1)

(a)ben Buchri, as we learned earlier, is coming to teach us that a Kohen who donates a half-Shekel is not guilty of bringing Chulin to the Azarah - because he donates it to the Tzibur.

(b)According to him, were it not for T'nai Beis-Din, the Kohanim would not be permitted to use the salt - because seeing as it is the Yisre'eilim who placed their Shekalim in the room from where the money was taken to purchase the salt, it stands to reason that they are the ones who are allowed to benefit from the salt, and not the Kohanim.

(c)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "Al ha'Eitzim asher al ha'Eish asher al ha'Mizbe'ach" that - the wood and the fire for every Korban, like the Mizbe'ach itself, must comprise communal wood.

(d)Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua learns from the same Hekesh that like the Mizbe'ach - the wood that is used for Korbanos must not have been previously used by a Hedyot.

(e)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - does not require this condition.

2)

(a)We query Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua from a Pasuk in Sh'muel, which describes how Aravnah ha'Yevusi sold David Hamelech the location of the Beis ha'Mikdash, including the cattle with which he had been plowing and their accessories - the former, as an Olah, the latter, to use as firewood with which to burn it.

(b)One of the things included in the sale was "Morigin", which Ula translates as Mitah shel Turbal, which Rav Yehudah defines as Iza de'Kurk'sa de'Dasha bah Dashta'i. Rav Yosef cites the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Hinei Samtich *le'Morag* Charutz Chadash Ba'al Pifiyos". In fact, 'Morigin' is - a sort of wooden goat with sharp spikes and niches, which they would attach to the oxen, to pull over the stalks of grain after they had been threshed, cutting them up and turning them into hay.

(c)To reconcile this with Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, who requires new wood to be used for the Korbanos - we establish the Pasuk by new Morigin that had not yet been used.

3)

(a)the Tana Kama rules that if the Kometz of a Minchas Yisrael became mixed with ...

1. ... another Kometz or with ...

2. ... a Minchas Kohanim, a Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or a Minchas Nesachim - they are both Kasher ...

(b)... because, like the Kometz, they are all destined to be burned anyway.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah invalidates a Kometz that became mixed up with a Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or a Minchas Nesachim - because they contain more oil than a Minchas Yisrael (three Lugin per Isaron, against one). Consequently, when they touch, the latter absorbs some of the oil of the former, leaving the one with too much oil (Nisrabsah Shamnah) and the other, with too little (Nisma'atah Shamnah).

4)

(a)The Mishnah in Zevachim permits blood that became mixed with water, to be sprinkled, provided it still resembles blood. If it became mixed with ...

1. ... wine - it is still considered blood, provided that, assuming that the wine was water, it would resemble blood, and the same will apply if it was mixed with ...

2. ... the blood of Beheimos or Chayos.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the latter ruling, because he holds - Ein Dam Mevatel Dam (blood is never Mevatel blood), in which case it can always be sprinkled.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan explains that both Tana'im derive their respective reasons from the same source. The problem with the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'lakach mi'Dam ha'Par u'mi'Dam ha'Sa'ir" is - how one can still refer to the Dam ha'Sa'ir as such, seeing as the bull's blood exceeds it by far, in which, it ought to be Bateil.

(b)The Rabbanan extrapolate from there that - Korbanos cannot be Mevatel each other ...

(c)... whereas Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates from there that - Miyn be'Miyno Eino Bateil.

(d)The ramifications of their Machlokes are - with regard to Chulin, where Miyn be'Miyno is Bateil according to the Rabbanan, but not according to Rebbi Yehudah.

6)

(a)What prompts ...

1. ... the Rabbanan to confine the Limud to Kodshim (even by Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno) is the fact that - the Torah inserts it in connection with Kodshim.

2. ... Rebbi Yehudah to confine the Limud to Miyn be'Miyno (even by Chulin) is the fact that - the Torah inserts it in connection with Miyn be'Miyno.

(b)The problem that we still have with both the opinion of the Rabbanan and that of Rebbi Yehudah is - how they know that both criteria are not required to negate the Bitul (and not just one of them).

(c)The problem turns out to be insoluble - we remain with a Kashya.

7)

(a)We now query Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah ('be'Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach u've'Minchas Nesachim Pesulah she'Zu Belilasah Avah ... '), from Rebbi Yehudah's own opinion in the Mishnah in Zevachim (that we just discussed) - inasmuch as the fact that the mixture of one is thick and the other, thin, ought not to make any difference, even though the one absorbs the other, since neither becomes Bateil.

(b)Rava answers that Rebbi Yehudah holds Kol she'Hu Miyn be'Miyno ve'Davar Acher, Saleik es Miyno k'Mi she'Eino - ve'she'Eino Miyno Rabah alav u'Mevatlo' ...

(c)... meaning that whenever we have a mixture of two species (Isur and Heter) which also contains an ingredient of Heter of a different species, we ignore the Miyno of Heter, allowing the Heter which is Eino Miyno to become Bateil).

(d)In our context, it means that - we ignore the oil of the Kometz, and the flour is then Mevateil the oil of the Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or the Minchas Nesachim, explaining why Rebbi Yehudah holds that it is Pasul.