1)

(a)The Beraisa learns from "al Machavas" that the Minchas Chavitin requires a K'li Shareis (as we just explained). The Tana learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "ba'Shemen" (Ibid.) "ba'Shemen" (in Parshas Tetzaveh, in connection with the Minchas Nesachim ["ve'Isaron So'les Balul ba'Shemen Kasis Reva ha'Hin"])that - it requires three Lugin of oil (for the one Isaron of flour).

(b)Or perhaps, we suggest, we ought to learn the Minchas Chavitin from a Minchas Nedavah. If we did - it would require only one Log of oil.

(c)We suggest that it is preferable to learn 'Tashat' - (Tamid, Shabbos and Tum'ah) from 'Tashat' from Minchas Nesachim, which falls under the category of Tamid - because it is brought together with the Korban Tamid each morning and afternoon.

(d)The Minchas Chavitin and the Minchas Nesachim override Shabbos and Tum'ah - because they are obligatory Korbanos with a fixed time, whereas the Minchas Yachid does not - because it is neither.

2)

(a)We counter that perhaps one ought to learn 'Yagel' from 'Yagel'. The 'Yud' stands for 'Yachid' (whereas the Minchas Nesachim pertains to a Tzibur) - the 'Gimel' for - bi'Gelal Atzmah (whereas the Minchas Nesachim comes together with a Korban) and the 'Lamed' - for 'Levonah', which they do not require (whereas a Minchas Nesachim does).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah learns it from the Pasuk "So'les Minchas Tamid" - which compares the Minchas Chavitin to a Korban Tamid (as we learned earlier).

3)

(a)Rebbi Shimon says Ribah Ka'an Shemen ve'Ribah be'Minchas Kevasim Shemen, by which he means that - it is preferable to learn Minchas Chavitin (where the Torah specifically comes to add oil) from the Minchas Kesavim which has a lot of oil, rather than from a Minchas Nedavah, where there is the minimum Shi'ur of one Log.

(b)If we learned the Minchas Chavitin from the Minchas Parim and the Minchas Eilim, as he suggests - it would require two Lugin of oil.

(c)He rejects this suggestion however, preferring to learn Minchas Chavitin from Minchas Kevasim - since they both consist of one Isaron of flour, as opposed to an Ayil, which consists of two Isronos, and a Par, which consists of three.

4)

(a)The problem with the Tana's suggestion to learn Minchas Chavitin from Minchas Nedavah, rather than from Minchas Nesachim is that - we just quoted the word "ba'Shemen", which implies Lehosif (to add to the minimum Shi'ur of oil [a Log]).

(b)According to Abaye, the author of ...

1. ... the Reisha "ba'Shemen", 'Lehosif lah Shemen' is - Rebbi Shimon.

2. ... the suggestion O K'lach le'Derech Zeh ... ve'Ne'emar be'Minchas Nedavah "Shemen" is - Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (whose opinion we cite before having finished with that of Rebbi Shimon).

(c)Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua too, establishes the suggestion like Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, and his dilemma is how to interpret the words "al Machavas", which might mean ...

1. ... that it (the Minchas Chavitin) has the Din of a Minchah al ha'Machavas, in which case "ba'Shemen implies Lehosif.

2. ... simply that it must be baked in a pan and no more), in which case it may not require any oil at all (like a Minchas Chotei), and "ba'Shemen" comes to necessitate the minimum amount of oil.

(d)So Rebbi Yishmael tries to learn it from the Din ('Tashat' from 'Tashat'). When that does not work (because of 'Yagel' from 'Yagel, he learns it from "So'les Minchas *Tamid*" (as we already explained).

5)

(a)Rava too, establishes the suggestion like Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - who learns that "ba"Shemen" is coming to increase oil.

(b)It cannot be coming to fix a Log of oil (like other Menachos)- since we already know that from the fact that the Torah writes "al Machavas".

(c)After refuting the Limud from the Din of 'Tashat', and being forced to apply his original Limud from "ba'Shemen", Rebbi Shimon still needs to come on to the Limud of Minchah ha'Ba'ah Isaron - so as not to have to learn from Minchas Parim ve'Eilim (as we already explained).

6)

(a)We already discussed the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah in the Beraisa on the previous Daf. Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi'Banav Ya'aseh (Osah)" that- in the event of the Kohen Gadol's death, the heirs are obligated to bring the Minchas Chavitin, until their father's successor is appointed.

2. ... "Osah" (Ibid) - that if they do, it is burned in one go, and not in halves.

(b)Whereas Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "Chok Olam" that - the Tzibur must bring it.

2. ... "Kalil Toktar" that - it is entirely burned, and not eaten (or that it is burned in one go, and not in halves).

(c)When Rebbi Shimon rules that the Tzibur brings the Minchas Chavitin, he means that - it is purchased from the T'rumas ha'Lishkah.

7)

(a)The Pasuk there "Zeh Korban Aharon u'Vanav asher Yakrivu la'Hashem" teaches us that both Aharon and his sons had to bring a Korban on the day they were inaugurated. The Tana learns from ...

1. ... " ... asher Yakrivu la'Hashem" that - they were independent Korbanos (and not one that they brought between them).

2. ... "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi'Banav ... " that - even the Kohanim Hedyotos brought this Korban on the day that they were inaugurated, and not just Kohanim Gedolim.

(b)We cannot extrapolate from this latter D'rashah that a Kohen Hedyot must bring a Korban on the day that he is inaugurated (when he turns thirty) - because the Beraisa may well be confined to Aharon and his sons in the Midbar (and not to future generations at all [though it is not then clear to whom Kohanim Hedyotos applies, seeing as it has already mentioned Aharon's sons. See also Rashash).

(c)Even though we need the Pasuk "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi'Banav ... " to teach us this latest ruling, Rebbi Yehudah nevertheless learns from it that the heirs are obligated to bring the Minchas Chavitin in the event of their father's death - from the extra 'Mem' in "mi'Banav" (when the Torah could have written "Banav Ya'aseh [or Ya'asu) Osah])".

8)

(a)Rebbi Shimon Darshens "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach" in the way that we just explained, whereas from "Osah", he learns that - the Kohen Gadol's successor is obligated to bring an entire Isaron, and is not permitted to combine the remaining half of the deceased Kohen Gadol's Korban with the half that he now brings (as we learned earlier).

(b)Although we learned that from the 'Vav' in "u'Machtzisah ba'Erev", as we explained earlier - Rebbi Shimon does not hold of that D'rashah.

(c)Whereas Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Chok Olam" that - this Halachah applies to all generations (see also Tosfos DH 'Chok Olam').

9)

(a)The Beraisa points out that the Torah writes "Kalil Toktar" in the earlier Parshah, and "Lo Se'achel" in the later one - with reference to that of the Kohen Gadol and the Kohen Hedyot, respectively.

(b)The author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah (who does not Darshen "Kalil Toktar" like Rebbi Shimon), who learns from the Pasuk (in the Parshah of Kohen Hedyot) "Kalil Tih'yeh Lo Se'achel" - a Gezeirah-Shavah, including both the Kohen Gadol and the Kohen Hedyot in both the La'av of "Lo Se'achel" and the Asei of "Kalil Toktar" (see Rashash).

10)

(a)In the Mishnah in Shekalim, Rebbi Shimon lists seven Takanos Beis-Din. The first concerns a Nochri who sends a Korban to Yerushalayim from overseas, but without the Nesachim. Chazal instituted that ...

1. ... the Tzibur are obligated to provide them - and the same applies to ...

2. ... a Ger who died, leaving Korbanos that he did not manage to bring before he died, but not the Nesachim.

(b)The third Takanah concerns a Kohen Gadol who died without having brought the Minchas Chavitin, which the Chachamim obligated the Tzibur to do, if the new Kohen Gadol has not yet been appointed. Rebbi Avahu reconciles this with Rebbi Shimon, who ruled earlier that the Tzibur are obligated to bring the Minchas Chavitin mi'd'Oraysa - by turning it into two Takanos. mi'd'Oraysa, the Minchas Chavitin of a deceased Kohen Gadol must be supplied by the Tzibur. However, when the Chachamim saw that the Tzibur's funds were running dry, they instituted that the heirs should bring it. Then when they saw that the heirs were being lax, they reverted to the Torah obligation and obligated the Tzibur to bring it.

11)

(a)In the Pasuk in Chukas "Chatas Hi" (in connection with the Parah Adumah) the Beraisa learns from the word ...

1. ... "Chatas" that - the Parah Adumah is subject to Me'ilah (like a regular Chatas).

2. ... "Hi" that - its ashes are not ("Hi", 've'Lo be'Afrah').

(b)Rav Ashi reconciles this with the Mishnah in Shekalim, which lists 'Ein Mo'alin be'Afrah' among the Takanos Chachamim - by turning it into two Takanos. Mi'd'Oraysa, he explains, the ashes of the Parah Adumah are not subject to Me'ilah. However, when the Chachamim saw that people were abusing the ashes (by using them to place on their wounds) they instituted that from then on, they would be. But when, on account of that, people began to withdraw from Safek Haza'os, they reinstated the Torah law.