Question: Why can we ot also Rebbi Aba by establishing 'Hikriv' to mean in order to Shecht, and the first one was found before it was Shachted, and must therefore die ...

Question (cont.): And the author is Rebbi, who says 'Avudah be'Sha'as Hafrashah, Meisah' ... and both the Reisha and Seifa go according to Rebbi?

Answer: This is not a Kashya, because if so, why does the Tana mention 'Hikriv' at all, let him just say 'Hifrish' (he set aside)?

Answer (cont.): Because according to Rav Huna, he justifiably mentions 'Hikriv' to teach us that he did so of his own accord - that he drew it without asking first. (Rashi's wording).

Clarification: And they only argue where he initially comes to ask.

Question: How will we explain the Lashon of the Mishnah according to Rav Huna - when, citing the Chachamim, it says 'Ein Chatas Meisah Ela she'Nimtzeis Achar she'Kipru' ...

Question (cont.): Since, according to him, even if it is found before the Kaparah, such as where the Kaparah took place on the one that was not lost, since then it does not have a Takanah ... (Note, this piece appears in the Shitah Mekubetzes [note 17] after (c), but it clearly belongs here).

Answer: What it means is 'Ein Chatas Meisah' - that we cannot find a Takanah unless it is found after the Kaparah ...

Conclusion: According to Rebbi Aba as well, we will have to explain the Mishnah like that.

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe, ha'Rav Mordechai asks why this is - Why should one destroy Kodshim seeing as it is possible to remedy the problem?

Answer: And he answers that it is speaking where there is an advantage, where the lost animal was weak and the one that was not lost, healthy, and it is therefore preferable to atone with the good one ...

Answer: As the Torah writes "And the choice of your Nedarim (offerings)" - and the weak one dies.

Answer (cont.): Whereas the Rabbanan hold that, despite the fact that the one that was not lost is a bigger Mitzvah, it is nevertheless better to institute that Kodshim should not die.

Implied Question: But one is not allowed to bring Chulin into the Azarah?

Answer #1: That is not a problem - since they can eat it outside and then go in and eat the Minchah (Rashi's words).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is not forbidden to take Chulin into the Azarah unless it is perform some form of Avodah with them, but otherwise, it is permitted ...

Proof: For we see that people enter the Azarah wearing their Chulin clothes.

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe ha'Rav R. Elchanan asked why the Gemara does not ask directly from the Mishnah, which, citing the Chachamim, states that 'A Chatas does not die unless it is found after the owner has attained his atonement'.

Question (cont.): And here, where both animals are there before the atonement, yet it says that 'That of a Yachid must die'?

Answer: ha'Rav R. Yitzchak explains that it could not ask from the Mishnah, since that what the Mishnah means is - that a Chatas does not die unless it is found after the Kaparah ...

Answer (cont.): But if it is found before the Kaparah, they both graze until they obtain a blemish; they are then sold and with the proceeds of each one, they purchase a Chatas. Whereas by the goats one cannot say that, since it is not possible to make any other Takanah ...

Reason: One cannot say that they both graze until they obtain a blemish; they are then sold and with the proceeds of each one ... , because on that day (Yom Kipur) one needs to atone with one of them and they cannot postpone the Avodah of the day ...

Answer (cont.): On the other hand, the Rabbanan in the Mishnah may also hold that if one atoned with one of them, even if it is the one that was lost, the second one must die - like the Din is here regarding the two goats.

Answer (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Aba, who says that, according to the Rabbanan - 'Mafrish le'Ibud La'av ke'Ibud' ('Something that one designate s to be destroyed is not considered destroyed') and if he therefore atones with the one that is lost, the one that is not lost grazes - the Gemara is justified in asking ...

Answer (cont.): Because here where he was atoned for with the first one, yet that of a Yachid must die - so we see that 'Mafrish le'Ibud ke'Ibud Dami'?

Answer (concl.): But on Rav Huna the Gemara is not asking anything ...

Reason: Since it is possible to say that it is akin to drawing one of them without asking permission, in which case min ha'Din if it belongs to a Yachid it must die, even according to the Rabbanan.

Clarification: This is a Kashya on both of them (Rav Huna & Rebbi Aba).

Question: Above the Gemara asked from the Mishnah and answered 'Alright according to Rav Huna ... ' ...

Question (cont.): And according to Rebbi Aba, it established it like Rebbi - whereas here the Gemara queries them both from it?

Answer: We must say that the Gemara here does not concur with the earlier Sugya - and that the questioner holds that the Mishnah goes according to the Rabbanan and speaks in all circumstances.

Precedent: Indeed, it is the way of the Gemara to approach its question in different ways, sometimes like this and sometimes like that.

Implied Question: If this goes according to Rebbi, it is obvious - and the Gemara later, in connection with 'Someone who sets aside two Chata'os for Achrayus' does indeed establish it like Rebbi, but does not ask 'P'shita?' ...

Answer: Since one can draw a distinction between setting aside money for Achrayus and setting aside animals for Achrayus ...

Source: Because later too, Rebbi Shimon, who says by animals 'Meisah', concedes that by piles of money, one of them is 'Miskaper', and the other 'Ro'eh'.

Machlokes: In the last Perek of Menachos (Daf 107b) Amora'im argue over what these six things represent ...

Opinion #1: Chizkiyah holds that they correspond to the six families of Kohanim (that comprise the Mishmar), to maintain peace between them ...

Opinion #1 (cont.): So they instituted six boxes for the six days of the week - so that on each day of the week, one family should have his box.

Opinion #2: Whereas according to Ze'iri, they corresponded to bull, calf, lamb, ram, kid-goat and goat ...

Reason: Why did they do that? Because they wanted to confine the leftovers of the proceeds of a bull exclusively towards (purchasing) a bull - and likewise for each one.

Implied Question: And even though there is an opinion in the first Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 12b) that holds 'Mekitzin (one purchases for the Olas Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach) even a bird' ...

Answer: That is only Bedi'eved, but Lechatchilah not, because it is preferable to use the money for the purpose that it was initially designated.