1)

(a)When Charifi de'Pumbedisa (Eifah and Avimi, b'nei Rachbah) said Hatarah Mefageles Haktarah, they meant that - if the Kohen burns the Kometz having in mind to burn the Levonah the next day, the Pigul is effective.

(b)This ties up with ...

1. ... the principle Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir - inasmuch as the latter pertains specifically to a Machshavah to eat *the Shirayim*, whereas a Machshavah on the Levonah is like a Machshavah on the Kometz itself.

2. ... the ruling in the previous Mishnah Shachat Echad min ha'Kevasim Le'echol me'Chaveiro le'Machar, Sheneihem Kesheirim' - inasmuch as, whereas there, the two lambs were not sanctified together in the same K'li, the Kometz and the Levonah were.

2)

(a)The Tana in the first Perek ruled that Kol ha'Kometz, Nosen bi'Cheli, Molich u'Maktir Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol, u'Lehaktir Davar she'Darko Lehaktir, if the Kohen had in mind ...

1. ... Chutz li'Mekomo - Pasul, ve'Ein bo Kareis'.

2. ... Chutz li'Zemano - Pigul, ve'Yesh bo Kareis.

(b)Rava attempts to prove Charifi de'Pumbedisi right from there - by assuming that Maktir, like Kometz, Nosen bi'Cheli and Molich speaks both in a case where he intended to eat the Shirayim, and where he intended to burn the Levonah.

(c)To refute Rava's proof however, we establish Maktir - by a Machshavah to eat the Shirayim, exclusively.

3)

(a)Rav Menashya bar Gada disputes Charifi de'Pumbedisi's ruling. Quoting Rav Chisda, he maintains Ein Haktarah Mefageles Haktarah, even according to Rebbi Meir, who holds Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir - because whereas the Kometz is the Matir of the Shirayim, it is not the Matir of the Levonah.

(b)When Abaye asked Rav Menashya bar Gada whether Rav Chisda said this in the name of Rav, he replied that - indeed he did.

(c)We corroborate this - by quoting a statement of Rav Chisda Amar Rav to that effect.

4)

(a)Rav Ya'akov bar Aba tries to prove Rav Chisda Amar Rav right, from our Mishnah Shachat Echad min ha'Kevasim Le'echol ... me'Chaveiro le'Machar, Sheneihem Kesheirim - which he attributes to the fact that the one lamb is not the Matir of the other one.

(b)We reject this proof however by attributing the ineffectiveness of the Pigul - to the fact that they were not sanctified together in the same K'li, whereas the Kometz and the Levonah were.

(c)All this will only go according to Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan, but not according to Rebbi Yossi earlier in the Perek, who rules - Ein Matir Mefagel Matir, ve'Lo Haktaras Kometz le'Haktaras Levonah.

5)

(a)Rebbi Chanina taught Rav Hamnuna 'Hiktir Kometz Lehaktir Levonah Le'echol Shirayim le'Machar, Pigul', on which the latter commented that - it was equal to everything else that he had learned.

(b)We query this however, because it is unclear what it is coming to teach us. The Chidush cannot be that ...

1. ... Haktarah Mefageles Haktarah - because then all the Tana needed to have said was Hiktir Kometz Lehaktir Levonah le'Machar ... .

2. ... Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir - because then, all he needed to say was Hiktir Kometz Le'echol Shirayim le'Machar ... .

3. ... both - because then he ought to have writtesaidn Hiktir Kometz Lehaktir Levonah *ve*Le'echol Shirayim le'Machar, Pigul.

(c)Therefore Rav Ada bar Ahavah explains that - even though the Tana holds Ein Haktarah Mefageles Haktarah and Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir, in this case, the Pigul is effective on account of the dual Machshavah, which causes both of them to take effect.

6)

(a)When a Beraisa expert cited a Beraisa Hiktir Kometz Le'echol Shirayim le'Machar, le'Divrei ha'Kol Pigul, Rav Yitzchak bar Aba objected on the grounds that - this is subject to a Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan,

(b)He therefore amended the Beraisa to read - Pasul, instead of Pigul.

(c)He preferred to amend it this way, rather than to leave the ruling intact and simply change the author to Rebbi Meir - because whoever erred would have been more likely to confuse Pigul and Pasul than Harei Zeh and Divrei ha'Kol (had he learned Harei Zeh Pigul, he would have been unlikely to have then stated Divrei ha'Kol ... ).

7)

(a)If the Kohen performs Kemitzah with the intention of eating part of the Minchah that is not meant to be eaten, or burned part of it that was not meant to be burnt, Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah rules that - it is Pasul.

(b)Our Mishnah rules, in a case where the Kohen performs the Kemitzah with the intention of eating ...

1. ... or burning the next day, less than a k'Zayis of a part that is meant to be eaten or burnt that - it is Kasher.

2. ... half a k'Zayis and burning half a k'Zayis the next day that - it is Kasher too ...

(c)... because Achilah and Haktarah do not combine).

(d)In spite of having already taught this Halachah in the first Perek, the Tana nevertheless sees fit to repeat it here - to teach us that Rebbi Eliezer does not dispute it (because although he decrees a Machshavah she'Lo ke'Darko on account of ke'Darko, he does not by the same token decree a Machshavah of half a k'Zayis on account of a k'Zayis.

8)

(a)Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan cites the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with Pigul) "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav ... " - the source of Rebbi Eliezer's opinion that Achilas Adam is compared to Achilas Mizbe'ach (as we will now see).

(b)Bearing in mind that the Torah is clearly comparing Achilas Adam and Achilas Mizbe'ach, Rebbi Eliezer learns from there - a. that Achilas Mizbe'ach makes Pigul, just like Achilas Adam, and b. just as a Machshavah of Achilas Mizbe'ach le'Mizbe'ach and Achilas Adam le'Adam is effective, so too, is a Machshavah of Achilas Mizbe'ach le'Adam and Achilas Adam le'Mizbe'ach, effective.

(c)One of the two things the Rabbanan might learn from the fact that the Torah uses a Lashon of Achilah with regard to Haktarah is that, even if the Kohen intends to burn the Kometz using a Lashon of Achilah, his Machshavah is effective. The other - is that the Shi'ur Haktarah, like the Shi'ur Achilah, is a k'Zayis.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer will learn that - from the fact that the Torah writes "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel" (instead of "ve'Im He'achol 'He'achol" (or "Ye'achel Ye'achel"), leaving us with an extra D'rashah.

9)

(a)Rebbi Zeira reminded Rebbi Asi that he himself in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, had said that Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah concedes that there is no Kareis - thereby clashing with the source that he just quoted. If Rebbi Eliezer learns his Din from "He'achol Ye'achel", why should it not be Pigul, and why should the person who eats it not be Chayav Kareis?

(b)Rebbi Asi replied that - Rebbi Eliezer's opinion is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im, as we will see shortly.

(c)According to those who say that there is no Chiyuv Kareis Rebbi Eliezer holds that - it is only Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan.

(d)In the Beraisa that Rebbi Asi cites, the Tana Kama rules that if someone Shechts a Korban with the intention of drinking its blood or burning its flesh the next day, the Korban is Kasher. Rebbi Eliezer rules that - it is Pasul.

10)

(a)In a case where the Kohen Shechts the Korban, having in mind to leave its blood until the next day, Rebbi Yehudah says Pasul with reference to the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, not the Rabbanan - because, seeing as even when the Kohen thinks using a Lashon of Achilah, the Rabbanan say Kasher, how much more so if he thinks using only a Lashon of Hanachah.

(b)According to Rebbi Elazar, this latter case is subject to the same Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan as the Reisha. Our initial problem with this is that - this is what Rebbi Yehudah seems to be saying.

(c)Rebbi Asi therefore explains their Machlokes with regard to the Reisha. According to Rebbi Yehudah, R. Eliezer hold that Lehani'ach is mi'de'Rabbanan (as will soon be explained), but in the Reisha (by Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol and Lehaktir Davar she'Ein Darko Lehaktir), one is even Chayav Kareis. Whereas according to Rebbi Elazar, he holds in both cases that it is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

11)

(a)We refute Rebbi Asi's explanation however, concluding that according to both Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan, there is no Kareis in the Reisha - and the Machlokes is actually a triple one (the Tana Kama, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar). What they are then arguing over is whether it is Kasher (the Rabbanan) or Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (Rebbi Eliezer).

(b)According to the Tana Kama, Lehani'ach is unanimously Kasher; whereas Rebbi Yehudah maintains that Lehani'ach is unanimously Pasul - because the Chachamim issued a decree (some of the blood on account of all it).

12)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah agrees with the Tana Kama that Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan are arguing over Machsheves ke'Darko because of she'Lo ke'Darko. In his opinion however - A Machsheves Lehani'ach renders the Korban Pasul ...

(b)... because he decrees Miktzas Damo on account of Kol Damo, which is Pasul min ha'Torah.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa proves to the Rabbanan that a Machshavah to leave over all the blood for the next day is Pasul d'Oraysa - by virtue of the fact that, if the blood was actually left over for the next day it would be Pasul.

(d)According to Rebbi Elazar - Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan are arguing over whether the Rabbanan decreed by Lehani'ach (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (the Rabbanan).