1)

(a)The four things listed by the Beraisa that do not require salt are wine, blood, wood - and the Ketores.

(b)The author of the Beraisa cannot be Rebbi - because, in his opinion, wood does require salting, as we just learned.

(c)Neither can the author be the Rabbanan of Rebbi, since the Tana includes Ketores. The problem with that is that a. Ketores requires wood, which the Chachamim concede will then require salt (as we also just learned) and b. - they also agree that Ketores must be salted ( as we will learn on the next Amud).

(d)We therefore establish the author as Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, who learns from the P'rat, to preclude from salting ...

1. ... Davar ha'Mekabel Tum'ah - wood, which is not subject to Tum'ah.

2. ... Olah le'Ishim - wine and blood, neither of which go on the Ma'arachah.

3. ... Yeshno al Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon - Ketores, which is brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.

(e)When the Sugya in Pesachim includes Eitzim and Levonah in the Din of Tum'ah - it is referring to Tum'ah de'Rabbanan, whereas we are speaking about Tum'ah d'Oraysa.

2)

(a)The problem with the Tana's need to preclude Dam from Melichah is that, according to Ze'iri, this would appear to be obvious.

1. Ze'iri Amar Rebbi Chanina ruled - that one is not Chayav for drinking blood that has been cooked.

2. Rav Yehudah Amar Ze'iri - issued the same ruling regarding blood that has been salted.

(b)The reason for these two rulings is a. because one is only Chayav Kareis on blood that is fit to atone, and cooked blood is not (because it has lost its identity), and b. - because salting is like cooking.

(c)Rav Yehudah himself said that limbs which have been roasted before bringing them on the Mizbe'ach - are not subject to "Re'ach Nicho'ach".

(d)According to Ze'iri, the Tana contemplates salting the blood - just a little, in order to fulfill the Mitzvah, but not sufficiently to render the blood cooked (hence he needs the Pasuk to preclude it).

3)

(a)The Beraisa rules that someone who eats blood that has been congealed by heating, or who drinks melted Cheilev - is Chayav Kareis.

(b)Rava reconciles Ze'iri Amar Rebbi Chanina with this Beraisa - by establishing the latter by blood that was heated by the sun, and Ze'iri, by blood that was heated by fire ...

(c)... because whereas the latter cannot revert to regular blood, and is therefore unfit to atone, the former, which can, retains its identity, and therefore remains fit to atone.

4)

(a)Abaye queries Rava's answer, based on a ruling of Rebbi Yochanan, who, in reply to Rebbi Mani's She'eilah regarding someone who drinks congealed blood - stated Ho'il Venidcheh, Yidacheh (once it has been rejected, it remains rejected, even if it subsequently melts).

(b)Assuming that Rebbi Yochanan is also referring to the blood of Chulin, the Kashya is - why the Beraisa does not apply the same S'vara with regard to blood that was congealed by the sun.

(c)Rava, who had no answer to the Kashya - reacted by remaining silent.

(d)Abaye suggested that perhaps ...

1. ... the Beraisa is speaking about Chata'os Chitzoniyos and Chulin, whereas ...

2. ... Rebbi Yochanan is speaking by Chata'os Penimiyos (as we will now explain).

5)

(a)This reminded Rava what he had heard from Rav Chisda, who ruled that - someone who eats the congealed blood ...

1. ... of Chata'os Chitzoniyos is Chayav, seeing as the Torah in Vayikra writes "Velakach ... Venasan" (and this is applicable even when the blood is congealed).

2. ... of Chata'os Penimiyos is Patur (since the Pasuk there writes "Vetaval Vehizah", which is not possible when the blood is congealed).

(b)Someone who eats the congealed blood of Chulin - is Chayav, since it is fit to atone by Chata'os Chitzoniyos.

6)

(a)This is the opinion of Rava quoting Rav Chisda. Rava himself however, declares Chayav even someone who eats the congealed blood of Chata'os ha'Penimiyos - because it is fit to atone by Chata'os Chitzoniyos (Migu).

(b)Rav Papa extrapolates from Rava's ruling that - someone who eats the congealed blood of a donkey will be Chayav too (since it is considered blood by Chata'os Chitzoniyos [see Gilyon ha'Shas]).

(c)Rav Gidal Amar Ze'iri rules that wet or congealed blood - is considered a Chatzitzah (and will invalidate Tevilah).

(d)Rav Gidal will reconcile this with the Beraisa, which declares that dried blood, ink, honey and milk are not Chotzetz - by establishing the Beraisa by blood that is completely liquefied, whilst he is referring to liquid blood that is still sticky.

7)

(a)We already discussed the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchascha ba'Melach Timloch". The Tana explains that "Timloch" comes to preclude Tevoneihu (which we will discuss shortly), whereas from "ba'Melach" he learns that - the Kohanim must use real salt, and not brine.

(b)And from "ve'Lo Sashbis Melach ... ", the Tana confines the Mitzvah to Melach Sedomis - which (as "Lo Sashbis" implies) is available at all times, both in summer and winter (because the sea produces it constantly).

(c)The difference between Melach Sedomis and Melach Isteruknis (which one mines from the ground) is that - whereas the former is fine, the latter is coarse (see also Mesores ha'Shas quoting the Aruch).

(d)We learn that if no Melach Sedomis is available, the Kohanim may use Melach Isteruknis - from the word "Takriv".

8)

(a)The Tana also learns from "Takriv" that Kol-she'Hu will suffice) and that - the Mitzvah of salting the limbs of a Korban Tzibur applies even if it is brought be'Tum'ah, and even on Shabbos.

(b)Abaye refutes ...

1. ... Rabah bar Ula's suggestion that, when the Tana says Yachol Yetavneihu, he means that one should mix in lots of salt like straw in cement' ('Yachol Yisbonenu') - on the grounds that the Tana ought to have then said 'Yachol Yetavnenu (or Yetavlenu)); whereas ...

2. ... Rava refutes Abaye's suggestion that what he really means is that one should add row upon row of salt like a building - because then, he ought to have said 'Yachol Yivnenu'.

(c)According to Rava, who leaves the text as Tevoneihu (or amends it to Yevonenu), Rav Ashi explains the Beraisa to mean that - one might have thought that one should add salt to the point that it can be tasted (even just on one side [see also Tosfos DH 'Yitein']).

(d)In fact, one places salt on one side of the limb, and the n turns it over and salts the other side.

(e)Abaye comments that - the same applies to Chulin meat that one wants to cook.

9)

(a)The Beraisa draws a distinction between the salt on the limbs, and the salt on wet or congealed blood, in that - the former is subject to Me'ilah, whereas the latter is not ...

(b)... because it is no longer fit to salt the Korbanos.

(c)Rav Masna extrapolates that Me'ilah applies to the former, from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Vehikravtem lifnei Hash-m, Ve'hishlichu ha'Kohanim aleihem Melach, Ve'he'elu osam Olah la'Hashem" - since the Navi refers to the salt, as well as to the actual Korbanos as "Olah".

10)

(a)The Mishnah is Shekalim lists salt and wood of Kodesh (among seven items) that - the Rabbanan made a condition permitting the Kohanim to derive benefit from them.

(b)Shmuel restricts this concession - by permitting them to use them only for their Korbanos, but not for their own personal use.

(c)Initially, we think that when Shmuel said ...

1. ... le'Korbanam, he meant - to salt their own Korbanos ...

2. ... Aval la'Achilah, Lo - meaning that it is not permitted to use the salt or the wood for the Korbanos (Kodshei Kodshim) that they receive from Zarim.

(d)We refute this suggestion however - because seeing as they are permitted to use the salt for salting the skins of the Korbanos that they receive (as we will now see), how much more so if it is to eat the Kodshim that they receive.

11)

(a)The Beraisa teaches us that salt is deposited in three locations ...

1. ... in the Lishkas ha'Melach - to salt the skins of Kodshim that are given to the Kohanim.

2. ... on the Kevesh - to salt the Evarim of the Olah and the Emurim of other Korbanos.

3. ... on top of the Mizbe'ach - to salt all the Menachos (that are burned) including the Kometz and the Levonah - the Ketores and the Olas ha'Of.

(b)What Shmuel said le'Korbanam, he meant that - the Kohanim are only permitted to use the wood and the salt for the Korbanos.

(c)When he added Aval la'Achilah, Lo, he could not have been referring to eating Chulin - since it is forbidden to bring Chulin into the Azarah (see Shitah Mekubetzes 3).

(d)In fact, he was referring to Chazal's concession (based on the superfluous word "Yochluhah" (in the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Noseres mimenu Yochlu Aharon u'Vanav ... Yochluhah") to eat Chulin and Terumah in the Azarah, in order to eat their Menachos and Kodshim to satisfaction. For them, Shmuel now teaches us, they are not permitted to use wood or salt of Hekdesh.

12)

(a)When someone brings a Minchah ...

1. ... it is - the owner who must provide the Levonah (as is evident from the wording of the Pasuk).

2. ... it is - the Tzibur who provide the wood (as we will soon see).

(b)We might learn the salt from ...

1. ... the wood rather than from the Levonah - because, as opposed to the Levonah, all Korbanos require both wood and salt.

2. .... the Levonah rather than from the wood - because, unlike the wood, the Levonah is brought together with the salt in the same vessel.

(c)We therefore learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "B'ris Melach Olam Hi" and "me'es B'nei Yisrael B'ris Olam" (in Emor, in connection with the Lechem ha'Panim) that - the salt is provided by the Tzibur.

(d)And we learn that the Lechem ha'Panim are brought by the Tzibur - from the Pasuk there "me'Eis B'nei Yisrael".

13)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah in a Mishnah in Shekalim, quotes ben Buchri, who in the Mishnah in Shekalim that - Kohanim who donate a half Shekel in Adar have not sinned.

(b)Even though the Kohanim are not Chayav to donate a half-Shekel, ben Buchri needs to tell us that it is not a sin if they do - because otherwise, we may have thought that it is considered bringing Chulin to the Azarah.

(c)According to Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai, a Kohen who fails to give half a Shekel has sinned. Rav Mordechai quoting Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi, extrapolates from the current Machlokes Tana'im that - the special dispensation permitting the Kohanim to use the Eitzim and the Melach of Kodesh is confined to the opinion of ben Buchri ...

(d)... because according to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, it would not have been necessary, seeing as they are joint partners in all Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

14)

(a)

1. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai learns his opinion from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa (in connection with the Machtzis ha'Shekel) "Zeh Yitnu" - from the fact that the numerical value of "Zeh" is twelve (incorporating the tribe of Levi [though it is not clear how this proves how the Kohanim had to donate, and not just the Levi'im] see also Tosfos DH 'Kol Kohen').

2. Whereas ben Buchri learns his opinion from the Pasuk there (in connection with the counting) "Kol ha'Over al ha'Pekudim" - and the tribe of Levi was not counted together with the rest of K'lal Yisrael.

(b)The Omer, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim - are ultimately eaten by the Kohanim.

(c)According to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, the problem the Kohanim had with that (that prompted them not to donate their half-Shekalim) - was the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tih'yeh Lo Se'achel", forbidding a Kohen to eat his own Minchah. Consequently, they figured, if they were joint partners in the three above Menachos, how could they eat them?

(d)This argument however is not justifiable - because the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchas Kohen ... " applies exclusively to their personal Korbanos, not to communal ones ...

(e)... since, even if they are joint owners, they are only a minority.