1)

(a)When Rebbi said in a Beraisa ke'she'Halachti ...

1. ... (either) Lematzas Midosai Eitzel Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, he meant that - he went to visit Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua in order to test his (own) knowledge and to resolve all his doubts.

2. ... (or) Lematas Midosav shel Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua he meant that - he went to discover the extent of Rebbi Elazar's superior knowledge.

(b)He saw - Yosef ha'Bavli there sitting in front of Rebbi Elazar.

(c)He writes that Rebbi Elazar was particularly fond of Yosef ha'Bavli. According to a second Lashon, it was Yosef ha'Bavli, who was particularly fond of whatever he heard from Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua.

(d)When Yosef ha'Bavli asked Rebbi Elazar what the Din will be in a case where someone Shechts a Korban with the intention of leaving some of the blood until the next day, he replied that - it is Kasher.

2)

(a)Yosef ha'Bavli asked the She'eilah - in the morning, at noon, in the afternoon and at night.

(b)On the fourth occasion, Rebbi Elazar added that - Rebbi Eliezer rules that it is Pasul.

(c)Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua thought that Yosef ha'Bavli beamed with delight - because it was the first time that he had taught him the Halachah.

(d)Yosef ha'Bavli dismissed that however (Hein Rebbi Hein) , and the real reason for his joy was - the fact that he had heard from Rebbi Yehudah Pasul, but that he had been unable to find any of Rebbi Yehudah's Talmidim to bear him out. Consequently, he was afraid that perhaps he had forgotten what he had heard from him.

(e)When he therefore concluded Hechzarta li Aveidasi, he meant to say that - now he knew that he had not forgotten.

3)

(a)Rebbi Elazar reacted - by bursting into tears, when he realized the extent of the Talmidei-Chachamim's love of Torah, to which end ...

(b)... he quoted the Pasuk in Tehilim "Mah Ahavti Torasecha, Kol ha'Yom Hi Sichasi".

(c)The reason Rebbi Elazar give to explain why Rebbi Yehudah taught him the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer - was because Rebbi Yehudah heard it from his father Rebbi Ilai, who was a Talmid of Rebbi Eliezer.

4)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Yehudah's original statement that Lehani'ach is unanimous is that - according to Rebbi Elazar, it is the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer only. So how could Rebbi declare Hechzarta li Aveidasi?

(b)If on the other hand, Rebbi Yehudah was referring only to Rebbi Eliezer's opinion, there is a problem with Rebbi Elazar's statement 'Ha Mipnei she'Rebbi Yehudah B'no shel Rebbi Ilai ... ' - which implies that he was not telling him the Halachah (but only because it was dear to him, as we explained). If Rebbi Yehudah had only quoted Rebbi Eliezer, then why did Rebbi Elazar say 'Ha', seeing as he was telling him exactly what he had heard from Rebbi Yehudah?

(c)So we conclude that - Rebbi Yehudah's statement was really unanimous, and when Yosef ha'Bavli said Hechzarta li Aveidasi, he meant that - Rebbi Elazar had at least given him some support, even if it was not quite what he had heard.

5)

(a)In a case where the Kohen failed to make Yetzikah, Belilah, Pesisah, Melichah, Tenufah or Hagashah, our Mishnah rules that - the Minchah is nevertheless Kasher.

(b)When the Tana says ...

1. ... Lo Yatzak ve'Lo Balal, he means that - the Kohen did not pour in the second lot (the complement) of the Log and mix it, because he poured it all initially.

2. ... Lo Pasas he means that - he did not break the Shirayim into pieces, only what was needed for the Kemitzah. And he is referring to all types of Minchah that are pre-baked (see Shitah Mekubetzes 8).

(c)The three kinds of Minchas that require Tenufah are - Minchas Chotei, Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Kena'os (the Minchah of a Sotah).

6)

(a)The Mishnah also validates a Minchah that has been broken into Pitin Merubos. The standard size is - one into two and then into four.

(b)Only the Matzah wafers of a Korban Todah require Meshichah (anointing with oil).

(c)If the Kohen failed to do this - the Minchah is nevertheless Kasher.

7)

(a)When the Tana says Lo Yatzak, he cannot mean it literally - because in fact, Yetzikah is crucial to the Minchah.

(b)We initially think that he also cannot mean Lo Yatzak Kohen Ela Zar, because then Lo Balal would also mean Lo Balal Kohen Ela Zar - implying that Belilah is crucial, whereas in fact, it is not (as we will now see).

(c)When the Mishnah says in the twelfth Perek rules Shishim Nivlalin, Shishim ve'Echad, Ein Nivlalin, it means that - sixty Esronin is Kasher with one Log of oil because it is mixable (but not more).

(d)Based on our Mishnah (according to our Sugya's conclusion) Lo Balal, Kasher, Rebbi Zeira attributes the P'sul in the latter case (not to the fact that it has not been mixed, but) because it cannot be mixed.

(e)And we finally establish Lo Yatzak to mean Lo Yatzak Kohen Ela Zar and Lo Balal as Lo Balal K'lal - 'Ha ke'de'Iysa, ve'Ha ke'de'Iysa' [each one in its own appropriate way]).

8)

(a)The problem with inserting O she'Pitsah Pitin Merubos is that - seeing as omitting the Pesisah altogether does not render the Minchah Pasul, why does the Tana need to insert it?

(b)Therefore ...

1. ... we initially amend Pitim Merubos to - she'Ribah bi'Pesisin (meaning that the Kohen broke it up into too many pieces).

2. ... interpret it even as it is, since - Patas Pitim Merubos might be even worse than Lo Patas, since the latter at least constitutes loaves, whereas the former constitutes neither loaves nor pieces.

9)

(a)We cite a Beraisa in which Rebbi Shimon cites fifteen Avodos, including seven concerning the Minchah (though not all of them are exclusive to it): Yetzikos, Belilos, Pesisos, Melichos and Tenufos - Kemitzos and Haktaros.

(b)He lists Melikos in connection with Korban ha'Of - and Kabalos and Haza'os in connection with Zevachim.

(c)He also lists - Hashka'as Sotah, Arifas Eglah and Taharas Metzora.

(d)The final Avodah on his list is Nesi'as Kapayim (Duchening), which sub-divides into - Nesi'as Kapayim mi'bi'Fenim (in the Beis-Hamikdash) and 'Nesi'as Kapayim mi'ba'Chutz' (in each town).

10)

(a)The direct ramifications of Rebbi Shimon's list are that - they cannot be performed by a Zar (see Shitah Mekubetzes).

(b)And he also learns from the Pasuk in Tzav ...

1. ... "ha'Makriv es Dam ha'Shelamim ve'es ha'Cheilev ... lo Tih'yeh Shok ha'Yamin le'Manah" that - any Kohen who does not acknowledge the Avodah of Hakravas Dam (which is not included in the list [see Shitah Mekubetzes 2]) has no portion in the Kehunah.

2. ... "mi'B'nei Aharon" that - the same applies to a Kohen who does not acknowledge any of the Avodos included in Rebbi Shimon's list.

(c)We now suggest that Rebbi Shimon cannot be the author of our Mishnah - because he lists Yetzikah as an Avodah, whereas our Mishnah permits a Zar to perform it.

11)

(a)Rav Nachman answers that our Mishnah speaks by a Minchas Yisrael - which requires Kemitzah, and it is from there that the Mitzvos Kehunah commence; whereas Rebbi Shimon speaks by a Minchas Kohen - which does not require Kemitzah, seeing as it is totally burned. Consequently, the Mitzvos Kehunah begin immediately.

(b)Rava queries this answer from the source of Yetzikah by a Minchas Kohen - from the extra word "Minchah" written in Vayikra by a Minchas Yisrael (to include even a Minchas Kohen in the Din of Yetzikah), in which case it should also be Kesheirah be'Zar.

(c)In the second Lashon, Rav Nachman differentiates between Menachos that are Nikmatzos and those that are not - to include a Minchas Nesachim on the side of a Minchas Kohen.

(d)Rava asks the same Kashya on this Lashon as he asked on the first, in which case - the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Shimon.

12)

(a)The Rabbanan (the authors of our Mishnah) learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Vehevi'ah el B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim, veKamatz"that - the Avodos prior to the Kemitzah (Yetzikah and Belilah) do not require Kehunah.

(b)Rebbi Shimon counters that - by Darshening "b'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim" on what is mentioned before as well as what is mentioned afterwards.

(c)Bearing in mind that the Pasuk in Vayikra "Velakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas" refers to Kabalas ha'Dam, another Beraisa learns from "Velakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas be'Etzba'o" that - Kabalas ha'Dam must be performed with the right hand (since that is what "Etzba" always implies).

(d)And the Tana there learns from "be'Etzba'o Venasan al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach" that - the Matanos Dam too, require the right hand.

13)

(a)Rebbi Shimon disagrees, based on the fact that the Torah does not write Yad by Kabalas ha'Dam, by which he means that - since the Torah did not write "Etzba" by Kabalas ha'Dam - the Kohen may perform it with his left hand.

(b)Abaye establishes the source of the Machlokes as - whether Mikra Nidrash Lefanav u'le'Acharav' (the Rabbanan), or ... le'Acharav ve'Lo Lefanav (Rebbi Shimon), a Kashya on the current Sugya, where we just established that according to Rebbi Shimon 'Mikra Nidrash Lefanav u'le'Acharav'.

(c)So we conclude that Rebbi Shimon requires Kehunah by Yetzikah from "Vehevi'ah el B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim" - because he holds Vav Mosif al Inyan Rishon (in which case, just as the Kemitzah requires Kehunah, so too does Yetzikah) ...

(d)... and the reason that he does not also learn from the 'Vav' in "Venasan al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach" that Kabalas ha'Dam requires Kehunah like Nesinas ha'Dam is - because by placing "be'Etzba'o" immediately prior to "Venasan" (and not after "Velakach ha'Kohen"), the Torah breaks the two phrases, in which case Vav Mosif no longer applies.