is the problem with Rav Huna's statement?
(d)If, on the other hand, the two loaves are able to combine, based on the fact that the two thighs are considered one entity, then why does Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, rule that if the Kohen is Mefagel one loaf, the other one is not Pigul?
8)
(a)Rav Nachman queries Rav Huna from the Beraisa (in connection with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) Le'olam Ein bo Kareis ad she'Yefagel bi'Sheteihen bi'k'Zayis, from which he extrapolates - 'bi'Sheteihen, In; be'Achas, Lo'.
(b)The author cannot be the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi - because according to them, even if the Kohen is Mefagel only one loaf, it would cause both loaves to become Pigul.
(c)Since the author must be Rebbi Yossi, the problem with Rav Huna's statement is that - if even the two thighs are two totally separate entities, then certainly, the two loaves are, in which case, they ought not to combine regarding Pigul.
(d)On the other hand, even if the two loaves are able to combine, based on the fact that the two thighs are considered one entity, Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, rules that if the Kohen is Mefagel the one loaf, the other one is not Pigul - because, unlike the case in the Beraisa, the Kohen did not specifically combine them.