Tosfos' text: After this, the text says "Mar bar Rav Ashi asked 'if he inverted the Kli and stuck the Kometz to the bottom of the Kli, what is the law?

Do we require Hanachah inside, and this is fulfilled? Or, perhaps it must be done normally, and this is not fulfilled? This question is not resolved."

Alternative texts: In most texts, this question of Mar bar Rav Ashi does not appear. However, in Menachos (11a) it is in all the Seforim.

Since the entire matter is brought there, it seems that here, by the way (along with Rav Papa's question), also Mar bar Rav Ashi's question is brought.

Question: In Zevachim (88a), Shmuel said that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh only inside. R. Chananel (perhaps this stands for "R. Chayim", in whose name Tosfos cites this there) explained that he excludes a cavity carved into the Kli from the outside! (If so, this answers the question!)

Answer: Perhaps we can say that he explains here that he turned the Kli inside out, like a cloak, and its inside became its outside and its outside became its inside. It can be Mekadesh in this way.

Rashi's opinion: There, Rashi explained "only inside" to mean inside the Azarah.

Question: If so, it should have said "ba'Kodesh", like it says in the Mishnah there!

Implied question: We can ask "a very fine knife cuts the verse", like we ask in Bava Basra (111b)!

Answer: There, we take a Vov from Nachalaso and a "Lamed" from li'Sh'ero, and make a word by itself (Lo. Here, we merely add to an existing word, so we do not ask.)

Citation (Zevachim 25a - Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): The Shochet must lift the knife above [lest blood from the knife fall into the bucket], for it says "v'Lakach mi'Dam ha'Par", and not from the blood of the bull and something else;

Question: Since we exclude blood of the knife, all the more so we exclude blood of the floor!

Answer #1: Perhaps blood of the knife is worse, for it was received in a Pasul way, like we say about a Minchah;

If he did not mix [the flour with the oil], it is Kosher. If he mixed it outside the wall of the Azarah, some say that it is Pasul (Menachos 9a).

Answer #2: If not that we subtract [a letter from a word] and add [to a different word] and expound, one might have thought that "from blood of the bull and something else" excludes blood on the floor, but blood on the knife is fine.

Implied question: Why don't we ask here "I would know only Kodshei Kodoshim. What is the source for Kodshim Kalim"?

We asked this in Zevachim (25b), regarding one who nicked the ear of Par [Yom Kipur], and afterwards received the blood. It is Pasul, for it says "ha'Par" - the bull [must be intact] like it was. (The Gemara brought a source that the same applies to Kodshim Kalim.)

Answer: Since the Torah revealed about one of them that the same applies to Kodshim Kalim, the same applies to the other.

Question: We should resolve this from the fact that he brings [the Ketores] into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim in a Kaf, and not in Chafnav;

We said above that this is because it is impossible.

If his hands are like a Kli Shares, he should enter it in Chafnav, put the Machtah on top [of his hands];

When he gets there, he loosens his hands slightly and lets the Ketores fall on the floor, and the Machtah is still on his hands;

He would take the Machtah, put it on the ground, take the Ketores from the floor, and put it on the coals, since his hands are like a Kli Shares!

Answer: We must say that even if you will say that his hands are like a Kli Shares, and the Ketores is not disqualified if it falls on the ground, it is improper to do so l'Chatchilah every year.

One would not do so in front of a mortal king. All the more so, we should not do so in front of Hash-m!

Rashi's opinion: A Minchah can become Pigul through Kemitzah [with intent Chutz li'Zmano]. We learn this from a Hekesh - "Zos ha'Torah la'Olah la'Minchah... [ul'Zevach ha'Shelamim]";

[Minchah] is Hukash to Shelamim, which [can] make Pigul and become Pigul.

Question: We say in Zevachim (49b) that something learned from a Hekesh cannot teach through a Gezeirah Shavah regarding Kodshim!

Answer: It was obvious to him that Pigul applies to Holachah and Haktarah [of Ketores], according to the opinion that regarding Minchah, Haktarah is Mefagel Haktarah (Menachos 17a);

This is because all of these Avodos are totally like those of a Minchah;

Implied question: There is no Hekesh equating Ketores to Shelamim! (If so, what is the source that Pigul applies to Ketores?)

Answer: After the verse "Zos ha'Torah...", it says "b'Yom Tzavoso Es Bnei Yisrael Lehakriv Es Korbeneihem." We expound from it Bechor, Ma'aser, Pesach, and everything to which Hakravah and Haktarah apply;

We include even the Log of oil that a Metzora brings. It is clear from Menachos 28a that it must be Lishmo.

Question (R. Yom Tov ha'Kadosh): What is the source [for a Metzora's Log of oil]?

Answer (Ritzva): We learn from "b'Yom Tzavoso." Also the oil is called a Korban - "v'Hikriv Oso l'Asham v'Es Log ha'Shamen."

We expound in Zevachim (44b) "Kol Korbanam" to include a Metzora's Log of oil, and all the more so Ketores, for it itself is offered on the fire, and it says regarding it (Ketores) an expression of Haktarah;

Explanation: Here we ask only whether Chafinah is considered an Avodah like Kemitzah;

It is clear to us that Kemitzah is an Avodah, and one can be Mefagel in it, just like Shechitah of a Zevach (animal Korban);

Shechitah separates the part offered to Hash-m, i.e. the blood, from the part for people [to eat]. Similarly, Kemitzah separates the Kometz from the remainder;

Distinction: However, we cannot say so about Chafinah. Even what remains in the Machtah pertains to Hash-m, and will be offered another time;

The Safek is whether we learn [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Melo-Melo" and say that Chafinah is like Kemitzah, or not.

Rav Simi bar Ashi answered that since Linah disqualifies it, intent disqualifies it, like every Avodah that the Torah obligates for it. If so, intent disqualifies also Chafinah.

Question: In Shevuos (11b), we say that once it was put in the mortar, it becomes Pasul through a Tevul Yom;

Even so, Linah does not disqualify it, for they leave it for the entire year!

Answer: It becomes Pasul through a Tevul Yom only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, Linah does not disqualify it;

Here is mid'Oraisa, like I will explain.

Question (Rashi): Why do we infer that since it becomes Pasul through a Tevul Yom, Linah disqualifies it? We should bring a Mishnah in Me'ilah (10a) to show this!

Citation (10a): The Kometz, Levonah, Ketores, Minchas Kohanim, Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach, and Minchas Nesachim, Me'ilah applies from when they were Hukdash;

Citation (cont.): From when they were Hukdash in a Kli, they are Huchshar (able) to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim, or through Linah.

Rashi did not answer this.

Answer #1 (Riva): We could say that that Mishnah discusses Ketores of the entire year. Its Kidush in a Kli is important, and it is Machshir (enables) it to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim, or through Linah.

Inference: Since it says "they were Hukdash in a Kli", this shows that we discuss something that requires a Kli to receive full Kedushah;

However, the Ketores of Yom Kipur, its Kidush Kli is not important, for letter of the law we should have said that it does not require a Kli;

Rather, he should enter it in his hands, just this is impossible, like we said above.

I would say that Kedushas Kli does not enable it to become Pasul through Linah, for the Mishnah does not discuss it.

"They were Hukdash in a Kli" connotes that they were put in a Kli in order to be Mekadesh them in the Kli.

The case of Yom Kipur is unlike this. Just the contrary! It would be better without a Kli, just it is impossible!

However, there is a good proof from here. It taught Ketores Stam, which connotes all kinds of Ketores.

Answer #2 (Ri): We cannot learn from there, that because Linah disqualifies, intent disqualifies. Perhaps Linah disqualifies only mid'Rabanan;

Implied question: The Seifa says "one is liable for them for Nosar and Tamei." (Surely this is mid'Oraisa!)

Answer: Also that is mid'Rabanan!

A Mishnah (Kerisus 12b) says that if one ate Tamei food or drank Tamei liquids and entered the Mikdash, he is liable, even though these are Metamei a person only mid'Rabanan, like it says in Yoma (80b).

Therefore, we are not so stringent to be Metamei even through joining [Tamei food and drink].

However, there is a good proof from here. Since a Tevul Yom disqualifies, also Linah and intent disqualify.

Question (Ritzva): We find Tziruf Kli in a matter that is mid'Rabanan! (Perhaps also here, the Tevul Yom is Metamei all of it mid'Rabanan.)

Citation (Idiyos 8:1, Reisha of the Mishnah of R. Akiva): R. Shimon ben Beseirah testified that if a Tamei touched some Efer Chatas (ashes of Parah Adumah), he was Metamei all of it.

Even though Efer Chatas has no Tum'ah mid'Oraisa [Tziruf Kli applies]!

Suggestion: Perhaps it is due to Chibas ha'Kodesh (a stringency due to the dearness of Kodshim, it is Tamei mid'Oraisa)!

Rejection: This does not apply after it became ashes, like Menachos 51b connotes. It says there is no Me'ilah with the ashes.

Answer: I can answer that even though Chachamim decreed about a Tamei, they would not decree about a Tevul Yom, for his Tum'ah is lighter. (Therefore, R. Akiva must say that a Tevul Yom is Metamei mid'Oraisa.)

Support: The Reisha mentions a "Tamei" regarding Efer Chatas, and in the Seifa it mentions a Tevul Yom. (I.e. a Tevul Yom is not Metamei Efer Chatas mid'Oraisa, so even mid'Rabanan he is not Metamei all of it. He is Metamei Ketores mid'Oraisa, so he is Metamei all of it.)

Answer #3 (R. Yitzchak ben Avraham): Here we derive that since a Tevul Yom disqualifies through Tziruf, we must say that it (Ketores) requires a Kli;

If it did not require a Kli, a Kli would not join it, like it says in Chagigah (24a).

Implied question: We say there that this is mid'Rabanan, e.g. he gathered it (Ketores or Levonah) on a hide. Mid'Oraisa, Tziruf applies only to a Kli with an interior. Chachamim decreed even if it has no interior. (Perhaps they decreed also about what does not need a Kli!)

Answer: They decreed to make a Kli without an interior as if it has an interior, but they did not make a Kli without an interior more important than one with an interior [to join what does not need a Kli];

Always (even mid'Rabanan), Tziruf is only if it requires a Kli.

Conclusion: Since it requires a Kli, Linah disqualifies it, like it says in Menachos (51a);

Citation: "Al Machavas ba'Shemen" teaches that it requires a Kli, and if he baked it from the day before, it would be Pasul due to Linah.

Since Linah disqualifies it mid'Oraisa, also intent disqualifies.

Rashi's Question: Why didn't we learn from the Mishnah in Me'ilah? It says "from when they were Hukdash in a Kli..."!

Answer #1: One might have thought that this is mid'Rabanan.

Implied question: It says "Kaf Achas" (regarding the Ketores of the Nesi'im. This teaches that everything inside joins, i.e. mid'Oraisa!)

Answer #1: We would not learn [Mitzvos that apply to all] generations from [those that applied] only once [at Chanukas ha'Mishkan].

Answer #2: Because it (Kaf Achas) was not written like a command, I would think that it does not require a Kli.

However, based on what I proved from the Mishnah in Idiyos that it requires a Kli, [indeed] we learn from there, from "Kaf Achas."

Answer #2: Had we tried to learn from the Mishnah in Me'ilah, we could have rejected this;

We would say "from when they were Hukdash in a Kli, they are Huchshar to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim, or through Linah" does not refer to Ketores, rather, to the other matters taught there;

Ketores was listed only to teach that Me'ilah applies to it from when it was Hukdash.

Support: This [part of the Mishnah] cannot apply to Ketores, for it says "from when they were Hukdash in a Kli, they are Huchshar to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom";

Ketores can be disqualified through a Tevul Yom from when it is put in the mortar, like it says in Shevuos (11a)!

Rejection: This is not a proof. There is different. Even though Ketores can be disqualified through a Tevul Yom from when it is put in the mortar, it says "from when they were Hukdash in a Kli, they are Huchshar..."

This applies even to Ketores. Kidush Kli of the mortar enables it to become Pasul through a Tevul Yom or Mechusar Kipurim, and Kidush Kli of the Machtah enables it to become Pasul through Linah.

However, [even] without this [support, we can give this answer, for] there are many places in Shas where we say "it applies to the others" when it cannot apply to everything taught.

Implied question - Citation (Shevuos 11a) Question: If it (Ketores) has Kedushas ha'Guf, it should become Pasul through Linah!

Citation (cont.): Why does the Mishnah say "the Kometz, Levonah and Ketores... from when they were Hukdash in a Kli", i.e. but not without Kidush Kli?

Note: Tosfos asks that it was clear to the Gemara that "from when they were Hukdash in a Kli" applies to Ketores!

Answer: The Gemara asks "either way you will say";

If [you will say that "from when they were Hukdash in a Kli"] applies also to Ketores, this implies that without Kidush Kli, it cannot become Pasul through Linah;

If it does not apply to Ketores, for even after Kidush Kli Ketores cannot become Pasul through Linah, like I explained here (o:1) in the Hava Amina, all the more so this is difficult, why Linah does not disqualify it!

Conclusion: According to what we derive here from R. Akiva's addition, that it is disqualified through Linah, we can say that in the Mishnah in Me'ilah, "from when they were Hukdash in a Kli, they were Huchshar to become Pasul through Linah" applies also to Ketores.

However, regarding a Tevul Yom, [after] Kidush Kli is not precise. Also beforehand, from when it was put in the mortar, it can become Pasul through a Tevul Yom.

Implied question: Why did the Mishnah discuss after Kidush Kli, and not even before Kidush Kli?

Answer: It is due to the matters taught with it. They cannot become Pasul before Kidush Kli.

Question (Rashi): Why don't we learn also this from that Mishnah? Since R. Akiva added that a Tevul Yom disqualifies, Linah disqualifies, so [also] intent disqualifies!

Answer: Even though Linah disqualifies, if it is not considered Avodah, intent does not disqualify.

Support: [After] Kidush of a Minchah and putting it in a Bisa (the Kli in which the flour and oil are mixed), a Tevul Yom and Linah disqualify it, and even so, if he intended [Chutz li'Zmano] at the time he put it in, his intent did not disqualify;

The same applies at the time of Yetzikah (pouring the oil) and mixing. Intent disqualifies only in the four Avodos of a Minchah that correspond to those of a Zevach.

This is why we ask "if you will say that Chafinah of Ketores is considered Avodah, just like Kemitzah, what is the law of scooping coals"?

Do we say that preparations of a Mitzvah are like the Mitzvah, and it is like an extended Chafinah, and [both] scooping and Chafinah are in place of Kemitzah, or not?

Citation (Zevachim 104a) Question (R. Yirmeyah): Does Linah takes effect on the meat of Parim ha'Nisrafim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim...?

Citation (cont.): All agree that if he intended to eat them, this has no effect.

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: Since intent does not disqualify, also Linah does not disqualify!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: No. Intent does not disqualify, but Linah disqualifies.

Question: If so, how do we infer here that since Linah disqualifies [after] Chafinah, also intent in it disqualifies?

Answer: Here, since this is consumption of the Mizbe'ach, since Linah disqualifies, intent disqualifies;

However, meat of Parim ha'Nisrafim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim is burned outside of three Machanos. Granted, Linah disqualifies, but perhaps intent does not disqualify!

Question: Here we conclude that intent disqualifies Ketores. In Zevachim (42b), a Mishnah says that one is not liable for Pigul for Ketores and...!

Answer: There it teaches that one is not Chayav Kares for eating those matters;

However, they are disqualified through Pigul intent, due to the Gezeirah Shavah "Melo-Melo" from Minchas Chotei.

Support: We say like this in Zevachim (14a). R. Shimon says, anything not brought on the outer Mizbe'ach, one is not liable for it for Pigul;

Even so, we say there that R. Shimon agrees that it is disqualified [through Pigul intent], from a Kal va'Chomer from Lo Lishmah.

Question: If he did not think to resolve this from "he took the Machtah in his left hand", what was his question?

We say in Zevachim (4a) that Holachah has the laws of Kabalah!

Answer: This was his Safek! Do we learn from the Kaf, or is there some reason not to learn from it, and say that Holachah has the laws of Kabalah!

Rav Sheshes resolved that we learn from it;

Since the Torah wrote "bringing" once regarding Ketores, and it is possible to bring [the Machtah and Ketores] at once only if he takes the Kaf in his left hand, this teaches that the left hand is Kosher.

It is more reasonable to learn Holachah from Holachah than to learn Holachah from Kabalah.