Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Kahana asked Rav Ashi why we are not concerned that the Noder may have meant to donate a Minchas Nesachim (making it six Menachos, and not five). Certainly - a Yachid is permitted to donate a Minchas Nesachim, as Rava learned in the previous Perek ('Misnadev Adam Minchas Nesachim be'Chol Yom').

(b) Rav Ashi gave him a five-point answer - which all boil down to the fact that the five Menachos have something in common, that is not shared by the Minchas Nesachim.

(c) Besides the fact that a Minchas Nesachim is applicable to a Tzibur as well as to a Yachid, and that it comes together with a Korban (and not independently), neither of which apply to the other five Menachos - the five Menachos also require ...

1. ... Levonah (which a Minchas Nesachim does not) ...
2. ... and Kemitzah, which it does not require either.

(d) And finally - the five Menachos require only one Log of oil, whereas a Minchas Nesachim requires three. For all these reasons, we assume that the Noder did not have a Minchas Nesachim in mind when he undertook to bring a Minchah S'tam.

(a) According to the Chachamim in a Beraisa, someone who claims that he fixed a Minchah of Esronim in one K'li, but cannot remember how many Esronim he fixed, must bring sixty Esronim (like we learned in our Mishnah). Rebbi - obligates him to bring as many Esronos as there are from one to sixty (as we explained in our Mishnah [i.e. one thousand, eight hundred and thirty Esronim]).

(b) If he adds that he also specified which kind of Minchah he would bring, but cannot remember that either, he has to bring five times the above amount of Esronim, according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan - three hundred.
2. ... according to Rebbi - nine thousand, one hundred and fifty.

(c) Rav Chisda bases their Machlokes on whether one is permitted to bring Chulin to the Azarah (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi). According to the Rabbanan, he bring the Esronim - in one K'li, and stipulates - that as much as he undertook to bring consitutes his Chovah, and the remainder is Chulin.

(d) Despite the fact that part of the Kometz appears to be Chulin (posing a Kashya how the Kohen can perform a Kasher Kometz) - in fact, the Kometz is determined by whatever the Kohen has in mind (and he has in mind the Kodesh, but not the Chulin). Consequently, whatever he takes during the Kemitzah is Kodesh, and the Chulin is mixed with the Shirayim.

(a) Rebbi holds - that it is both forbidden to mix Nedavah with Chovah, and to bring Chulin into the Azarah.

(b) Neither does Rebbi permit the Noder to bring sixty Esronim in sixty Keilim, and to stipulate that as many Esronim as he undertook to bring should constitute his Korban, and the remainder, should be a Nedavah - because he holds that the K'li fixes the Minchah (as we explained earlier), in which case one is not permitted to bring less in a K'li than one stipulated.

(c) Both Tana'im hold - 'Asur Le'arev Chovah bi'Nedavah'.

(a) According to Rava (or Rabah [see Tosfos DH 'Rabah Amar']), they both hold 'Asur Le'havi Chulin la'Azarah', and the Rabbanan rule 'Yavi Minchah shel Shishim Esronim' - because they hold 'Mutar Le'arev Chovah bi'Nedavah'.

(b) Consequently, according to them - the Noder brings sixty Esronim in one K'li, and stipulates that as many Esronim as he undertook to bring, constitute his Chovah, and the rest, are a Nedavah.

(c) When Abaye asked Rava ...

1. ... how the Kohen would be Yotzei with one Kemitzah - he replied that indeed, he performed Kemitzah twice, once for the Chovah and once for the Nedavah.
2. ... that performing two Kemitzos would not even help, since it would entail separating from Chovah on to Nedavah, and vice-versa, he replied - that the Noder declared the first half Chovah as the Kohen took the first Kometz, and the second half Nedavah, as he took the second half.

(a) We have a problem however, with burning the two Kemaztim 'mi'Mah Nafshach'. Based on the assumption that in fact, the Noder undertook to bring all sixty Esronos (which are then all Chovah), the problem with burning it is ...

1. ... that the Kometz Nedavah then turns out to be part of the Minchas Chovah (which diminished when he performed the Kemitzah) and we have a principle that 'Shirayim she'Chasru bein Kemitzah le'Haktarah Ein Maktir Kometz Aleihen'.
2. ... the Nedavah after the Chovah is - that if it is all Chovah, we have a principle that forbids burning any of the Shirayim on the Mizbe'ach ('Kol she'Hu Mimenu le'Ishim, Harei Hu be'Bal Taktiru').

(b) Rebbi Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi establishes our Mishnah when the Kohen first burned the Chovah, and the Tana holds like Rebbi Eliezer, who learns from the Pasuk "ve'el ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Ya'alu *le'Re'ach Nicho'ach*" - that the Isur of 'Kol she'Hu Mimenu le'Ishim ... ' is confined to where the Kohen brings it on the Mizbe'ach as part of the Korban (in order to atone), but not to where one brings it on the Mizbe'ach as firewood (le'Shem Eitzim) ...

(c) ... which is what the Kohen has in mind, when he brings the second Kometz (of Nedavah) in our case whilst burning the Kometz di'Nedavah ...

(d) ... before which he stipulates - that if there is a Minchah of Nedavah in the K'li, then he is burning the Kometz as part of that Nedavah; but if not, then he is burning it le'Shem Eitzim.

6)

(a) Based on the fact that we just established the Rabbanan like Rebbi Eliezer, Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queries Rava (or Rabah)'s interpretation of the Machlokes (that the Rabbanan and Rebbi are arguing over whether one is permitted to mix Chovah and Nedavah or not). Perhaps, he suggests - the Rabbanan will hold like Rebbi Eliezer, as we just explained, whilst Rebbi does not concur with the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ...

(b) ... and both Tana'im will hold - 'Mutar Le'arev Chovah bi'Nedavah'.

(a) Rav Ashi answers that if Rebbi held 'Mutar Le'arev Chovah bi'Nedavah', it would still be possible to fulfill his obligation with one Minchah, by bringing sixty Isaron in one K'li, and one in another. When taking the Kometz from the larger Minchah, the Noder would stipulate - that if the sixty Isaron were all Chovah, then his Kometz would cover them, and the contents of the second K'li would be a Nedavah. If not, then the Kometz would cover the Chovah in that K'li, and the second Kometz would cover the contents in the second K'li, as well as the Esronos of Nedavah in the first.

(b) To ensure that the Kometz from the second K'li will covers the Minchah di'Nedavah in the first - he has to bring the two Keilim together so that they are touching.

(c) This dispenses with the Kashya from 'Kol she'Mimenu le'Ishim, Harei Hu be'Bal Taktiru' - because, assuming that the contents of the first K'li are all Chovah, none of it, besides the Kometz, is burned.

(a) According to Rava, the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan is equivalent to that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Rabbanan in Perek Sh'tei Midos. The Rabbanan hold that a Minchah of sixty Isaron requires sixty Lugin of oil, whereas Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - requires only one Log for the entire Minchah.

(b) The Rabbanan here hold like the Rabbanan there - whereas Rebbi holds like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. Consequently, the Noder will not be able to bring sixty Isaron and fulfill his obligation, because, assuming that some of the Esronos are a Nedavah, they will require another Log of oil (whereas if they all constitute his Chov, one Log will suffice).

(c) They both hold - 'Mutar Le'arev Chovah bi'Nedavah', and both hold like Rebbi Eliezer.

(a) Rav Ashi establishes the Machlokes by whether someone who undertakes to bring a small Minchah and he brings a large one, is Yotzei or not. This explains why ...

1. ... the Rabbanan permit the Noder to bring sixty Isaron - since even if he only undertook to bring ten Esronos he will have fulfilled his obligation (see Rabeinu Gershom).
2. ... Rebbi disagrees. According to him, he would not be permitted to bring more than ten Esronos in order to fulfill his obligation. Consequently, he has no choice but to bring sixty Menachos ranging from one Isaron to sixty).

(b) We query Rav Ashi's explanation however, based on a Mishnah later - where the same Tana'im argue over this very point in a case where someone undertakes to bring a small animal as a Korban, and he subsequently brings a large one (so why do they need to argue twice over the same point)?

(c) In fact, both sets of Machlokes are necessary. We might otherwise have thought, had the Tana only learned the Machlokes by ...

1. ... Menachos, the Chachamim will agree with Rebbi in the case of animals - because the bigger the animal, the larger intestines it has (and his Neder only covered the smaller ones; whereas in the case of the Menachos, the Kometz is the same in both cases.
2. ... animals, we might have thought that Rebbi will agree with the Chachamim in the case of Menachos - seeing as there is no difference between the sizes of the two Kematzim (as we just explained).

(a) Our Mishnah lists the minimum amounts that different Leshonos incorporate. The minimum the Noder must bring if he specifies ...

1. ... Eitzim - is two logs of wood.
2. ... Levonah - is a Kometz.

(b) The Shi'ur ...

1. ... Levonah that accompanies a Minchah - is a Kometz.
2. ... Minchah for which one is Chayav regarding Ha'ala'as Chutz is - also a Kometz.

(c) The Tana does not include a Kometz bi'Fenim (which is the minimum Shi'ur Hakravah) in his list of Kematzim - because it is obvious that the Shi'ur bi'Fenim is the same as the Shi'ur ba'Chutz.

(a) The two Kematzim that conclude the Tana's list of five Kematzim are - those of the two Bazichei Levonah.

(b) The minimum the Noder must bring if he specifies ...

1. ... gold is - one golden Dinar.
2. ... silver is - one silver Dinar.
3. ... copper is - a Ma'ah's-worth of silver.

(c) A person claims that he specified how much gold he will bring, but cannot remember what he said - must give gold up to the amount that he knows for sure that he did not intend to give.

(d) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Nefesh ki Sakriv *Korban*" - that wood is considered a Korban, which is reinforced by the Pasuk ...
2. ... "ve'ha'Goralos Hipalnu al Korban ha'Eitzim".

(a) Based on the fact that wood is considered a Korban, according to Rebbi there, before bringing it on the Mizbe'ach ...

1. ... the Kohen is obligated to add - salt.
2. ... the Kohen must take it to - the south-western corner of the Mizbe'ach (like a Minchah).

(b) Rava maintains that, according to Rebbi, the wood also requires Kemitzah, which is done - by grinding little twigs, until sufficient accumulates to form a Kometz-full.

(c) Rav Papa adds to this - that the Korban of wood must be burned with wood of Hekdesh, like all Korbanos.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'heirim Mimenu be'Kumtzo mi'So'les ha'Minchah ... ve'es Kol ha'Levonah" - that the Shi'ur of Levonah is equivalent to the Shi'ur of the Kemitzah.

(b) The Beraisa rules that someone who declares ...

1. ... 'Harei Alai le'Mizbe'ach' - must bring Levonah (which is the only Korban that goes entirely on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... 'Pirashti, ve'Eini Yode'a Mah Pirashti' - he is obligated to bring one of every kind that goes on the Mizbe'ach.

(c) With regard to the former ruling, the Tana explains 'she'Ein Lecha Davar she'Karev Legabi Mizbe'ach Ela Levonah'. The Tana ignores ...

1. ... the Olah (which goes entirely on the Mizbe'ach) - because of the skin, which is given to the Kohanim.
2. ... Olas ha'Of - because of the crop and the feathers, which are thrown on to the Makom ha'Deshen beside the ramp.
3. ... Nesachim - because they are poured (not on to the Ma'arachah, as the Makshan thinks, but) into the bowl beside the south-western Keren, from where they flows down to the Shitin.
4. ... Minchas Nesachim (which is entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach) - because of the Minchas Nedavah, which is not (so the Tana omitted Minchah altogether).