1)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan rules that, according to all opinions, the Lechem and the Kevasim are Me'akev each other - once they are connected (Huzk'ku Zeh la'Zeh) via the Shechitah.

(b)If one of them subsequently gets lost - the other one is then burned in the Beis ha'Sereifah.

(c)Ula cited the B'nei Eretz Yisrael, who asked whether Tenufah will have the same effect as Shechitah (with regard to the Din of Ikuv). The fact that Rebbi Yochanan mentioned only Shechitah, and not Tenufah, is not a proof - because although, on the one hand, he might have mentioned Shechitah in order to preclude Tenufah (which will not therefore create the Din of Ikuv), on the other hand, he may have mentioned it because it definitely creates a Din of Ikuv, whereas he was not certain whether Tenufah does.

(d)The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah bar Chanina tries to prove from the fact that ben Nannes and Rebbi Akiva argue over the interpretation of the Pasuk "Kodesh Yih'yu la'Hashem la'Kohen" that - even though the distribution is written after the Tenufah took place - the Tenufah does not create Ikuv.

(b)Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua refutes this proof however - by pointing out that it is also written after the Shechitah took place, even though Rebbi Yochanan definitely holds that Shechitah creates Ikuv.

(c)He therefore explains "Kodesh Yih'yu la'Hashem la'Kohen", even assuming that neither is Me'akev - by explaining that the Pasuk is really speaking about before the Shechitah, but with reference to the loaves or the Kevasim that will be given to the Kohen after the Shechitah.

3)

(a)We query Rebbi Yochanan from a Beraisa which discusses certain Pesulim of the Lachmei Todah - which are sanctified via the Shechitah of the Korban.

(b)If one of the loaves breaks or becomes Tamei before the Shechitah of the Korban, the owner is obligated to bring new loaves before proceeding with the Shechitah. The Tana discusses a case where the loaf is taken out of its boundary - the walls of Yerushalayim.

(c)Should this happen, the Tana rules that - it must be brought back and remains Kasher (since, before the Shechitah, it does not adopt Kedushas ha'Guf).

4)

(a)If any of the current three Pesulim occur after the Shechitah, the Kohen proceeds with the Z'rikas ha'Dam, after which, the owner is permitted to eat the meat of the Korban. When performing the Zerikah however - the Kohen must have in mind le'Shem Shelamim (and not le'Shem Todah).

(b)Even though, in the case where the loaf breaks or is taken outside Yerushalayim, the owner has not fulfilled his obligation and the loaves are Pasul, in the case of Nitma Lachmah, the Tana rules vi'Yedei Nidro Yatza - because the Tzitz atones for Tum'ah.

(c)The Lachmei Todah however - are Pasul and may not be eaten (see Shitah Mekubetzes 9).

5)

(a)If the Pesulim occurred after the Z'rikas ha'Dam ...

1. ... the Kohen must receive a loaf that is whole, that did not leave Yerushalayim and that did not become Tamei.

2. ... then, with the exception of the Pasul loaf, the owner is permitted to eat the remaining loaves.

(b)We query Rebbi Yochanan (who holds that the Shechitah creates a Din Ikuv) from this Beraisa - in that according to him, where the P'sul occurred after the Shechitah, the Korban ought to be Pasul together with the Lechem.

(c)And we answer that - the Todah is different, since the Torah specifically refers to it as a Shelamim, permitting it to be brought even without the Lechem (whatever the circumstances).

6)

(a)Assuming that Tenufah Osah Zikah, Rebbi Yirmiyah rules, that in a case where ...

1. ... the Lechem subsequently got lost - the Kevasim are Pasul.

2. ... the Kevasim got lost - the Lechem is Pasul.

(b)On the assumption that Tenufah Einah Osah Zikah, he asks whether if, after the Tenufah, the Lechem got lost, the new Lechem will require Tenufah. He takes for granted that if the Kevasim got lost, the new Kevasim will require Tenufah - because a. they are the Matirin, and b. it is next to them that the Torah writes "Tenufah" ("Ve'heinif osam Tenufah").

(c)His She'eilah regarding the new Lechem, is only according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that the Lechem is the Ikar. According to ben Nannes, who holds that the Kevasim are the Ikar - it is obvious that the new loaves do not require Tenufah.

(d)According to Rebbi Akiva, the new loaves may not require Tenufah - since the Kevasim (which are their Matir) has already been waved.

(e)The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku'.

7)

(a)When Abaye asked Rava why the two Kevasim sanctify the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and are Me'akev them, whereas the seven Kevasim are not, he initially replied that - it is because they are waved together with them.

(b)Abaye queried this from the Todah loaves - which are sanctified by the Shechitah of the Korban, even though they are not waved together with it.

(c)So Rava retracted, and compared the Sh'tei ha'Lechem to the Todah, where it is the Shelamim which permit the loaves (and the seven Kevasim are not Shelamim, but Olos). We reject that proof however, in that Todah is different - because it is the only Korban. Perhaps in the case of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, where there are two sets, either set will be Matir the Lechem.

8)

(a)Rava ultimately learns it from Eil Nazir - where, like with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, various Korbanos are brought together with the loaves that he brings, yet it is specifically the Shelamim which is Matir them ...

(b)... a ruling which the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Naso (in connection with the Eil Nazir) "ve'es ha'Ayil Ya'aseh Shelamim la'Hashem al Sal ha'Matzos".

(c)And the Tana extrapolates from there that in a case where the Shalmei Nazir are Shechted she'Lo li'Sheman - the loaves do not become sanctified.

9)

(a)'Ibur Tzurah' means that - in the case of minor Pesulei Kodshim, the Kohanim leave the item overnight (to become Pasul be'Linah) before burning it.

(b)According to the Beraisa - the Kohanim perform Tenufah on Sh'tei ha'Lechem that one brought without the Kevasim, after which they must undergo Ibur Tzurah, before being burned in the Beis ha'Sereifah.

(c)The problem with this is that Mah-Nafshach - if they ought to be eaten (like Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah), then why not let the Kohanim eat them; whereas if they ought to be burned, then why do they require Ibur Tzurah (seeing as they are Pasul d'Oraysa)?

(d)Rabah answers - that min ha'Torah, they ought to be eaten, and burning them is only mi'de'Rabbanan - in case the following year they will eat the Lechem without the Kevasim (because that's what they did last year), not realizing that last year there were no Kevasim, whereas this year there are.

10)

(a)Rabah bases his answer on the Mishnah in Shekalim (that we cited above in the second Perek), where Raban Yochanan ben Zakai maintains that the Kohanim declined to give their annual half-Shekel, based on the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tih'yeh, Lo Se'achel". That caused them not to donate - since if they did, they would be eating their own Menachos, when they ate the Omer, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim, in whose payment they had participated.

(b)The problem with this is that - if it is speaking in a case where the Lechem came together with the Kevasim, then why would it be any different than a Todah brought by a Kohen, which he would eat together with the loaves, because it is considered part of the Zevach.

(c)Rabah therefore tries to extrapolate from there that - the Tana must be referring to Sh'tei ha'Lechem that were brought without the Kevasim ...

(d)... a proof that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are meant to be eaten even on their own.

11)

(a)Abaye refutes Rabah's proof however, by differentiating between the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lachmei Todah in that - although the latter are not referred to as a Minchah, the former are (when the Pasuk in Tzav writes "be'Hakrivchem Minchah la'Hashem").

(b)Rav Yosef disagrees with Rabah. According to him, the loaves ought to be burned, and the reason that they require Ibur Tzurah is - because burning Kodshim is forbidden on Yom-Tov.

(c)Once again, Abaye objects - because that principle is confined to Kodshim that became Pasul, but not to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem in this case, which are meant to be burned (and which may therefore be burned on Yom-Tov) ...

(d)... just like the Par and the Sa'ir of Yom Kipur, which are burned, since that is their Mitzvah.

12)

(a)So we amend Rav Yosef's answer to Gezeirah Shema Yizdamnu lahem Kevasim le'Achar mi'Ka'an - meaning that we make Ibur Tzurah just in case Kevasim are found, in which case the loaves will be able to be eaten.

(b)The problem Abaye has with this is that - if that were so, they should really be burned at nightfall (after the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim have been brought), from which point on the Kevasim could no longer have been sacrificed. But what's the point of leaving them until the morning?

13)

(a)Rava agrees with Rabah, only he disagrees with his source (since, in his opinion, Sh'tei ha'Lechem that come on their own are eaten). And he learns this from the fact that the Torah refers to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem as Bikurim - which are eaten ...

(b)... and like Bikurim, this refers even when they are brought on their own, and not together with the Kevasim.