1)

(a)Regarding the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with Pigul) "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav ... ", we learn from ...

1. ... "mi'Besar" that - Pigul also applies to Korbanos that are eaten for one day, and from ...

2. ... "Zevach" - we extend it even to Olos, that are not eaten at all.

(b)Besides Ofos and Menachos, the Pasuk "asher heim Makdishim Li" comes to include - the Log Shemen shel Metzora, in the Din of Tum'as Kodshim.

(c)We learn Nosar from Tum'ah (to incorporate all the above) from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Chilul" "Chilul" - and Pigul from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Avon" "Avon" from Nosar.

(d)Even though the Torah eventually includes everything in the Isur of Pigul anyway, the Pasuk in Tzav nevertheless mentions specifically Shelamim - to teach us that whatever has a Matir (like Shelamim), whether it permits Achilas Adam (such as the Basar of Kodshim that are eaten) or Achilas Mizbe'ach (such the Emurin of all Kodshim), is subject to Pigul.

2)

(a)The Beraisa initially includes a Korban that is similar to Shelamim - by which the Tana means a B'chor, which like a Shelamim, can be eaten for two days and one night.

(b)The problem with learning Pigul by B'chor from Shelamim via a ...

1. ... Mah Matzinu is that Shelamim has three Chumros that B'chor does not - it requires Semichah, Nesachim and Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok.

2. ... a K'lal u'Perat u'Kelal from "ve'He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav" is that - the two K'lalim are next to each other, making it look more like a 'K'lal u'K'lal u'Perat.

(c)Rava, quoting the b'nei Ma'arva, solves the latter problem - by simply considering the P'rat as if it was in between the two K'lalim.

3)

(a)The Beraisa includes the Log Shemen shel Metzora among the Kodshim items that are subject to Pigul. The author of this statement is - Rebbi Meir, who holds that one is Chayav for the Log Shemen, even though it can be brought later (because it becomes permitted by the Dam ha'Asham, to be placed on the various locations on the Metzora's body, and for the Kohanim to eat, as we learned earlier).

(b)One has - ten days to bring the Log Shemen and Niskei Beheimah after bringing the Korban which they accompany.

(c)When the Rabbanan asked Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, why he included Niskei Beheimah among the Kodshim that are subject to Pigul, seeing as the owner has another ten days during which to bring them, he replied that - he was speaking specifically in a case where the owner brought them together with the Korban.

(d)The problem with the Seifa of the previous Beraisa, which precludes the Niskei Nesachim and the Dam from Pigul is that - Rebbi Meir holds the same there as he holds by the Log Shemen (so why does the Tana preclude them completely).

4)

(a)Rav Yosef establishes the author of the Beraisa ('ad she'Ani Marbeh Log Shemen shel Metzora') as Rebbi, who holds like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir (that since one has the option of bringing it later, it does not become permitted by the Dam of the Asham. According to the Rabbanan in another Beraisa, the Log Shemen shel Asham is subject to Me'ilah until the Zerikas ha'Dam of the Asham; whereas according to Rebbi, it is - until after the seven Matanos of the Log Shemen in the direction of the Kodesh Kodshim.

(b)And Rebbi holds - that just as the Matanos permit the oil, they also include it in the Din of Pigul.

(c)The Kohanim may actually eat the Sheyarei Log Shemen however- only after the Kohen has also placed it on the thumb and big toe of the Metzora ...

(d)... mi'de'Rabbanan).

(e)When Rebbi Yirmiyah heard Rav Yosef's answer - he expressed surprise that a great man like Rav Yosef should say such a thing (as will be explained shortly).

5)

(a)We cited earlier Rebbi Meir who confined his ruling including the Log Shemen shel Metzora in the Din of Pigul, to a Log Shemen which came together with the Asham, to preclude one that was either brought later on its own - or that came independent of a Korban.

(b)What permits the Kohanim to eat it (even according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi) is - the Matanos.

(c)Nevertheless, it is not subject to Pigul - because, Menachos are compared to Zevachim, and just as by them, only the Dam is Mefagel, so too in the former, only the Kometz is Mefagel (and whatever is not connected with the Kometz, is not subject to Pigul.

(d)Rebbi Yirmiyah now queries Rav Yosef from there - in that according to him (Rav Yosef), everyone agrees that where there is no other Matir that permits it to be eaten - its own Matanos include it in the Din of Pigul.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah therefore establishes Rebbi Meir as the author of the current Beraisa, and he amends the Seifa u'Motzi Ani Minchas Nesachim ve'ha'Dam - by simply omitting Minchas Nesachim.

(b)Abaye leaves Minchas Nesachim in the Beraisa. He nevertheless establishes the entire Beraisa like Rebbi Meir - by amending the Reisha to 'Log Shemen ha'Ba im ha'Asham', incorporating Minchas Nesachim ha'Ba'im im ha'Zevach, and the Seifa to 'Nesachim ha'Ba'in bi'Fenei Atzman', incorporating Log Shemen ha'Ba bi'Fenei Atzmo.

7)

(a)The Beraisa includes Log Shemen shel Metzora in the Matnos Kehunah that are eaten from the word "Kol" (in the Pasuk in Korach "Zeh Yih'yeh l'cha min ha'Eish Kol Korbanam ... "). We need "Kol" to teach us that - since the words "min ha'Eish" implies that part of it goes on the Mizbe'ach (and no part of the Log Shemen is brought on the Mizbe'ach), we would have thought that it is not included in "Korbanam".

(b)From the word "le'Chol (Minchasam", in the same Pasuk), he includes Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas ha'Kena'os, and from the word "u'le'Chol" (in "u'le'Chol Ashamam" mentioned there) - Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora.

8)

(a)Based on the Pasuk "Ve'achlu osam asher Kupar bahem", we need a special Pasuk for ...

1. ... Minchas ha'Omer - since it does not come to atone, but to permit Chadash.

2. ... Minchas ha'Kena'os - since it comes to clarify the Sotah's sin ...

3. ... Asham Nazir (Tamei) and Asham Metzora - since they come to permit the Nazir to recommence his Nezirus, and the Metzora to eat Kodshim, and not to atone.

(b)And we need a Pasuk to include Chatas ha'Of - because we would otherwise have thought that, seeing as it is not Shechted (only pricked with the thumb-nail), it is Neveilah (and is therefore forbidden to eat).

(c)The problem with the Tana mentioning Asham Metzora is that - the Torah specifically permits it to be eaten (like a Chatas).

(d)So we amend the Lashon Asham Nazir ve'Asham Metzora to - Asham Nazir ke'Asham Metzora.

9)

(a)The Tana learns the last of the Matnos Kehunah - Gezel ha'Ger, from "asher Yashivu Li".

(b)And he learns from "l'cha Hu u'le'Vanecha" that - (unlike certain cases of Hekdesh) it is the Kohen's personal property, which he may even use to betroth a woman.

10)

(a)Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Yossi says in a Beraisa 'Pigeil be'Davar ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz, Pigeil; *Pigeil be'Davar ha'Na'aseh bi'Fenim', Lo Pigeil*' - with reference to the Parim ha'Nisrafim (the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos).

(b)The dual underlying principles behind Rebbi Elazar's ruling is that - the Avodah must take place in the Azarah, and the Machshavah too, must concern an Achilah that takes place in the Azarah.

(c)Consequently, if one Shechts the animal in the Azarah with the intention of sprinkling its blood the following day, it is not Pigul - because the Machshavah concerns an Achilah that will take place in the Heichal (where the sprinkling of the Parim ha'Nisrafim takes place).

(d)The reverse case (that is not Pigul either) is - where the Kohen sprinkles the blood in the Heichal with the intention of burning the Shirayim (on to the Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon) the following day.

(e)The case of Parim ha'Nisrafim which is Pigul is - if he Shechted them in the Azarah having in mind to pour out the Shirayim of the blood the following day.

11)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi extrapolates Rebbi Elazar's ruling from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) "Ka'asher Yuram mi'Shor Zevach ha'Shelamim" - by treating this as a Hekesh (Parim ha'Nisrafin, as well as all cases of Pigul, to Shelamim) - inasmuch as just as the Avodah by which the Kohen is Mefagel, as well as the Machsheves Achilas Mizbe'ach of a Shelamim, both take effect in the Azarah (ba'Chutz), so too, do they.

(b)This D'rashah is prompted by the fact that - the Pasuk is otherwise superfluous, since the Torah has already listed all the Emurin by the Par Kohen Mashi'ach.

12)

(a)Rava (or Rav Yosef) - was surprised that Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah Amar Rav ruled like Rebbi Elazar Mishum Rebbi Yossi seeing as it makes no practical difference until Mashi'ach comes and the Beis-Hamikdash is rebuilt.

(b)Abaye's response to Rava's Kashya (based on all of Hilchos Kodshim) was - that in that case, one shouldn't need to learn Kodshim at all. And just like you will answer there that one learns it anyway to receive the reward for the learning, so too, will this apply to Rav Nachman's ruling.

(c)To which Rava replied that - he was referring, not to the study of the Halachos, but to why Rav found it necessary to issue a ruling that has no practical ramifications.