Question: Even without Kidush b'Kli, the Menachos should still become invalid if touched by a Tevul Yom, being that they are comparable to Chulin that has the standards of Kodesh which becomes invalid if touched by a Tevul Yom.

This is apparent from Nidah (71b). The Mishnah discusses a woman who is seeing blood that is ruled pure. (According to Torah law, a woman who sees blood between the seventh day after the birth of a male is ruled pure until the fortieth day after birth. The same applies to a woman who sees blood between the fourteenth day after the birth of a girl and the eightieth day after birth.) The Mishnah says she can pour water that will be used to wash the meat of the Korban Pesach from one vessel to another.

The Gemara deduces that she may pour this water from vessel to vessel, but cannot touch it with her hands. This is because Chulin that has the standards of Kodesh is considered to have the same laws.

Answer #1: It is possible to answer that our Tana holds that it is not like Kodesh, as holds the second part of the Mishnah (71b). There she is only considered (according to the second opinion in the Mishnah) to be like the touching of an impure person due to coming in contact with a dead body regarding Kodshim, bit not with Chulin.

Answer #2: Alternatively, here the discussion is according to Torah law. Indeed, previously they already became impure according to Rabbinic law (due to this problem).

Question: If this is correct, why did the Gemara ask earlier that we should say this is Kedushas Damim (monetary, not intrinsically for a Korban)? When the Beraisa says that the Ketores becomes invalid by a Tevul Yam (when it goes into the grinder) it is only according to Rabbinic law and the first opinion in the Mishnah there that holds that it is like Kodesh!

Answer: It is possible to answer that if the reason it should be invalid if touched by a Tevul Yom is because it is like Kodesh, even if it was not put in a grinder it should be invalid. Being that it is invalid according to Rabbinic law, this is even if it is not fit to be brought as Ketores.

It is also possible that Ketores will not become invalid (through a Tevul Yom) when it has a status of Chulin that has the standards of Kodesh. The normal reasoning would not apply, being that Ketores is not food (and therefore does not become impure as does food, see Tosfos in Chagigah 23b, DH V'HA D'RABBABAN).

However, the Gemara earlier understandably asked, "And if you will say that all Kedushas Damim items become impure from a Tevul Yom etc.," and does not have a problem regarding the question that even if one did not put the Ketores in the grinder it should become invalid. This is because items that have Kedushas Damim do not become invalid as long as they lack an action that must be done with them, which in this case is grinding.

It is also understandable why the Gemara asks what it asks, and does not ask from the first part of the Mishnah in Meilah (9a) that is quoted here regarding Menachos etc. The Mishnah there says that one transgresses Meilah with the Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim when they become Hekdesh. Once they become brown (i.e. baked) in the oven, they became able to be made impure by a Tevul Yom. This implies that this is only the case if they become brown in the oven.

According to what has been explained, that Kedushas Damim does not become invalid through a Tevul Yom as long as it is lacking an action being done to it, it was not possible to ask from the beginning of the Mishnah. Even if it would have been put in the oven, it is still lacking the action of browning, and the slaughtering of the Korban after it is browned [meaning baked.]

Explanation: Rashi explains that the Gemara makes a deduction from the fact that the Beraisa said earlier that the Ketores in the grinder becomes impure through a Tevul Yom and not through Linah (being kept over night after Kidush b'Kli). The Mishnah here does state Linah as what makes it invalid. This teaches us that the vessel discussed here is not a grinder (but rather a vessel used to offer the Ketores).

However, if it would not be for this Mishnah, and the Gemara would quote the Beraisa itself that says regarding the grinder that a Tevul Yom makes it impure and not Linah, there would be no question. It would be possible to say that the Tana said a Tevul Yom, but he also meant Linah.

Question: There should be a question from the cases of Tevul Yom themselves. The Beraisa states that from when it is put in the grinder it can be made invalid by a Tevul Yom. However, the Mishnah says here that if it was made holy in the vessel it can be made invalid by a Tevul Yom. This clearly means that it can be made invalid if it would be made holy in such a vessel, but otherwise it cannot be made invalid. (How can we resolve this apparent contradiction?)

Answer #1: It is possible that this was not so difficult according to our Gemara, as it is possible that even if the Ketores was not made holy in a vessel it can become invalid by being touched by a Tevul Yom.

It only said Kidush Kli in regards to being touched by a Tevul Yom because of the Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashuach that are stated here (which require Kidush Kli to become invalid when touched by a Tevul Yom). [However, earlier the Gemara deduced properly that if the Kidush b'Kli was not done, the Tevul Yom cannot make it impure. This is because Kidush b'Kli (of Menachos, the only thing discussed in that Mishnah) was referring to Tevul Yom, Mechusar Kipurim, and Linah. Otherwise, it said Tevul Yom for nothing!] (This is as opposed to the current Mishnah being quoted which lists many things at once.)

Proof: This is obviously correct, as even a Kometz that did not have Kidush b'Kli is made invalid by a Tevul Yom, Mechusar Kipurim, and Linah once the Minchah has been made holy in the vessel where it is mixed (see Bach). This is as the Mishnah says earlier that one is Moel in Menachos.

The reason why the Kometz is stated together with these other things (that do require Kidush b'Kli to be made invalid by a Tevul Yom) is because of the second part of the Mishnah which says that they make one liable for Nosar and impurity. This is stated regarding all of the topics in the Mishnah.

However, from Linah there is a good question. It cannot be said that the same applies without Kidush b'Kli, and that the Mishnah only said Kidush Kli because of Minchas Kohanim and the things listed that are similar to it. If so, why does it say Ketores together with these things?

Answer #2: It is also possible to answer that it is obvious to the Gemara that Ketores does not become invalid with Linah from the time it is put in the grinder (although it does become invalid if touched by a Tevul Yom). This is evident from the fact that they used to make the Ketores at the beginning of the year for the entire year (and it was not invalid due to Linah).

The only thing brought from this Mishnah is that it is possible to have Ketores become invalid through Linah. Without our Mishnah, I would think that there is no such thing as Ketores becoming invalid through Linah. (In other words, our Mishnah is not telling us that Ketores becomes invalid if touched by a Tevul Yom from when it has actual Kidush b'Kli. In fact, this would happen well beforehand, from the time it was placed in the grinder. The novel teaching of the Mishnah is that Linah applies to Linah from the time it has Kidush b'Kli.)

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that its appearance does not change. Accordingly, even though it has Kedushas ha'Guf, it does not become invalid for Linah.

However, when the Kidush b'Kli happens in order that it should be brought, the Rabbanan decreed that Linah now applies. This is lest people will come to allow Linah by other offerings that have Kidush b'Kli. It therefore can only be invalid mid'Rabbanan.

Question: This is difficult. In Yoma (48a), Rav Papa asked whether or not a thought that he will offer the Ketores tomorrow instead of today during filling his fist with Ketores makes the Ketores invalid. The Gemara answers the question based on Rebbi Akiva's statement that the flour, frankincense, coals, and Ketores that were partially touched by a Tevul Yom make the entire amount invalid. If a Tevul Yom makes these things invalid, so does Linah. If Linah does this, so does having a thought of offering it the next day.

Rashi asks there why the Gemara does not bring a proof from here that Linah makes Ketores invalid. One cannot say that there the Gemara is bringing proof that it is invalid according to Torah law, while our Gemara is not proof that it is invalid according to Torah law. This is because according to Rashi here, Ketores is only invalid through Linah according to Rabbinic law (there as well).

Opinion #2: It therefore appears that Ketores is different, being that it is in its form the entire year. This is because the main Mitzvah of Ketores is to make it in the beginning of the year. After Kidush b'Kaf (i.e. b'Kli), it is possible that it will become invalid according to Torah law, as do other Korbanos.

Additionally, being that there is an amount of how much Ketores one brings, a Pras (approximately ten ounces) in the morning and a Pras in the afternoon, a Kli Shares only makes it holy if it is supposed to be there, as is implied in Sukah (50a). [This is an added reason why Ketores would not become invalid before it is supposed to be brought, as is the reason immediately below.]

Alternatively, Kli Shares are only Mekadesh when the Korban is supposed to be brought, even regarding making the contents of the Kli invalid, as is apparent from the Gemara in Menachos (100a).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara in Sukah (50a) implies otherwise (when it says that this applies to water filled up before Shabbos for libations that will be done on Shabbos). (How can we reconcile this apparent contradiction?)

Answer: It must be that filling up the water on Erev Shabbos is considered its proper time, as one cannot do it on Shabbos. However, regarding putting Ketores in a grinder, it is considered possible to do later (on the day it must be brought). It is now understandable why one cannot deduce from here that Linah invalidates according to Torah law.

However, from Rebbi Akiva's law it is clear that the invalidation is according to Torah law, similar to Tevul Yom which makes things invalid according to Torah law. This is evident from the fact that the invalidation is through it being in the same vessel with something that was touched by a Tevul Yom (which is a method that Tosfos holds must only be used to make something impure according to Torah law).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that a Tevul Yom is in a certain sense more stringent, being that he can make the Ketores invalid after it is put in the grinder. (Accordingly, how can one prove when Linah will make Ketores impure based on Tevul Yom which clearly makes Ketores impure sooner than Linah?)

Answer #1: Kidush Kaf is considered regarding Linah as being similar to putting the Ketores in a grinder and being touched by a Tevul Yom.

Answer #2: It is also possible to answer that Linah is not being derived from Tevul Yom. Rather, the Gemara is saying that being that having the objects together in the same vessel makes the other part (that was not touched) impure as well, it must be that the vessel brings the Ketores together to be burned. (This is why the vessel makes it considered as if all of the pieces are together.) If the vessel did not serve a significant purpose for the Ketores, it would not bring it together. (It is therefore clear that this is only when there is actual Kidush b'Kli.)

Even if being impure through being together in the same vessel is only a Rabbinic law, it only applies when the object needs to be in this vessel according to Torah law. Being that it needs the Kli, Linah will make it invalid. This is similar to the deduction in Menachos (51a) from "Al Machavas" that a Kli is required, and if it is baked the day before it becomes Pasul through Linah.

Question #1: However, this is difficult, as we should deduce from the second part of the Mishnah that it is indeed invalid according to Torah law. The Mishnah in Meilah (10a) says, "And one is liable for Nosar for them." This implies that it includes Ketores (being invalid due to Linah).

Question #2: Additionally, it says that they do not have Pigul, as they have no Matirin (things that make them become permitted, such as a Kemitzah that allows it to be eaten etc.). If a thought would not make it invalid according to Torah law (which is clear from the fact that it cannot become Pigul), we should derive from here that thoughts can never make them invalid.

Question: This is difficult. If a grinder makes the Ketores have Kedushas ha'Guf, how can the Gemara say in Erchin (10b) that workers from Alexandria in Egypt repaired a grinder in the Beis Hamikdash that was pierced and broken? The Gemara in Zevachim (88a) says that if a Kli Shares broke, we do not fix it. If a Kli Shares is pierced, we do not put lead over the hole. This is because there is no show of poverty (i.e. repairs) in a place of riches (Beis Hamikdash).

Answer #1: It is possible to answer that the grinder of Moshe was an exception to this rule, as it was excellent at preparing the Ketores.

Answer #2: The grinder itself was not a Kli Shares. Rather, the Ketores achieved Kedushas ha'Guf through the person's speech, as he would say, "This should be Ketores." It would then achieve Kedushas ha'Guf" after grinding it in a grinder.

This became fit to offer like an animal that is holy when a person says, "This should be an Olah/Chatas."

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara earlier answers that Ketores is different because it only has Kedushas Damim. (How can we say it does have Kedushas ha'Guf?)

Answer: This is what the Gemara means. When he says, "This should be Ketores" Kedushas ha'Guf does not take effect (it still only has Kedushas Damim until he grinds it with a grinder).

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that they must die because they cannot be used for next year, as next year's Korbanos must be taken from the new donations (of the Terumas ha'Lishkah for that year).

Implied Question: In Yoma (65b), the Gemara concludes that this is incorrect. Rather, the Gemara concludes that new ones do not have to be brought for a new year, but it is merely a Mitzvah to do so.

Opinion #2: The reason they must die is because we suspect that they will otherwise be misused (see Yoma 66a).

Question #1: According to the opinion in Yoma (50a) that the bull stated here is a Par Helem Davar, this is understandable.

However, according to the opinion there that this is referring to the Par Kohen Gadol, this is difficult. Why doesn't it say Par Helem Davar together with the Si'eer Avodah Zarah? They are often discussed together, just as they are cited together there regarding Acheirim's statement.

Question #2: There is an additional difficulty. Why isn't the term "Parei Helem Davar" [plural] used, just as the term "Si'eerei" [plural] is always used? Si'eerei implies that twelve Shevatim would bring twelve different Si'eerim. Here, too, they should bring twelve different bulls as they have the same law, as is stated in Horayos (4b).

Question: This is difficult. This implies that if they are Kodshei Mizbe'ach (dedicated to be brought as a Korban), this is understandable. However, Rebbi Yochanan holds in Temurah (32b) that both Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (dedicated as a monetary asset of the Beis Hamikdash) can be stood up and evaluated! (According to him, how is this an answer?)

Answer: It is possible to answer that this discussion of the Gemara is according to Reish Lakish who says that the Rabbanan hold that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are not included (i.e. are forbidden to be) in being stood up and evaluated.

Question #1: However, this is difficult. Originally Abaye asked why the Beraisa did not say that Beis Din makes a condition (implying that this is generally not said). In the end, Abaye asks that even regarding something that is uncommon we say that Beis Din makes a condition! (These are opposite extremes!)

Question #2: Additionally, Abaye's question is based on the assumption that the Parah Adumah is Kodshei Mizbe'ach. This is also his conclusion. However, everywhere else we say that a Parah Adumah is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

This is also the implication of the Gemara in Chulin (11a), as the Gemara says there that the Parah Adumah becomes invalid if it is a Treifah as the Torah calls it a Chatas (even though it actually does not have the status of a Chatas).

Answer: It therefore seems that Abaye indeed knew that the Parah Adumah was Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. Even so, he held it is only able to be redeemed because Beis Din makes a condition that it can be redeemed.

This is why he asks that a Parah Adumah is not common. In other words, it is uncommon that they would find a nicer Parah Adumah. Even so, the Gemara concludes that Beis Din makes a condition that it can be redeemed because it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

If so, the same should apply to Kodshei Mizbe'ach. If we say that Beis Din makes a condition, we should say that this even applies to an uncommon case! The Gemara answers that the Parah Adumah is different specifically because it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. It therefore does not even need Beis Din to make a condition to enable it to be redeemed.

Abaye now asks that if so, if it is slaughtered it should still be able to be redeemed! If you say that Beis Din makes a condition, it is understandable that they have in mind to always be able to redeem it (even after it is slaughtered). If not, the money should go to libations and it should be like an animal that originally received a blemish (before being slaughtered), as Rebbi Yochanan agrees that it does not require standing up and being evaluated.

Question: If the Parah Adumah is considered Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, how can the Gemara ask later, "Do we redeem Kodshim in order to feed it to dogs?!" We indeed do redeem Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (even to feed it to dogs)!

The law that we do not redeem such Kodshim comes from the Pasuk, "And you will eat" implying "and not for your dogs." This is stated regarding Pesulei ha'Mukdashim that are dedicated to be Korbanos, as is apparent from the Gemara in Bechoros (15a). We derive from this Pasuk that the shearings and milk of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are permitted. Even if they were dedicated to be Hekdesh before they received their blemish, the Mishnah there says that they are permitted after their redemption to be used for shearings and work. The Mishnah explicitly says there that if they died they should be redeemed.

Answer: It is possible to say that mid'Rabbanan it is prohibited, as is apparent from the Gemara's discussion in Pesachim (29a, not 32a) regarding Chametz belonging to Hekdesh. it means according to Torah law (not according to Rabbinic law).

Implied Question: The Mishnah there says, "If they die they should be redeemed." (This implies that it is permitted to be redeemed, not a Rabbinic prohibition!)

Answer: This means according to Torah law it is permitted (not according to Rabbinic law).

Clarification: This was explained somewhere else (see Bava Kama 77a, DH PARAH).

Implied Question: The Gemara says this despite the fact that it is actually an argument in Bechoros, even in a case where the animal was dedicated before it received a blemish. (Why, then, isn't our Gemara taking into account the opinion that one can redeem Kodshim?)

Answer: Even though there is such an opinion, the Stam Mishnah in Bechoros (14a) and in Chulin (130a) are according to the opinion that one cannot redeem Kodshim.

Question: Rabeinu Mordechai asks, how is this different from the case in Zevachim (103b) of a Bechor which became a Treifah? The Gemara there says that we bury it together with its skin, because we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed it to the dogs. The Gemara there does not say that we redeem it because of its skin. (Our Gemara does. What is the difference between the two cases?)

Answer: According to what we have explained, that we do not redeem Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis according to Rabbinic law, this is understandable. Our Gemara is saying it is only forbidden according to Rabbinic law, and therefore it is permitted to benefit from its skin. The Gemara in Zevachim is saying this is forbidden according to Torah law, and therefore it is even forbidden to redeem (and benefit from) the skin.

Implied Question: The Gemara cannot answer that animals that went lost are different. (Why not?)

Answer #1: The case of the animals going lost mentioned earlier is certainly not common. People are very careful to guard these animals because they have a lot of Kedushah, as is indicated by the fact that their blood is sprinkled by the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that they themselves are not common Korbanos, as they are only brought once a year. Si'eerei Avodah Zarah are also very uncommon. Even though our Gemara is also discussing the Si'eer ha'Chitzon of Yom Kippur, they are more common and would more commonly (than the Pnimi) go lost.

The Gemara concludes that Beis Din has in mind to make a condition regarding their status.