1)

(a)The problem with our Mishnah 'she'Ein Mechanchin ... Mizbe'ach ha'Olah Ela be'Tamid shel Shachar' is that - the Tana has said nothing about Chinuch Mizbe'ach previously.

(b)We therefore amend the previous statement Lo Hikrivu Keves ba'Boker, Lo Yakrivo bein ha'Arbayim, by adding - Bameh Devarim Amurim, she'Lo Nischanech ha'Mizbe'ach, Aval Nischanech ha'Mizbe'ach, Yakrivo bein ha'Arbayim.

2)

(a)The Beraisa learns the the prohibition of inaugurating the Mizbe'ach with the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh - "ve'es ha'Keves ha'Sheini Ta'aseh bein ha'Arbayim", from which he Darshens 've'Lo Rishon bein ha'Arbayim'.

(b)The Tana knows that the Pasuk is talking specifically about the inauguration of the Mizbe'ach - because the previous Pasuk begins with the words "ve'Zeh asher Ta'aseh al ha'Mizbe'ach" (with reference to Chinuch Mizbe'ach).

(c)And from the Pasuk in Pinchas "ve'es ha'Keves ha'Sheini Ta'aseh bein ha'Arbayim, ke'Minchas ha'Boker ... " (which is not preceded by 'es ha'Keves Echad Ta'aseh be'Boker'), the Tana learns that - once the Mizbe'ach has been inaugurated, even the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim may be the first Tamid of the day ...

(d)... and the earlier Pasuk there "es ha'Keves Echad Ta'aseh ba'Boker, ve'es ha'Keves ha'Sheini Ta'aseh bein ha'Arbayim" teaches us that - the Korban Tamid comprises two lambs and not four (the two of the inauguration [in Parshas Tetzaveh], plus the two mentioned in this Parshah).

3)

(a)Rebbi Shimon learned in our Mishnah that if the Kohanim deliberately failed to bring the Tamid shel Shachar, they can no longer bring the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim. The problem with that is - why the Mizbe'ach should be left idle, due to the Kohanim's negligence.

(b)Rava solves the problem - by interpreting Rebbi Shimon to mean that the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim is brought, not by the Kohanim who were negligent, but by other Kohanim.

(c)Rebbi Shimon does not penalize the Kohanim who failed to bring the Ketores shel Shachar in the same manner - because a. unlike the Tamid, which is an Olah, of which many are brought each day, the Ketores is brought only twice daily, the other Kohanim are unlikely to take their cue from those who have been lax on one occasion ...

(d)... and b. because - it enriches whoever performs it.

4)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that one inaugurates the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav with the Ketores shel bein ha'Arbayim (see Shitah Mekubetzes 3). To reconcile this with the Beraisa, which specifically states that it is inaugurated with the Ketores shel Shachar - we turn it into a Machlokes Tana'aim.

(b)In the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Vehiktir alav Aharon Ketores ba'Boker ba'Boker be'Heitivo es ha'Neiros Yaktirenah", "be'Heitivo es ha'Neiros" means - when he cleans out the Menorah.

(c)Abaye prove from there that the Menorah must be inaugurated with the Hadlakas Neiros of bein ha'Arbayim, because otherwise what would they clean out in the morning - a support for the Tana of our Mishnah ...

(d)... since (based on the fact that the Torah compares them) we learn the Ketores from the Menorah.

(e)The source of the Tana who holds that the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav is inaugurated with the Ketores shel Shachar, on the other hand, is - the inauguration of the Mizbe'ach shel Olah, which is done through the Tamid shel Shachar.

5)

(a)We extrapolate from the Mishnah's ruling ve'Lo es ha'Shulchan Ela be'Lechem ha'Panim be'Shabbos that the Lechem ha'Panim will become sanctified even if they are placed on the Shulchan during the week. The problem with that - lies in a Mishnah in the eleventh Perek, which confines the Kedushah taking effect to Shabbos.

(b)We ...

1. ... solve the problem by establishing our Tana both with regard to inaugurating the Shulchan and with regard to sanctifying the Lechem ha'Panim, and ...

2. ... we prove it from the Seifa, ve'Lo es ha'Menorah Ela be'be'Shiv'ah Neirosehah bein ha'Arbayim - where everything to do with the Menorah becomes Kadosh at the time stated in the Mishnah; likewise the Shulchan.

6)

(a)In the Beraisa Zehu Ketores she'Alsah le'Yachid al Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon; ve'Hora'as Sha'ah Haysah, Rav Papa explains Hora'as Sha'ah - with reference to the Chanukas ha'Mizbe'ach of the Nesi'im.

(b)We might otherwise have thought that ...

1. ... a Yachid is obligated to bring the Nedavah of Ketores which he undertook to bring on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav - in order not to transgress the Mitzvah of "Motzei Sefasecha Tishmor ve'Asisa".

2. ... the Tzibur is obligated to keep their word, even if a Yachid is not - seeing as they bring the obligatory Ketores.

(c)We know that neither of these suppositions is correct, from the Pasuk - "Lo Sa'alu alav Ketores Zarah" (which is written in the plural to include a Tzibur).

(d)And we learn from the Pasuk there "es Shemen ha'Mishchah ve'es Ketores ha'Samim la'Kodesh, ke'Chol asher Tzivisicha Ya'asu" that - one may only bring on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (ha'Olah) what is listed in that Parshah (but not Ketores).

7)

(a)We can extrapolate from the Beraisa that we cited earlier 'Zu Hi Ketores she'Alsah le'Yachid al Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon' that a Yachid may donate Ketores to bring on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi - and that a Yachid is not permitted to bring Ketores on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, but a Tzibur may.

(b)The problem with both of these inferences is the Pesukim in Ki Sisa, from which we just learned to the contrary.

(c)To counter the inferences, Rav Papa explains the Beraisa Lo Miba'i ka'Amar ... to mean that - not only may a Tzibur not bring Ketores on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon and a Yachid on the Mizbeach ha'Penimi (for neither of which we have a precedence); but even for a Yachid to bring Ketores on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, for which we have a precedence in the form of the Nesi'im), is forbidden, since that was a Hora'as Sha'ah.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah describes the Chavitei Kohen Gadol (the Minchas Chavitin), so-called - because it is baked on a flat-pan (Machavas).

(b)It comprises - one Isaron of flour mixed with oil.

(c)It is ...

1. ... burned on the Mizbe'ach - half in the morning and half in the afternoon.

2. ... brought to the Azarah - intact, and divided afterwards.

9)

(a)The Tana discusses the Din of a Kohen Gadol who dies after bringing the first half of his Minchah, and a new Kohen Gadol is appointed in his place - before the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim (for the Mishnah's ruling to be relevant).

(b)The new appointee bring (not half an Isaron from his house and the second half of his predecessor's Minchah, but) - a fresh Isaron from home, which he divides into two halves, one of which he brings in the afternoon.

(c)The two remaining halves must be burned.

10)

(a)In the event that they did not appoint another Kohen Gadol, Rebbi Shimon maintains that the Tzibur is obligated to bring the afternoon Minchas Chavitin. According to Rebbi Yehudah - the onus lies on the Kohen Gadol's heirs to bring it.

(b)Either way, the Halachah differs when it is brought by somebody other than the Kohen Gadol - in that, it is then brought on the Mizbe'ach whole, without being divided.

(c)We learn that the Kohen Gadol brings the full Isaron for the Minchas Chavitin before dividing into two halves, from the Pasuk "Machtzisah ba'Boker ... ". The Beraisa learns that the same applies in a case where ...

1. ... the second half of the Minchas Chavitin became Tamei or lost - from the 'Vav' in "u"Machtzisah ba'Erev", and where ...

2. ... the Kohen Gadol died after bringing the first half of his Minchah and they appointed a replacement before the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim has been brought - from the same source.

11)

(a)The problem Rav Nachman had with the Beraisa cited by a Beraisa expert - Mechtzah Rishon u'Mechtzah Sheini, Te'ubar Tzurasan ve'Yeitz'u le'Beis ha'Sereifah is - why the second half, which was initially designated to be burned, requires Ibur Tzurah.

(b)He had no problem with the first half - because it is fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)So he established the Beraisa like Tana de'bei Rabah bar Avuhah, who holds that - even Pigul requires Ibur Tzurah (even though it is Pasul min ha'Torah), and the same will therefore apply in the current case.

(d)Rav Ashi concludes that the Beraisa can even go like the Rabbanan, and the second half nevertheless requires Ibur Tzurah - because when the two halves were divided, both halves were fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach, and were therefore initially Kasher.

12)

(a)According to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Chanina, the Minchas Chavitin was first baked and then fried. Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Chanina says that - they were first fried and then baked.

(b)They argue over how to Darshen the acronym of the word "Tufinei". When presenting his respective version, each one claimed that - his opinion was more logical.

(c)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Darshens 'Te'afenah Na'ah' - meaning that it should look nice when it is baked. Now if the Minchas Chavitin was fried first (like Rebbi Asi maintains), it would turn black, and would not look nice at the time of baking.

(d)Rebbi Asi Darshens "Tufinei" - 'Tufinei Na' (bake it when it is already partially done [i.e. fried]).

(e)Their Machlokes also appears in a Beraisa, where Rebbi Darshens like Rebbi Asi. When Rebbi Dosa says there ...

1. ... Te'afenah Rabah (according to some), he means - baked many times (baked, fried and baked again, to fulfill both 'Na'eh' and 'Na').

2. ... Te'afenah Rakah (according to others), he means that - one softens it first with a lot of oil, which prevents it from turning black, following which the frying makes it look nice. Then it is baked.

13)

(a)The Mishnah in the eleventh Perek, discussing the kneading, the shaping and the baking of the Minchas Chavitin, rules there that ...

1. ... they must be performed - inside the Azarah and that ...

2. ... they override Shabbos.

(b)Rav Huna learns the latter Halachah from the word "Tufinei" - which he Darshens 'Te'afenah Na'eh', whereas if they were baked on Erev Shabbos, they would swell.

(c)Rav Yosef refutes Rav Huna's proof on the grounds that the swelling can be prevented - by covering the loaves with vegetables, so that the air cannot get to them.

14)

(a)Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael Darshens from "al Machavas ba'Shemen Te'aseh" - 'Afilu be'Shabbos, va'Afilu be'Tum'ah'.

(b)

1. Abaye learn this from the Pasuk "So'les Minchah Tamid" - comparing the Minchas Chavitin to the Tamid, which we know over-rides Shabbos.

2. Rava learns it from "al Machavas" - which is a K'li Shareis. If it was baked on Erev Shabbos, it would therefore become Pasul be'Linah (like anything that is placed inside a K'li Shareis).

(c)We know that Rava's explanation is correct - because he has the support of a Beraisa.