[9a - 39 lines; 9b - 38 lines]
1)[line 1]á÷ãù ä÷ãùéí úàëìðå"B'KODESH HA'KODASHIM TOCHLENU"- "In the Holy of the Holies shall you eat it...." (Bamidbar 18:10) - This cannot mean in the Azarah, because the Torah has already stated that Kodshei Kodashim are eaten in the Azarah (Vayikra 6:9), so it must be a reference to the Heichal.
2)[line 11]î÷îéöä åàéìê îöåú ëäåðäMI'KEMITZAH V'EILACH MITZVAS KEHUNAH- from the Kemitzah and onwards it is the exclusive Mitzvah of the Kohanim [to perform the Avodah]
3a)[line 12]éöé÷äYETZIKAH- pouring in the remainder of the oil onto the dough of the Minchah (the third time that the Kohen pours oil in the preparation of the Menachos)
b)[line 12]åáìéìäU'VELILAH- and pouring in more oil and mixing the flour and oil (and water) (the second time that the Kohen pours oil in the preparation of the Menachos)
4)[line 20]÷îéöä ÷áòä ìéäKEMITZAH KAV'AH LEI- Kemitzah establishes it [as a Korban Minchah] (i.e. only Kemitzah gives it the full status of a Korban Minchah, which can be disqualified through depletion)
5)[line 22]÷ãåùú ëìé ÷áòä ìéäKEDUSHAS KELI KAV'AH LEI- the sanctification in a vessel establishes it [as a Korban Minchah] (i.e. as soon as the flour is put into the Kli Shares, it becomes a full-fledged Minchah which can be disqualified through depletion)
6)[line 29]ëîãú øáé àìéòæøK'MIDAS REBBI ELIEZER- according to the standard of Rebbi Eliezer [it is valid, since Rebbi Eliezer maintains that if the meat of an animal offering is lost, the offering's blood still may be applied to the Mizbe'ach. We learn from here that in the case of a Korban Minchah, if its remnants (which are the equivalent of an animal offering's meat) are lost, Rebbi Eliezer would allow the Kometz to be burned on the Mizbe'ach.]
7)[line 30]ëîãú øáé éäåùòK'MIDAS REBBI YEHOSHUA- according to the standard of Rebbi Yehoshua. (Reish Lakish, who deems a Korban Minchah invalid even if its remnants are depleted, is in accordance with the view of Rebbi Yehoshua.)
9b----------------------------------------9b
8)[line 14]îùðä ùìéîäMISHNAH SHELEIMAH- (lit. a perfect Mishnah) an anonymously-authored Mishnah (which usually contains the accepted Halachic opinion)
9)[line 16]îàé àéøéàMAI IRYA...?- why is it talking about...?
10)[line 17]äåàéì åàéùúøé èåîàä ìâáééäåHO'IL V'ISHTERI TUM'AH L'GABAIHU- since Tum'ah is permitted with respect to communal offerings
11)[line 18]ëáòì îåí ãîéK'VA'AL MUM DAMI- [an offering that is deficient] is like an offering that has a blemish; i.e. it is appropriate to compare a Minchah that is missing some of its ingredients to an animal that is missing a limb, which is the most severe type of blemish (RASHBA)
12)[line 21]îñìúä"MI'SOLTAH"- "[And he shall bring it to the sons of Aharon, the Kohanim; and he shall take from it his handful] of its flour, [and of its oil, with all its frankincense; and the Kohen shall burn the memorial part of it upon the altar, to be a pleasing fire-offering to HaSh-m.]" (Vayikra 2:2)
13)[line 22]îùîðä"MI'SHAMNAH"- see previous entry. The verse teaches that if it lacks even the slightest amount of oil, it is invalid, since a Minchah must contain a minimum of one Log of oil (see Menachos 88a and RASHI)
14)[line 23]åùìà ä÷èéø îìáåðúä ëìåíVESHE'LO HIKTIR MI'LEVONASAH KELUM- or whose Levonah was not burned at all. (This means that if all of the Levonah is lost, the Kometz may not be offered.)
15)[line 30]îðçä ùäéúä ëáøMINCHAH SHE'HAYESAH KEVAR- this refers to a Minchah that was there already at the time of Kemitzah. If the Minchah was complete during the Kemitzah, the remnants may be eaten even if they were diminished in the interim.
16)[line 34]àéï îéòåè àçø îéòåè àìà ìøáåúEIN MI'UT ACHAR MI'UT ELA L'RABOS
(a)When a Mi'ut (text that excludes a particular case or item) is followed by another Mi'ut, the law is that "Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela l'Rabos." That is, when one limitation of the law appears after another limitation, the Torah's intent is to extend the law, rather than limit it.
(b)This rule of Biblical interpretation interprets the occurrence of two Mi'utim regarding an identical point as extending the Halachah they describe, rather than limiting it to include fewer items or to apply in fewer cases. That is, even though a single Mi'ut limits the Halachah to specific items or cases, a double Mi'ut teaches to extend the Halachah and not to interpret it in a limiting sense.
(c)The logical derivation for this rule is as follows: If we already know to apply the Halachah under discussion to a particular item (or case), it would not be necessary for the Torah to again teach that the Halachah applies only to that item. It is therefore evident from the second Mi'ut that the first one was not meant to limit the law to fewer items or cases. Likewise, the second Mi'ut cannot have been written to exclude those cases, for the Torah could have taught to exclude them by writing only the first Mi'ut. It must therefore be concluded that the double Mi'ut means to teach that we should not learn to exclude items or cases in the Halachah under discussion. (This rule is closely related to the rule of "Shenei Chesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad Ein Melamdim" - see Background to Kidushin 58:13 and to the converse rule of "Ein Ribuy Achar Ribuy Ela l'Ma'et - see Bava Kama 45:19.)
(d)In all cases of Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut, the obvious question is why did the Torah write even a single Mi'ut? Let the Torah write neither Mi'ut and we would know by ourselves not to exclude items or cases from the law, since there is no Mi'ut to exclude it! (Obviously the item would not be excluded without a Mi'ut, since we originally found it necessary to interpret the first Mi'ut as excluding that item.) TOSFOS (to Yoma 60a DH Trei) asks this question and answers that perhaps we would have excluded that item without the first Mi'ut, through a Binyan Av (see Background to Sanhedrin 30:18) or a Kal va'Chomer (see Background to Bava Basra 111:13). The first Mi'ut was not really necessary, but we would have justified the Mi'ut as "Milsa d'Asya b'Kal va'Chomer Tarach v'Chasav Lah Kra" - "the Torah troubles itself to write out explicitly that which can be learned from a Kal va'Chomer" (see Kidushin 4a, Chulin 118b). The second Mi'ut teaches not only to ignore the first Mi'ut, but also to ignore the Binyan Av or Kal va'Chomer as well.
17)[line 37]úøé áòðé åúøé áòùéøTREI B'ANI V'TREI B'ASHIR- the Torah says "ha'Semolis" ("the left") four times, twice regarding a poor Metzora, and twice regarding a wealthy Metzora. (This teaches that only in this context does it refer to the left hand.)
18)[line 38]áùîï ãîöåøò òùéøB'SHEMEN D'METZORA ASHIR - with the oil of a wealthy Metzora (METZORA: The Process through which A Metzora becomes Tahor)