Question #1: Why do we need a verse for this? We can learn from "Milvad Olas ha'Boker Asher l'Olas ha'Tamid"!

In Zevachim (89a) we learn from this that because what is Tadir (more regular) always comes before what is not Tadir!

Suggestion: Zevachim teaches about Musafim, and here we teach about Nedarim and Nedavos. Both of these are needed;

Musafim have a fixed time, and Nedarim and Nedavos are common every day. (Therefore, we could not learn from either of them from the other.)

Rejection: In Menachos (49a), we bring the verse "ha'Olah" to teach that Temidim come before Musafim;

Citation (49a): In what case does the Mishnah say that Temidim are not Me'akev Musafim?

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: We have enough [lambs for both], and [the Mishnah teaches about] offering first (we may offer either first).

Rejection (Beraisa): "Ha'Olah"...

Question #2: In Bava Kama (111a), we expound from "Milvad Eil ha'Kipurim" that one must first return the money (stolen, before offering the Asham);

Citation (111a) Question: If so, we should infer from "Milvad Olas ha'Boker" that m9s are offered before [the Tamid]!

Citation (cont.) (Beraisa): "Ha'Olah" (teaches that Temidim come first).

Summation of question: The Gemara should have asked from the Mishnah in Zevachim 89a, which expounds "Milvad" oppositely!

Suggestion: We need "Milvad" to teach about a Tzibur that does not have enough lambs for the Tamid and m9s, rather, only for one of them.

Rejection: The Mishnah there in Zevachim discusses only which is offered first, like "Dam Chatas precedes Dam Olah", which was taught with it.

Suggestion: One of them teaches which is offered first l'Chatchilah, and the other teaches that it is Me'akev.

Rejection: The order is not Me'akev, like it says in Menachos 49a.

Answer: '"Ha'Olah" - the first Olah' teaches that it is first for Haktarah. The verse discusses Haktarah;

The verse "Milvad" teaches that it is slaughtered first. It discusses the blood of these Korbanos.

Support #1: This is why in Menachos there, we learn from ha'Olah about Haktarah, which was not taught in the Mishnah in Zevachim that the Tamid is first;

Alternatively, the Makshan thought that it is Me'akev. Therefore, he asked from the Beraisa, for "nothing may be before" connotes that it is Me'akev more than the words of the Mishnah in Zevachim.

Support #2: This explains also why in Bava Kama 111a, we did not brought the Mishnah in Zevachim to prove [about Milvad Eil ha'Kipurim] that the money is not brought first;

We can say that really, the money is brought first, and then the ram, like the order they are written in the Parshah. The Mishnah in Zevachim discusses doing the blood.

The verse means that aside from Olas ha'Boker, for which you already did Avodas ha'Dam, do these (Musafim);

However, Haktarah, which is written before the verse "Milvad", should be before the Tamid, for all the verses before this discuss Haktarah;

They say Isheh Re'ach Nicho'ach;

Therefore, we need to bring "ha'Olah" to teach that even Haktarah of the Tamid is first.

Even though Haktarah of Musafim is written first, the Tamid is first;

Also here, even though the money is written first, the ram is brought] first.

Question: Why do we need the verses "ha'Olah" and "Milvad" to teach that Temidim precede Musafim?

We already know this, for regarding Temidim it says ba'Boker, and regarding Musafim it says "ba'Yom"!

Something about which it says ba'Boker should precede something about which it says "ba'Yom"!

We also say that Musafim are offered [after] six hours, and then it is not morning.

Answer: If not for the verse "ha'Olah", we would delay Haktaras ha'Tamid until after Haktaras ha'Musaf, like it connotes in Bava Kama 111a, for it says "Milvad";

We would establish "Ta'aseh ba'Boker" (which discusses the Tamid) to discuss Avodas Dam.

Question: Still it is difficult! Since ha'Olah refutes this reasoning, why do we need the verse "Milvad" to teach that Avodas Dam of the Tamid precedes Musafim?

We should know this because it says ba'Boker regarding the Tamid, and "ba'Yom" regarding Musafim!

Answer: We need "Milvad" to teach that in general, whenever there is Tadir and not Tadir, what is Tadir comes first;

Question: Why does it say "Asher l'Olas ha'Tamid"? Obviously, "Olas ha'Boker" is Olas ha'Tamid!

Answer: The verse explains the reason;

Question: Why do I (the Torah) say "Milvad Olas ha'Boker" [to teach that] it is first?

Answer: It is because it is Olas ha'Tamid, and whatever is Tadir comes before what is not Tadir.

Support: The Gemara in Zevachim connotes that we learn from here to everywhere;

The Mishnah says what is more Tadir than another comes before... for it says "Milvad".

Opinion #1: Some explain that this is Olas ha'Tamid, which is written before all other Korbanos in Parshas Pinchas.

Opinion #2: Alternatively, he holds that the Olah that our ancestors offered before h3s was Olas ha'Tamid. It was the first of all Korbanos Tzibur.

[Tana'im] argue about this in Chagigah (6a);

Some say that it was Olas Tamid, and some say that it was Olas Re'iyah. (See Tosfos Bava Metzi'a 55a DH ha'Olah).

Implied question: Why don't we say [that Chavitim are first] because it says about them "Machatzisah ba'Boker"?

Answer: Also regarding Nesachim it says ba'Boker - "ka'Minchas ha'Boker v'Nisko."

Question: Why don't we say that it is because something about which it says ba'Boker should precede something about which it says "ba'Yom"?

Even without this, we need the verse "Zevach u'Nesachim" for another Drashah (Menachos 49a), that Nesachim become Kodesh only through Shechitas ha'Zevach - "Zevach u'Nesachim."

Answer: We need to learn from this verse in order to resolve it even according to the opinion that Bazichim (spoons of Levonah) are before Musafim, even though here (Musafim) it says ba'Yom, and here (Bazichim) it says twice ba'Yom;

Inference: He holds that ba'Yom does not connote to delay it. Therefore, we bring the verse Zevach u'Nesachim.

Question: What is the source that Minchah precedes Nesachim?

Suggestion: We learn from "Olah u'Minchah." (Minchah should be immediately after the Zevach.)

Rejection: We can say that Nesachim should precede Minchah, for it says "Zevach u'Nesachim"!

Answer: This is not difficult. The Torah always writes Minchah before Nesachim;

In that very verse, Minchah is written first, i.e. "Olah u'Minchah Zevach u'Nesachim"!

Question: What didn't we say "you can say that it is like Rabanan, or you can say that it is like Aba Sha'ul. The Tana is not discussing the order"?

Answer: The Reisha is unlike Aba Sha'ul, for it says "he entered to burn the Ketores and fix the Neros", like it says above (14a).

Assertion: It seems that they argue about a Tzibur that has enough Nesachim only for one of them;

According to the opinion that learns Arvis from Shacharis, Shacharis is primary, so we should offer them for Shacharis;

According to the opinion that learns Shacharis from Arvis, Arvis is primary, so we should offer them for Arvis.

Rashi's text: This is Rashi's text. It does not say "Ein Shevus b'Mikdash" (stringencies mid'Rabanan are lifted if needed for Avodas ha'Mikdash).

He explains that since even if he would intend, there would be no Isur d'Oraisa, when he does not intend, Chachamim did not decree even outside the Mikdash.

Question (Ri): This connotes that R. Yehudah does not forbid regarding Tziruf mid'Rabanan;

Shabbos (41b) connotes that he forbids!

There, Abaye himself says that if one emptied the water out of a kettle, one may not put any amount of water in it, for it is Metzaref. The Mishnah is like R. Yehudah, who forbids Devar she'Eino Miskaven.

Answer: We can say that Tziruf is mid'Rabanan only for Asasiyos (thick pieces of metal), for they are not Kelim;

They are destined to ultimately be made into Kelim. The Tziruf done now is not their final Melachah.

However, a kettle is a Kli. Its Tziruf is its final Melachah. It is mid'Oraisa.

Question #1: In Shabbos (46b), we say that whenever if he would intend, there is an Isur d'Oraisa, when he does not intend, R. Shimon forbids mid'Rabanan;

Whenever if he intends, there is no Isur d'Oraisa, when he does not intend, R. Shimon does not decree;

Illustration: For example, one may drag a bed, bench or chair, which is plowing k'Le'acher Yad (unskillfully).

If so, R. Yehudah, who argues with R. Shimon, forbids even in such a case, that if he intends, there is no Isur d'Oraisa.

Question #2: What was the question from Tzara'as? We were able to ask only from the Beraisa, and what Abaye said about it;

We should ask from the Mishnah in Beitzah (23b), in which R. Yehudah forbids dragging all Kelim except for a wagon, for it compresses the dirt [and does not make a furrow]!

Inference: Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden.

Suggestion: We can say that we preferred to ask a contradiction in Abaye.

Rejection: It would be better to bring from what R. Yehudah himself explicitly said in the Mishnah!

Question #3: Rashi changes what is written in all texts, which say "this is only in the rest of the Torah, but Ein Shevus b'Mikdash"!

Ri's opinion: Abaye says that even if it reached Tziruf, Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted;

Explanation: It is permitted mid'Oraisa. Even though it is forbidden mid'Rabanan, Ein Shevus b'Mikdash.

The Gemara asks 'did Abaye say that Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden only mid'Rabanan? A Beraisa says...

Since a verse is needed, this shows that Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden mid'Oraisa.

The Gemara answer only in the rest of the Torah Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden like one who intends;

However, here, i.e. regarding Shabbos, about which it says "Meleches Machsheves", one must intend to do the Melachah he does;

Therefore, here Tziruf mid'Rabanan is as if he does not intend, and Ein Shevus b'Mikdash!

Alternative text: Some texts explicitly say "but here, the Torah forbade Meleches Machsheves." This is like the Ri.

Now, it is proven that according to R. Yehudah, the Torah permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven regarding Shabbos.

Question: In Kerisus (20b), Rav Ashi said that the Beraisa discusses one who [removed coals on the top of a pile, and] intended [only] to extinguish the top coals, and bottom coals flared up on their own [since they are now exposed];

Citation (20b): R. Eliezer bar Tzadok [who is Mechayev for extinguishing and for burning] holds like R. Yehudah, who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven.

Inference: R. Yehudah holds that one is liable from the Torah for Davar she'Eino Miskaven.

Answer: There, it is a Pesik Reishei (an inevitable consequence). It is impossible when he scoops coals that the bottom ones will not flare up;

Since it is a Pesik Reishei, it is as if he intended.

Implied question: He does not need them to flare up. This is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah!

Answer: Also regarding this, he holds like R. Yehudah, who says that one is liable for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.

Explanation: The reason R. Shimon exempts is not because he does not consider it Meleches Machsheves.

Support #1: Just like according to R. Yehudah it is Meleches Machsheves, also according to R. Shimon, since it is a Pesik Reishei.

Support #2: R. Shimon obligates one who ruins through burning, even though regarding other Melachos, he is exempt because [it is not] Meleches Machsheves, like it says in Chagigah (10a).

Also Misasek, which in other Melachos is exempt due to Meleches Machsheves, R. Shimon obligates for it regarding wounding and burning;

This is like it says in Kerisus (19b), [that circumcision of] babies is different. Since Mekalkel through wounding is liable, also Misasek is liable.

Explanation: Rather, R. Shimon exempts because he requires Melachah ha'Tzerichah l'Gufah [to be liable].

We learn from the Mishkan. Even regarding wounding and burning, he holds that it must be Tzerichah l'Gufah. This is clear from Sanhedrin 85a.

Implied question: Why does [Rav Ashi, in] Kerisus 20b discuss whether or not he intends?

He should have said "this (Tana, i.e. R. Eliezer bar Tzadok) is like R. Yehudah, who obligates for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah", and this (the first Tana) is like R. Shimon [who exempts Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah]!

Answer: He taught a Chidush in R. Yehudah. Even though he does not intend to ignite the lower coals, since it is a Pesik Reishei, he is liable;

One might have thought that R. Yehudah is Mechayev Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah only when he overtly intends;

E.g. one who pierces an abscess intends to open it. One who [extinguishes] to save his lamp wants to extinguish. One who takes a Mes outside on a bed [intends to be Motzi];

The same applies in all cases that he intends to do Melachah overtly, just it is Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah;

Distinction: However, if one does not overtly intend to do a matter, e.g. he intended to extinguish the top coals, and bottom coals flared up on their own, he did not intend for the Melachah of burning at all, only to extinguish;

Even though it is a Pesik Reishei, one might have thought that R. Yehudah exempts. [Rav Ashi] teaches that this is not so.

However, in the following case [in Kerisus] of one who scooped coals to warm himself through them, and they flared up on their own, the Gemara did not say "he does not intend";

Rather, it answers "this (the first Tana) is R. Yehudah, who obligates for a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. This (the latter Tana) is R. Shimon, who exempts."

Even though he does not intend to ignite them, (which we may infer) from the fact that R. Shimon exempts, in any case he does so in order to warm himself;

However, he does not intend to ignite them, only to draw them towards himself to warm himself. He does not need them to burn more than they are already burning.

Assertion: Davar she'Eino Miskaven is only when he is displeased that they burn, e.g. when he wants to extinguish;

There, it is appropriate to mention Eino Miskaven for a Chidush in R. Yehudah's opinion.

R. Shimon permits due to Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.

Implied question: In Shabbos (103a), we say that if one detached endives, if it was for people to eat, the Shi'ur is k'Grogeres. If it was to improve [the ground], he is liable for any amount.

Citation (103a) Question: In every case, he improves the ground!

Citation (cont.) Answer: This is according to R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven.

Citation (cont.) Question: Abaye and Rava both say that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei (you cannot cut off the head, and) it will not die!