Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned that the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchah Belulah ba'Shemen va'Chareivah" comes to incorporate the Minchas ha'Omer and the Minchas Kena'os in the Din of giving the Shirayim to the Kohanim. We query this however, from a Beraisa, where the Tana first of all learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chol ha'Minchah Asher Te'afeh ba'Tanur le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tih'yeh" - that the Kohanim are forbidden to swap Menachos for Zevachim (but that each Kohen receives a portion of the Menachos and of the Zevachim).

(b) We learn from "ve'Chol Na'aseh ba'Marcheshes le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tih'yeh" that the same applies to swapping Menachos for Ofos, and from "ve'al Machavas le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tih'yeh", that it also extends to swapping Ofos for Beheimos. We might otherwise have thought that swapping ...

1. ... Menachos for Ofos is permitted (even though Menachos for Zevachim is forbidden) - because by a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, a poor man can bring a Minchah instead of an Of (which is not the case by Menachos and Zevachim).
2. ... Ofos for Beheimos is permitted, even though Menachos for Ofos is not - because they are both blood sacrifices (which is not the case by Menachos and Ofos).

(c) And we learn from the prohibition of swapping one Minchah for another from "ve'Chol Minchah Belulah ba'Shemen le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tih'yeh" - which we would otherwise have permitted (even though Ofos against Zevachim is forbidden) since both are performed by hand (whereas by Ofos and Zevachim, the former is performed by hand, and the latter, with a K'li).

(d) And finally, we learn from ...

1. ... "va'Chareivah le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tih'yeh" - that even swapping one Minchah al ha'Machavas for another (which are both wet) or a Marchashes against a Marcheshes (which are both dry), is forbidden, too.
2. ... " ... Ish ke'Achiv ... Im al Todah" - that the prohibition of swapping even extends to Kodshim Kalim (via 'Mikra Nidrash Lefanav', seeing as the Torah is comparing Kodshim Kalim to Kodshei Kodshim in this regard).

(a) The Tana also learn from "Ish" - that a 'man' receives a portion (even if he is a Ba'al-Mum, but not a Katan (even if he is not).

(b) The problem this creates with the previous D'rashah from "ve'Chol Minchah Belulah ba'Shemen va'Chareivah" (that the Kohanim receive the Shirayim from a Minchas Se'orim, according to Rebbi Shimon) is - that having used this Pasuk to teach us the prohibition of swapping one Minchah for another, how can we then learn from it that a Minchos Se'orim is given to the Kohanim?

(c) And we answer - that the Tana learns his D'rashah (not from the actual words of the Pasuk, but) from the word "Chol".

(d) We query this however, in that we need "Chol" to teach us the D'rashah of Rebbi Yossi be'Rebbi Yehudah - who uses it to teach us that a Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur can consist of either loaves or wafers, but not both (see Tosfos DH 've'Ha Apikteih').

(a) In fact, we conclude, the Tana learns his D'rashah (not from the word "Chol" but) - from the 'Vav' of "u've'Chol".

(b) And we learn 'Teneihu Inyan la'Chareivah' (i.e. that the Minchas Kena'os too, is given to the Kohanim) from - the word "ve'Chol *Minchah*".

(c) When Ravina explains that he learns 'it from the Beraisa of Levi, who Darshens the Pasuk "le'Chol Korbanam, u'le'Chol Minchasam, u'le'Chol Chatasam u'le'Chol Ashamam" ' (see Shitah Mekubetzes 3) - he is referring to the source of Rebbi Shimon, for the Halachah that the Minchas Se'orin is eaten by the Kohanim.

(a) From "le'Chol Korbanam", the Tana includes Log Shemen shel Metzora. We would have otherwise precluded it from the Matnos Kehunah - since the Torah writes "min ha'Eish", and the Log Shemen, which was given entirely to the Kohanim, was not placed on the fire.

(b) From "u'le'Chol Minchasam", he includes - the Minchas ha'Omer and the Minchas Kena'os.

(c) We would otherwise have precluded them - because, unlike other Menachos, which come to atone, the former comes to be Matir (Chadash), and the latter, to clarify the Sotah's sin.

(d) From "u'le'Chol Chatasam", the Tana includes a Chatas ha'Of - which we would otherwise have thought is forbiden to the Kohanim, because it is considered Neveilah.

(a) And from "u'le'Chol Ashamam" he includes an Asham Nazir and an Asham Metzora, which we amend to 'Asham Nazir ke'Asham Metora' - seeing as the Torah specifically compares the Asham Metzora to a Chatas (regarding giving it the Kohanim).

(b) Otherwise, we would have thought that an Asham Nazir, unlike other Ashamos, is not given to the Kohanim - since (like the Minchas ha'Omer) it comes to be Matir (the Nazir to drink wine), and not as a Kaparah.

(c) The Tana learns from "Asher Yashivu" - that Gezel ha'Ger too (assuming that he has no heirs), goes to the Kohanim).

(d) And he Darshens from the words "Lecha Hu u'Levanecha" - that Gezel ha'Ger becomes the personal property of the Kohanim, who are even permitted to be Mekadesh a woman with it (see Shitah Mekubetzes 5).

6)

(a) Rav Huna rules - that the Shelamim of a Nochri is brought as an Olah.

(b) He learns it from a S'vara as well as from a Pasuk. The Pasuk is in Emor "Ish Ish ... " (from which we learn that a Nochri may bring a Korban, and) which continues "Asher Takrivu la'Hashem le'Olah". The S'vara is - that the Nochri dedicates his Korban to G-d, and not to the Kohanim.

(c) Rav Chama bar Guryah queries Rav Huna from a Beraisa, which rules (in connection with the Shelamim of a Nochri) 'Nasnan le'Yisrael, Yisrael Ochlan; Nasnan le'Kohen, Ochlan'. To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Huna, Rava establishes it in a case - where the Nochri actually designated the Korban for the Yisrael or the Kohen to fulfill his Neder (and not as a personal Korban).

(d) Rav Shizbi asks on Rav Huna from our Mishnah - which includes the Minchah of a Nochri among the Menachos whose Shirayim are eaten by the Kohanim.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan answers the Kashya by presenting this as a Machlokes Tana'im (as we shall now see). The Beraisa Darshens "Ish Ish" 'Lerabos es ha'Ovdei-Kochavim'. "Asher Yakrivu la'Hashem le'Olah" refers to a Korban Olah, and the Tana learns from ...

1. ... "Nidreihem" - that a Nochri may also bring an Olah, and from ...
2. ... "Nidvosam" - that he may bring a Todah, too.

(b) "*le'Chol* Nidreihem" includes Ofos, whereas "*le'Chol* Nidvosam" comes to include - wine, frankincense and wood.

(c) According to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, "Olah" comes to preclude - a Nochri from Nezirus.

(d) Whereas Rebbi Akiva learns from "Olah" - that a Nochri can only bring an Olah.

(a) Rav Huna then holds like - Rebbi Akiva ...

(b) ... whilst the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Daber el *B'nei Yisrael* ... Ish ki Yafli Lindor Neder Nazir Lehazir" - that only a Yisrael can be Noder Nezirus, but not a Nochri.

(d) Even according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, we need this Pasuk - because "le'Olah" only teaches us that a Nochri cannot donate the Korbanos of a Nazir, whereas from here we learn that he cannot even become a Nazir either.

(a) In a Mishnah in Shekalim, Rebbi Shimon lists seven Takanos Beis-Din, one of which concerns the Nesachim that accompany the Korban Olah of a Nochri. They instituted - that if the Nochri does not send Nesachim together with his Olah, then they are paid for by the Tzibur (i.e. from Terumas ha'Lishkah).

(b) Initially, we think that Rebbi Shimon must hold like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - because Rebbi Akiva confines the Korban of a Nochri to an Olah, which precludes also Nesachim.

(c) We conclude however, that he might even hold like Rebbi Akiva - because Rebbi Akiva only precludes a Nochri from bringing independent Korbanos (including Nesachim), but not whatever comes together with the Olah.

(a) We ask the same Kashya on another Beraisa, which discusses the Pasuk (in connection with the Nesachim) "Kol ha'Ezrach be'Yisrael Ya'aseh Kachah". The Tana there learns from the word ...

1. ... "ha'Ezrach"- that a Nochri cannot donate independent Nesachim. 2. ... "Kachah" - that a Nochri is obligated to bring Nesachim together with his Olah.

(b) We think that the author cannot be Rebbi Yossi Hagelili either - because the Beraisa precludes a Nochri from bringing Nesachim, whereas, as we learned earlier, Rebbi Yossi Hagelili includes wine among the things that a Nochri may bring.

(c) We have already explained why the author could be Rebbi Akiva. We now amend the Beraisa to conform with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, too - by erasing 'wine' from Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's list.

(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Minchah of a Korban Oleh ve'Yored) "Ve'haysah la'Kohen ka'Minchah" that a Kohen is permitted to bring his own Minchas Chotei. He interprets "ka'Minchah" to mean - 'like his own Minchah' (which he is permitted to bring even though it is not his Mishmar that is serving that week).

(b) The current Pasuk adds to the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tih'yeh Lo Te'achel" - that not only is his Korban Nedavah completely burned, but so is his Korban Chovah.

(c) Rebbi Shimon disagrees with this D'rashah. Based on the fact that the Torah writes "ka'Minchah", and not "ke'Minchaso", he explains "Ve'haysah la'Kohen ka'Minchah" to mean - that his Minchas Chotei, 'like the Minchah of a Yisrael', requires Kemitzah (as he already stated in our Mishnah).

(d) Subsequently, he extrapolates from "la'Kohen ka'Minchah" 've'Lo le'Ishim ka'Minchah' - which means that the Mizbe'ach receives, not only the Kometz (as it does in the case of a Minchas Yisrael), but the entire Minchah (Shirayim and all), though the Kometz and the Shirayim are burned separately.