1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... if even a Kol-she'Hu) of the Kometz, of the Isaron (of a Minchah), of the Yayin or of the Levonah is missing, the Korban is Pasul.

2. ... the So'les and the Shemen, and the Kometz and the Levonah - prevent each other from taking effect.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra ...

1. ... which repeats the words "M'lo Kumtzo" that - every grain of the Kometz is crucial.

2. ... "mi'Soltah" (with an extra 'Hey') that - even the smallest amount of the Minchah is crucial to the Minchah.

3. ... "Kachah" (both in connection with the wine and with the Minchas Nesachim) that - the wine and the oil of a Minchas Nesachim are crucial.

4. ... "u'mi'Shamnah" (in connection with the Minchas Nedavah, with an extra 'Hey') that - the oil is crucial.

(c)Whereas from the Pesukim ...

1. ... "mi'Soltah u'mi'Shamnah" and "mi'Girsah (which also means 'the [ground] flour') u'mi'Shamnah" - we learn that both the flour and the oil are crucial to the Minchah (and one cannot bring one without the other).

2. ... in Vayikra "al Kol Levonasah" and in Tzav "ve'es Kol ha'Levonah asher al ha'Minchah" that -the same applies to the Minchah and the Levonah.

2)

(a)Our Mishnah also rules that each of ...

1. ... the two goats of Yom Kipur, the two lambs of Shavu'os, the two Chalos (the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) - is crucial to the other, as is each of ...

2. ... the rows of the two rows of the Lechem ha'Panim and the two Bazichin containing Levonah, the two species of the Nazir, the three species of the Parah and the four species of the Todah, of the Lulav and of the Metzora.

(b)What comprises the ...

1. ... two species of the Nazir are - Chalos and wafers.

2. ... three species of the Parah are - the cedar wood, the hyssop and the crimson thread.

3. ... four species of the Metzora are - the previous three plus the two birds.

4. ... four species of the Todah are - the Chalos, wafers and boiled flour (all Matzos), and the Chametz loaves.

(c)Finally, the Tana rules that each of the seven Hazayos between the poles (of the Aron), the seven Hazayos towards the Paroches and the Hazayos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav - is crucial to the Kaparah.

(d)This last ruling pertains - both to the Avodah on Yom Kipur and (with the exception of the seven Hazayos between the poles) to that of the Par He'elam Davar of the Tzibur and the Par Kohen Mashi'ach.

3)

(a)We learn from the fact that the Torah writes ...

1. ... in Acharei-Mos "Ve'haysah Zos lachem *le'Chukas* Olam" that - the two goats of Yom Kipur are crucial to each other.

2. ... in Emor "Kodesh *Yih'yu* la'Hashem" that - the two Kivsei Atzeres are also crucial to each other, and from the Pasuk ...

3. ... "So'les Tih'yenah" (Ibid.) that - the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are, too.

(b)We know that each of the two Sedarim is intrinsically crucial, as is each of the two Bazichin, from the fact that the Torah writes in Emor "me'Ishei Hash-m *Chok* Olam". And we know that they are also crucial to each other - from the same source.

(c)We also know that the two species of the Nazir is crucial from the Pasuk in Naso "Kein Ya'aseh", and the three of the Parah, from the Pasuk in Chukas "Chukah". And we learn from the Pasuk (with regard to the former) "al Zevach Todas *Shelamav*" (comparing the Korban Nazir to the Todah [and vice-versa]) - that each of the four species of the Todah is crucial, too.

(d)And from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Zos *Tih'yeh* Toras ha'Metzora" we learn that - the four species of the Metzora are crucial to the Taharah of the Metzora.

2. ... in Emor "u'Lekachtem Lachem" that - we require Lekichah Tamah (that each of the four species is crucial to the Mitzvah).

4)

(a)When Rav Chanan bar Rava says that as long as one has the four species of the Lulav, they are not Me'akev each other, he means that - they do not need to be tied together (see also Tosfos DH 'Lo Shanu' and DH 'u'Lekachtem').

(b)The Beraisa rules that - two species (on Succos) that produce fruit (the Lulav and the Esrog), and the two that do not (the Hadas and the Aravah) are both Me'akev each other, and that one has not fulfilled the Mitzvah unless one binds them together.

(c)Likewise, he explains, based on the Pasuk in Amos "ha'Boneh ba'Shamayim Ma'alosav, va'Agudaso al Eretz Yesadah" that - Yisrael do not achieve atonement on their fast-days, unless they are all bound together in one group (the Tzadikim, who produce 'fruit', together with the Resha'im, who do not).

(d)We reconcile the Beraisa's initial ruling with Rav Chanan bar Rava, who just said that the four species of the Lulav do not need to be tied together - by citing a Beraisa, where Tana'im argue over this matter.

5)

(a)The Tana who holds that the four species of the Lulav require binding is - Rebbi Yehudah ...

(b)... and he learns it from "Agudas Eizov" - with a Gezeirah-Shavah "Kichah" "Kichah".

(c)The Rabbanan do not learn this Gezeirah-Shavah. The problem with the Beraisa Lulav Mitzvah le'Agdo, ve'Im Lo Agdo, Kasher is that - Mah Nafshach, according to Rebbi Yehudah, why will the Lulav thyat is not bound be Kasher even Bedieved; whereas according to the Rabbanan, why is it a Mitzvah to bind it?

(d)We nevertheless establish the Beraisa like the Chachamim and the Tana is referring - to the Mitzvah of "Zeh Keili Ve'anveihu", to beautify a Mitzvah (Hidur Mitzvah).

6)

(a)We learn that the seven Haza'os as well as the various sets of Haza'os of the Par of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur are Me'akev each other - from the word "Chukah".

(b)The problem with the Pasuk "Ve'asah la'Par (He'elam Davar of the Tzibur) Ka'asher Asah le'Par ha'Chatas (of the Kohen Mashi'ach)" is that - everything that is mentioned by the one is mentioned by the other, so what is the point of comparing them?

(c)Nevertheless, the Torah writes it - to teach us that each and every Haza'ah is crucial to the Avodah (nd the same applies to all Matnos Sheva, such as that of the Parah Adumah and the Haza'os of a Metzora).

(d)And from ...

1. ... the word "ha'Chatas" we learn that - the same applies to the Se'eirei Avodas-Kochavim, which are also sprinkled towards the Paroches.

2. ... the continuation of the Pasuk "Kein Ya'aseh" that - even the four Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav are Me'akev too (even though the corresponding Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon are not.

(e)From the second "le'Par" ("ve'Ka'asher Asah le'Par ha'Chatas") we include the Haza'os of the Par shel Yom ha'Kipurim in the Din of Ikuv. We need a special Pasuk for this, despite the fact that the Torah has already written "Chukah", to teach us that - the Shirayim must be poured on to the Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon and that each Haza'ah of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach is crucial.

7)

(a)The Beraisa invalidates the Haza'os of the Parah Adumah (on Har ha'Zeisim), those she'bi'Fenim and those of a Metzora (by the Sha'ar Nikanor), if they are performed she'Lo li'Shemah. The former is Pasul (despite the fact that it is not a Korban) - because the Torah refers to it as a "Chatas".

(b)The Haza'os she'bi'Fenim incorporate - those of Yom Kipur, of the Kohen Mashi'ach, the Par He'elam Davar and the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim.

(c)The Tana invalidates the Haza'os of the Parah Adumah that were not performed Mechuvanos - in the direction of the Heichal "el Nochach P'nei Ohel Mo'ed", but validates all the others.

(d)And the reason that it is Pasul is - because the Torah there uses the word "Chukah".

(e)The problem with this ruling is that - in another Beraisa, the Tana validates she'Lo Mechuvanos of the Parah Adumah.

8)

(a)To answer the Kashya, we establish this as a Machlokes Tana'im, as we will see shortly. The Beraisa rules that Mechusrei Kaparah or Tevulei-Yom or other Temei'im, who entered the Azarah be'Tum'ah ...

1. ... be'Shogeg - are Chayav Chatas.

2. ... be'Meizid - are Chayav Kareis.

(b)The Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Mei Nidah Lo Zorak alav" teaches us that - a Tamei who did not Tovel is Chayav Kareis for entering the Azarah, and we learn from ...

1. ... "Od Tum'aso bo" that - a T'vul-Yom is Chayav too (even though he has already Toveled).

2. ... "ve'Ish asher Yitma ve'Lo Yischata" that - even a Mechusar Kipurim is Chayav (even though, he has Toveled and night has fallen too), because as long as he has not brought his Kaparah, he remains Tamei.

(c)If Tahor Zarim enter ...

1. ... Lifenim mi'Mechitzasan - beyond the first eleven Amos of the Azarah (see also Shitah Mekubetzes 6) - they are Chayav Malkos.

2. ... el P'nei ha'Kapores (in front of the lid of the Aron) - they are Chayav Misah.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan now argue over "mi'Beis la'Paroches" (in the Pasuk there "ve'al Yavo ve'Chol Eis el ha'Kodesh, mi'Beis la'Paroches, el P'nei ha'Kapores ... ve'Lo Yamus"). According to the Rabbanan, anyone who enters the area of the Aron (i.e. the Kodesh Kodshim) is Chayav Misah. Rebbi Yshudah however - confines the Chiyuv Misah to the middle of the Kodesh Kodshim (in line with the Aron ha'Kodesh).

9)

(a)The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yehudah, who explains that "mi'Beis la'Paroches" is only subject to a La'av - because they claim, the Torah ought then to have written "el ha'Kodesh" and "el P'nei ha'Kapores" and omitted "mi'Beis la'Paroches", which we would already know from a Kal va'Chomer from Heichal.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah counters that - had the Torah omitted "mi'Beis la'Paroches", we would have thought that Kodesh really means mi'Beis la'Paroches, but that for entering the Heichal, one is Patur altogether.

(c)The Rabbanan refute that however, based on the Pasuk in Terumah "Vehivdilah ha'Paroches lachem Bein ha'Kodesh u'Vein Kodesh ha'Kodashim" from which they extrapolate that - Kodesh refers to the Heichal, and not to the Kodesh Kodshim.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah counters that the Torah ought then to have omitted - "el P'nei ha'Kapores" (since, according to the Rabbanan, we would know this with a Kal va'Chomer from "mi'Beis la'Paroches").

10)

(a)The Rabbanan argue that we need "el-P'nei ha'Kapores" to exempt someone who enters Derech Meshupash - either that someone dug a tunnel on the north or the south side of the Kodesh Kodshim, gaining entry from the side, or even if he entered via the curtains on the north-eastern corner, but then proceeded to walk sideways towards the Aron without turning his face towards the Aron.

(b)The root of the word is - Meshubash (crooked), bearing in mind that a 'Beis' and a 'Pey' are sometimes interchangeable.

(c)The source for this D'rashah is a Beraisa, where Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk "el-P'nei ha'Kapores Keidmah" that - whenever the Torah writes "P'nei", it means facing the east.

11)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah too, agrees with this D'rashah, only he now learns from the word "el" that - facing east when the Kohen Gadol sprinkles the blood of the Par and the Sa'ir, is crucial to the Avodah.

(b)The Rabbanan however - do not Darshen "el", and facing east is not therefore crucial.

(c)This Machlokes reflects on the Pasuk (in connection with sprinkling the blood of the Parah) "Ve'hizah *el* Nochach P'nei Ohel Mo'ed", inasmuch as - there too, Rebbi Yehudah will hold that "*el* Nochach" is crucial, and that when the Kohen sprinkles the blood of the Parah, he must face the Heichal; whereas the Rabbanan maintain that it is not.

(d)We have proved from here - that the author of the Beraisa she'Lo Mechuvanos, Pesulos is Rebbi Yehudah, whereas the author of the Beraisa she'Lo Mechuvanos Kesheiros is the Rabbanan.

12)

(a)The Torah requires the Kohen Gadol to sprinkle the blood of the Par and the Sa'ir "al-P'nei ha'Kapores" (towards the lid of the Aron). According to the Mishnah in Yoma, during the time of the second Beis Hamikdash, when there was no Aron ha'Kodesh, they achieved this - by sprinkling the blood towards the spot where the Aron should have been (and where the Even Shesiyah stood in its place).

(b)Rav Yosef queries this however, on the grounds that - if "el-P'nei" is crucial (according to Rebbi Yehudah), then surely, "al-P'nei" is crucial, too, in which case they ought not to have sprinkled at all during that period.

(c)Rabah bar Ula answers, based on the Pasuk there "Ve'chiper es Mikdash ha'Kodesh" that - the Mitzvah was to sprinkle the blood (not on the Aron, but) on the location of the Aron.

13)

(a)Rava establishes both Beraisos (she'Lo Mechuvanos, Pesulos and she'Lo Mechuvanos, Kesheiros according to the Rabbanan), and he establishes the Beraisa which says ...

1. ... Kesheiros - where the Kohen faced east, but was not directly in line with the Heichal.

2. ... Pesulos - where the Kohen faced north-south, instead of east-west, which is unacceptable, even according to them.