Mishnah 1
1)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about a Kohen who performs the Kemitzah having in mind to eat the Shirayim or to burn the Kometz on the following day?
(b)Why does the Tana see fit to mention this?
(c)What do Rebbi Yossi and the Chachamim respectively, say in a case where the Kohen has in mind to burn the Levonah on the following day?
1)
(a)The Mishnah says that if a Kohen performs the Kemitzah having in mind to eat the Shirayim or to burn the Kometz on the following day - even Rebbi Yossi concedes that it is Pigul, and that the Kohen is Chayav Kareis.
(b)The Tana sees fit to mention this - because he argues with the Tana Kama in the following case.
(c)In a case where the Kohen has in mind to burn the Levonah on the following day - Rebbi Yossi rules that it is Pasul and is not subject to Kareis, whereas according to the Chachamim - it is Pigul and the Kohen is Chayav Kareis.
2)
(a)What would we have thought had the Mishnah not issued its first statement (which is otherwise obvious)?
(b)Then what *is* Rebbi Yossi's reason?
(c)What did Rebbi Yossi answer when they pointed out that a Machshavah to burn the Emurim on the following day renders the Korban Pigul?
(d)If the Chachamim concede that one Matir cannot render Pigul the other Matir regarding the two lambs of Shavu'os (where a Machshavah on one lamb does not render the other lamb Pigul), on what grounds do they argue with Rebbi Yossi regarding the Kometz and the Levonah?
2)
(a)Had the Mishnah not issued its first statement (which is otherwise obvious), we have thought that - Rebbi Yossi's second ruling is based on the principle 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir and that he therefore disagrees with the Tana Kama's first ruling (regarding the Kometz, too [bearing in mind that the burning of the Levonah together with that of the Kometz permits the Shirayim to be eaten]).
(b)Rebbi Yossi's reason is - because one Matir (the Kometz) cannot be Mefagel another Matir (the Levonah) See also Tiferes Yisrael.
(c)When they pointed out that a Machshavah to burn the Emurim on the following day renders the Korban Pigul, Rebbi Yossi answered that - whereas the Emurim, the Basar and the Emurim are all an intrinsic part of the Korban, the Levonah is not an intrinsic part of the Minchah.
(d)Although the Chachamim concede that one Matir cannot render Pigul the other Matir regarding the two lambs of Shavu'os (where a Machshavah on one lamb does not render the other lamb Pigul), they argue with Rebbi Yossi regarding the Kometz and the Levonah - since they become Matirim in the same vessel.
Mishnah 2
3)
(a)The first of two cases now discussed by the Mishnah is where someone Shechts two lambs having in mind to eat one of the loaves on the following day. Which two lambs is the Tana discussing?
(b)The second case is where the Kohen burns two small bowls of frankincense with the intention of eating one of the rows the following day. What is the Tana discussing here?
(c)What (Halachic) connection do the lambs and the loaves on the one hand, and the rows of loaves and the two dishes of frankincense on the other, have in common.
(d)The (physical) connection between the latter pair is the fact that one bowl of frankincense is placed on top each row of loaves. What connects the lambs and the loaves?
3)
(a)The first of two cases now discussed by the Mishnah is where someone Shechts two lambs - on Shavu'os, having in mind to eat one of the loaves on the following day.
(b)The second case is where the Kohen burns two small bowls of frankincense with the intention of eating one of the rows - of Lechem ha'Panim on the following day (after the week of eating has expired [See Tos. Yom Tov).
(c)The common (Halachic) connection between the lambs and the loaves on the one hand, and the rows of loaves and the two dishes of frankincense on the other is that in both cases - the former is Matir the latter (the one to be eaten, the other, to be burned on the Mizbe'ach).
(d)The (physical) connection between the latter pair is the fact that one bowl of frankincense is placed on top each row of loaves. What connects the lambs and the loaves is the fact that - they are waved together.
4)
(a)What distinction does Rebbi Yossi draw between the actual loaf and bowl that the Makriv had in mind and the other one?
(b)What do the Chachamim say?
(c)Why is that?
4)
(a)Rebbi Yossi declares Pigul the actual loaf and bowl that the Makriv had in mind, and the other one - Pasul (See Tos. Yom Tov), whereas ...
(b)... the Chachamim - declare them both Pigul ...
(c)... since they are all considered one entity.
5)
(a)What reason does Rebbi Yehudah give for his ruling that, if one of the loaves or one of the rows becomes Tamei, both loaves and both rows must go to the Beis ha'Sereifah to be burned?
(b)What is his source for the ruling?
(c)And what do the Chachamim say?
5)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah rules that, if one of the loaves or one of the rows becomes Tamei, both loaves and both rows must go to the Beis ha'Sereifah to be burned - because 'Ein Korban Tzibut Chaluk (A Korban Tzibur cannot be divided into two)'.
(b)He received this ruling - from his Rebbes.
(c)The Chachamim say that - the row that did not become Tamei may be eaten.
Mishnah 3
6)
(a)For how long can one eat ...
1. ... the Todah?
2. ... loaves of the Todah?
(b)What does the Tana mean when he states that the Todah renders the loaves Pigul?
(c)And what does he rule in the reverse case, with regard to the loaves rendering Pigul the Todah? What is the case?
(d)What is the reason for the distinction?
6)
(a)One may eat ...
1. ... the Todah for one day and the following night.
2. ... and the same holds true for the loaves of the Todah.
(b)When the Tana states that the Todah renders the loaves Pigul, he means that - if one Shechts the Todah (See Tos. Yom Tov) with a Machsheves Pigul, the loaves become Pigul, too.
(c)But in the reverse case - where he Shechted it having in mind to eat the loaves on the following day, the Todah does not become Pigul.
(d)The reason for the distinction is - because the loaves are brought on account of the Todah and are therefore secondary to it (See Tos. Yom Tov), but not the reverse.
7)
(a)What equivalent distinction does the Mishnah draw between a Kohen who renders Pigul the lambs of Shavu'os and one who renders Pigul the loaves?
(b)Why is that?
(c)How does he render Pigul ...
1. ... the lambs?
2. ... the loaves?
(d)Had the Tana mentioned only the case of ...
1. ... Todah, why would we have thought that in the case of the lambs of Shavu'os, a Machshaves Pigul on the loaves will render Pigul the lambs, too?
2. ... the lambs of Shavu'os (based on the same point) how would we have thought that the Din by Todah will be different?
7)
(a)Similarly, the Mishnah rules that a Kohen who renders Pigul the lambs of Shavu'os - also renders Pigul the loaves, but not vice-versa ...
(b)... because the loaves are brought on account of the lambs and are therefore secondary to them (See Tos. Yom Tov), but not the reverse.
(c)He renders Pigul ...
1. ... the lambs - by Shechting them with the intention of eating them on the following day.
2. ... the loaves - by Shechting the lambs with the intention of eating them or the loaves on the following day.
(d)Had the Tana mentioned only the case of ...
1. ... Todah, we would have thought that in the case of the lambs of Shavu'os, a Machshaves Pigul on the loaves will render Pigul the lambs, too - because they are waved together with them.
2. ... the lambs of Shavu'os (based on the same point) we would have thought that the Din by Todah will be different - inasmuch as it will not render the loaves Pigul, seeing as they are not waved together with them.
Mishnah 4
8)
(a)Rebbi Meir discusses a Korban rendering Pigul the Nesachim that are brought together with it. What is the case?
(b)What does he say about it?
(c)What is the significance of the K'li Shareis?
(d)What are the ramifications of this ruling?
(e)Rebbi Meir's ruling is based on the fact that the Nesachim have a Matir (that permits them to be brought on the Mizbe'ach). What is it?
8)
(a)Rebbi Meir discusses a Korban rendering Pigul the Nesachim that are brought together with it. The case is where one Shechts the Korban with the intention of eating some of it on the following day.
(b)He rules that the wine becomes Pigul provided it was already poured into a K'li Shareis ...
(c)... at which point it becomes permanently sanctified and can no longer be redeemed.
(d)The ramifications of this ruling are that - someone who subsequently drinks the wine is Chayav Kareis (See Tos. Yom Tov).
(e)Rebbi Meir's ruling is based on the fact that the Nesachim have a Matir - the blood of the Korban, that permits them to be brought on the Mizbe'ach.
9)
(a)The Chachamim (in Zevachim) disagree with Rebbi Meir. What do they say?
(b)Like whom is the Halachah?
9)
(a)The Chachamim, who disagree (in Zevachim) with Rebbi Meir maintain that - Nesachim do not have a Matir (See Tiferes Yisrael).
(b)The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.
Mishnah 5
10)
(a)According to Rebbi Meir, if the Kohen is Mefagel the Kometz but not the Levonah, the Minchah is Pigul. What if he is Mefagel the Levonah but not the Kometz?
(b)What is the case?
10)
(a)According to Rebbi Meir, if the Kohen is Mefagel the Kometz but not the Levonah - or vice-versa, the Minchah is Pigul.
(b)The case is - where the Kohen burns the Kometz with the intention of eating the Shirayim on the following day.
11)
(a)What do the Chachamim say?
(b)What is the basis of their ruling?
(c)Which two kinds of Minchah do the Chachamim concede become Pigul with a Machsheves Pigul on only the Kometz?
(d)Why is that?
11)
(a)The Chachamim say that - the Korban is Pasul, but not Pigul ...
(b)... because in order to become Pigul, one must be Mefagel the entire Matir ('Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir').
(c)The Chachamim concede that - a Minchas Chotei and a Minchas Sotah become Pigul with a Machsheves Pigul on only the Kometz (See Tos. Yom Tov) ...
(d)... since they do not require Levonah.
12)
(a)Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim also argue where one Shechts one of the lambs on Shavu'os with the intention eating the two loaves the following day. What does each one say?
(b)And what do they say where the Kohen burns one of the bowls of Levonah with the intention of eating the two rows of loaves on the following day?
(c)In both cases, what is the reason of ...
1. ... of Rebbi Meir?
2. ... the Chachamim?
12)
(a)Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim also argue where one Shechts one of the lambs on Shavu'os with the intention eating the two loaves the following day - Rebbi Meir renders it Pigul, whereas according to the Chachamim, it is Kasher.
(b)And they issue the same respective rulings - in a case where the Kohen burns one of the bowls of Levonah with the intention of eating the two rows of loaves on the following day.
(c)In both cases, the reason of ...
1. ... of Rebbi Meir is - because half the Matir renders Pigul.
2. ... the Chachamim is - because only the entire Matir renders Pigul.
13)
(a)Should one Shecht one of the lambs on Shavu'os having in mind to eat it the following day, it becomes Pigul. What about the second lamb?
(b)What if he Shechts one of the lambs with the intention of eating the other one on the following day?
13)
(a)Should one Shecht one of the lambs on Shavu'os having in mind to eat it the following day, it becomes Pigul. The second lamb however - remains Kasher.
(b)If he Shechts one of the lambs with the intention of eating the other one on the following day - both lambs remain Kasher.
