Answer #5 (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): A Tzad ha'Shavah would permit a Treifah (therefore, the verse is needed)!

We could not learn from Melikah, for the Kedushah causes the Isur. Chelev and blood counter this (they are forbidden to people and may be offered, even though their Kedushah does not cause their Isur!)

Question: We could not learn from Chelev and blood, for the rest of what (the animal) they come from is permitted, whereas a Treifah is totally forbidden!

Answer: Melikah counters this. (It is Neveilah, which is totally forbidden to people.)

The question against each of these does not apply to the other. The Tzad ha'Shavah of both is that forbidden to people and may be offered. We learn from this to Treifah!

Rejection: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah. In each of them, that is the Mitzvah!

Answer #6 (Rav Ashi): The Kal va'Chomer itself (forbidding a Treifah to be offered) is faulty!

We cannot learn from a Ba'al Mum, for this is a Pesul even in Kohanim (but Treifah is not)!

Question (Rav Acha Sava): Yotzei Dofen (one born through Caesarian section) refutes this. Such a Kohen is Kosher for Avodah, yet it is permitted to people and it may not be offered!

Answer: We cannot learn from Yotzei Dofen, for a firstborn Yotzei Dofen animal does not receive Kedushas Bechor, whereas a firstborn Treifah does!

Question: Ba'al Mum counters this (it receives Kedushas Bechor, it is permitted to people and it may not be offered)!

Answer: We cannot learn from Ba'al Mum, for it is a Pesul in Kohanim!

Question: The question against each of these does not apply to the other. The Tzad ha'Shavah is that both are permitted to people and may not be offered. Treifah is forbidden to people, all the more so it may not be offered! (So why is a verse needed?)

Answer #1: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, for neither Ba'al Mum nor Yotzei Dofen is ever permitted (in Kodshim, where it is forbidden), but Treifah is permitted!

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): In which case is Treifah permitted (but not Ba'al Mum or Yotzei Dofen)?

Suggestion: Melikah of Olas ha'Of makes it a Treifah, yet it is Huktar.

Rejection: Regarding birds, also a Ba'al Mum may be offered!

It was taught that Zevachim must be unblemished and (sometimes) must be male, but regarding birds, we are never concerned (for minor blemishes or gender).

Answer: Kohanim eat Melikas Chatas ha'Of, even though it is Treifah.

Rejection: They eat from Hekdesh's table. (Regarding Hekdesh, also Ba'al Mum (of birds) is permitted.)

Answer #2: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, for the sources we learn from are known Pesulim. (Every Mum is visible, and people talk about a Yotzei Dofen, but some Treifos, e.g. a hole in the intestines, are not known to anyone, until after Shechitah);

Therefore, a verse is needed.

Question: Other verses disqualify Treifah!

"Mi'Mashke Yisrael" - Kodshim must be from things (that if they were Chulin would be) permitted to Yisrael.

"Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet" (regarding Ma'aser Behemah) excludes a Treifah, which does not pass (properly, for it is weak).

Answer: All three verses are needed:

Had it said only "mi'Mashke Yisrael", one might have thought to exclude only things that were never permitted, such as Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem, but something that was permitted and became forbidden would be acceptable;

Had it said only "Kol Asher Ya'avor...", we would say that one cannot be Makdish a Treifah (to be Ma'aser or any other Korban), but if a Kosher Zevach became Treifah, it would be acceptable;

Therefore, it must also say "Min ha'Bakar."

(Mishnah): Each of the following disqualifies Minchas Chotei or any other Minchah:

Kemitzah was done by a Zar, Onen, Tevul Yom, Mechushar Begadim, Mechushar Kipurim, one who did not wash his hands and feet, Arel, or Tamei;

It was done while sitting, or standing on top of a Kli, Behemah or another Kohen's foot.

If Kemitzah was done with the left hand, it is Pasul;

Ben Beseira says, he returns the Kometz to the Minchah, and does Kemitzah again, with his right hand.

If the Kometz included a pebble, grain of salt, or grain of Levonah (frankincense), it is Pasul;

This is because a Kometz that is too big or Chaser (lacking) is Pasul.

A Kometz is too big if some of the Minchah sticks out (to the right or left of the three (middle) fingers (that he bends them back to his palm), or it some is between the end of one of these fingers and the palm);

A Kometz is Chaser if (it included a pebble, or grain, like above, or if) the fingers were curled, and not extended.

(Gemara) Question: The Mishnah could have said 'any Minchah.' Why did it specify Minchas Chotei?

Answer: This is a Chidush according to R. Shimon;

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): It would have been proper that Minchas Chotei require oil and Levonah, in order that a sinner will not 'profit' (pay less than one who brings a normal Minchah);

The Torah exempted it, in order that his Korban not be beautiful.

It would have been proper that a Chatas require Nesachim, in order that a sinner not 'profit';

The Torah exempted it, in order that his Korban will not be beautiful.

One might have thought that since R. Shimon holds that the Torah does not want a sinner's Korban to be beautiful, if a Pasul did Kemitzah, it should be Kosher. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Question: If so, the corresponding Mishnah about Zevachim should also teach this!

It should disqualify Kabalah of Chatas Chelev (or any other Chatas brought for a transgression) or any other Chatas (e.g. Yoledes or of the Tzibur) done by a Zar or Onen...;

This would be a Chidush according to R. Shimon (even though the Korban should not be beautiful, we do not Machshir Avodah of a Pasul!)

That Mishnah does not specify Chatas Chelev. It just says 'any Chatas.' Apparently, saying 'any' without saying 'except for' teaches all cases;

Also here, since it says 'any' and does not list exceptions, this 'except for' teaches all cases;

Answer: Here, the Mishnah must teach that R. Shimon admits:

Since the Reisha (the first Mishnah) is unlike R. Shimon (according to Rabah and Rava; Shitah Mekubetzes (32) - according to everyone, for it disqualifies Holachah Lo Lishmah), one might have thought that also the Seifa is unlike R. Shimon. Therefore, it teaches that this is not so.

(Rav): If a Zar did Kemitzah, he returns it (to the Minchah. The Minchah is Kosher, a Kohen will do Kemitzah.)

Question: The Mishnah said that a Zar is Posel!

Answer: It means that it is Pasul until it is returned.

Question: R. Yehudah ben Beseira says this. (Surely, the first Tana argues!)

Answer #1: All agree when the Kometz is intact that he returns it. They argue only when it is Chaser;

Chachamim say that he may not bring more from his house to complete the lack. R. Yehudah says that he may.

Objection (Mishnah - R. Yehudah ben Beseira): He returns the Kometz and does Kemitzah again...

If all agree to this, and the argument is whether or not he may bring more from his house, R. Yehudah should say, he returns it, brings more from his house and does Kemitzah again...!

Answer #2: Rav's law is like R. Yehudah.

Objection: R. Yehudah explicitly says that he returns it! (What is Rav's Chidush?)

Answer: R. Yehudah only said this regarding Kemitzas Smol (taken with the left hand);

One might have thought that other Pesulim cannot be fixed. Rav teaches that this is not so.

Question: Why would we think that the left hand different, i.e. it is the only Pesul that can be fixed?

Answer: Smol is used in the Avodah on Yom Kipur.

Question #1: Also a Zar is Kosher for Shechitah!

Answer: Shechitah is not an Avodah. (Rashi - because a Zar may do it; Tosfos Zevachim 14b - because the Shochet need not be in the Azarah, or because even Chulin requires Shechitah.)

Question: It is an Avodah!

(R. Zeira citing Rav): If a Zar slaughtered the Parah Adumah, it is Pasul.

(Rav): (We know this because) it says "Elazar" (i.e. a Kohen) and "Chukah" (which teaches that it is Me'akev.)

Answer: Parah Adumah is different. It is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. (Avodah does not apply to them.)

Question: If Shechitah of Bedek ha'Bayis requires a Kohen, all the more so Shechitah of Kodshei Mizbe'ach! (Rashba - the questioner misunderstood the previous answer to mean that Shechitah of Bedek ha'Bayis is an Avodah that requires Kehunah, but we do not find this regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach.)

Answer (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): Shechitah of Bedek ha'Bayis requires a Kohen just like seeing Tzara'as (to rule on it), even though neither is an Avodah.

Question #2: We should learn from a Bamah (that a Zar is sometimes Kosher for Avodah, so surely Kemitzas Zar can be fixed, just like Kemitzas Smol!)

Suggestion: We do not learn from (the fact that something is Kosher on) a Bamah.

Rejection (Beraisa) Question: What is the source that if Yotzei (Eimurim that left the Azarah) came up on the Mizbe'ach, we do not take it down?

Answer: Because Yotzei is Kosher on a Bamah, it is not taken down from the Mizbe'ach.

Answer: Really, we do not learn from a Bamah. The Tana really learns from "Zos Toras ha'Olah" that they are not taken down.

Inference: Rav had to teach that R. Yehudah says that other Pesulim can be fixed, otherwise, we would have thought that they cannot.

Question #1 (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah and R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon): R. Yehudah ben Beseira says that all Pesulim can be fixed. (Tosfos - everyone already knew this Beraisa or the next, therefore, Rav did not need to teach this.)

Question #2 (Beraisa): "V'Kamatz mi'Sham" - from where the Zar stands (Rashi - Ezras Yisrael, i.e. Tzafon is not required; Tosfos - it need not be where Hagashah is done (the southwest corner of the Mizbe'ach));

Question (R. Yehudah ben Beseira): What is the source that if Kemitzah was done with the left hand, he returns the Kometz, and does Kemitzah again, with the right hand?

Answer: "V'Kamatz mi'Sham" - from the place where Kemitzah was already done.

The verse does not specify why Kemitzah was repeated. Surely the same law applies to all Pesulim!

Version #1 - Answer: Rav's Chidush is that R. Yehudah ben Beseira allows fixing the Pesul even after the Kometz was put in a Kli Shares. Tana'im argue about this;

(Beraisa - R. Yosi ben Yosi and R. Yehudah ha'Nachtom): (R. Yehudah ben Beseira says that) the Pesul can be fixed only before the Kometz was put in a Kli. After this, it cannot. (Rav holds like Chachamim who argue with these two Tana'im.)

Version #2 - Answer: Rav's Chidush is that R. Yehudah allows fixing the Pesul only before the Kometz was put in a Kli, like the following Tana'im, unlike Chachamim.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi and...): The Pesul can be fixed only before the Kometz was put in a Kli Shares.

Objection (Rav Nachman): In any case, this is difficult!

If these two Tana'im hold that Kemitzah Pesulah is considered Avodah, even if it was not put in another Kli, it cannot be fixed;

If they hold that it is not Avodah, even after it was put in another Kli, it can be fixed!

Retraction (Rav Nachman): Indeed, it is Avodah. The Avodah is not finished until it is put in another Kli. (Therefore, it can be fixed.)