What does our Mishnah say about a Minchah, whose Kemitzah the Kohen took, having in mind to eat the Shirayim or a k'Zayis of the Shirayim ...
... outside the Azarah?
... after the allotted time? What is the time limit for eating a Minchah?
And what does the Mishnah say if the Kohen had in mind to burn the Kometz or the Levonah or to burn a k'Zayis of the Kometz outside the Azarah or on the following day? Why does the Tana omit the case of eating or burning a k'Zayis of Levonah?
What does the Toras Kohanim learn from the Pasuk ...
... in Tzav (in connection with the Din of Pigul) "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ... ha'Makriv Oso"?
... in Kedoshim (also in connection with Pigul) "Im He'achol Ye'achel ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ... ha'Ocheles Mimenu Avonah Tisa"?
And what do we learn from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with Pigul) "ve'Nefesh ha'Ocheles Mimenu Avonah Tisa"?
Our Mishnah rules that a Minchah whose Kemitzah the Kohen took, having in mind to eat the Shirayim or a k'Zayis of the Shirayim ...
... outside the Azarah - is Pasul, but that whoever eats it is not Chayav Kareis.
... after the allotted time (i.e. one day, like all Kodshei Kodshim) - is Pigul, and whoever eats it is Chayav Kareis. Note, that the Chiyuv Kareis for eating Pigul takes effect immediately after the Machshavah, and not just after the allotted time has expired.
... and exactly the same distinction will apply if the Kohen had in mind to burn the Kometz or the Levonah or to burn a k'Zayis of the Kometz outside the Azarah, or on the following day. The Tana omits the case of eating or burning a k'Zayis of Levonah - because it is a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon, who validates the Levonah, if only a k'Zayis of the Levonah remains.
The Toras Kohanim learns from the Pasuk ...
... in Tzav "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ... ha'Makriv Oso" - that the Halachah in question concerns Pigul (a P'sul Machshavah), and not just Nosar (a Korban that was left over after the prescribed time).
... in Kedoshim (also in connection with Pigul) "Im He'achol Ye'achel ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ... ha'Ocheles Mimenu Avonah Tisa" - ('Im Eino Inyan') that this refers to a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo' (and not Chutz li'Zemano).
Whereas the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with Pigul) "ve'Nefesh ha'Ocheles Mimenu Avonah Tisa", teaches us - that a Machsheves 'Chutz li'Zemano' is subject to Kareis, but not 'Chutz li'Mekomo'.
By which three Avodos, besides Kometz, can a Minchah become Pigul?
What will be the Din if the Kohen intends to burn the Shirayim, or to eat the Kometz in the wrong place or at the wrong time?
Which external condition will also prevent the P'sul or the Pigul from taking effect?
Seeing as there is no Pasuk connecting Minchah to the Dinim of Pigul, from where do we know that a Minchah is indeed subject to Pigul?
Besides Kometz, a Minchah can become Pigul - during the Nesinas K'li, Holachah or Haktarah.
If the Kohen intends to burn the Shirayim, or to eat the Kometz in the wrong place or at the wrong time - the Minchah remains Kasher, because neither is the Shirayim meant to be burned nor the Kometz, to be eaten, in which case the principle 'Batlah Da'ato Eitzel Kol Adam' (his mind is Bateil to that of everybody else) will apply.
In addition, if the Minchah is Pasul in any other way ('Lo Kirvu ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso'), the P'sul or the Pigul will not take effect either.
Despite the fact that there is no Pasuk connecting Minchah to the Dinim of Pigul, we know that it is - because we learn it from a Hekesh to Chatas in the Pasuk in Tzav "Kodesh Kodashim Hi ka'Chatas ... " (which we cited at the beginning of the Masechta).
What does the Tana mean by ...
... 'Karav ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso'?
... 'Lo Karav ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso'?
Which additional case of 'Lo Karav ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso' exists by Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os, but not by other Menachos?
What does the Tana say about a case where the Kohen had a dual Machshavah by the same Avodah, to eat ...
... a k'Zayis ba'Chutz and a k'Zayis le'Machar?
... a Chatzi Zayis ba'Chutz and a Chatzi Zayis le'Machar?
By ...
... 'Karav ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso', the Tana means - that the Kohen performed all the other Avodos without any P'sul other than the same Machshavah ('she'Lo bi'Zemano' by Pigul and she'Lo bi'Mekomo' by she'Lo bi'Mekomo).
... 'Lo Karav ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso', he means - that he performed one of the other Avodos with a different Machsheves P'sul.
The additional case of 'Lo Karav ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso' that exists by Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os but not by other Menachos is - Machsheves she'Lo li'Shemah, which invalidates them (like it does a Chatas), but not other Menachos).
The Tana rules that in a case where the Kohen had a dual Machshavah by the same Avodah, to eat ...
... a k'Zayis ba'Chutz and a k'Zayis le'Machar - it is also considered 'Lo Karav ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso', and there is no Chiyuv Kareis for subsequently eating the Minchah ...
... and the same will apply to a dual Machshavah of a Chatzi Zayis ba'Chutz and a Chatzi Zayis le'Machar (since two Machshavos of Achilah combine).
In the above cases, the Tana Kama does not draw a distinction between which Machshavah came first. What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
Does he differentiate in this matter between one Avodah and two Avodos?
What do the Chachamim say?
In the above cases, the Tana Kama does not draw a distinction between which Machshavah came first. According to Rebbi Yehudah however - if the Machshaves Chutz li'Zemano preceded the Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo, the Chiyuv Kareis remains ...
... irrespective of whether the two Machshavos occurred by two Avodos or by one.
The Chachamim say 'Zeh ve'Zeh Pasul ve'Ein bo Kareis'.
Earlier, we cited Rebbi Yochanan, who permits the Kometz to be burned if the Shirayim became Chaser after the Kemitzah. What does he say about the Shirayim?
We now ask whether the Minchah will become Pigul, if the Kohen has a Machshavah to eat the Shirayim Chutz li'Zemano, like it does in a regular case. Why might it not?
What other ramification does this She'eilah have, besides that of Pigul? In what other way does the Haktarah normally affect the Shirayim?
Earlier, we cited Rebbi Yochanan, who permits the Kometz to go on the Mizbe'ach if the Shirayim became Chaser after the Kemitzah - though the Kohen may not eat the Shirayim.
We now ask whether the Minchah will become Pigul, if the Kohen has a Machshavah to eat the Shirayim Chutz li'Zemano, like it does in a regular case. The reason that it might not is - because when all's said and done, they are not eaten, and it is like a Machshavah to eat something that is not fit to be eaten, which is not considered a Machshavah, as we just learned.
The other ramification this She'eilah has - concerns Me'ilah, because normally, burning the Kometz removes the Chiyuv Me'ilah from the Shirayim. And once something becomes subject to Pigul, it is no longer subject to Me'ilah.
Rav Huna differentiates between the current She'eilah and the Din of Zerikah regarding a Yotzei, according to Rebbi Akiva. What does Rebbi Akiva say about a case where a Kohen performed Zerikas ha'Dam on a Korban that is taken outside the Azarah after being Shechted?
What does Rav Huna rule in our case? What makes Chaser different than Yotze in this regard?
Rava disagrees. What does he say, even according to Rebbi Eliezer, who rules that Zerikah is not effective regarding Yotzei?
And why is Chaser better than Yotzei in this regard?
Rav Huna differentiates between the current She'eilah and the Din of Zerikah regarding Kodshim that was Yotzei, according to Rebbi Akiva, who rules - that Zerikas ha'Dam removes the Chiyuv Me'ilah from a Korban that is taken outside the Azarah after being Shechted.
In our case (of Chaser), says Rav Huna - even Rebbi Akiva will agree that the Haktarah will not affect the Shirayim she'Chasru ... , seeing as (unlike the animal that was Yotzei, which is entirely intact and Pasul only due to external circumstances [the air of Yerushalayim]), the Shirayim she'Chasru, is an intrinsic P'sul.
Rava disagrees. According to him, even Rebbi Eliezer, who rules that Zerikas ha'Dam is not effective regarding Yotzei - will agree that here it will ...
... because, unlike Yotzei - the Shirayim that remains is still inside the Azarah. Therefore, burning the Kometz will fix it for Pigul.
Rava proves his point from our Mishnah ' ... Le'echol Shirehah ba'Chutz O k'Zayis mi'Shirehah ba'Chutz'. Rebbi Chiya, in a Beraisa, omitted 'O k'Zayis' from this statement. Why did he do that? How does he interpret 'O k'Zayis' with regard to 'Nasan bi'Cheli, Molich and Maktir'?
Why is it not possible to interpret 'O 'k'Zayis mi'Komtzah' in this way?
Does Rebbi Chiya in fact argue with Rebbi?
What does he now prove from the Seifa 'Pigul, ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis'?
Rava proves his opinion from our Mishnah ' ... Le'echol Shirehah ba'Chutz O k'Zayis mi'Shirehah ba'Chutz'. Rebbi Chiya, in a Beraisa, omitted 'O k'Zayis' from this statement - because he interprets 'O k'Zayis' with regard to 'Nasan bi'Cheli, Molich and Maktir' as meaning that the Shirayim became Chaser and now stood at a k'Zayis ...
... whereas in the case of 'O k'Zayis mi'Komtzah', the Tana must be referring to a k'Zayis from a complete Kometz, but not to a Kometz (i.e. the Minchah) that became Chaser before the Kemitzah - since that would then be a case of 'Minchah she'Chasrah Kodem Kemitzah', which is Pasul.
In fact Rebbi Chiya - does not argue with Rebbi in principle, only he did not want to include two different cases ('Shirayim she'Chasru' and 'k'Zayis mi'Kometz' in his Beraisa).
Rava now proves from the Seifa of the Mishnah 'Pigul, ve'Chayavin alav Kareis' - that 'Shirayim she'Chasru bein Kemitzah le'Haktarah, Maktir Kometz aleihen'.
Abaye refutes Rava's proof, by establishing Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah in Zevachim. The Tana Kama there, obligates a Kohen who sacrifices ba'Chutz, a k'Zayis of 'Kometz, Levonah, Ketores, Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach', or 'Minchas Nesachim'. What do all these have in common?
What does Rebbi Elazar say?
How will that explain Rebbi Chiya's omission of 'O k'Zayis' by 'Le'echol Shirehah ba'Chutz'?
We query this however, on the grounds that, according to Rebbi Elazar, the Tana should have stated (not just 'Lehaktir Komtzah ba'Chutz', but) Lehaktir Komtzah u'Levonasah ba'Chutz'). Why is that? What does Rebbi Elazar say in this regard?
Abaye refutes Rava's proof, by establishing Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah in Zevachim. The Tana Kama there obligates a Kohen who sacrifices ba'Chutz, a k'Zayis of 'Kometz, Levonah, Ketores, Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach' or 'Minchas Nesachim' - which are all totally burned.
Rebbi Elazar - exempts the Kohen, unless he brings the entire object.
Rebbi Chiya therefore omits 'O k'Zayis' by 'Le'echol Shirehah ba'Chutz' - because, seeing as the author is Rebbi Elazar, it cannot say 'O k'Zayis mi'Komtzah' (as we just explained).
We query this on the grounds that, according to Rebbi Elazar, the Tana should have stated (not just 'Lehaktir Komtzah ba'Chutz', but) 'Lehaktir Komtzah u'Levonasah ba'Chutz' - because Rebbi Elazar also exempts the Kohen, unless he brought both the Kometz and the Levonah ba'Chutz (seeing as they are both Matir)?
So we establish the Beraisa by a Minchas Chotei. How will this answer the Kashya?
Is it acceptable to limit the Tana to one solitary, irregular Minchah?
What does Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) say about this?
Rava subsequently retracted from his previous stance. What did he retract from?
So we establish the Beraisa by a Minchas Chotei - which does not contain Levonah.
It is (a Dochek, but) - acceptable to limit the Tana to one solitary, irregular Minchah.
Rebbi Dimi Amar Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) -also establishes Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar (ben Shamua), and by a Minchas Chotei.
Rava subsequently retracted from his previous stance - where he held 'Mehanyah leih Haktarah le'Shirayim she'Chasru' (even according to Rebbi Eliezer).
What does the Beraisa that he cites comment on the fact that the Torah writes in Emor (in connection with the Lechem ha'Panim) "Kodesh Kodashim Hu Lo" (in the singular)?
Rava extrapolates from there 'Ha Yatzas, Hani de'Ika Gava'i, Kesheiros'. What does he now prove from there?
Once again, Abaye refutes Rava's proof, by changing the inference to 'Ha Nitma'as, Hani de'Ika Gava'i, Kesheiros' (but not 'Yatza'as'). How does this refute Rava's proof?
What makes Nitma'as better than Nifresah and Yatza'as?
The Beraisa that he cites comments on the fact that the Torah writes (in connection with the Lechem ha'Panim) "Kodesh Kodshim Hu lo" (in the singular) - that if only one of the Loaves becomes broken, all twelve are Pasul.
Rava extrapolates from there 'Ha Yatzas, Hani de'Ika Gava'i, Kesheiros' - a proof that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Akiva, who holds 'Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei', yet he holds 'Ein Zerikah Mo'eles le'Chaser' (like Rav Huna's original contention).
Once again, Abaye refutes Rava's proof, by changing the inference to 'Ha Nitma'as, Hani de'Ika Gava'i, Kesheiros' (but not 'Yatza'as') - in which case the author could be Rebbi Eliezer, who holds 'Ein Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei'.
What makes Nitma'as better than Nifresah and Yatza'as is - the fact that the Tzitz atones for Tumah.
Why does Rebbi Eliezer then present the case of 'Nifresah Achas me'Chalosehah' and not 'Yatz'ah'?
What will Rebbi Akiva then hold regarding 'Nifresah'?
Rebbi Eliezer presents the case of 'Nifr'sah Achas me'Chalosehah' and not 'Yatz'ah' - to teach us that even 'Nifr'sah', where the Chalah is still in the Azarah, the Haktarah will not be effective.
Rebbi Akiva will then hold - that in the case of 'Nifr'sah', the other Loaves are Kasher, because just as Zerikah helps by Yotzei, so too, will Haktarah help by Chaser.
Our Mishnah says 'Le'echol Chatzi Zayis (le'Machar) u'Lehaktir Chatzi Zayis, Kasher'. Why is that?
What do we extrapolate from the fact that the Tana presents the case of 'Le'echol ... u'Lehaktir'?
To avoid a discrepancy between this Mishnah and the Reisha 'Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol, u'Lehaktir Davar she'Darko Lehaktir (to preclude 'Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol ... u'Lehaktir'), Rebbi Yirmiyah establish the Seifa like Rebbi Eliezer. What does Rebbi Eliezer say in the Mishnah in ha'Kometz Rabah, with regard to 'ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah Le'echol Davar she'Ein Davar Le'echol ... '?
Our Mishnah rules - 'Le'echol Chatzi Zayis u'Le'Haktir Chatzi Zayis, (le'Machar) Kasher' - because Achilas Adam and Haktarah do not combine.
From the fact that the Tana presents the case of 'Le'echol ... u'Lehaktir', we extrapolate - that 'Le'echol Ve'le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol, Mitztarfin'.
To avoid a discrepancy between this Mishnah and the Reisha 'Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol, u'Lehaktir Davar she'Darko Lehaktir (to preclude 'Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol ... u'Lehaktir', which is therefore not Mitztaref either), Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes the Reisha like Rebbi Eliezer, who rules in the Mishnah in the third Perek - 'ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah Le'echol Davar she'Ein Davar Le'echol ... , Pasul' (since he considers it a Machshavah).
Abaye disagrees with Rebbi Yirmiyah, establishing the Seifa even like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer, who hold 'Ein Mechashvin me'Achilas Adam la'Achilas Mizbe'ach'. What do we then extrapolate from the Mishnah?
What problem do we have with this? Why can the Tana not be coming to teach us ...
... that Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Davar Le'echol do not combine (to make up a k'Zayis)?
... that 'Le'echol u'Lehaktir' do not combine?
We conclude that in fact, the Tana is coming to teach us that 'Le'echol u'Lehaktir Ein Mitztarfin'. On what grounds do we overrule the previous objection (that this is a 'Kal- va'Chomer' from 'Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol')?
Abaye disagrees with Rebbi Yirmiyah. He establishes the Seifa even like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer, who hold 'Ein Mechashvin me'Achilas Adam la'Achilas Mizbe'ach', and we then extrapolate from the Mishnah - 'Ha Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol, Mitztarfin' (to make up a k'Zayis).
The problem with this is - why we need this Mishnah at all. The Tana cannot be coming to teach us ...
... that 'Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Davar Le'echol do not combine - because we can extrapolate this already from the Reisha, as we saw a little earlier.
... that 'Le'echol u'Lehaktir' do not combine - because that is a 'Kal-va'Chomer from 'Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol'.
We conclude that in fact, the Tana is coming to teach us the intrinsic Halachah 'Le'echol u'Lehaktir Ein Mitztarfin'. We overrule the previous objection (that we know this from a 'Kal- va'Chomer' from 'Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol') - with the Pircha that whereas 'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol' is unconventional, both 'Le'echol' and 'Lehaktir' are conventional, and the Tana needs to teach that nevertheless, they do not combine.