What does the Tana Kama of our Mishnah say about someone who undertakes to bring a Minchah ...
... of barley?
... of Kemach (the flour that is sifted from the So'les)?
... without oil or frankincense?
And what does the Tana say about someone who undertakes to bring a Minchah consisting of ...
... half an Isaron of flour?
... one and a half Esronos?
What does Rebbi Shimon say?
the Tana Kama of our Mishnah rules that someone who undertakes to bring a Minchah ...
... of barley - is obligated to bring one of wheat.
... of Kemach (the flour that is sifted from the So'les) - must bring it of So'les (fine flour).
... without oil or frankincense - must bring one with oil and frankincense.
The Tana also says that someone who undertakes to bring a Minchah consisting of ...
... half an Isaron of flour - brings a Minchah of one Isaron.
... one and a half Esronos - bring one of two Esronos.
According to Rebbi Shimon - since the Noder did not declare the Neder in the conventional manner (see Tif'eres Yisrael), he is Patur from bringing a Minchah.
What problem do we have with the stringent rulings in our Mishnah?
Chizkiyah answers by establishing the Mishnah like Beis Shamai, who rule that, in a case where someone said 'Hareini Nazir min ha'Gerogros u'min ha'Deveilah', he is a Nazir Why is that?
What do Beis Hillel say?
What is then Rebbi Shimon's reason?
The problem with the stringent rulings in our Mishnah is - that seeing as the Noder clearly regrets his initial Neder (since everyone knows that one cannot bring a Minchah from barley or from Kemach ... ), we ought to exempt him altogether ('Neder u'Pischo Imo').
Chizkiyah answers by establishing the Mishnah like Beis Shamai, who rule that, in a case where someone said 'Hareini Nazir min ha'Gerogros u'min ha'Deveilah', he is a Nazir - because he holds 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' (we reckon with a person's opening statement, and ignore any subsequent clause that contradicts it).
Beis Hillel hold - 'T'fos Lashon Acharon' - and we consider it a 'Neder u'Pischo Imo' (a Neder with its inherent Pesach [reason to rescind it]).
And Rebbi Shimon holds - like Beis Hillel.
Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah even like Beis Hillel. How do he establish the case, for Beis Hillel to concede that the Neder is not rescinded.
Chizkiyah qualifies our Mishnah to where the Noder undertook to bring a Minchah from barley. What would be the Din if he undertook to bring a Minchah from lentils? Why the difference?
How does this clash with his previous interpretation of the Mishnah?
What do we answer this?
Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah even like Beis Hillel, and the Mishnah speaks - where the Noder explains that had he known that one cannot bring a Neder from barley, he would have specified wheat instead (in which case Beis Hillel concedes that the Neder is not rescinded).
Chizkiyah qualifies our Mishnah. He confines it to where the Noder undertook to bring a Minchah from barley (which conceivably ought to take effect, since there are Menachos that comprise barley). But if he undertook to bring a Minchah from lentils - the Neder would be rescinded (since everyone knows that such a Minchah is Bateil and it is obvious that the Noder will regret having made it.
This clashes with his previous interpretation of the Mishnah however. Because - if the author of the Mishnah is Beis Shamai, who holds 'T'fos Lashon Rishon, what difference will it make whether the Noder declared a Minchah of barley or one of lentils.
And we answer - that Chizkiyah retracted from his initial interpretation of the Mishnah.
To explain what caused Chizkiyah to retract, Rava refers to the Lashon of the Mishnah 'ha'Omer Harei alai Minchah min ha'Se'orim'. What problem did Chizkiyah have with that?
On the other hand, what problem do we have with Rebbi Yochanan, who extends the Mishnah to someone who is Noder from lentils?
So how do explain Rebbi Yochanan's statement? What do we mean when we say that he was referring to Chizkiyah's statement?
To explain what caused Chizkiyah to retract, Rava refers to the Lashon of the Mishnah 'ha'Omer Harei alai Minchah min ha'Se'orim'. Chizkiyah's problem with that was - why the Tana speaks about barley. If the author was Beis Shamai, he may just as well have referred to lentils.
On the other hand, the problem with Rebbi Yochanan, who extends the Mishnah to someone who is Noder from lentils is - that this would be fine according to Beis Shamai (as we explained), but if, as he maintains, the author of the Mishnah is Beis Hillel, whose reason is because people tend to err, then it will only apply to barley, but not to lentils (as we explained earlier).
We therefore explain Rebbi Yochanan's statement with reference to Chizkiyah's - and he is asking him why he saw fit to retract (because the Tana mentions specifically barley). Perhaps the author is indeed Beis Shamai, as he explained, and the Tana mentions barley, to teach us that even in a case of barley (where a person might well err, and whose Neder ought then to be Bateil), his Neder stands.
What is Ze'iri referring to when he draws a distinction between 'Minchah min ha'Se'orim' and 'Minchas Se'orim'?
To which of the above interpretations of our Mishnah is he referring?
How does Rav Nachman query Ze'iri, first from the next case in our Mishnah 'Kemach', then from 'be'Lo Shemen u'Levonah' and then from 'Chatzi Isaron'? How does he understand the Mishnah?
How will Ze'iri answer all these Kashyos?
When Ze'iri draws a distinction between 'Minchah min ha'Se'orim' and 'Minchas Se'orim', he is qualifying the opening case in our Mishnah, confining it to where the Noder said - 'Harei alai Minchah min ha'Se'orim' ...
... with reference to those who connect it to 'T'fos Lashon Rishon', which, he maintains, would not be applicable if the Noder were to say 'Harei alai Minchas Se'orim' (since then there is no Lashon Rishon).
Rav Nachman queries Ze'iri first from the next case in our Mishnah 'Kemach', then from 'be'Lo Shemen u'Levonah' and then from 'Chatzi Isaron' - which he thought speaks where the Noder omitted 'Minchah', and which takes effect due to the principle 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah', which ought to apply even to 'Harei alai Minchas Se'orim' (a Kashya on Ze'iri).
Ze'iri will answer all these Kashyos - by establishing our Mishnah where the Noder did include 'Minchah' in his statement (in which case the Tana's reason is indeed because of 'T'fos Lashon Rishon').
What problem do we then have with the final case in the Mishnah 'Isaron u'Mechtzah ... ', if as Ze'iri explained, the Tana is speaking where the Noder said 'Minchah'?
How do we amend the Mishnah to answer the Kashya?
What is then the problem with Rebbi Shimon? Why ought the Noder to be Chayav, even according to him?
What do we answer? On what grounds does Rebbi Shimon then absolve him from a Minchah in this latter case?
The problem with the final case in the Mishnah 'Isaron u'Mechtzah ... ' is if, as Ze'iri explains, the Tana is speaking where the Noder mentioned 'Minchah' - then he ought to be Chayav one Isaron for 'Minchah Isaron', and Patur for the half Isaron (seeing as his initial statement precludes the half-Isaron).
To answer the Kashya, we amend the Mishnah to read - 'Harei alai Minchah Chatzi Isaron ve'Isaron' (where the Chatzi Isaron is Bateil, and he remains obligated to bring one Isaron for 'Minchah', and one for 'Isaron).
The problem with Rebbi Shimon, who absolves the Noder from a Minchah in this latter case, is - that if, as we assume, he holds 'T'fos Lashon Rishon', then the Noder ought to be Chayav the moment he says 'Minchah', which is the conventional Lashon of a Neder.
And we answer - that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Af bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas' (like Rebbi Yossi), and he interprets 'Chatzi Isaron ve'Isaron' to mean 'a Minchah of half an Isaron plus an Isaron, which is Batel because half an Iaron is an unconventional Shi'ur.
Our Mishnah permits a Minchah of up to sixty Esronos in one K'li. So what does someone who donates a Minchah of sixty-one Esronos do?
What reason does the Tana Kama give for the limit of sixty Esronos in one K'li, based on the Esronos brought on Succos?
On what grounds does Rebbi Shimon refute this reason?
Our Mishnah permits a Minchah of up to sixty Esronos in one K'li. Someone who donates a Minchah of sixty-one Esronos - is therefore obligated to bring his Minchah in two Keilim, sixty in one, and one in the other.
The reason the Tana Kama gives for the limit of sixty Esronos in one K'li, is - that seeing as, on the first day of Succos which falls on Shabos, the Tzibur bring a total of sixty-one Esronim, (to accompany the 13 bulls, the 14 lambs and the 2 rams of the Musaf, plus the 2 lambs of the Korban Tamid and the 2 lambs of the Musaf of Shabbos), it will suffice for the Yachid to bring a maximum of one Isaron less).
Rebbi Shimon refutes this reason however - because in any case, the Minchah of the bulls is not mixed together with that of the lambs, as we have already learned.
So what reason does Rebbi Shimon give instead?
In fact, he holds like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. Why is that? What do the Rabbanan say?
And what did Rebbi Shimon reply when the Rabbanan asked him whether one additional Isaron made such a difference?
What precedent did he cite, in connection with Tevilah?
And the reason Rebbi Shimon gives instead is - that it is only up to sixty Esronos with which it is possible to mix the one Log of oil properly, but no more.
In fact, he holds like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - who maintains that a Minchah requires one Log of oil, irrespective of its size; according to the Rabbanan, each additional Isaron requires an extra Log of oil (see footnote in Rashi).
When the Rabbanan asked Rebbi Shimon whether one additional Isaron made such a difference, replied - that this is always how the Shi'urim given by the Rabbanan work.
To prove his point, he cited Tevilah - where someone who Tovels in a Mikvah of forty Sa'ah, is Tahor; whereas if he were to Tovel in a Mikvah of forty Sa'ah minus a Kortov (one sixty-fourth of a Sa'ah) he would remain Tamei.
The Tana Kama in our Mishnah is actually Rebbi Yehudah (b'Rebbi Ilai) in a Beraisa. By which title does the Beraisa refer to him?
Which other reason (besides the one in the Mishnah) does Rebbi Shimon present in the Beraisa, to explain why all the Menachos on the first day of Succos that falls on Shabbos, cannot be mixed together in the same K'li?
What did he learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Chol Minchah Belulah ba'Shemen va'Chareivah"?
And what did he say with regard to the Shi'ur of ...
... a k'Beitzah that is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin?
... Three by three Tefachim that is subject to Tum'as Medras?
The Tana Kama in our Mishnah is actually Rebbi Yehudah (b'Rebbi Ilai) in a Beraisa, which refers to him as - 'chief spokesman everywhere'.
Besides the reason that Rebbi Shimon gave in our Mishnah, he explains in the Beraisa that all the Menachos on the first day of Succos that falls on Shabbos, cannot be mixed together in the same K'li - because some of them are brought in the morning, and others only in the afternoon.
From the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Chol Minchah Belulah ba'Shemen va'Chareivah" - he learns that the proportion of flour and oil in a Minchah must be such that they can be well-mixed.
He also said with regard to the Shi'ur of ...
... a k'Beitzah that is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin - that if it is lacking as little as one sesame-seed, it is not Metamei.
... Three by three Tefachim that is subject to Tum'as Medras - that if it is lacking as little as one thread, it is not Metamei Medras.
What does the Mishnah say regarding a Minchah into which the oil was poured but not mixed?
How does Rebbi Zeira reconcile this with Rebbi Shimon, who forbids a Minchah of sixty-one Esronos, because it has not been mixed with the Log of oil properly?
The Mishnah - validates a Minchah into which the oil was poured but not mixed.
Rebbi Zeira reconciles this with Rebbi Shimon, who forbids a Minchah of sixty-one Esronos (not because it has not been mixed with the Log of oil properly, but) - because it cannot be mixed (' ... Kol she'Ein Ra'uy le'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves bo').
Rebbi Bibi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi cites an incident, where the Chachamim measured the spilt blood of a mule of Beis Rebbi that had died. Why did they do that?
What was the significance of the Shi'ur Revi'is"?
Incidentally, how much blood from the dead mule was there?
In what way does this Shi'ur differ from the other Shi'urim referred to by Rebbi Shimon in the previous Beraisa?
Rebbi Yitzchak bar Bisna queried the ruling cited by Rebbi Bibi, from a Beraisa. What did Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Beseira testify there with regard to the blood of a Neveilah?
Rebbi Bibi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi cites an incident, where the Chachamim measured the spilt blood of a mule of Beis Rebbi that died - to ascertain whether there was a Revi'is (in which case it would be Metamei Meis) or not.
The significance of the Shi'ur Revi'is is - the fact that when it congeals, it turns into a k'Zayis (as Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah explains in the Beraisa that we will cite shortly).
Incidentally - the blood from the dead mule turned out to be a Revi'is.
This Shi'ur differs from the other Shi'urim referred to by Rebbi Shimon in the previous Beraisa - in that the cases there are all Tamei min ha'Torah, whereas Dam Neveilos is only Tamei mi'de'Rabbanan (which explains the reasoning behind the Shi'ur Revi'is that we just cited).
Rebbi Yitzchak bar Bisna queried the ruling cited by Rebbi Bibi from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Beseira testified - that the blood of a Neveilah is Tahor.
Rebbi Yehoshua ben Beseira there goes on to relate how they once tore open mules and let the blood spill. Why did they do that?
What was the point of this testimony? What does the Beraisa add to the above?
When Rebbi Yitzchak bar Bisna cited this Beraisa, Rebbi Bibi remained silent. What did he reply when Rebbi Zerika asked him why he did not answer?
First of all, Rebbi Bibi cited Rebbi Chanin's interpretation of a Pasuk in Ki Savo (from the Tochachah). If "Vehayu Chayecha Teluyim l'cha Mineged" refers to someone who purchases produce once a year, what is the Pasuk referring to when it continues ...
... "u'Fachad'ta Laylah ve'Yomam"?
... "ve'Al Ta'amin be'Chayecha"?
Rebbi Yehoshua ben Beseira there goes on to relate how they once tore open mules and let the blood spill - to feed the lions along the highway to Yerushalayim (to prevent them from molesting the Olei Regalim).
The point of this testimony was - that the Olei Regalim wallowed up to their knees in the blood, and the Chachamim said nothing (a proof for Rebbi Yehoshua ben Beseira's previous statement, that Dam Neveilos is not Metamei).
When Rebbi Yitzchak bar Bisna cited this Beraisa, Rebbi Bibi remained silent. When Rebbi Zerika asked him why he did not answer, he replied - that he was unable to, as we shall see.
First of all, Rebbi Bibi cited Rebbi Chanin's interpretation of the Pasuk in Ki Savo (concerning the Tochachah) "Ve'hayu Chayecha Teluyim l'cha Mineged", which refers to someone who purchases produce once a year; the Pasuk ...
... "u'Fachad'ta Laylah ve'Yomam" - to someone who purchases produce every Shabbos, and ...
... "ve'Al Ta'amin be'Chayecha" - to someone who buys his bread from a baker.
Why does the Torah consider the above a curse?
Why did Rebbi Bibi cite that?
To finally answer the Kashya, we cite Rav Yosef, who explains that Rebbi Yehudah was simply following his own opinion in a Mishnah in Iduyos (whereas Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Beseira disagree). How did Rav Yosef describe Rebbi Yehudah?
Rebbi Yehudah there cites six Kulos of Beis Shamai and Chumros of Beis Hillel. Which one concerns us?
The Torah considers the above a curse - because it means that the purchaser does not own land of his own (in which to plant crops), and "Vehayu Chayecha Teluyim" implies that he does not know whether he will even have money to purchase again next year, or not.
Rebbi Bibi cited that - because he always purchased bread from a baker, which explained why he did not have the Yishuv ha'Da'as (peace of mind) to answer Rebbi Yitzchak bar Bisna's Kashya.
To finally answer the Kashya, we cite Rav Yosef, who described Rebbi Yehudah as - the Posek of the bei Nesi'ah, was simply following his own opinion in a Mishnah in Iduyos (whereas Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Beseira disagree).
He cites there six Kulos of Beis Shamai and Chumros of Beis Hillel. The one that concerns us states - 'Dam Neveilos, Beis Shamai Metaharin, u'Beis Hillel Metam'in' (provided there is a Revi'is, as we explained above).