Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina makes a number of D'rashos. He learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Lo Yada *Ish* es Kevuraso" and "ve'Zos ha'Berachah Asher Beirach Moshe *Ish* ha'Elokim es B'nei Yisrael" - that even Moshe does not know the location of his own grave.

(b) The reason he gives for Moshe being buried beside the idol Ba'al Pe'or is - in order to atone for Yisrael's sin of Ba'al Pe'or (with the daughters of Mo'av, Yisrael's last major sin before his death).

(c) And he interprets the Pasuk "Acharei Hashem Elokeichem Teilechu" - to mean that one should go in Hashem's ways (regarding Mitzvos between man and man).

(d) This Pasuk cannot be understood literally - because the Pasuk in Va'eschanan describes Hashem as a consuming fire (immediately behind which one can hardly be expected to walk).

(a) We find Hashem ...

1. ... clothing the naked - with regard to Adam and Chavah (as we explained on the previous Amud).
2. ... visiting the sick - after Avraham Avinu's B'ris (at the beginning of Parshas Va'yeira).
3. ... comforting the mourners - when he came to visit Yitzchak after Avraham's death (in Chayei-Sarah).
4. ... burying the dead - when he buried Moshe Rabeinu (as we explained on the previous Amud).

(b) Rav and Shmuel argue over the Pasuk (in connection with the clothes that Hashem made for Adam and Chavah) "Kosnos Or". According to one of them, it means 'something made from skin' - namely, wool, which is shorn from the skin of a sheep.

(c) According to the other one, it means - something from which a person's skin benefits (because it is usually worn close to the skin), namely linen.

(d) When we say that the Torah begins and ends with Chesed - we are referring to Hashem's clothing Adam and Chavah and His burying Moshe (which we have just discussed).

(a) Moshe's eagerness to enter Eretz Yisrael was not in order to taste its luscious fruits - but to observe the many Mitzvos that can only be observed there.

(b) Hashem's reply is explained by Yeshayah. Having said "Lachein Achalek Lo be'Rabim", He nevertheless needed to add "ve'es Atzumim Yechalek Shalal" - to make it clear that Moshe would receive reward on a par with Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov (who were spiritually mighty).

(c) When Yeshayah said ...

1. ... "Tachas Asher He'erah Nafsho La'mus" - he was referring to Moshe's willingness to die to save Klal Yisrael (when he said "ve'Im Ayin, Mecheini Na mi'Sifrecha") following the sin of the Golden Calf.
2. ... "ve'es Posh'im Nimneh" - that he, like the generation that left Egypt, was unable to enter Yisrael.

(d) "ve'Hu Chet Rabim Nasa" refers to his success in obtaining pardon for the sin of the Golden Calf. Since "Yafgi'a" is a Lashon of prayer, "u'le'Posh'im Yifgi'a" means - that he prayed on behalf of the sinners in Yisrael.

(a) The Sotah's husband brought her Korban Minchah on her behalf. He would give it to her to hold - in order to wear her down, to make her confess to her guilt (provided of course, she was guilty).

(b) According to Aba Chanin in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, the reason for making the Sotah hold the Minchah to tire her and make her admit, is due to Hashem's pity on her, to prevent the water from 'examining' her. He extrapolated from there - that if Hashem has pity on a sinner, how much more so on those who perform His will.

(c) He declines to learn that the reason is to prevent the Name of Hashem from being blotted out unnecessarily Like the Tana of our Mishnah) - because he in his opinion, the Sotah drinks the water before bringing her Minchah (in which case, the Name of Hashem has already been blotted out)?

(a) Most other Menachos were placed into a K'li Sha'res, where they remained until they were sacrificed; they required oil and frankincense and they consisted of wheat flour. The Sotah's Korban differed - inasmuch as it was first placed in a cheap wickerwork basket, it did not require oil and frankincense and it consisted of barley flour.

(b) One other exception was the Minchas ha'Omer, which consisted of barley. The Minchas Sotah differed from it - inasmuch as it was not sifted; whereas the Minchas ha'Omer *was* (and is therefore described as "Geres" [which is to barley as 'So'les' is to wheat]).

(c) The Minchas ha'Omer was sifted thirteen times.

(d) According to Raban Gamliel, the Minchas Sotah consisted of barley - because, since she behaved like an animal, her Korban too, consisted of animal food.

6)

(a) The Beraisa describes the procedure of how the Minchah was prepared. The owner brought it from his house to the Beis Hamikdash - in a silver or golden basket.

(b) Before adding oil and frankincense and giving it to the Kohen - he would sanctify it by placing it in a K'li Sha'res (this will be explained later).

(c) After carrying it to the south-western corner of the Mizbei'ach, the Kohen ...

1. ... would remove all the frankincense to one side.
2. ... would perform the Mitzvah of Kemitzah (take a fistful from the section that contained the most oil) - and place the Kometz into another K'li Sha'res.

(d) Finally - he would place the Kometz into another K'li Sha'res to sanctify it, re-place the frankincense, salt it and place it on the Mizbei'ach.

(a) We reconcile the Tana of our Mishnah (who says that all Menachos were placed in a K'li Sha'res from beginning to end) with the Tana of this Beraisa (who specifically writes that the owner brings his Minchah in a [private] silver or golden basket before placing it into a K'li Sha'res) - by establishing the former by a vessel that is not necessarily itself a K'li Sha'res, but that is fit to be one.

(b) We suggest that the author of our Mishnah must then be Rebbi and not Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - because he declares wooden vessels unfit to serve as K'lei Sha'res, whereas Rebbi validates them.

(c) We nevertheless reconcile our Mishnah with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - whose concession does not extend to cheap wickerwork baskets, as the Pasuk writes "Hakriveihu Na le'Pechasecha" ('Since you would have the audacity to offer it to a human king, don't bring it to Hashem either').

(a) 'Nosnah li'K'li Sha'res u'Mekadshah bi'Ch'li Sha'res' implies that he places the Minchah into a Kli Sha'res in order to make it Hekdesh. We amend the Beraisa to read 'Nosnah li'K'li Sha'res Le'kadshah bi'Ch'li Sha'res' - because otherwise, we would have a proof from our Mishnah that a K'li Sha'res only sanctifies its contents if the owner specific intents it to (and it is clear from other places in Shas, that this is a Machlokes Amora'im which does not have a source in a Mishnah).

(b) The Minchah requires sanctification in a K'li Sha'res, despite the fact that the owner already sanctified it before bringing it to the Beis ha'Mikdash - because that sanctification was 'Kedushas Peh' (which only has the status of Kedushas Damim. A K'li Sha'res, on the other hand, gives it the status of 'Kedushas ha'Guf'.

(c) The ramifications of 'Kedushas ha'Guf' (as opposed to 'Kedushas Damim') are - that it becomes Pasul through contact with a T'vul-Yom, Yotze (through leaving its permitted confines) or Linah (staying overnight off the Mizbei'ach), and is irredeemable should it become Tamei.

(a) The Torah writes "ve'Zos Toras ha'Minchah Hakreiv Osah B'nei Aharon Lifnei Hashem el P'nei ha'Mizbei'ach".

1. "Lifnei Hashem (in this context) - means on the west side of the Mizbei'ach (directly in front of the Heichal).
2. "el P'nei ha'Mizbei'ach" - on the south side of the Mizei'ach (where the ramp was placed).

(b) To reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements ...

1. ... the Tana of our Mishnah (as well as the Tana Kama of the Beraisa) explains - that he actually brought the Minchah to the south-western tip of the Keren (the block on the corner) of the Mizbei'ach.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar explains - that he brought it to the south side of the south-western Keren.

(c) Rebbi Elazar declines to concede that one has a choice to bring the Minchah either to the western side or to the southern side of the Mizbei'ach - because by bringing it to the southern side, he satisfies both Pesukim (as we shall now see), whereas by bringing it to either one, he does not.

(d) He permits taking the Minchah to the southern side - because he holds like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili in Zevachim, that the entire Mizbei'ach was on the north of the Azarah, in which case, the south-western Keren was literally in front of the Heichal.

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa adds 've'Dayo' to the phrase 'u'Magishah be'Keren Ma'aravis Deromis ... ' - because we might otherwise have thought that he needs to bring the Minchah itself (without the K'li Sha'res) to the south-western tip of the Mizbei'ach.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'hikrivah el ha'Kohen ... ve'Higishah el ha'Mizbei'ach" - that just as the owner brings the Minchah to the Kohen in a K'li Sha'res, so too, does the Kohen bring it to the Mizbei'ach in a K'li Sha'res.

(c) He initially moved the frankincense to one side before taking the Kemitzah - because if any frankincense (or salt) were to enter his fist together with the flour, it would be a Chatzitzah (an interruption), and would invalidate the Kemitzah.

(d) We learn from the Pasuk "mi'Saltah u'mi'Shamnah, mi'Girsah u'mi'Shamnah" - that the Kohen had to take the Kemitzah from the part of the Minchah which contained the most oil.

(a) The Tana requires placing the Minchah into a second K'li Sha'res. We have a precedent for this - by the Shechitah of Korbanos, where the knife (which was considered a K'li Sha'res) sanctified the blood, yet the Kohen had to receive the blood in another K'li Sha'res.

(b) The problem we have with the Beraisa's statement 'u'Ma'aleihu bi'Ch'li Sha'res' - is that the Minchah has not yet been salted, so (in view of the Pasuk "Al Kol Korbancha Takriv Melach") how can it be sacrificed?

(c) We therefore amend the statement to read 'Ma'aleihu bi'Ch'li Sha'res Le'haktiro'.