OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that the Milu'im (inaugural Korbanos brought when the Mishkan was dedicated) were accompanied by Chalos, Rekikin, and Revuchah. What is the source for this? The Gemara says that the verse (Vayikra 8:26) states clearly that Chalos and Rekikin accompanied the Korbanos. The Gemara points out, however, that the verse does not mention that Revuchah was also brought. Rav Nachman explains that the source that Revuchah was also brought is a different verse: "This is the Korban of Aharon and his sons, which they shall bring to Hash-m on the day that each one is anointed" (Vayikra 6:13). Why does the verse say, "This is the Korban of Aharon and his sons," when it is discussing only Aharon's inauguration? It must be that the Torah's intent is to compare the Kohen's inauguration ("Chinuch") to his anointing ("Meshichah"). Just as his Meshichah included the bringing of a Revuchah, his Chinuch also included a Revuchah. To what "Chinuch" does the Gemara refer?

(a) RASHI (DH Makish Chinucho), RASHI KESAV YAD (DH Ela Makish and DH l'Himashcho), and RABEINU GERSHOM learn that the Gemara is comparing the Chinuch of an ordinary Kohen to the Meshichah of the Chavitei Kohen Gadol, the Korban which the Kohen Gadol brings every morning and afternoon. Once the Torah teaches that the Kohen Gadol's Minchah contains Revuchah, the addition of Aharon's sons in the verse indicates that their inaugural Minchah (which every Kohen brings the first time he serves in the Beis ha'Mikdash) similarly contains Revuchah. This is the Gemara's intention in comparing "Chinucho" (the inauguration of an ordinary Kohen) to "l'Himashcho" (the anointing of Aharon). Accordingly, another inauguration may be compared to the anointing of Aharon -- the inauguration of the Milu'im in the Mishkan; this comparison teaches that there, too, Revuchah must have been brought. This is the source that Revuchah was brought as part of the Milu'im.

The SHITAH MEKUBETZES questions this explanation. How can the Milu'im, which were eaten, be compared to a Minchas Chinuch (inaugural Minchah of a Kohen), which is burned? Moreover, the Toras Kohanim states explicitly that only Aharon brought Revuchah, and not his sons.

The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos, and Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 5:17) also learns like Rashi and Rabeinu Gershom. The MISHNEH L'MELECH explains that the Rambam does not rule like the Toras Kohanim because the Gemara implies otherwise.

(b) The Shitah Mekubetzes explains instead that when the Gemara compares "Chinucho l'Himashcho," it means that the inauguration of the Milu'im is compared to the anointing of Aharon. Just as Aharon brought Revuchah for his inauguration, Revuchah also must have been brought during the Milu'im.

It seems that Rashi earlier (51b, DH Kohanim Hedyotos) also follows the approach of the Shitah Mekubetzes. Rashi there discusses the Gemara's statement that when the verse implies that Aharon's sons also must bring Korbanos, it refers not to his sons who are Kohanim Gedolim, but to ordinary Kohanim (Kohanim Hedyotos). The verse, therefore, means that the ordinary Kohanim bring a Korban Minchah similar to that of Aharon, the Kohen Gadol. What Korban Minchah do they bring that as similar to Aharon's Korban? Rashi gives two explanations for what Korban of the ordinary Kohen is similar to the Korban of the Kohen Gadol. In his first explanation, Rashi explains that a regular Minchas Chinuch, brought by every ordinary Kohen, is similar to the Minchah brought by Aharon in that the Kohen also brings an Isaron. In his second explanation, Rashi explains that the verse refers to the Korban brought by the ordinary Kohanim at the time of the Milu'im; it is not referring to a Korban brought by the Kohanim throughout the generations.

The RASHASH questions Rashi's words. The Gemara here compares the Minchas Chinuch of the Kohen Hedyot to that of the Kohen Gadol. Why does Rashi, in his second explanation, ignore the Gemara here? To answer the Rashash's question, one may suggest that Rashi's second explanation follows the approach of the Shitah Mekubetzes, according to which the Gemara here does not compare the Minchas Chinuch of the Kohen Hedyot to that of the Kohen Gadol. (Y. MONTROSE)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that if, at the time one slaughters a Korban Todah, the accompanying Lachmei Todah are "outside of the wall," the Lachmei Todah do not become Kadosh. The Gemara asks, what is the meaning of "outside the wall"; to which wall does the Mishnah refer? Rebbi Yochanan says that the Mishnah means that the Lachmei Todah are outside of the wall of "Beis Pagi." Reish Lakish says that the Lachmei Todah are outside the wall of the Azarah.

Where is Beis Pagi?

(a) RASHI (DH Chutz l'Chomas Beis Pagi) explains that the Mishnah means that the Lachmei Todah are outside of Har ha'Bayis. This is also the opinion of the RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos).

The GILYON HA'SHAS, RASHASH, and others ask that Rashi's explanation here contradicts his explanation elsewhere. In Bava Metzia (90a), Sanhedrin (4b), and Pesachim (63b), Rashi explains that Beis Pagi refers to outside the wall of Yerushalayim. The EIZEHU MEKOMAN points out that RASHI KESAV YAD here also explains that Beis Pagi refers to outside the wall of Yerushalayim. (The Eizehu Mekoman points out that Rashi Kesav Yad is the real commentary of Rashi, and not the Rashi that is printed in the upper part of the pages of our text of the Gemara - as is evident from the citations of Rashi in Tosfos and the Shitah Mekubetzes.)

The SEFAS EMES says that the explanation of the Rambam (and Rashi) seems inconsistent with the words of the Gemara. The Gemara continues to explain the argument between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, and it says that the argument depends on the interpretation of the verse, "v'Hikriv Al Zevach ha'Todah Chalos" -- "and he will offer on the sacrifice of the Todah loaves" (Vayikra 7:12). Reish Lakish maintains that the word "Al" connotes "next to" in the context of this verse. This means that the loaves must be next to the Todah when it is slaughtered. For this reason, Reish Lakish says that the loaves must be in the Azarah when the Todah is slaughtered. Rebbi Yochanan disagrees and says that "Al" does not mean "next to," and thus the verse does not require that the loaves be next to the Todah when it is slaughtered. According to Rashi's explanation that "Beis Pagi" is outside of Har ha'Bayis (but inside of Yerushalayim), Rebbi Yochanan's opinion is difficult to understand. Since Rebbi Yochanan does not require that the loaves be next to the Todah, why should he require that they be within the confines of Har ha'Bayis? As long as they are within the confines of the area in which they may be eaten, they should become Kadosh when the Todah is slaughtered! According to Rashi Kesav Yad, Rebbi Yochanan indeed says that the loaves are Kadosh as long as they are within the area in which they may be eaten -- inside of Yerushalayim.

The RASHASH also has difficulty with the Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos. The Rambam states that Beis Pagi itself is outside Har ha'Bayis (in contrast to Rashi, who implies that Beis Pagi itself is inside Har ha'Bayis, as the Eizehu Mekoman points out). Why, then, does the Gemara say that the loaves are not Kadosh when they are outside of Beis Pagi? Even when they are inside Beis Pagi, they should not be Kadosh, since Beis Pagi is outside of Har ha'Bayis!

(b) RABEINU GERSHOM and the BARTENURA explain that Beis Pagi is outside of the wall of Yerushalayim, as RASHI KESAV YAD says. The Acharonim cite a number of proofs for this opinion. The Rashash says that this is apparent from the Gemara in Pesachim (91a), which discusses whether we may slaughter a Korban Pesach for a Jew who is in jail. The Gemara there differentiates between a jail under the jurisdiction of Jews and a jail under the jurisdiction of Nochrim. When a Jew is in a jail of Nochrim, we may not slaughter a Korban Pesach for him. Rav Chisda says that this applies only if the jail is outside of Beis Pagi. If the jail is inside of Beis Pagi, then we may slaughter the Korban for him, since it is possible that we can bring him the Korban and he can eat it there. Since the Korban Pesach may be eaten anywhere within Yerushalayim, Rav Chisda's statement clearly implies that Beis Pagi is outside of the wall of Yerushalayim. (See other proofs cited by the TOSFOS YOM TOV and the YEFEI EINAYIM.) (Y. MONTROSE)