Having taught us that ...
... a pebble in the Kometz invalidates it, why did our Mishnah find it necessary to add 'a grain of salt'?
... a grain of salt invalidates it, why did the Tana then need to add 'a particle of Levonah'?
Seeing as a Kometz that contains a grain of Levonah is Pasul (because it is Chaser), how can the Kohen avoid finding grains of Levonah in it?
When was the Kometz salted?
Why did the Tana not begin with 'a particle of Levonah', in which case he could have omitted the pebble and the salt altogether?
Having taught us that ...
... a pebble in the Kometz invalidates it, our Mishnah nevertheless found it necessary to add 'a grain of salt' to the list - because (unlike the pebble) it is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.
... a grain of salt invalidates it, the Tana nevertheless saw fit to add 'a particle of Levonah' - because (unlike the salt) it is brought together with the Minchah.
Seeing as a Kometz that contains a grain of Levonah is Pasul (because it is Chaser), the Kohen avoids finding grains of Levonah in it - by moving it all to the side before performing the Kemitzah, and then taking the Kometz from the middle.
The Kometz was salted - after being placed on the Ma'arachah (like everything that went on the Mizbe'ach).
The Tana could indeed have begun with 'a particle of Levonah' (in which case he could have omitted the pebble and the salt altogether) - only it is normal for the Tana to present a few cases in the form of 'Lo Zu af Zu' (starting with the smaller Chidush, going on to the bigger one).
The Mishnah disqualifies a Kometz which contains a pebble ... because it is 'Yeser'. What alternative reason could it have given?
To explain why the Tana chose the reason of 'Yeser', Rebbi Yirmiyah says 'min ha'Tzad'. What does he mean by that?
Why does he refer to it as 'min ha'Tzad'? How was the Kemitzah taken?
When Abaye asked Rava how the Kohen performed Kemitzah, the latter replied 'ke'de'Kamtzi Inshi' (like people do). What did he mean by that?
The Mishnah disqualifies a Kometz which contains a pebble ... because it is 'Yeser'. It might just as well have said 'because it constitutes a Chatzitzah' (i.e. the pebble divides, either the flour on either side of it or between the flour and the Kohen's hand).
To explain why the Tana chose the reason of 'Yeser', Rebbi Yirmiyah says 'min ha'Tzad', by which he means - that the Mishnah is speaking even when the pebble is at the edge of the Kometz, dividing between the last particle of flour and either the air outside the Kometz, or the thumb or the little finger (neither of which is part of the Kometz, as we shall now see, and which does therefore not constitute a Chatzitzah).
He refers to it as 'min ha'Tzad' - because after placing his hand into the Minchah (palm downwards), filling his palm and closing his fingers over it (as we shall see shortly), he turned his hand round, palm upwards (to prevent any flour of the Kometz from spilling), so that his little finger and thumb were both at the side.
When Abaye asked Rava how the Kohen performed Kemitzah, the latter replied 'ke'de'Kamtzi Inshi' (like people do) - meaning with all five fingers (so that the palm is absolutely full.
We query this from a Beraisa however, which lists the names of the five fingers and their meanings (starting from the little finger). What is the significance of ...
... the 'Zeres'?
... the 'Kemitzah'?
... the 'Amah'?
... the 'Etzba'?
... the 'Godel'?
What does 'Lehashvos' mean?
Rav Zutra bar Tuvya Amar Rav briefly described the process. What did he say
This is corroborated by a Beraisa. What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk in ...
... Vayikra "Melo Kumtzo"?
... Tzav "Ve'heirim mimenu be'Kumtzo"?
We query Rava from a Beraisa however, which lists the names of the five fingers and their meanings (starting from the little finger). The significance of ...
... the 'Zeres' is - to measure the Choshen Mishpat of the Kohen Gadol (which had to measure a Zeres by a Zeres). This constituted the distance between the tip of the little finger to the tip of the thumb, stretched full length (and was equivalent to exactly half an Amah).
... the 'Kemitzah' (the index finger) is - to serve as the outer wall of the Kemitzah (a Tiyuvta on Rava).
... the 'Amah' (the middle finger) is - to determine the length of the sticks (from the elbow to the tip of the Amah when the arm and hand are both outstretched) which were used to measure the Amos of the building and the Keilim of the Beis Hamikdash.
... the 'Etzba' (the forefinger) is - for the Kohanim to dip into the blood for Haza'ah.
... the 'Godel' is - to place the blood of the Asham Metzora and the oil on it.
We answer that all five fingers are needed for the Kemitzah 'Lehashvos', meaning - the thumb and the little finger were used to remove any excess flour that protruded outside the three fingers which constituted the Kometz.
Rav Zutra bar Tuvya Amar Rav briefly described the process. He said - that the Kohen would cover the palm of his hand with his fingertips until they touched it at the far end, and then perform the Kemitzah.
This is corroborated by a Beraisa, which learns from the Pasuk in ...
... Vayikra "M'lo Kumtzo" - that the palm must be full (by the three fingers touching the far end of the palm and not somewhere in the middle).
... Tzav "Ve'heirim mimenu be'Kumtzo" - that it must be exactly a palm-full, and no more (that the flour should not protrude from the spaces between the fingers or at the sides of the palm.
In which way did the Minchah al ha'Machavas and the Minchas Marcheshes differ from a plain Minchas So'les?
How did the Kohen then perform the Kemitzah there?
On what grounds do we query the Beraisa's statement that the Kemitzah was the most difficult Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash?
So how do we amend it?
The Minchah al ha'Machavas and the Minchas Marcheshes differed from a plain Minchas So'les - in that they were first baked in their respective Keilim and broken into pieces, before the Kohen performed Kemitzah.
To perform Kemitzah - the Kohen would place his hand sideways inside the K'li (in the same way as he did with a Minchas So'les), and then push away the protruding pieces with his thumb and little finger.
We query the Beraisa's statement that the Kemitzah was the most difficult Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash - on the basis of two other Beraisos which refer to the Melikah (of a bird) and the Chafinah (of the Ketores on Yom Kipur) as the most difficult Avodah respectively (so how can three Avodos all be the most difficult Avodah?).
So we amend it - to read that it was 'one of the most difficult Avodos ... '.
What did Rav Papa mean when he said 'M'lo Kumtzo ke'de'Kamtzi Inshi'?
And what did he then mean when he asked what the Din will be if the Kohen performed the Kemitzah ...
... 'be'Roshei Etzbe'osav'?
... 'min ha'Tzedadin'?
... 'mi'Matah le'Ma'alah'?
The Kohen Gadol performs the Chafinah (taking the handful of Ketores) on Yom Kipur in the same way as the Kemitzah. Rav Papa asked the same three She'eilos as he asked in connection with the Kemitzah. Which fourth She'eilah did he ask?
What is the outcome of all these She'eilos?
When Rav Papa said 'M'lo Kumtzo ke'de'Kamtzi Inshi' - he meant that the Kohen pushes his hands sideways into the flour in the way that we explained, and proceeds to fill his palm by moving it across the flour, allowing it to fill the cavity formed by his fingers bent over his palm.
And when he asked what the Din will be if the Kohen performed the Kemitzah ...
... 'be'Roshei Etzbe'osav', he meant - that the Kohen performed the Kemitzah by pushing his stretched out hand (palm down) into the flour, and then curling them into the palm of his hand, after his palm was full.
... 'min ha'Tzedadin', he meant - that he placed his hand on the flour (palm up), and allowed the flour to fall into his palm by sliding his hand across the flour (or that he took the flour from the side of the K'li and not from the middle).
... 'mi'Matah le'Ma'alah', he meant - that the Kohen slid the tips of his fingers into the flour (palm up), and then closed them on to the palm of his hand, after the palm was full.
The Kohen Gadol performs the Chafinah (taking the handful of Ketores) on Yom Kipur in the same way as a Kohen takes the Kemitzah. Rav Papa asked the same three She'eilos regarding it as he asked in connection with the Kemitzah, adding the She'eilah as to what the Din will be - if the Kohen Gadol takes half a handful with each hand and then combines them.
The outcome of all these She'eilos is - 'Teiku'.
Rav Papa also asks what the Din will be if the Kohen then sticks the Kometz onto the wall of the K'li Shareis to carry it to the Mizbe'ach. What might be wrong with that?
And Mar bar Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if he sticks the Kometz on to the floor of the K'li Shareis, which is upside-down (see Shitah Mekubetzes). How else might we interpret the She'eilah?
What might be wrong with that?
Rav Papa also asks what the Din will be if the Kohen then sticks the Kometz onto the wall of the K'li Shareis to carry it to the Mizbe'ach, which might be wrong in that - he did not place it inside the k'li, which is maybe what the Torah wants him to do.
And Mar bar Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if he sticks the Kometz on to the floor of the K'li Shareis when it is upside-down (see Shitah Mekubetzes) - or if he turns the K'li upside-down, and places it in the base of the K'li. which is in the form of a receptacle.
What might be wrong with that is - the fact that this is not the conventional way of placing things inside vessels.
How much oil and how much Levonah is required for a regular Minchah?
What does our Mishnah say about adding too much, or too little oil or Levonah to the Minchah?
Rebbi Elazar establishes 'Ribah Shamnah' as two Login of oil. How do we initially interpret that?
And we infer from Rebbi Elazar that Shemen of Chulin or Shemen of another Minchah will not disqualify it.
What problem does Rav Zutra bar Tuvya have with this concerning a Minchas Chotei, which we know can become Pasul through the oil?
A regular Minchah requires - a Log of oil and a Kometz (a fistful) of Levonah.
Our Mishnah rules that adding too much (Ribah Shamnah), or too little oil (Chasar Shamnah) or Levonah to the Minchah - invalidates it.
Rebbi Elazar establishes 'Ribah Shamnah' as two Login of oil, which we initially take to mean - specifically two Lugin which the owner designated for his Minchah, because it now resembles two Menachos in one.
We infer from Rebbi Elazar - that oil of Chulin or of another Minchah will not disqualify it.
The problem Rav Zutra bar Tuvya has with that concerning a Minchas Chotei, which we know can become Pasul through the oil is - how that can be, according to Rebbi Elazar, seeing as on the one hand, a Minchas Chotei does not contain oil to begin with (so the owner canot add to it), whereas on the other, oil from somebody else's Minchah or from Chulin does not invalidate it.
So how do we finally establish Rebbi Elazar? What did he really mean when he said 'K'gon she'Hifrish Sh'nei Lugin'?
Why might we have thought otherwise?
Rava explains that Rebbi Elazar actually extrapolates this from our Mishnah ('Ribah Shamnah'). What does this imply? What ought the Tana to have otherwise said?
So we conclude - that when Rebbi Elazar said 'K'gon she'Hifrish Sh'nei Lugin', he meant that even if the owner designated two Lugin (it still invalidates the Minchah), and howmuch more so if one adds oil from somebody else's Minchah or from Chulin.
We might otherwise have thought - that since either of the two Lugin is eligible to constitute the required measure of Shemen, both will not invalidate the Minchah.
Rava explains that Rebbi Elazar actually extrapolates this from the words 'Ribah Shamnah' (in our Mishnah) - implying that the owner actually designated more oil than he needed and not that he added other oil later in which case, the Tana ought to have said 'Ribah lah Shemen').
According to Rebbi Yehudah, 'Levonah she'Chasrah' constitutes less than two particles remaining at the time of the Haktarah. What does Rebbi Shimon say?
On whom are we asking, when we cite the Beraisa 'Kometz u'Levonah (or Kometz Levonah) she'Chasar Kol-Shehu, Pasul'?
How do we amend the Beraisa?
How might we otherwise resolve the discrepancy, even without amending the text?
According to Rebbi Yehudah, Levonah she'Chasrah constitutes a minimum of two particles remaining at the time of the Haktarah - Rebbi Shimon requires the last particle to be Chaser for the Minchah to be Pasul.
When we cite the Beraisa 'Kometz u'Levonah (or Kometz Levonah) she'Chasar Kol-Shehu, Pasul', we are querying Rebbi Shimon, whose name it seems, appears in the original version of this Beraisa (see Shitah Mekubetzes 5).
We therefore amend the Beraisa to read - 'Koret Levonah she'Chasar Kol-she'Hu ... ').
Alternatively, we resolve the discrepancy (even without amending the text) - by establishing the latter Beraisa by someone who donated Levonah on its own (since the D'rashah permitting part of it, is confined to the Levonah that is brought together with the Minchah, (which is what the Tana'im are arguing about).
We just cited the Machlokes Tana'im, who argue over whether two particles of Levonah must remain for the Minchah to be Kasher (Rebbi Yehudah) or only one (Rebbi Shimon). Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan cites a third opinion. What does Rebbi Meir hold?
From where does Rebbi Yochanan learn this?
In which point do all three Tana'im agree?
All three Darshen from the same Pasuk in Tzav "ve'es Kol ha'Levonah Asher al ha'Minchah". How does ...
... Rebbi Meir interpret the Pasuk?
... Rebbi Yehudah explain "Kol ha'Levonah"? From where does he learn the second particle?
... Rebbi Shimon interpret it? In which point does he disagree with Rebbi Yehudah?
We just cited the Machlokes Tana'im, who argue over whether two particles of Levonah must remain for the Minchah to be Kasher (Rebbi Yehudah) or only one (Rebbi Shimon). Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan cites a third opinion, Rebbi Meir - who holds that the Kometz Levonah must be intact at the time when it is brought on the Mizbe'ach.
Rebbi Yochanan learns this from our Mishnah, which states S'tam 'Chisar Levonasah, Pasul' ...
... and we have a principle 'S'tam Mishnah Rebbi Meir'.
All of three Tana'im agree - that Lechatchilah, the Levonah must comprise a Kometz. All of them Darshen from the same Pasuk "ve'es Kol ha'Levonah asher al ha'Minchah". Rebbi ...
... Meir interprets the Pasuk to mean - that all the Levonah that was brought together with the Minchah must be sacrificed (and not just part of it).
... Yehudah explains the word Kol (in that Pasuk) - like 'Kol-she'Hu' (even one particle), whereas "ve'es" comes to include a second particle.
... Shimon learns "Kol" like Rebbi Yehudah, but he does not Darshen "ve'es".
According to Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan, the above Machlokes Tana'im is confined to Levonah which is brought together with a Minchah. What will even Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pasuk "ve'es Kol ha'Levonah Asher al ha'Minchah"?
And what does Rebbi Yochanan say about the Levonah that comes in the Bazichin?
What makes us think that this is obvious?
Why in fact, is it not so obvious?
Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha argue over Rebbi Yochanan's original statement. One of them holds like him. What does the other one say?
According to Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan, the above Machlokes Tana'im is confined to Levonah which is brought together with a Minchah. Even Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon will learn from the Pasuk "ve'es Kol ha'Levonah Asher al ha'Minchah" - that the Din of "Kol" and "ve'es" only pertain to Levonah that comes with the Minchah, but not to Levonah that comes on its own.
And Rebbi Yochanan - repeats this latter ruling with regard to the Levonah that comes in the Bazichin.
We think that this is obvious - due to the fact that the Torah does not write "Kol" and "es" by the Bazichin.
It is not so obvious however - when we bear in mind that the Bazichin came together with the Lechem ha'Panim, in which case, we might have attributed to it the Din of Levonah that come together with the Minchah.
Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha argue over Rebbi Yochanan's original statement. One of them holds like him. The other one - does not differentiate between Levonah that comes independently and Levonah that comes together with a Minchah. According to him, the D'rashah of "Kol" and "ve'es" extends to the former as well.
Our Mishnah invalidates 'Chiser Levonasah', implying that 'Yatir Levonasah' is Kasher. How does Rami bar Chama reconcile this with the Beraisa that invalidates it?
Rami bar Chama goes on to discuss someone who designated two Kematzim of Levonah for his Minchah, and one of them got lost. What distinction does he draw between whether it got lost before the Kemitzah or after it?
Alternatively, when Rami bar Chama says 'K'gon she'Hifrish Lah Sh'nei Kematzim', he is referring to the Beraisa. What is his reason?
In that case, how will we explain the distinction that he makes in the following case, between whether one of the Kematzim got lost before the Kemitzah or after it?
Our Mishnah invalidates 'Chiser Levonasah', implying that 'Yatir Levonasah' is Kasher. Rami bar Chama reconciles this with the Beraisa which invalidates it - by establishing the former where the owner designated two Kematzim of Levonah (which is excessive, and no longer appears to be part of the same 'Korban').
Rami bar Chama goes on to discuss someone who designated two Kematzim of Levonah for his Minchah, and one of them got lost. He draws a distinction between whether it got lost before the Kemitzah - in which case it has not fixed together with the Minchah, and will not disqualify it because of Yiter Levonasah, or after it - where it has already been fixed as 'Yiter Levonasah', and therefore disqualifies the Minchah.
Alternatively, when Rami bar Chama says 'K'gon she'Hifrish lah Sh'nei Kematzim', he is referring to the Beraisa, which validates it - because both Kematzim are eligible to serve as the required Kometz (a S'vara which we rejected earlier), and it is our Mishnah which holds that a little extra is Pasul (like the Din by 'Yiter Shamnah').
According to this second interpretation (validating 'Yiter Levonasah') - if, in the following case, one of the Kemaztim got lost before the Kemitzah, the Minchah will be Kasher, because it is not considered a case of 'Chiser Levonasah' at the time of Haktarah (even according to Rebbi Meir), as it would be if it got lost after the Kemitzah.
And what similar distinction does he draw between someone who designated four Bazichei Levonah for the Lechem ha'Panim, where two of them got lost, between whether they got lost before the Siluk Bazichin and after it?
The latter ruling appears to be an obvious extension of the first. What is Rami bar Chama coming to teach us?
Which stage would we then consider 'Higi'a Zemanah'?
And he draws a similar distinction between someone who designated four Bazichei Levonah for the Lechem ha'Panim, where two of them got lost, whether they got lost before the Siluk Bazichin - in which case they are not fixed together with the Lechem ha'Panim (and are not considered 'Chiser Levonasah'), and do therefore not disqualify it, or whether they got lost after it, in which case they are.
The latter ruling appears to be an obvious extension of the first. Nevertheless, Rami bar Chama is coming to teach us - that, based on the fact the Bazichin are already designated, they ought to be fixed from the time that they are due to be burned (to render the Lechem Pasul) even though the Siluk Bazichin has not yet taken place.
If that was the case, we would consider 'Higi'a Zemanah' - from the time the Korban Musaf has been brought.