1)

(a)In a case where the Kohen said 'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano, Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Mekomo, va'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano', Rava rules Vayikatz ke'Yashein ha'Pigul - which is synonymous with the principle Matza Miyn es Miyno, ve'Niy'ur, and which means ...

(b)... that even though the Tana Kama holds in the case of Chutz li'Zemano and Chutz li'Mekomo, Pasul ve'Ein bo Pigul, in this case he will agree with Rebbi Yehudah that it is Pigul.

(c)And the reason for it is - because the two half-k'Zeisim of Pigul combine to negate the Chutz li'Mekomo.

(d)According to Rav Hamnuna - Eiruv Machshavos havi' (the Chutz li'Mekomo combines with the Chutz li'Zemano [despite the second Chatzi k'Zayis of Chutz li'Zemano]) to remove the Pigul.

2)

(a)Rava proves his point from a Mishnah in Taharos, where the Tana rules - in a case of a k'Beitzah Ochel Rishon and a k'Beitzah Ochel Sheini ...

1. ... that are mixed together, and that then come into contact with food that - the mixture becomes a Rishon, to render whatever it touches, a Sheini).

2. ... that are mixed together, but that then become separated, before one of the halves came into contact with food - that half has the Din of a Sheini.

(b)Rava's proof is from the Tana's ruling there that, should both halves fall together into a food, they render it a Rishon, which he learns from the Seifa, where the Tana draws a distinction between where the two halves fall on a Terumah loaf independently ('be'Zeh Achar Zeh'), and where they do so simultaneously. The real definition of be'Zeh Achar Zeh is that - in addition, the first half has already been removed from the loaf when the second one falls on it. There where the first one remains on the loaf, it will make no difference whether it fell in simultaneously or consecutively.

(c)And the Tana rules there that if each of the two halves falls independently on to the loaf - it is Pasul (like the Din of a Shelishi), whereas if they both fall on it simultaneously - it is Tamei (with the Din of a Sheini le'Tum'ah) ...

(d)... a proof that we apply Matza Miyn es Miyno under similar circumstances.

3)

(a)Rav Hamnuna refutes Rava's proof however - because there, there is a Shi'ur Tum'ah to begin with (unlike in our case, which begins with a half a k'Zayis of Pigul [which is not a full Shi'ur]).

(b)Rav Hamnuna proves his point from another Mishnah there ha'Ochel she'Nitma be'Av ha'Tum'ah, ve'she'Nitma bi'Velad ha'Tum'ah - where half a k'Beitzah of food became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah (making it a Rishon), and another half, through a Rishon le'Tum'ah (making it a Sheini).

(c)A food that is less than a k'Beitzah - is certainly subject to Tum'ah, and the Shi'ur of a k'Beitzah was said with regard to being Metamei others exclusively.

4)

(a)The Tana rules there that - the two halves combine to render whatever touches them a Shelishi (Pasul, if it is Terumah), like the lesser of the two.

(b)Rav Hamnuna (who establishes that Mishnah even where they added a third half-k'Zayis that was a Rishon) - proves from there that we do not say Matza Miyn es Miyno ve'Chozer.

(c)Rava refutes the proof however - by establishing the Mishnah when no third half-k'Zayis was added.

5)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted a Beraisa that he heard from bar Kapara which states - Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Mekomo, ve'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano ve'Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano Pigul ...

(b)... because a half-k'Zayis is ineffective against a full one.

(c)When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited bar Kapara's Beraisa - where both Chatzi Zeisim of Chutz li'Zemano preceded the Chatzi Zayis of Chutz Li'Mekomo.

(d)Whereas in Rav Dimi's case (where the Chatzi Zayis of Chutz li'Mekomo preceded the two half-k'Zeisim of Chutz li'Zemano) - the second Chatzi Zayis of Chutz li'Zemano will not have the power to negate the Din of Pasul, which the first two half-Zeisim already created.

6)

(a)According to Rav Ashi, bar Kapara's Beraisa reads Chatzi Zayis Chutz li'Zemano, u'k'Zayis, Chetzyo Chutz li'Mekomo, ve'Chetzyo Chutz li'Zemano, Pigul - because a half k'Zayis cannot negate a whole one.

(b)In fact, Rav Ashi holds like Rava above, who applied the S'vara Matza Miyn es Miyno ve'Niy'ur, only he goes further than Rava, inasmuch as he even allows the two half-Zeisim of Chutz li'Zemano to combine, there where the second one was declared together with the half-Zayis of Chutz li'Mekomo.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yanai extrapolates from the Pasuk in Melachim "ve'es Izevel Yochlu ha'Kelavim" that - Achilah of an animal is called Achilah, and that consequently, if the Kohen has in mind to feed an animal outside of the allotted time limit, the Korban is Pigul.

(b)We query Rebbi Yanai however, from the Pasuk in Iyov "Tochlehu Eish Lo Nufach", which by the same token, implies that - what a fire consumes is called Achilah too.

(c)Based on our Mishnah Le'echol ka'Chatzi Zayis, u'Le'haktir ke'Chatzi Zayis, Kasher, the problem this create with Rebbi Avahu's ruling is - why the two Achilos do not then combine to render the animal Pigul.

(d)And we solve the problem - by establishing our Mishnah where the Kohen used a Lashon Haktarah (had he used a Lashon Achilah, then even Le'echol ka'Chatzi Zayis, u'Lehaktir ke'Chatzi Zayis would combine to render the Korban, Pigul.

8)

(a)Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if the Kohen has in mind that two different people should eat the Korban - whether the criterion is the Machshavah (which covers a k'Zayis), or the eaters (neither of whom eats a k'Zayis).

(b)And we resolve Rav Ashi's She'eilah from the same Mishnah that we just cited Le'echol ka'Chatzi Zayis, u'Le'haktir ke'Chatzi Zayis, Kasher ... - implying that two Achilos similar to the Achilah and the Haktarah (two different people) will combine, even though each one eats less than a k'Zayis.

9)

(a)Rava asked what the Din will be if the Kohen has in mind to eat a k'Zayis she'Lo bi'Zemano over a longer period of time than a K'dei Achilas P'ras (the time it takes to eat three boiled eggs) - whether we go after Achilas Adam (which requires Toch K'dei Achilas P'ras) or Achilas Mizbe'ach (which does not).

(b)And we know that Achilas Gavohah is not restricted to a K'dei Achilas P'ras' - because sometimes, when the fire on the Mizbe'ach is low, it will take longer than that for the Korban to burn, yet that does not invalidate the Korban.

(c)Abaye tries to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Le'echol ke'Chatzi Zayis u'Lehaktir Chatzi Zayis', Ha Le'echol ve'Le'echol, Mitztaref - implying that Le'echol ve'Le'echol (similar to Le'echol u'Lehaktir) is Pigul, even though the Lehaktir may have taken longer than K'dei Achilas P'ras.

(d)We refute Abaye's proof however - by suggesting that we are comparing Le'echol to Lehaktir when there is a large fire burning on the Ma'arachah (in which case it burns within the Shi'ur of K'dei Achilas P'ras).

10)

(a)We extrapolate from the same piece of Mishnah Ha Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol, Mitztaref - which clashes with the Reisha of our Mishnah Le'echol es she'Darko Le'echol (implying but not she'Ein Darko Le'echol).

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah answers by establishing the Seifa of the Mishnah like Rebbi Eliezer, who holds - Mechashvin me'Achilas Adam la'Achilas Mizbe'ach (and vice-versa).

(c)In the Mishnah in the next Perek, Rebbi Eliezer - declares Pasul a Korban that is Shechted with the intention of eating a part of the animal that is not normally eaten or with the intention of burning part of the animal that is normally burned, Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz li'Zemano.

(d)To establish the Mishnah even like the Rabbanan, Abaye amends the inference to read - Ha Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol, Mitztaref.

11)

(a)The basic problem with Abaye's version is that - we have already learned it all in the Reisha.

(b)We already know from the Reisha of our Mishnah that Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol combines, and by inference, that Le'echol, ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Davar Le'echol does not - how much more so Le'echol u'Lehaktir.

(c)And we answer that - the Tana nevertheless need to teach us Le'echol u'Lehaktir, because, on the other hand, maybe Le'echol u'Lehaktir Davar she'Darko Lehaktir is better than Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol, and we would therefore have thought that they are Mitztaref.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that the Shechitah of Kodshim performed by Zarim, Nashim, Avadim and Temei'im - is Kasher, of Kodshei Kodshim as well as Kodshim Kalim ...

(b)... because of the principle Shechitah Kesheirah be'Zar.

(c)We only permit a Tamei to Shecht Kodshim however - on condition that he does not touch the animal (after it has been Shechted).

(d)The Chumra that results from this leniency is that - if the Shochet has a Machshavah Pesulah, it invalidates the Korban.