1)

(a)Following Nadav and Avihu's death, Moshe discovered that - the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh had been burned.

(b)He had been commanded to see to it that - the Minchah of the Milu'im should be eaten.

(c)Hash-m had instructed him that the Chazeh ve'Shok - of the Shalmei Tzibur should be eaten.

(d)The corollary between the Pasuk "as Hash-m commanded" and the Pasuk "as I commanded" is - Moshe's claim that he had not said anything of his own, but only what Hash-m had told him.

(e)He now claimed that - since the Korbanos of the Milu'im were not subject to Aninus, they ought to have eaten the Chatas Rosh Chodesh as he had commanded them.

2)

(a)We reconcile what we just learned with the Beraisa which specifically states that they burned the Korban because of Aninus by establishing the author as Rebbi Nechmyah, who proves that they burned it due to Aninus - from Ahaon's words "Vatikrenah Osi *ko'Eileh*" (with reference to Aninus).

(b)Whereas the previous Beraisa goes according to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon - who attribute the burning of the Korban to Tum'ah.

(c)And they prove that it cannot have been on account of Aninus - because then all three goats (which will be listed later) ought to have been burned, or they should have waited until nightfall and eaten them then.

(d)According to Rebbi Nechemyah, Moshe did not command them to eat the Minchas Shemini ba'Aninus - but that they should eat it even though it was a Minchas Tzibur, which was unique (and they would not have otherwise known what to do with it).

(e)Alternatively, we establish both Beraisos like Rebbi Nechemyah, and we reconcile the second Beraisa with the fact that Moshe commanded them to eat the above-mentioned Korbanos in spite of the Aninus - by restricting the Heter to eat them to the Korbanos of the Milu'im, but not to the regular Korbanos (such as the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh).

3)

(a)To elicit the reply ...

1. ... "Hein Lo Huva Damah el ha'Kodesh Penimah" Moshe asked Aharon - whether the blood had not perhaps been taken into the Heichal.

2. ... "ba'Kodesh (Haysah)", he asked him - whether the animal had not been taken outside the Azarah.

3. ... "Hein Hayom Hikrivu", he asked him - whether perhaps his sons, who were On'nim (with regard to sacrificing the Korbanos), had not perhaps brought it on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)When Aharon retorted "Va'tikrenah Osi ka'Eileh Ve'achalti Chatas ha'Yom, ha'Yitav be'Einei Hash-m", he meant that - the special dispensation permitting them as On'nim, to eat Kodshim, did not extend to Kodshei Doros (as we just explained).

(c)And he learned this - from Ma'aser Sheini, which is forbidden to an Onein, 'Kal-va'Chomer' Kodshim.

(d)Moshe responded to that - by admitting to having erred, and conceded that Aharon was right. In fact, he said without hesitation, that is what he had been taught, but he had forgotten it.

4)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, Moshe asked Aharon ...

1. ... whether, due to his sorrow, he had not perhaps been careless, causing the Korban to become Tamei - he expressed surprise that Moshe should suspect him of such gross negligence.

2. ... why they did not then eat it he replied that - in all probability, it was only after nightfall that they were permitted to eat it (because Aninus Laylah is de'Rabanan) ...

(b)... and the reason that they did not eat it after nightfall - was because in the meantime, it had become Tamei through some Oneis or other.

5)

(a)Aharon said to Moshe "Ve'achalti Chatas Hayom". The significance of "Hayom", according to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon is that - the Chatas could not be eaten during the day, only at night.

(b)The problem with "Hayom" according to Rebbi Nechemyah" is that - the Korbanos of Milu'im were permitted even during the day, whereas the regular Korbanos were forbidden at night, too (so what does "Hayom" mean).

(c)He therefore explains it to mean that - since the Korban under discussion was a regular Korban (of that day), it did not enjoy the special dispensation that pertained to the Korbanos of the Milu'im.

6)

(a)According to what we just said (to explain Rebbi Nechemyah) "Hein Hayom Hikrivu" makes perfect sense. The problem with this phrase according to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemya, is that - if Aharon was telling Moshe that perhaps it was only at night-time that the Korbanos were permitted, what does it mean?

(b)In fact, they interpret it to mean that - it was not Elazar and Isamar (who were On'nim) who brought the Korbanos during the day, but he (Aharon), and a Kohen Gadol Onein is permitted to bring Korbanos.

7)

(a)The word "S'ir (in the Pasuk`"ve'es S'ir ha'Chatas") refers to the Sa'ir of Nachshon (the first of the twelve princes to inaugurate the Mizbe'ach), whereas the goat referred to ...

1. ... "Chatas" - is the Sa'ir of the Milu'im.

2. ... "Darash Moshe" - is the Sa'ir of Rosh Chodesh.

(b)The Torah uses the double expression "Darosh Darash" - because Moshe inquired as to a. why the one goat was burned and b. why the other two were not.

(c)We learn from ...

1. ... "ve'Hinei Soraf" that - only one of the goats was burned, and not all three.

2. ... "ve'Osah Nasan lachem Laseis es Avon ha'Eidah" that - the one that was burned was the Sa'ir Rosh Chodesh (which comes to atone for the sin (of Tum'ah) of the congregation.

8)

(a)Rebbi Nechemya refutes Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon's Kashya, that if it was a matter of Aninus ...

1. ... then all three goats should have been burned - by differentiating between Kodshei Sha'ah (which Hash-m had specifically permitted) and Kodshei Doros (which He had not) as we already learned.

2. ... then they ought to have waited until nightfall and eaten the Sa'ir of Rosh-Chodesh then - because he holds 'Aninus Laylah d'Oraysa'.

(b)Rebbi Nechemyah's source for that is - this Pasuk ("Va'tikrenah Osi ka'Eileh").

(c)Whereas Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon hold that - even though Aninus Laylah is d'Oraysa, that would take effect only later, but did not apply to Aharon and his sons, as we already explained.

(d)And Rebbi Nechemyah's answer to the Kashya that Pinchas was there, and if it was a matter of Aninus, *he* should have eaten the Chatas - by citing Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina, who maintain that Pinchas became a Kohen only many years later, as we will now see.

9)

(a)

1. Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Vehaysah lo u'le'Zar'o Acharav B'ris Kehunas Olam" - that Pinchas became a Kohen only after killing Zimri (in the fortieth year in the desert).

2. Rav Ashi learns from the Pasuk in Yehoshua "Vayishma Pinchas ha'Kohen u'Nesi'ei ha'Eidah ... " - that he became a Kohen only after being instrumental in making peace between the B'nei Gad and Reuven and the tribes who lived in Eretz Yisrael (following their quarrel over the Mizbe'ach that the former had built beside the River Yarden).

(b)

1. Rav Ashi refutes Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina's interpretation of the Pasuk in Pinchas - by restricting it to a B'rachah (which would only materialize much later).

2. Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina refutes Rav Ashi's interpretation of the Pasuk in Yehoshua - by confining it to the inclusion of his descendants, who would become Kohanim Gedolim (since, prior to that time, only inchas himself was destined to be a Kohen Gadol).

10)

(a)Rav learns from the Pasuk "me'Eil ha'Milu'im le'Moshe Hayah le'Manah" that - Moshe was a Kohen Gadol who received a portion in Kodshei Shamayim.

(b)And the reason that the Beraisa asked from Pinchas (who was there .. ) and not from Moshe (who was there too) is - because Moshe was constantly on Har Sinai dealing with the Shechinah, and did not have time to collect a portion of Kodshim.

(c)We learn this from Mar, who stated that - Moshe would ascend Har Sinai early in the morning and descend late at night.

11)

(a)The Pasuk "Lechem Elokav mi'Kodshei ha'Kodashim u'min ha'Kodshim Yochel" refers - to a Kohen Ba'al Mum.

(b)The problem the Beraisa has with this Pasuk is - why the Torah needs to mention both Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim.

(c)Had the Torah not written ...

1. ... Kodshim Kalim, we would have thought that a Ba'al-Mum may eat only Kodshei Kodshim - since we find that the Chazeh ve'Shok of Shelamim is permitted to Zarim as well as to them.

2. ... Kodshei Kodshim, we would have thought that a Ba'al-Mum may eat only Kodshim Kalim, whose Kedushah is less than that of Kodshei Kodshim.

(d)We know that the Chazeh ve'Shok of Shelamim is Kodshei Kodshim - because it had to be cooked and eaten at the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed and could only be eaten for one day and a night.

12)

(a)We try to query Rav from this Beraisa - based on the understanding that the Zar in the Beraisa refers to Moshe.

(b)To refute the Kashya on Rav however - Rav Sheishes interprets Zar literally, with reference to Bamos, which do not require Kehunah, and on which the Minchah (which was Kodesh Kodshim) was brought.

(c)Bearing in mind that Bamah refers to Bamah Ketanah, Rav Sheishes' answer is not unanimous - because it does not coincide with the opinion of those who hold that the Korban Minchah was not brought on a Bamah.

(d)The answer depends on the Minchah - because the only other Kodesh Kodshim that are eaten are Chatas and Asham, neither of which could be brought on a Bamah.