When Rebbi said in a Beraisa 'ke'she'Halachti ...

... (either) Lematzas Midosai Eitzel Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua', he meant that he went to visit Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua in order to test his (own) knowledge and to resolve all his doubts.

... (or) Lematas Midosav shel Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua' - he meant that he went to discover the extent of Rebbi Elazar's superiority.

He saw - Yosef ha'Bavli there sitting in front of Rebbi Elazar.

He writes that Rebbi Elazar was particularly fond of Yosef ha'Bavli. According to a second Lashon, it was Yosef ha'Bavli, who was particularly fond of whatever he heard from Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua.

When Yosef ha'Bavli asked Rebbi Elazar what the Din will be in a case where someone Shechted a Korban with the intention of leaving some of the blood until the next day, he replied - that it was Kasher.

He asked him the She'eilah - in the morning, at noon, in the afternoon and at night.

On the fourth occasion, he added - that Rebbi Eliezer rules that it is Pasul.

Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua thought Yosef ha'Bavli beamed with delight - because now for the first time, he had taught him the Halachah.

Yosef ha'Bavli dismissed that however ('Hein Rebbi Hein!') , and the real reason for his joy was - the fact that he had heard from Rebbi Yehudah 'Pasul', but that he had been unable to find any of Rebbi Yehudah's Talmidim to bear him out. Consequently, he was afraid that perhaps he had forgotten what he had heard from him.

When he concluded 'Hechzarta li Aveidasi!', he meant to say- that now he knew that he had not forgotten.

Rebbi Elazar reacted - by bursting into tears, when he realized the extent of the Talmidei-Chachamim's love of Torah, to which end ...

... he quoted the Pasuk in Tehilim "Mah Ahavti Torasecha, Kol ha'Yom Hi Sichasi".

The reason Rebbi Elazar give to explain why Rebbi Yehudah taught him the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer - was because Rebbi Yehudah heard it from his father Rebbi Ilai, who was a Talmid of Rebbi Eliezer.

The problem with Rebbi Yehudah's original statement that 'Lehani'ach' is unanimous is - that according to Rebbi Elazar, it is the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer only. So how could Rebbi say 'Hechzarta li Aveidasi!'?

If on the other hand, Rebbi Yehudah was referring only to Rebbi Eliezer's opinion, there is a problem with Rebbi Elazar's statement 'Hei Mipnei she'Rebbi Yehudah B'no shel Rebbi Ilai ... ' - which implies that he was not telling him the Halachah (but only because it was dear to him, as we explained). If Rebbi Yehudah had only quoted Rebbi Eliezer, then why did Rebbi Elazar say 'Hei', seeing as he was telling him exactly what he had heard from Rebbi Yehudah?

So we conclude - that Rebbi Yehudah's statement was really unanimous, and when Yosef ha'Bavli said 'Hechzarta li Aveidasi', he meant - that Rebbi Elazar had at least given him some support, even if it was not quite what he had heard.

In a case where the Kohen failed to make Yetzikah, Belilah, Pesisah, Melichah, Tenufah or Hagashah, our Mishnah rules - that the Minchah is nevertheless Kasher.

When the Tana says ...

... 'Lo Yatzak ve'Lo Balal', he means - that the Kohen did not pour in the second lot (the complement of the Log) and mix it, because he poured it all initially.

... 'Lo Pasas' - he means that he did not break the Shirayim into pieces, only what was needed for the Kemitzah. And he is referring to all types of Minchah that were pre-baked (see Shitah Mekubetzes 8).

The three kinds of Minchas that require Tenufah are - Minchas Chotei, Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Kena'os (i.e. the Minchah of a Sotah).

The Mishnah also validates a Minchah that has been broken into too large pieces - i.e. folded into two and then into four.

Only the Matzah wafers of a Korban Todah require Meshichah (anointing with oil).

If the Kohen failed to do this - the Minchah is nevertheless Kasher.

When the Tana says 'Lo Yatzak', he cannot mean it literally - because in fact, Yetzikah is crucial to the Minchah.

We initially think that he cannot mean 'Lo Yatzak Kohen Ela Zar', because then 'Lo Balal' would also mean 'Lo Balal Kohen Ela Zar' - implying that Belilah perse is crucial, whereas we have learned that it is not (as we shall now see).

When the Mishnah says in the twelfth Perek 'ha'Menachos ve'ha'Nesachim' rules 'Shishim Nivlalin, Shishim ve'Echad, Ein Nivlalin', it means - that sixty Esronin is Kasher with one Log of oil because it is mixable.

Based on our Mishnah (according to our Sugya's conclusion) 'Lo Balal, Kasher', Rebbi Zeira attributes the P'sul in the latter case (not to the fact that it has not been mixed, but) because it cannot be mixed.

We finally establish 'Lo Yatzak' to mean 'Lo Yatzak Kohen Ela Zar' and Lo Balal' as - 'Lo Balal K'lal' ('Ha ke'de'Iysa, ve'Ha ke'de'Iysa' [each one in its own appropriate way]).

The problem with inserting 'O she'Pitsah Pitin Merubos' is - that seeing as omitting the Pesisah altogether does not render the Minchah Pasul, why does the Tana need to insert it?

Therefore ...

... we initially amend 'Pitim Merubos' to - 'she'Ribah bi'Pesisin' (meaning that the Kohen broke it up into too many pieces).

... interpret it even as it is - on the grounds that 'Patas Pitim Merubos' might be even worse than 'Lo Patas', since the latter at least constitutes loaves, whereas the former constitutes neither loaves nor pieces.

We cite a Beraisa in which Rebbi Shimon cites fifteen Avodos, including seven concerning the Minchah (though not all of them are exclusive to it): 'Yetzikos, Belilos, Pesisos, Melichos and Tenufos - Kemitzos and Haktaros'.

He lists 'Melikos' in connection with Korban ha'Of - and 'Kabalos' and 'Haza'os' in connection with Zevachim.

He also lists - 'Hashka'as Sotah', 'Arifas Eglah' and 'Taharas Metzora'.

The final Avodah on his list is 'Nesi'as Kapayim', which sub-divides into - 'Nesi'as Kapayim mi'bi'Fenim' (in the Beis-Hamikdash) and 'Nesi'as Kapayim mi'ba'Chutz' (in each town).

The direct ramifications of Rebbi Shimon's list are - that they cannot be performed by a Zar (see Shitah Mekubetzes).

And he also learns from the Pasuk in Tzav ...

... "ha'Makriv es Dam ha'Shelamim ve'es ha'Cheilev ... Lo Tih'yeh Shok ha'Yamin le'Manah" - that any Kohen who does not acknowledge the Avodah of Hakravas Dam (which is not included in the list [see Shitah Mekubetzes 2]) has no portion in the Kehunah.

... "mi'B'nei Aharon" - that the same applies to a Kohen who does not acknowledge any of the other Avodos included in Rebbi Shimon's list.

We now suggest that Rebbi Shimon cannot be the author of our Mishnah - because he lists Yetzikah as an Avodah, whereas our Mishnah permits a Zar to perform it.

Rav Nachman answers that our Mishnah speaks by a Minchas Yisrael - which requires Kemitzah, and it is from there that the Mitzvos Kehunah commence; whereas Rebbi Shimon speaks by a Minchas Kohen - which does not require Kemitzah, seeing as it is totally burned. Consequently, the Mitzvos Kehunah begin immediately.

Rava queries this answer from the source of Yetzikah by a Minchas Kohen - from the extra word "Minchah" written in Vayikra by a Minchas Yisrael (to include even a Minchas Kohen in the Din of Yetzikah), in which case it should also be Kesheirah be'Zar.

In the second Lashon, Rav Nachman differentiates between Menachos that are Nikmatzos and those that are not - to include a Minchas Nesachim on the side of a Minchas Kohen.

Rava asks the same Kashya on this Lashon as he asked on the first. So we conclude - that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Shimon.

The Rabbanan (the authors of our Mishnah) learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'hevi'ah el B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim, ve'Kamatz"- that the Avodos prior to the Kemitzah (i.e. Yetzikah and Belilah) do not require Kehunah.

Rebbi Shimon counters that - by Darshening "b'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim" on what is mentioned before as well as what ios mentioned afterwards.

Bearing in mind that the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas" refers to Kabalas ha'Dam, another Beraisa learns from "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas be'Etzba'o" - that Kabalas ha'Dam must be performed with the right hand (since that is what "Etzba" always implies).

And the Tana there learns from "be'Etzba'o Ve'nasan al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Matanos Dam require the right hand, too.

Rebbi Shimon disagrees, based on the fact that the Torah does not write 'Yad' by Kabalas ha'Dam, by which he means that since the Torah did not write "Etzba" by Kabalas ha'Dam - the Kohen may perform it with his left hand.

Abaye establishes the source of the Machlokes as - whether 'Mikra Nidrash Lefanav u'le'Acharav' (the Rabbanan), or ' ... le'Acharav' and not Lefanav (Rebbi Shimon), a Kashya on the current Sugya, where we just established that according to Rebbi Shimon 'Mikra Nidrash Lefanav u'le'Acharav'.

So we conclude that Rebbi Shimon requires Kehunah by Yetzikah from "Ve'hevi'ah el B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim" - because he holds 'Vav Mosif al Inyan Rishon' (in which case, just as the Kemitzah requires Kehunah, so too does Yetzikah).

And the reason that Rebbi Shimon does not also learn from the 'Vav' in "Ve'nasan al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach" that Kabalas ha'Dam requires Kehunah like Nesinas ha'Dam is - because by placing "be'Etzba'o" immediately prior to "Ve'nasan" (and not after "Velakach ha'Kohen"), the Torah breaks the two phrases, and we can no longer apply 'Vav Mosif').