Introduction to Question: In Perek ha'Chalil (Sukkah, Daf 51a) the Gemara says that if the main Shirah is oral, then rvren the Shir of the Korban - with instruments is not Docheh Shabbos and Yom-Tov ...

Question: In which case, who is the author of the Mishnah, which states that the flute played on twelve days?

Answer: To be sure, the Tana'im in our Mishnah hold that the main Shirah is oral; however Rebbi Yosssi b'Rebbi Yehudah there holds that the main Shir is with instruments and that the Shir of the Korban is therefore Docheh Shabbos, so that the Reisha (of our Mishnah) goes like him.

`Question: The Shir takes place during the Nisuch (ha'Yayin), which is not Me'akev the Korban ...

Source: Since a person may bring his Korban today and his Nesachim up to even four days (Menachos, Daf 15b)?

Answer: When the Gemara therefore says 'Shir Me'akev es ha'Korban', it is referring to the Nisuch - that if there is no Shir, there is no Nisuch.

Question: The Pasuk writes (in Mishlei 4) "Lekach Tov Nasati lachem"?

Answer: What the Gemara it is not means is that it may well be called 'Mesame'ach Leiv', but it is not called 1. 'Tov that is next to Simchah' (whose implication is Simchah), or 2. 'Tov that is next to Leiv' (See also Tzon Kodshim).

Question#1: But the Pasuk (in Rus 3) writes "Vayitav Libo" - which Rashi, quoting the Medrash, explains to mean that 'his heart was good with Torah-study'.

Question #2: Likewise, the Gemara in Shabbos (63b) Darshens the Pasuk (in Koheles 11) "ve'Yeitivcha Libecha" with regard to Torah-study?

Answer: It is not written explicitly (that it is).

Question: According to the above (See Avodah Berurah), the Gemara's Kashya 'Perhaps it refers to Bikurim?' does not go well, since it is not called 'Tov that is next to Leiv'?

Answer: That is indeed what the Gemara answers - that we need 'Tov that is next to Leiv'.

Question: However, since the Gemara knew at the outset that we need 'Tov that is next to Leiv', it ought not to have asked from Bikurim?

Answer #2: The first answer is the correct one (Refer to [b] See Avodah Berurah).

Clarification: Rashi explains that they require Shirah, as we learned in the Mishnah in Bikurim (3:4) 'The flute played before them ... "Aromimcha" ' ...

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks 'That is not correct - Since Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni said ... ' ...

Answer: The Gemara is actually asking on Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni (See Avodah Berurah) ...

Question: Why does it not then query him directly from the Mishnah?

Answer #1: Since the Gemara a. did not cite the Mishnah in Zera'im and b. only cited Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni by the way ...

Answer #1 (cont.): That is why it asked the Kashya in this manner.

Answer #2: Whereas Tosfos' Rebbe explained that the Shir referred to in the Mishnah regarding Bikurim is merely to increase the Simchah ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Which explains why it does not query Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni from there - not like Rashi.

Question #1: Why does the Mishnah not discuss the main Shir at all (See Avodah Berurah)?

Question #2: Furthermore, asks Rebbi Elchanan, how can the Gemara here establish the Mishnah in Bikurim where one brought grapes and then pressed them, when the entire Msaseches Bikurim speaks about figs, wheat and the seven species?

Refuted Answer: Nor can one explain that what the Gemara means is that if he brought grapes that were already Bikurim and pressed them afterwards, the Kedushah of Bikurim does not leave them, even though the Pasuk writes "P'ri" ...

Refutation: Seeing as the Beraisa in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev (Chulin, Daf 120b) that 'One may only bring Bikurim in liquid form from olives and grapes' - from which we see that the liquid that emanates from them is considered Bikurim.

Explanation #1: But one can explain the question 'Heivi Anavim ve'Darkam' - to mean 'From where do we know that if one designated grapes and pressed them, that they are eligible for Bikurim? Therefore the Torah writes "Tavi".

Explanation #1 (cont.): And when the Beraisa says 'Rin Mevi'in Bikurim Ela ha'Yotzei min ha'Zeisim u'min ha'Anavim', implying that Lechatchilah one may bring them ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): One could nevertheless explain it to mean Bedi'eved ...

Refutation: But it is not correct, since the Pasuk states that one recites Shirah on Bikurim, and how can the Pasuk be speaking Bedi'eved?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that it is speaking Lechatchilah, and this is what the Beraisa means

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'From where do we know that if someone brings grapes and presses them that he may bring rhem Lechatchilah? Therefore the Torah writes "Tavi", implying Lechatchilah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Mishnah in Bikurim also fits nicely - since it is talking about liquid that emerges from olives and grapes, over which one recites Shirah Lechatchilah ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): And since they instituted Shirah for them, they also instituted Shirah for Bikurim of all the seven species.

Conclusion: And the Kashyos that Tosfos asked above are non-existent.

Yerushalmi: And one needs to look into the Yerushalmi (See Shitah Mekubetzes 11).

Question: There are many Pesukim in Divr3ei ha'Yamim (1, 9) which inform us that 'the sons of P'loni were singers?

Answer #1: The Gemara is trying to find a Pasuk in the Torah, which is why it quotes the Pasuk 'Yasor bz'Masa", and it writes "Avodas Masa".

Answer #2: Alternatively, it learns it from the Pesukim which describe it as an Avodah, on which a Zar is Chayav Misah (See Avodah Berurah).

Basic Source: And the Torah writes (in Bamidbar 10) "u'Seka'atem ba'Chatzotzros al Oloseichem"; so we see that Shirah is baed in the Torah (See Avodah Berurah).

Source: The Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim (1. 9) lists the families that were gate-keepers and those that were singers.

Question: Rashi writes that he does not know the source of this La'av.

Answer: Rabeinu Menachem (Nishmaso Eiden) however, cites the Pasuk (in Bamidbar, 8) "Lishmor MIshmares, va'Avodah Lo Ya'avod", and it also writes (in the same Pasuk - See Avodah Berurah) "Kachah Ta'aseh la'Levi'im be'Mishmeerosam".

Clarification: In the event that he guards the gate alone, and the Rabbanan issued a decree there where he assists another Levi.

The Other Opinion: Whereas the other opinion holds that it is only a La'av, and the Rabbanan did not decree if he only comes to assist.

Clarification: i.e. the Olas Kayitz ...

Clarification (cont.): But that of a Yachid - even his Chiyuv, does not require Nesachim.

Introduction to Question #1: This is extremely difficult - What does the Gemara think ... bearing in mind that on the previous day, they brought the Temidin and the Musafin ...

Question #1: Why did he consult only by the Musaf of the sixteenth of Nisan, and not already on the fifteenth on which they asked the She'eilah?

Question #2: Moreover, Rashi asks, in Divrei ha'Yamim this Pasuk is written before that of "va'Yiva'etz ha'Melech La'asos ha'Pesach ba'Chodesh ha'Sheini"?

Clarification: And one therefore not conclude that it was the lamb that came with the Omer.

Clarification: And if the OLas Kayitz requires Shirah, then this is the Shir that they recited over the Tamid shel Shachar (earlier) on that day.

Clarification: Thereby resolving the She'eilah of Rebbi Avin.

Introduction to Question: This Beraisa also appears in Zevachim (Daf 55a) as follows - 'Mah Olah Kodshei Kodshim, Af Shelamim Kodshei Kodshim; Mah Olah Te'unah Tzafon, Af Shelamim ... ' ...

Question: The continuation 'u'Mah Shelamim Te'unah Tzafon, Af Shelamim ... ', is not mentioned, as it is here?

Answer #1: Perhaps all this - that it requires Tzafon and that its time is fixed - is part of the Beraisa, and that is how Rav Mari quoted it here ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Only the Gemara there cited only what it needed to cite from it (See Rashash).

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Beraisa only reads 'Olah Kodshei Kodshim, Af Shelamim Kodshei Kodshim' - and we compare them also with regard to Kevi'as Z'man and the obligation of Tzafon of Shelamim (Rabeinu Elchanan [See Avodah Berurah, DH 'Ulam').