(Mishnah): If her Minchah became Tamei before Kidush in a Kli Shares, it is like all Menachos, and it can be redeemed;

If [it became Tamei] after Kidush in a Kli Shares, it is like all Menachos, and it is burned.

In the following cases the Minchah is burned - she says 'I am Temei'ah to you'; witnesses came that she is Temei'ah; she says 'I will not drink'; her husband does not want to be Mashkeh her; her husband had Bi'ah with her on the way [to the Mikdash];

All women married to Kohanim, their Menachos are [totally] burned.

(Gemara - Beraisa): If her Minchah became Tamei before Kidush in a Kli, it is like all Menachos, and it is redeemed and eaten. If [it became Tamei] after Kidush in a Kli, it is like all Menachos. After Ibur Tzurah (the time to become Nosar), it goes to Beis ha'Sereifah.

Question: If she says 'I am Temei'ah to you', is [her Minchah] not like money [Hukdash for] a Chatas whose owner died, and Dmei Chatas whose owner died, the coins go to Yam ha'Melach! (Why must her Minchah be burned in the Azarah? We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL)

Answer: It resembles Asham Taluy. (If the owner of an Asham Taluy died, it grazes until it gets a Mum, it is redeemed, and the money is offered for Nedavah.)

Question: If it resembles Asham Taluy, even [if she says 'I am Temei'ah to you'] after Kidush in a Kli (it should not need to be burned in the Azarah)!

Answer (R. Masniyah): It resembles Asham [Taluy] that was slaughtered;

(Mishnah): If after [Asham Taluy] was slaughtered he found out [that he did not sin], the blood is spilled [to the Amah] and the meat is burned in Beis ha'Sereifah.

(Beraisa): If her Minchah became Tamei before the Kometz was offered, or she died or her husband died, the Shirayim are forbidden. [If she or he died] after the Kometz was offered, the Shirayim are permitted, for it was brought due to Safek from the beginning. It atoned its Safek and went. (We explained this like GILYONEI HA'SHAS.)

If witnesses came that she is Temei'ah, in either case her Minchah is forbidden.

Question: What is 'in either case'?

Answer #1: It is whether Kemitzah was done or Kemitzah was not done. It is whether he was Maktir (burned the Kometz on the Mizbe'ach) or he was not Maktir.

Answer #2 (R. Ila): It is whether Kemitzah was done or Kemitzah was not done, when he was not Maktir. However, if he was Maktir, the Shirayim are permitted.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): Minchas Chotei of Kohanim, Kemitzah is done. The Kometz is offered by itself and the Shirayim are offered by themselves. (Rabanan say that Kemitzah is not done. The entire Minchah is Huktar together.)

Both of them expound one verse - "v'Haysah la'Kohen ka'Minchah." Rabanan say, it is like [a Kohen's] Minchas Nedavah. Just like his Minchas Nedavah is Kalil (totally burned on the Mizbe'ach), also this is Kalil;

R. Shimon says, Asiris ha'Eifah (Minchas Chotei) of a Kohen is like Asiris ha'Eifah of a Yisrael. Just like Asiris ha'Eifah of a Yisrael, Kemitzah is done, also this, Kemitzah is done.

Suggestion: Just like this (Asiris ha'Eifah of a Yisrael, the Shirayim are) eaten, also this (Asiris ha'Eifah of a Kohen) should be eaten!

Rejection: "V'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tihyeh Lo Se'achel."

Question: [According to R. Shimon,] why do the Shirayim come (on the fire) - are they considered like a Kometz, or like Shirayim [of other Menachos]?

If you will say that they are like a Kometz, one may not put them [on the fire] at night, one may not put them after death [of the owner of the Minchah], and [Pigul] intent does not apply to them (if one was Maktir the Kometz with intent to be Maktir them tomorrow, or he was Maktir them with intent to be Maktir the Kometz tomorrow);

If you will say that they are like Shirayim, one may put them [on the fire] at night, and one may put them after death.

Question: Does [Pigul] intent apply to them?

Note: It seems that we ask, if they are like Shirayim, does Pigul apply to them (and so explains KORBAN HA'EDAH). However, how did we resolve this from R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon? It seems that we infer only that they are like Shirayim! Perhaps the text should say 'u'Mechashev Lahem'; we assume that if they are like Shirayim, Pigul applies. Below, R. Yosi bei R. Bun disagrees. (PF)

Answer: We learn from the following. R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon says, Minchas Chotei of Kohanim, the Kometz is offered by itself, and the Shirayim are scattered on Beis ha'Deshen.

Question (R. Yochanan): What [Beis ha'Deshen] does he discuss?

If it is Beis ha'Deshen above (the ash-heap on the Mizbe'ach), R. Shimon already said so (before in that Beraisa. His son merely repeats his opinion!)

Answer: Rather, if he does not discuss Beis ha'Deshen above, he discusses Beis ha'Deshen below (where Terumas ha'Deshen is put each morning).

Inference: [The Shirayim are like Shirayim, and unlike a Kometz. Therefore,] one may put them at night, and one may put them after death, and intent applies to them.

Note: SEFER NIR asks how we can learn from R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon to R. Shimon. MAHARSHA (Sof 23a) says that [the Tartzan] knew [the answer to R. Ba bar Mamal's question below,] that R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds like R. Shimon. KEREN ORAH (23a DH Tosfos b'DH d'Masik) leaves the question difficult. Surely R. Shimon forbids at night or after death. The Hekesh to Minchas Yisrael is only for Kemitzah!]

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): Intent does not apply to them, for nothing permitted them for a person to eat them or for the Mizbe'ach to consume them.

Question (R. Ba bar Mamal): Does R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon hold like his father, or like Chachamim?

If he holds like his father, they should be offered above (like the Kometz)! If he holds like Chachamim, Kemitzah should not be done!

Answer: He holds like his father. Shimon says, Asiris ha'Eifah of a Kohen is like Asiris ha'Eifah of a Yisrael. Just like Asiris ha'Eifah of a Yisrael, Kemitzah is done, also this, Kemitzah is done.

Suggestion: Just like this (Asiris ha'Eifah of a Yisrael, the Shirayim are) eaten, also this (Asiris ha'Eifah of a Kohen) should be eaten!

Rejection: "V'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tihyeh Lo Se'achel."

Question: [If so,] it should be Kalil and not eaten!

Answer: For eating, [Minchas Chotei of a Kohen] is equated [to his Minchas Nedavah - neither is eaten], but not for Kalil (Minchas Nedavah is totally Huktar, but Minchas Chotei, the Kometz is Huktar and the Shirayim are burned on Beis ha'Deshen below - PNEI MOSHE).

(R. Yosi): Rebbi agreed with R. Elazar bei Rebbi Shimon, and taught like him [in our Mishnah - any woman married to a Kohen, her Minchah is burned, i.e. on Beis ha'Deshen below.)

Question (R. Ba bar Kohen, to R. Yirmeyah): Why [does R. Yosi] say [that Rebbi taught] like R. Elazar bei Rebbi Shimon? It is even like R. Shimon, his father!

Answer (R. Yirmeyah): [There is Hakravah and] consumption on top of the Mizbe'ach, but [we do] not [say that there is] burning on top of the Mizbe'ach.

Question (R. Chaninah, to R. Mana): R. Chiyah taught a Beraisa that argues!

(R. Chiyah's Beraisa): [Minchas Sotah of a Kohen's wife] cannot be Kalil, due to her partnership in it. [The Shirayim] cannot be eaten due to his partnership in it. (Rather, the Kometz is offered by itself, and the Shirayim are offered by themselves.)

Answer (R. Mana): Rebbi agreed with R. Elazar bei Rebbi Shimon [and taught like him]. R. Chiyah Ruba agreed with R. Shimon his father [and taught like him].

(Mishnah): A Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen, her Minchah is [totally] burned. A Bas Kohen married to a Yisrael, her Minchah is eaten (i.e. the Shirayim).

Question: What differences are there between a (male) Kohen and a Kohenes (Bas Kohen)?

Answer: A Kohenes' Minchah is eaten. A Kohen's Minchah is not eaten;

A Kohenes becomes a Chalalah (empty of Kedushas Kehunah, through forbidden Bi'ah). A Kohen (he was a born a Kosher Kohen) does not become a Chalal;

A Kohenes may become Tamei Mes. A Kohen may not;

A Kohen may eat Kodshei Kodoshim (the Korbanos with the greatest Kedushah). A Kohenes may not eat Kodshei Kodoshim.

(Gemara): What differences are there between a (male) Kohen and a Kohenes? A Kohenes' Minchah is eaten. A Kohen's Minchah is not eaten, for it says "v'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tihyeh Lo Se'achel", and not a Kohenes.

Question (R. Avahu, to Reish Lakish): It says "v'Chohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo" (if a Kohen acquires a person, e.g. an Eved Kena'ani, his acquisition may eat Terumah). If so (according to the above Drashah, you should say) a Kohen, and not a Kohenes!

Question: What was the conclusion?

Answer: "V'ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi'Banav" - one whose son stands in place of him (his Minchah is not eaten). This excludes [a Kohenes], whose son does not stand in place of her.

A Kohenes becomes a Chalalah, and a Kohen does not become a Chalal, for it says "v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o b'Amav."

Question: [I infer] only that the seed [of a woman Pasul to Kehunah] are Chalalim. What is the source for her herself?

Answer: A Kal v'Chomer teaches this. If the seed, which did not transgress an Aveirah, become Chalalim, she, who transgressed an Aveirah, all the more so she should become a Chalalah!

Question: [Her husband] himself disproves this! He transgressed an Aveirah, and he does not become a Chalal!

Answer: No - if you will say that he does not become a Chalal, for a man never becomes a Chalal (even if he had Bi'ah with a Nochris or Shifchah), will you say so about a woman, who becomes a Chalalah everywhere (through Bi'ah with a Pasul. We learn from "u'Vas Kohen Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar...")

What could you say [to challenge the Kal v'Chomer - that you cannot learn from her seed, which was not initially Kosher, to her, who was initially Kosher? Instead of] 'Lo Yachel' [it says] "Lo Yechalel" - [the extra Lamed hints that he profanes] even one who was Kosher, and becomes a Chalal[ah].

(Mishnah): A Bas Kohen may become Tamei Mes.

(R. Dosa of Malchiya citing R. Acha citing R. Lazar): A Kohenes may go to Chutz la'Aretz. What is the reason? "Emor El ha'Kohanim [Bnei Aharon... Lo Yitama b'Amav]."

Question: If not for this, what would we say [why she may not go]?

Answer: [I would say that] she is included in the decree [that Kohanim] not leave [Eretz Yisrael].

Question: She should be included in the decree not to leave!

Answer: If so, you oppose the Parshah of Temei'im (which says that only a Kohen is commanded! This supports the Taz (YD 117:1), who says that Chachamim have no power to forbid what the Torah explicitly permitted. - PF)

A Kohen may eat Kodshei Kodoshim, but a Kohenes may not eat Kodshei Kodoshim, for it says "Kol Zachar ba'Kohanim Yochlenu [...Kodesh Kodoshim Hi]."

(Mishnah) Question: What differences are there between a man and a woman?

Answer: A male [Metzora] does Pri'ah (Tana'im argue if this means to let his hair grow, or to bare his head) and tears his clothes. A woman does not do Pri'ah or tear her clothes.

A man can impose Nezirus on his son. A woman cannot impose Nezirus on her son;

A (male) Nazir can be Megale'ach (bring Korbanos at the end of his Nezirus) from Nezirus Aviv (money that his deceased father set aside for his own Korbanos Nezirus). A woman cannot be Megale'ach from Nezirus Aviha;

A man can be Mekadesh his daughter [to a man]. A woman cannot Mekadesh her daughter;

A man can sell his daughter [to be a slave]. A woman cannot sell her daughter;

A man (liable to be stoned) is stoned naked. A woman is not stoned naked;

(In some cases, after stoning) a man is hanged. A woman is not hanged;

(In some cases) a man is sold [to be a slave to pay] for his theft. A woman is not sold for her theft.

(Gemara): "Ish" (teaches only that a man can be a Metzora). What is the source for a woman? "Tzaru'a" - whether a man, woman or minor.

Question: If so, why does it say "Ish"?

Answer: This is for matters written below - a man does Pri'ah and tears his clothes. A female Metzora does not do Pri'ah or tear her clothes.

A man can impose a vow [of Nezirus on his son] and a man can be Megale'ach [from Nezirus Aviv].

(R. Yochanan citing R. Meir): There are 24 matters in which Beis Shamai are lenient and Beis Hillel are stringent. This is one of them. Beis Shamai say, a man cannot impose Nezirus on his son. Beis Hillel say, a man can impose Nezirus on his son (the son has the stringencies of a Nazir, and the father must bring Korbanos for him at the end).

A man can sell his daughter, for it says "Ki Yimkor Ish Es Bito l'Amah."

A man can be Mekadesh his daughter, for it says "Es Biti Nasati la'Ish ha'Zeh l'Ishah va'Yisna'eha."

A man is stoned naked, and a woman is not stoned naked, for it says "v'Ragmu Oso", and not his garment.

Question (R. Chagai, to R. Yosi): It says (about an adulterer and an adulteress) "u'Skaltam Osam ba'Avanim" - if so, [you should likewise expound] Osam, and not their garments!

Question: What was the conclusion?

Answer: A man, since his disgrace [through being naked] is not so great, he is stoned naked [to minimize his pain; he will die sooner]. A woman, since her disgrace is great, she is not stoned naked.

A man is hanged, and a woman is not hanged, for it says "v'Salisa Oso Al ha'Etz" - him, and not her.

A man is sold [to be a slave] "bi'Gnevaso" (to pay the principal of his theft), but not for the Kefel. For his theft, and not for his fabricated testimony [to get someone else sold to be a slave].

For his theft - [he is sold once], he is not sold and resold. [If he was sold for less than his theft,] he owes only [the rest of the] money to [the Nigzal, but he is not sold again. We explained this like Ramat Shmuel.]

Limitation: This is for one theft, but for two thefts, he is sold and sold again.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If one stole from partners - do you consider this like one theft, or like two thefts?

Question: If one was stealing and taking out repeatedly at night, [what is the law]?

Answer: If the owner knew in between (one theft and the next), they are considered two thefts. If not, they are one theft.