1)

(a)We just discussed Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's ruling 'Hini'ach Basar al-gabei Gechalim, Hipach bo, Chayav; Lo Hipach bo, Patur'. Rebbi Yochanan cannot be speaking about where it would ...

1. ... not have cooked without being turned over - because then it is obvious that in the Reisha, he would be Patur.

2. ... it would have cooked anyway - because he then ought to be Chayav in the Reisha, too.

(b)We therefore establish the case - where, had he not turned it over, it would have reached the stage of Ma'achal ben-D'rusa'i (one third cooked) on one side, and now, due to the turning over, it reached that stage on both sides ...

(c)... and Rebbi Yochanan is coming to teach us that - one is not Chayav for cooking up to the stage of Ma'achal ben D'rusa'i on one side only.

(d)Rava gives the Shi'ur to be Chayav on Shabbos there where the meat reaches the stage of being fully cooked on one side, as - the size of a Gerogeres (a dry fig).

2)

(a)Ravina queries Rava's ruling from the Mishnah in Shabbos, where the Tana rules that someone who bores a tiny hole in a piece of wood - is Chayav.

(b)We think that the Tana must be referring to boring two or three holes, and not just one - because of what use is one tiny hole.

(c)Nevertheless, two or three holes are Chayav - because they can be joined and made into one larger hole.

(d)Why does Rava then require the meat to be cooked in one spot? Why is one not Chayav even they are in two or three spots, seeing as they can easily be joined?

(e)Rav Ashi answers by establishing the Mishnah in Shabbos even about boring a tiny hole in one spot - which is fit, he says, to insert the pin of a key (to prevent it from getting lost).

3)

(a)According to the second Lashon - Rava considers the meat cooked, even if it is in two or three locations.

(b)Ravina tries to prove Rava right from the same Mishnah in Shabbos - which he thinks, must be speaking about two or three holes (as we explained in the first Lashon).

(c)Rav Ashi refutes Ravina's proof however - by establishing the Mishnah where he bores only one hole, which is fit to store the pin of a key (as we explained there).

4)

(a)In the Pasuk in Vayikra "Kol ha'Minchah asher Takrivu la'Hashem", the Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... " ... asher Takrivu la'Hashem" that - one is Chayav for rendering the Kometz Chametz.

2. ... the word "ha'Minchah" that - one is Chayav for being Machmitz the entire Minchas Marcheshes (before the Kemitzah has been taken).

3. ... the word "Kol" that - this Din extends to all other Menachos as well.

(b)We learn that the prohibition is confined to a Kasher Minchah, but not to a Pasul one - from " ... asher Takrivu la'Hashem".

(c)Rav Papa asks whether one is Chayav for taking a Minchah that one already rendered Chametz out of the Azarah, and rendering it Chametz again. One might be ...

1. ... Patur - because one can only be Chayav for being Mechametz a Kasher Minchah, not a Pasul one (as we just learned).

2. ... Chayav - because the P'sul of Yotzei cannot take effect on a Chametz Minchah, rendering it a straightforward case of 'Mechametz achar Mechametz'.

(d)The outcome of Rav Papa's She'eilah is - Teiku (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayuos).

5)

(a)Rav Mari asks about a Kohen being Machmitz a Minchah on top of the Mizbe'ach (before it has been placed on the Ma'arachah). He might be ...

1. ... Patur - because since he has brought it on to Mizbe'ach, it is no longer subject to the Isur of "Lo Takrivu".

2. ... nevertheless be Chayav - because the fact that it has yet to placed on the Ma'arachah to be burned is considered as if he has not yet fulfilled "Takrivu".

(b)The outcome of this She'eilah too, is - Teiku.

6)

(a)The problem with the current Limud from " ... asher Takrivu la'Hashem" " (incorporating the Kometz in the La'av of Chimutz) is that - having taught us the prohibition by the entire Minchah from "Kol ha'Minchah", why is it necessary to specifically mention the La'av in connection with the Kometz alone.

(b)We cite a Beraisa where Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili includes Minchas Nesachim in the Din of Chimutz. We might have thought otherwise, because, unlike the category of Nesachim referred to in the Pasuk - none of the Minchas Nesachim is eaten.

(c)Based on what we just said, Minchas Nesachim, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, incorporates - Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen ha'Mashi'ach, since they too, are entirely burned ...

(d)... and the reason that he only mentions Minchas Nesachim is - because of his Machlokes with Rebbi Akiva, which does not extend to the other two Nesachim.

(e)According to Rebbi Akiva, " ... asher Takrivu la'Hashem" comes to include - the Lechem ha'Panim in the La'av of Chimutz.

7)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili is that - seeing as the Minchas Nesachim is kneaded with oil, and oil is Mei Peiros, based on the principle Mei Peiros Ein Machmitzin, it ought not to be subject to Chimutz.

(b)This Kashya does not pertain to other Menachos - because other Menachos, which contain only one Log of oil, require water to make up for the liquid deficiency (whereas the Minchas Nesachim which contains three Lugin), does not.

(c)To answer the Kashya, Resh Lakish explains that - even according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, they mix water into the Minchas Nesachim (despite the large amount of oil that it already contains).

8)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Akiva, is that according to his own opinion in Sh'tei Midos, where he says the Midas ha'Yavesh was not sanctified (and the Lechem ha'Panim only become sanctified when they are placed on the Shulchan) - the Lechem ha'Panim should not be subject to Chimutz.

(b)To circumvent this Kashya, Ravin in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, amends the Beraisa - by switching the opinions of Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili (so that Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili is the one to include the Lechem ha'Panim in the prohibition of Chimutz).

(c)This conforms to another statement of Rebbi Yochanan, who said that - Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili and a Talmid of Rebbi Yishmael said one and the same thing.

9)

(a)According to Rebbi Yashiyah there, the Midas ha'Lach in the Beis-Hamikdash, was anointed both on the inside and on the outside; the Midas ha'Yavesh - only on the inside.

(b)According to Rebbi Yonasan on the other hand, the Midas ha'Lach was anointed only on the inside, whereas the Midas ha'Yavesh - did not need to be anointed at all, since it was not sanctified.

(c)The Rebbe of Rebbi Yashiyah and Rebbi Yonasan - was Rebbi Yishmael.

(d)The Talmid of Rebbi Yishmael to whom Rebbi Yochanan was referring was therefore - Rebbi Yashiyah ...

(e)... who, like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, holds that Midas ha'Yavesh was sanctified.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yonasan proves his opinion from the Pasuk in Emor "mi'Moshvoseichem Tavi'u Lechem Tenufah Shetayim Sh'nei Esronim ... Chametz Te'afenah, Bikurim la'Hashem" - because it implies that they only become sanctified after they have been baked ...

(b)... due to the fact that the oven in which they are baked is a K'li Shareis.

(c)Rebbi Yashiyah counters that - the words "Bikurim la'Hashem" refer to before the baking.

11)

(a)The Machlokes between Rebbi Yashiyah and Rebbi Yonasan is based on the word "Osam" (in the Pasuk in Naso "Vayimshachem Va'yekadesh Osam"). According to Rebbi Yashiyah, "Osam" comes to preclude the outside of the ha'Midas Yavesh from Kedushah. Rebbi Yonasan disagrees with that - because he considers a K'li Yavesh to be a K'li Chol, which does not require a Pasuk to preclude it from Kedushah.

(b)The Pasuk must therefore be coming to preclude - the outside of Midas ha'Lach.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan did not also say that Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yonasan say the same thing - because they disagree over the outside of the Midas ha'Lach (which is sanctified according to Rebbi Akiva, but not according to Rebbi Yonasan).

12)

(a)When Rav Papa queried Rebbi Akiva ve'Ha Ika Bisa be'Lach he meant that - they had a kneading-vessel called Bisa in the Beis-Hamikdash which would have sanctified the Lechem ha'Panim. So why does he say that the Lechem ha'Panim is not sanctified until after it was baked?

(b)Abaye replied - that Rebbi Akiva is speaking where they kneaded the dough on a leather mat, and not in the Bisa.

(c)Rebbi Yonasan is nevertheless justified in proving that the Midas ha'Yavesh was not sanctified, from the Pasuk that we just quoted ("mi'Moshvoseichem ... ") - because, since the Torah specifically mentions the Isaron ("ve'Isaron So'les", it is inconceivable that the Kohanim would use a different K'li for measuring the flour (as opposed to the Lechem ha'Panim, where the Torah does not mention the Bisa).

13)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ki Chol Se'or ve'Chol D'vash Lo Saktiru mimenu Isheh la'Hashem" the principle that - bringing on the Mizbe'ach, the Shirayim of any Korban, part of which has already gone on the Mizbe'ach constitutes a La'av.

(b)This La'av incorporates all the cases listed in the Beraisa. The part/s that needs to go on the Mizbe'ach from ...

1. ... a Chatas, an Asham, Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim are - the Emurin and the Chalavim.

2. ... the Omer is - the Kometz.

3. ... Sh'tei ha'Lechem (on Shavu'os) are - the Kivsei Atzeres.

4. ... Lechem ha'Panim are - the Bazichin containing the frankincense.

5. ... Menachos is - the Kometz.

(c)The Tana precludes the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim from Hagashah (to the south-western Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach) - because no part of the Lechem goes on the Mizbe'ach.

(d)Rav Sheishes nevertheless attributes their insertion in the above list - to the fact even though no part of the intrinsic Korban goes on the Mizbe'ach, an external part of the Korban (the Kivsei Atzeres and the Bazichin, do, as we explained).

14)

(a)In connection with the above list ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk there "ve'el ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Ya'alu le'Ratzon" that - if one brings any of the above on to the ramp, he is Chayav, as if he actually brought it on to the Mizbe'ach.

2. ... Rebbi Elazar learns from the word "Osam" (in the Pasuk there "Se'or u'Devash Korban Reishis Takrivu Osam" that - it is with regard to bringing Se'or and D'vash on the Mizbe'ach that the Torah reckons the Kevesh like the Mizbe'ach, but not with regard to placing any of the above on it.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan learns from "Osam" like the Beraisa, which learns from ...

1. ... the word "Takrivu" (in the Pasuk there "Korban Reishis Takrivu Osam") that - a Yachid is not permitted to bring a Korban consisting of Se'or or D'vash.

2. ... the word "Osam" (Ibid.) that - even a Tzibur may only bring the Sh'tei ha'Lechem on Shavu'os, but not any other time as a Nedavah.

(c)We would have thought that, if not for ...

1. ... "Takrivu", a Yachid should bring his Nedavah of Se'or or D'vash - in order to fulfill his obligation of "Motzeis Sefasecha Tishmor Ve'asisa".

2. ... "Osam", a Tzibur is permitted to bring Se'or as a Korban Nedavah, even though a Yachid is not - because they at least bring it as a Chovah (in the form of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem).

(d)By a Korban Nedavah of a Tzibur we mean - purchasing it with money from the collecting boxes in the Beis-Hamikdash ...

(e)... with which the Kohanim purchased the Olas Kayitz shel Miabe'ach (which was in fact an Olas Nedavah shel Tzibur).