What might we have thought, had the Torah written "Lo Yasim alehah ... ve'Lo Yiten" (without adding the second "alehah")?
What then does "Alehah" come to teach us?
What else does the Tana learn from the second "Alehah", with regard to 'Kli al-gabei K'li'?
Had the Torah written "Lo Yasim alehah ... ve'Lo Yiten" (without adding the second "alehah"), we might have thought - that it requires two Kohanim in order to be Chayav two La'avin (i.e. one Kohen who transgresses both La'avin will only receive one Malkos).
"Alehah" comes to teach us - that the two La'avin are connected with the Minchah, irrespective of whether it is one Kohen or two Kohanim who transgresses them.
The Tana also learns from the second "Alehah" - that one is only Chayav if one places the actual oil or Ffrankincense on the Minchah, but not the K'li that contains it.
Our Mishnah discusses all the possible computations regarding which Menachos require Hagashah but not Tenufah, which require Tenufah but not Hagashah, which require both and which require neither. Into which group does the Tana place a Minchas So'les, Machavas, Marcheshes, Chalos, Rekikin, Minchas Kohanim, Kohen Mashi'ach, Nochrim, and Nashim?
We already discussed Rav Papa, who states (according to one interpretation) that the Mishnah always refers to ten cases (to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Shimon). The above list only contains nine. Which Minchah does the Tana Kama insert instead of Minchas ha'Omer (which appeared in the previous Mishnah, but does not belong here)?
Which two (similar) cases does Rebbi Shimon omit from the list (though he will later insert another two)?
Our Mishnah discusses all the possible computations regarding which Menachos require Hagashah but not Tenufah, which require Tenufah but not Hagashah, which require both and which require neither. The Tana places a Minchas So'les, Machavas, Marcheshes, Chalos, Rekikin, Minchas Kohanim, Kohen Mashi'ach, Nochrim, and Nashim - into the group that requires Hagashah, but not Tenufah.
We already discussed Rav Papa, who states (according to one interpretation) that the Mishnah always refers to ten cases. The above list only contains nine. Instead of Minchas ha'Omer (which appeared in the previous Mishnah, but does not belong here), the Tana inserts - Minchas Chotei.
Rebbi Shimon (who will later insert two cases) omits from the list - the Minchas Kohanim and the Minchas Kohen ha'Mashi'ach.
The Pasuk writes in Vayikra (in connection with the Minchas Marcheshes) "Ve'=heivesa es ha'Minchah asher Ye'aseh me'Eileh la'Hashem ... Ve'higishah el ha'Mizbe'ach". What do we learn from ...
... "ha'*Minchah*"? What would we have thought had the Torah omitted it?
... "ha'Minchah"?
Why can we not learn Hagashah by Minchas Chotei with a 'Binyan Av' from ...
... Minchas Nedavah?
... Minchas Sotah?
So we try to learn it with a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' from a Minchas Nedavah and a Minchas Sotah. What do they share in common with a Minchas Chotei that might create a basis for a Tzad ha'Shaveh'?
What Pircha do we ask on the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'?
The Pasuk writes in Vayikra (in connection with the Minchas Marcheshes) "Ve'heivesa es ha'Minchah asher Ye'aseh me'Eileh la'Hashem ... Ve'higishah el ha'Mizbe'ach". We learn from ...
... "ha'*Minchah*" - that not only the Kemitzah requires Hagashah, but so does the entire Minchah (before the Kemitzah is performed), even though, unlike the Kometz, it is not brought up to Hash-m.
... "ha'Minchah" - that the Mitzvah of Hagashah extends to a Minchas Chotei.
We cannot learn Hagashah by Minchas Chotei with a 'Binyan Av' from ...
... Minchas Nedavah - because the latter requires oil and Levonah, whereas it does not.
... Minchas Sotah - because the latter requires Tenufah, which it does not.
So we try to learn it with a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' from a Minchas Nedavah and a Minchas Sotah, which share with it - the obligation to perform Kemitzah, creating the basis for a Tzad ha'Shaveh'.
We ask query the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' however - in that whereas they both apply to a rich man as well as to an Ani, a Minchas Chotei is confined to an Ani (hence we need to learn it from "ha'Minchah").
On what basis does Rebbi Shimon include in the Din of Hagashah, a Minchas ha'Omer from "Veheivesa" and a Minchas Sotah from "Vehikrivah" (both mentioned in the Pasuk currently under discussion)?
How do we try to learn Minchas Sotah from Minchas Chotei?
What Pircha do we ask on ...
... the Limud from Minchas Chotei?
... the Limud from Minchas ha'Omer (which we initially bring in its place)?
... the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' (from both of them), which forces Rebbi Shimon to learn it from "Vehikrivah"?
Rebbi Shimon includes in the Din of Hagashah, a Minchas ha'Omer from "Veheivesa and a Minchas Sotah from "Vehikrivah" (both mentioned in the Pasuk currently under discussion) - on the basis of Pesukim which use similar words ("Vahaveisem es Omer ... " [Emor] and "Vehikriv Osah el ha'Mizbe'ach" [Naso]), regarding these Menachos respectively.
We try to learn Minchas Sotah from Minchas Chotei - with a Kal va'Chomer (because if the latter, which does not require Tenufah, requires Hagashah, the former, which does require Tenufah, certainly should).
The Pircha that we ask on ...
... the Limud from Minchas Chotei is - that it consists of wheat (like most other Menachos do, whereas the Minchas ha'Omer consists of barley).
... the Limud from Minchas ha'Omer (which we initially bring in its place) - that it requires oil and Levonah (which the Minchas Chotei does not).
... the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' (from both of them), which forces Rebbi Shimon to learn it from "Vehikrivah" - that they may not be brought in the form of Kemach (un-sifted flour), only as So'les (whereas the Minchas Sotah is brought specifically from Kemach).
Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa, learns Hagashah by Minchas Sotah from "Veheivesa". On what basis does he do that?
What does he then say about the Minchas ha'Omer?
And which three items does Rebbi Yehudah preclude based on "Vehikrivah"?
How does he then learn Hagashah by Minchas ha'Omer from Minchas Chotei?
Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa, learns Hagashah by Minchas Sotah from "Veheivesa" - on the basis of a Pasuk in Naso, which uses a similar expression in connection with Sotah ("Veheivi es Korbanah alehah").
But as far as the Minchas ha'Omer is concerned, he says - that we do not need a Pasuk to include it in the Din of Hagashah, as we shall now see.
From "Vehikrivah" - Rebbi Yehudah precludes the Minchas Nesachim, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim from Hagashah.
And he learns Hagashah by Minchas ha'Omer - (which requires Tenufah) from Minchas Chotei (which doesn't, yet it requires Hagashah).
We refute the Kal va'Chomer from the fact that the Minchas Chotei comprises wheat, whereas the Minchas ha'Omer comprises barley. How do we counter ...
... that Pircha?
... the Pircha that we cannot learn Minchas ha'Omer from Minchas Sotah, since it comes to clarify her sin?
So from where does Rebbi Yehudah finally learn Hagashah with regard to Minchas ha'Omer?
We refute the Kal va'Chomer from the fact that the Minchas Chotei comprises wheat, whereas the Minchas ha'Omer comprises barley, and we counter ...
... that - by citing the Minchas Sotah, which also comprises barley, yet it requires Hagashah.
... the Pircha that we cannot learn Minchas ha'Omer from Minchas Sotah, since it comes to clarify her sin - by citing Minchas Chotei, which does not.
Rebbi Yehudah finally learns Hagashah with regard to Minchas ha'Omer - from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from Minchas Chotei and Minchas Sotah, as we just explained.
On what grounds does Rebbi Shimon (who learns Minchas ha'Omer from "Veheivesa") disagree with this? What Pircha does he ask on the 'Mah Matzinu'?
How does Rebbi Yehudah counter Rebbi Shimon's Pircha?
We query Rebbi Yehudah in that perhaps "Veheivesa" comes to teach us a Minchas Nedavah not mentioned in the Parshah. To which Minchah does this refer?
On what is this suggestion based?
Rebbi Shimon (who learns Minchas ha'Omer from "Ve'heivesa") disagrees with this - because he claims, they are more common than the Minchas ha'Omer, which is brought only once a year.
Rebbi Yehudah counters - that to the contrary, the Minchas ha'Omer is definitely brought once a year, whereas Minchas Chotei and Minchas Sotah might never be necessary (a bird in the hand ... ).
We query Rebbi Yehudah in that perhaps "Veheivesa" comes to teach us a Minchas Nedavah not mentioned in the Parshah - by which we mean a Minchas Nedavah consisting of barley.
This suggestion is based on the fact - that a Minchas Chovah comprises Menachos of wheat and of barley (the Minchas ha'Omer), maybe a Minchas Nedavah does too.
How do we refute the current suggestion? From where do we learn that the Minchos Nedavah are confined to those listed in the Parshah?
And what do we learn from the 'Mem' of "me'Eileh" (in the same Pasuk in Vayikra)?
We refute the current suggestion however - from the word "Eileh" (in the same Pasuk in Vayikra), confining the Minchos Nedavah to those listed in the Parshah.
And from the 'Mem' of "me'Eileh", we learn - that a Yachid may bring any one of the five Menachos listed in the Parshah (and that he is not obligated to bring them all).
What does Rebbi Shimon include in the Din Hagashah from "es ha'Minchah"?
And what does he preclude from "me'Eileh"?
On what grounds does he include 'other Menachos', and exclude the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim, and not the other way round?
What problem does this create regarding a Minchas Nesachim?
Rebbi Shimon learns from "es ha'Minchah" - that 'other Menachos' (of Nochrim, Nashim and of Chotei) are included in the Din of Hagashah.
And from "me'Eileh" he precludes - the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim.
He include 'other Menachos' and exclude the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim, and not the other way round - because the latter are completely eaten, and no part of them is brought on the Mizbe'ach.
The problem this creates regarding a Minchas Nesachim is - why we do not then include it in the Din of Hagashah, seeing as all of it goes on the Mizbe'ach.
We solve the problem by precluding the Minchas Nesachim from Hagashah from "Ve'hikrivah". But did Rebbi Shimon not already use "Vehikrivah" to include a Minchas Sotah in the Din of Hagashah?
On what grounds does Rebbi Shimon include the Minchah of a Nochri, a Chotei and a woman, and exclude a Minchas Nesachim? What disadvantage does the latter have over the former?
What problem does this create with regard to Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen ha'Mashi'ach?
We answer that "Vehigishah el ha'Mizbe'ach" comes to preclude them from Hagashah. But surely we need that to teach us the Din of Hagashah?
We solve the problem by precluding the Minchas Nesachim from Hagashah from "Vehikrivah". Rebbi Shimon did indeed already use "Vehikrivah" to include a Minchas Sotah in the Din of Hagashah. However - that was from the basic word "Vehikriv', whereas the current D'rashah is from the 'Hey' at the end of the word.
Rebbi Shimon includes the Minchah of a Nochri, a Chotei and a woman, and excludes a Minchas Nesachim - because the latter is not an independent Korban, like the former are (see also Tosfos 61a DH 'u'Ba'os').
The problem this create with Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen ha'Mashi'ach is - that they are independent Korbanos, yet they do not require Hagashah.
We answer that "Ve'higishah el ha'Mizbe'ach" comes to preclude them from Hagashah. Granted, we need that to teach us the Din of Hagashah - but that is from the basic word "Vehigish", whereas the current D'rashah is from the 'Hey' at the end of the word.
We conclude that Rebbi Shimon includes Minchas Nochrim, Chotei and Nashim (from "ha'Minchah") because they have three advantages that the three Menachos precluded by him do not have. Two of these are 'le'Ishim' and 'Ba'os bi'Gelal Atzman'. What is the third?
On what grounds do we therefore not include ...
... the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim?
... the Minchas Nesachim?
... the Minchas Kohanim and the Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach?
We conclude that Rebbi Shimon includes Minchas Nochrim, Chotei and Nashim (from "ha'Minchah") because they have three advantages that the three Menachos precluded by him do not have. Two of the advantages are 'le'Ishim' and 'Ba'os bi'Gelal Atzman', the third is - 'Yesh meihen le'Kohanim'.
We do not therefore include ...
... the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim - because no part of them go on the Mizbe'ach.
... the Minchas Nesachim - because it is not an independent Korban.
... the Minchas Kohanim and the Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach - because none of it is given to the Kohanim.
The Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Minchas Marcheshes) writes "Veheirim ha'Kohen ... es Azkarasah". What are the two possible interpretations of "Veheirim"?
What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Minchah in general) "Veheirim mimenu ... "? What is written there that is not written here?
The Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Minchas Marcheshes) writes "Ve'heirim ... es Azkarasah" - which means either with a K'li or with the Kohen's hands.
The Beraisa therefore learns from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Minchah in general) "Veheirim mimenu - be'Kumtzo" that he separates the Kometz with his hands (and not with a K'li).