Previous daf

1)

(a) ben Buchri, we said earlier, is coming to teach us that a Kohen who donates a half-Shekel is not guilty of bringing Chulin to the Azarah - because he donates it to the Tzibur.

(b) If not for T'nai Beis-Din, according to ben Buchri, the Kohanim would not be permitted to use the salt - because seeing as it is the Yisre'eilim who placed their Shekalim in the room from where the money was taken to purchase the salt, it stands to reason that they are the ones who are allowed to benefit from the salt, and not the Kohanim.

(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "Al ha'Eitzim Asher al ha'Eish Asher al ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Eitzim for every Korban, like the Mizbe'ach, may constitute communal wood.

(d) Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua learns from the same Hekesh that Eitzim, like Mizbe'ach, must not have been used by a Hedyot. Practically speaking, this means - that only new unused wood may be used (but not according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon).

(a) When, in Seifer Sh'muel, Aravnah ha'Yevusi sold David Hamelech the Makom ha'Mikdash, he also sold him the cattle with which he had been plowing - the former, as an Olah, the latter, to use as firewood with which to burn it.

(b) One of the things included in the sale was "Morigin", which Ula translates as 'Mitah shel Turbal', which Rav Yehudah defines as 'Iza de'Kurk'sa de'Dasha bah Dashta'i'. Rav Yosef cites the Pasuk "Hinei Samtich *le'Morag* Charutz Chadash Ba'al Pifiyos". In fact, 'Morigin' is - a sort of wooden goat with sharp spikes and niches, which they would attach to the oxen, to pull over the stalks of corn after they had been threshed, cutting them up and turning them into hay.

(c) We reconcile this with Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, who requires new wood to be used for the Korbanos - by establishing the Pasuk by new Morigin that had not yet been used.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if the Kometz of a Minchas Yisrael became mixed with ...

1. ... another Kometz - they are both Kasher
2. ... a Minchas Kohanim, a Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or a Minchas Nesachim - they are both Kasher, too ...

(b) ... because, like the Kometz, they are completely burned.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah invalidates a Kometz that became mixed up with a Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or a Minchas Nesachim - on the grounds that they contain far more oil than a Minchas Yisrael (three Lugin per Isaron, against one). Consequently, when they touch, the latter absorbs some of the oil of the former, leaving the one with too much oil (Nisrabsah Shamnah) and the other, with too little (Nisma'atah Shamnah).

(d) In this last case, the Tana says 'Pesulah' and not 'Pesulos' - to balance the Reisha, where he used the singular, when he said Kesheirah (and not Kesheiros).

(a) The Mishnah in Zevachim permits blood that became mixed with water, to be sprinkled, provided it still resembles blood. If it became mixed with ...

1. ... wine - it is still considered blood, provided that, assuming that the wine was water, it would resemble blood, and the same will apply if it was mixed with ...
2. ... the blood of Beheimos or Chayos.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the latter ruling. In his opinion - blood is never Mevatel blood (in which case it can always be sprinkled).

5)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains that both Tana'im derive their respective reasons from the same source. The problem with the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'lakach mi'Dam ha'Par u'mi'Dam ha'Sa'ir" is - how one can still refer to the 'Dam ha'Sa'ir' as such, seeing as the bull's blood exceeds it by far; so why is it not Bateil?

(b) The Rabbanan extrapolate from there - that Korbanos cannot be Mevatel each other. Consequently, there is no reason for the bloods in the Mishnah in Zevachim (which are Chulin) not to be Mevatel each other).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates from this Pasuk - that 'Miyn be'Miyno Eino Bateil'.

(a) The Rabbanan know that the Torah's reason is not because of 'Miyn be'Miyno' - because if it was, the Torah would have indicated this ruling by Chulin.

(b) And Rebbi Yehudah knows that the Torah's reason is not because of 'Ein Olin Mevatlin ... ' - because if it was, the Torah would have written it by 'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno'?

(c) The problem that we still have with both the opinion of the Rabbanan and that of Rebbi Yehudah is - how they know that both criteria are not required to negate the Bitul (but that the criterion of 'Miyn be'Miyno' on its own and that of 'Olin' on its own, will not prevent the Bitul from taking place).

(d) The problem turns out to be insoluble - we remain with a Kashya.

(a) We ask on Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah ('be'Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach u've'Minchas Nesachim Pesulah she'Zu Belilasah Avah ... '), from Rebbi' Yehudah's own opinion in the Mishnah in Zevachim, according to which the fact that the mixture of one is thick and the other, thin, ought not to make any difference, even though the one absorbs the other, since neither becomes Bateil.

(b) Rava answers that Rebbi Yehudah holds Kol she'Hu Miyn be'Miyno ve'Davar Acher, Saleik es Miyno ke'Mi she'Eino - ve'she'Eino Miyno Rabah Alav u'Mevatlo'.

(c) In our context, it means - that we remove the oil of the Kometz, and the flour is then Mevateil the oil of the Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or the Minchas Nesachim, explaining why Rebbi Yehudah holds that it is Pasul.