Citation (Yerushalmi - R. Berachiyah) Question: Why didn't it teach [that there is no Shi'ur for] earth for a Sotah (the Kohen puts some in the water that she will drink), ashes of Parah Adumah (that are put onto the water), spit of a Yevamah, and blood of the bird used for [Taharas] Metzora?

Citation (cont. - R. Yosi) Answer: Our Mishnah discusses only matters that if he adds to them, there is a Mitzvah in doing [the addition];

Citation (cont.): These matters, even if one adds, there is no Mitzvah in doing [the addition].

Citation (Yerushalmi): This (there is no Shi'ur to Gemilus Chasadim) refers to with the body. There is a Shi'ur to Chesed with one's money.

Implied question: There is no Shi'ur to Bikur Cholim, like it says in Nedarim (39b)! (Why wasn't it listed?)

Answer: It is included in Gemilus Chasadim.

Explanation: He holds like the other Tana in the Yerushalmi (Pe'ah 1:1, cited in Tosfos 6b DH she'Ein), who considers Pe'ah to have a lower Shi'ur.

Explanation: [It has no Shi'ur means that] once he brought [a Korban] the first time he was seen in the Azarah, he is exempt if he wants, or he may bring as much as he desires;

However, Re'iyas Panim b'Korban has a Shi'ur. R. Yochanan holds that one Ma'ah of silver and two Ma'ah of silver [for Olas Re'iyah and Chagigah] are mid'Oraisa.

Support #1 - Citation (Yerushalmi in Pe'ah): The Mishnah discusses Re'iyah (appearing in the Azarah), but there is a Shi'ur to the Korban. R. Yochanan holds that one Ma'ah of silver and two Ma'ah of silver are mid'Oraisa.

Support #2 - Citation (Yerushalmi in Chagigah): R. Yochanan taught like his opinion, that all Shi'urim are a tradition from Moshe from Sinai. He says that one Ma'ah of silver and two Ma'ah of silver are mid'Oraisa;

Citation (cont.): Reish Lakish, who establishes it to discuss Re'iyas Panim b'Korban, holds like R. Oshaya, that one Ma'ah of silver and two Ma'ah of silver are mid'Rabanan.

Support - Citation (cont.): "Lo Yir'u Panai Reikam" - [a Korban worth] even any amount [fulfills this], but Chachamim gave a Shi'ur of one Ma'ah of silver and two Ma'ah of silver.

Observation: However, this is unlike the Bavli. Rather, in the first version, it connotes that he (R. Yochanan) wants to say that our Mishnah discusses even during the Mo'ed;

Therefore, we cannot establish it to discuss Re'iyas [Panim b']Korban, for then he is not obligated to bring at all. However, he is obligated to come once for Re'iyas Panim [b'Azarah], and from then and onwards there is no Shi'ur.

Reish Lakish holds that [the Mishnah] discusses also Re'iyas Panim b'Korban; he is obligated to bring.

In any case, one must say that he holds like R. Oshaya, like I explained, so there is no Shi'ur at all.

The second version: According to the second version, that he returns on the same day, he (R. Yochanan) says that we do not accept another Korban, due to Bal Tosif, since he was already Yotzei;

However, tomorrow or another day, he can bring [another Korban] if he wants. The verse (i.e. Drashah) "just like I (Hash-m) come for free" merely exempts from an obligation, but if he brings, we accept from him.

Observation: Also the first version connotes like this, "he comes and does not bring" on other days [after the first]. R. Yochanan argues only [to say that] he is not obligated to bring, but if he brings, we accept;

Reish Lakish was refuted only because he obligates, and the verse does not obligate.

Explanation #1: This "it has a Shi'ur" is unlike in the Yerushalmi. There, it is a minimal Shi'ur, and [it refers to] the price of the Korban;

Here, it refers to the Shi'ur of [frequency of] bringing it.

Explanation #2: If we will equate them (our Sugya and the Yerushalmi, R. Yochanan's words here) "there is a Shi'ur to the Korban" means that there is a minimal Shi'ur, like it says in the Yerushalmi;

And also, it is proper that there is a Shi'ur for bringing it, if he wants, whether or not we accept it. (I.e. there is a limit how many times he may bring.)

Question: However, according to the words of the Yerushalmi, I do not know how it establishes the Mishnah to discuss Re'iyas Panim b'Azarah, but not regarding a Korban, because it has a Shi'ur, like R. Yochanan;

The Mishnah lists Pe'ah, which has a minimal Shi'ur!

Answer: Perhaps the Yerushalmi wants to resolve the Mishnah according to everyone, even like the Tana who says that Pe'ah has no Shi'ur, not above and not below;

It establishes it to discuss only Re'iyas Panim according to R. Yochanan. So it seems to me to explain this Sugya.

Explanation: They hold like their Rebbi Shamai, who says below (17a) that one may not do Semichah on Yom Tov. Hillel says that we do Semichah;

However, regarding Olos we do not find that Hillel and Shamai argued about this.

Support: It says in Shabbos (15a) that they argued only about three matters. (Semichah and Olos were not among them.) It asks from Semichah, and answers properly. (Only three arguments started with Hillel and Shamai. Previous Chachamim argued about Semichah);

Rather, the Talmidim received from their Rebbi even Olos, and they argued about this in the case in Beitzah (20b);

Citation (20b): A case occurred in which one of Hillel's Talmidim brought an Olah to the Azarah [on Yom Tov]. A Talmid of Shamai said "why are you doing Semichah?!"

Observation: He could have said "why are you bringing an Olah?!", for they (Beis Shamai) forbid bringing it, just he did not know that it is an Olah. He saw Semichah, and he was adamant about it.

Implied question: Why wasn't he similarly adamant about Hillel himself, in the episode brought there beforehand? (Hillel brought an Olah on Yom Tov. A Talmid of Shamai suspected this, and said "what kind of animal is this?!" Surely, Hillel did Semichah!)

Answer #1: Perhaps he did not see the Semichah.

Answer #2: Perhaps they protested only against his Talmidim, for they disagreed, but Hillel argued with their Rebbi, and they could not protest [against him. However, they had not heard that Hillel argued with Shamai about Olos - Rashash.]

Explanation: Even Beis Hillel agree that they are not offered on Yom Tov.

Implied question: [A Beraisa] in Beitzah (12a) says "one who slaughters Olas Nedavah on Yom Tov is lashed." Why did [Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi] say that this is like Beis Shamai? He could establish it like Beis Hillel!

Answer: [According to Beis Hillel,] granted, there is an Isur, but there is no Lav, since he (Rav Yitzchak) holds that we say Mitoch (amidst that the Torah permitted Shechitah on Yom Tov for Ochel Nefesh, it is totally permitted), like we say there.

Support: Similarly, we say there (19a) in the Gemara on this Mishnah "R. Shimon ben Elazar says, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel did not argue about Olos not of Yom Tov, (i.e. all agree) that they are not offered;

Implied question: There, we ask against Ula, who said that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about Shalmei Chagigah, to do Semichah [but all forbid Shelamim not of Yom Tov]... from a Beraisa that teaches the argument about Shelamim not of Yom Tov...

Why don't we ask from our Mishnah like we answer it to say, that Olos Nedarim and Nedavos come during the Mo'ed, but not on Yom Tov? (This implies that Shalmei Nedarim and Nedavos come on Yom Tov!)

Answer: [The Makshan] prefers to ask from a Beraisa that explicitly teaches [that Beis Hillel permit Shelamim not of Yom Tov] than from an inference that [our Mishnah] is abbreviated, and it means...

Implied question: According to Ula, why do Beis Hillel say that Nedarim and Nedavos are not offered on Yom Tov? He should permit, for one is Yotzei Shalmei Simchah through them, like we say below!

Answer #1 (R. Elchanan): We can say that they are forbidden when he already offered Simchah properly (he has enough Kodesh meat for today).

Answer #2 (Ri): Below, we say that one is Yotzei Shalmei Simchah through Nedarim only when he offered them for the sake of Simchah;

If he brought them for the sake of Nedarim, he is Yotzei only for [what] he was Makdish them.