What are the implications of the phrase "Ve'eis ha'Keves ha'Sheini Ta'aseh bein ha'Arbayim?
Menachos, 50a: Ii implies that the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim must be the second lamb that is brought, and that consequenrly if they would fail to bring the Tamid shel Shachar, they should not bring the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim either. 1
Though that only applies to when the Mizbe'ach was not yet consecrated . See Torah Temimah, note 33.
Why does the Torah write here ?ke?Minchas ha?Boker u?che?Niskah?, and in Pinchas, Bamidbar 28:8 ?ke?Minchas ha?Boker u?che?Nisko??
R. Bachye: Because, whereas ?Niskah? here refers to the word ?ke?Minchas ha?Boker? ? which is feminine, ?Nisko? in Pinchas, refers to ?ke?Minchas ha?Boker? ? which is masculine.
?ke?Minchas ha?Boker u?che?Nisko Ta?aseh lah?. Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word ?lah??
R. Bachye: It refers to the tenth Midah ? the second ?Hey? in the Name Havayah?. 1
R. Chavel?s footnotes citing the Toras Chayim: As if the Torah had written ?u?che?Nisko Ta?aseh le?Hey?.
What is "Re'ach Nicho'ach" referring to?
Rashi: It is refers to the Minchas Nesachim (that is brought together with the Olah), which was burned in its entirety on the Mizbe'ach.
