Previous daf

1)
(a) The Pasuk (in connection with the D'vash of Bikurim and the Se'or of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) "Korban Reishis" implies - that they can only be brought obligatorily (since we never find 'Reishis' that is voluntary).
(b) Had the Torah written ...
1. ... the prohibition of Se'or, we would not have known that of D'vash, because the latter has a concession that the former does not - namely, that one is allowed to eat it together with the Sheyarei Menachos, which may not be eaten Chametz.
2. ... the prohibition of D'vash, we would not have known that of Se'or, because the latter is 'Hutar mi'Chelalo in the Mikdash' - which we initially think means that it may be brought as a Nidvas Tzibur (a Kashya on what we just concluded [that it is forbidden]).
(c) Rav Amram answers 'Lo, Likarev Imahem' - meaning that the Heter in the Beis-Hamikdash is (not that a Nedavah is permitted, but) that, although Se'or may not be brought on its own - it is brought to accompany a regular Korban (i.e. the Kivsei Atzeres), which D'vash never does.

2)
(a) The ...
1. ... young doves and pigeons that accompanied the Bikurim - were brought as a Korban.
2. ... wooden baskets in which the Bikurim were brought to the Beis-Hamikdash were given to the Kohanim together with the Bikurim.
(b) Nevertheless - the Kivsei Atzeres and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem which they accompany are considered one Korban, but not the birds and the Bikurim, since they are only brought to adorn the basket of Bikurim, and are not even obligatory.
(c) The Yerushalmi interprets the Mishnah in Bikurim that requires a Korban to be brought with the Bikurim - as a Korban Shelamim.
(d) We reconcile this too, with our current contention that Bikurin does not come together with a Korban - because here again, there is no obligation to bring the Korban together with the Bikurim. The obligation lies with the person who brings the Bikurim, to bring an independent Shelamim whenever it suited him.

3)
(a) Rami bar Chama asked Rav Chisda whether someone who brings the Basar of an Olas ha'Of on the Mizbe'ach, has transgressed the La'av 'Kol she'Mimenu le'Ishim ... '. He might ...
1. ... not have transgressed - because no part of it is brought on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... have transgressed, on the other hand - because it is a Korban.
(b) Rav Chisda replied - like the latter side of the She'eilah.
(c) We conclude that this is actually a Machlokes Tana'im. Rebbi Eliezer says 'Kol she'Mimenu le'Ishim'; whereas Rebbi Akiva holds - 'Kol she'Shemo Korban'.
(d) According to Rav Chisda, the ramifications of their Machlokes are 'Basar Chatas' (as we just explained). According to Rava it is - Log Shemen shel Metzora (which does not go on the Mizbe'ach, yet the Torah calls it a Korban.
(e) The Asham Metzora cannot be considered 'Kol she'Mimenu le'Ishim', just like the two Chevasim that are brought together with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem - because there is no obligation to bring them together. In fact, the Kohen may bring the Log Shemen today and the Korban as much as ten days later.

4)
(a) Commenting on the Pasuk "Ki Chol Se'or ve'Chol D'vash Lo Saktiru Mimenu Isheh la'Hashem", the Beraisa, learns 'Miktzaso' from "*Chol* Se'or", whereas from "Ki", he learns - 'Eiruvo' (that one is Chayav even for bringing Chametz mixed with Matzah ([which is not recognizable]).
(b) According to Abaye, 'Kulo' and 'Miktzaso' refer to a 'k'Zayis' and less than a 'k'Zayis' respectively. Rava interprets 'Kulo' as - the entire Kometz, and 'Miktzaso' as part of it.
(c) Abaye maintains that there is such a thing as a Kometz that contains less than two k'Zeisim. That being the case, Haktarah can consist of less than a k'Zayis - based on the Mishnah in ha'Kometz, which permits burning the Kometz in two lots.
(d) Rava disagree with Abaye in this latter point - because, since in his opinion, there is no such thing as a Kometz of less than two k'Zeisim, the proof from the Mishnah that Haktarah can consist of less than a k'Zayis falls away.

5)
(a) According to Rava, someone who brings a mixture of Se'or and D'vash up on the Mizbe'ach will receive - four sets of Malkos, one for Se'or, one for D'vash, one for Eiruvei Se'or and one for Eiruvei D'vash.
(b) Abaye disagrees with him - on the grounds that the two "Kol" ("Kol Se'or v'Chol D'vash") turns each of the two La'avin into a 'La'av She'bi'Kelalus' (a La'av that includes a few things [i.e. Eiruv Se'or and Eiruv D'vash, as well as Se'or and D'vash themselves]).
(c) For bringing Se'or and D'vash on the Mizbe'ach, assuming that the Torah had omitted the words "Kol", and written "Ki Se'or u'D'vash Lo Saktiru Isheh la'Hashem" - he would receive two sets of Malkos (even according to Abaye), because the La'av refers to each one, and it is not a 'La'av she'bi'Kelalus'.

6)
(a) When, in the first Lashon, we say that, in our case, although he does not receive two sets of Malkos, according to Abaye, he does receive one, we mean - one for "Kol Se'or" and one for "Kol D'vash".
(b) According to the second Lashon - he does not even receive one set of Malkos ...
(c) ... because there is no specific La'av for any one thing (i.e. each of the two La'avin incorporates two things, as we explained).
(d) As an example of a specific La'av, we present the La'av of Chasimah - which the Torah juxtaposes besides the Parshah of Malkos, so as to learn from it, some of the Dinim of Malkos.

Next daf