1)

(a)Abaye queries Rabah's explanation from Rebbi Shimon, who says in a Beraisa that - Kohanim are permitted to eat Kodshim however they like, roasted, well cooked or just cooked.

(b)And he permits them to add spices - even Terumah spices ...

(c)... even though he has confined the time to eating them within the time that the Kodshim may be eaten.

(d)Rabah solves the problem - by confining that to Terumah d'Oraysa, whereas this Beraisa is speaking about spices, which are only Terumah de'Rabbanan.

2)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini forbids purchasing Terumah with Ma'aser-Sheini money - because it restricts the location where Terumah may be eaten to Yerushalayim.

(b)Rebbi Shimon - permits it (even though the Beraisa is referring to Terumah d'Oraysa).

(c)When Abaye queried Rabah from there - he remained silent ...

(d)... because he had no answer.

3)

(a)When Rav Yosef asked Abaye why he did not query Rabah from the Mishnah in Shevi'is which forbids cooking a vegetable of Shevi'is in Terumah oil, he replied that - having already queried him from Terumas Tavlin, he knew that Rabah would give him the same answer (that T'rumas Yerek, like T'rumas Tavlin, is only mi'de'Rabbanan).

(b)The problem with his answer is that - the Tana should have then rather discussed cooking a vegetable of Terumah in oil of Shevi'is (rather than the other way round)?

(c)So Abaye, citing Rabah, gives Rebbi Shimon's reason (for permitting it) as the fact that they were already mixed up. Rav Yosef's problem with that is - why the Rabbanan then disagree with Rebbi Shimon (since they agree with Rebbi Shimon when there is no other option, as we learned earlier)?

(d)We reject Abaye's answer, comparing this to Asham and Shelamim in our Mishnah, on the grounds that - whereas Asham and Shelamim can be rectified through Re'iyah (Yir'eh ad she'Yista'ev), it is not possible to squeeze all the oil from the vegetables.

4)

(a)We then query the Beraisa (of Yerek shel Shevi'is) from Chatichah ba'Chatichos in our Mishnah - where the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Shimon (that Mevi'in Kodshim le'Beis ha'Pesul', so why do they argue with him in the Beraisa?

(b)Ravina refutes the Kashya however - by differentiating between Chatichah ba'Chatichos, which cannot be rectified and Yerek shel Shevi'is ... , where it is possible to squeeze the oil from the vegetable in which it was cooked (Efshar li'Sechot).

(c)Rav Yosef disagrees with this answer however - because on the one hand, if one were to squeeze out the cooked vegetable completely, it would result in a loss regarding the Sh'mitah produce, and on the other, if one squeezed it just a little, then it would still be considered mixed, and nothing would have been achieved.

(d)We learn from the word "le'Ochlah" in B'har - that Sh'mitah produce must be eaten and not wasted or spoilt.

5)

(a)The Beraisa discusses a case of a 'Safek Metzora Muchlat, Safek Eino Muchlat'. According to Rebbi Shimon, when, on the eighth day, the Metzora brings his Asham together with the Log of oil, he must stipulate that - in case he is not a Metzora, the Korban will be a Shelamim.

(b)The Korban is Shechted - on the north side of the Azarah (like Kodshei Kodshim).

(c)The Tana also necessitates Semichah, Nesachim, Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok - and Matan Behonos (placing the remainder of the blood on the right thumb ... , which a Shelamim does not).

(d)The Kohanim who the Korban - have one day and the following night in which to eat it.

6)

(a)It appears from this Beraisa that - Rebbi Shimon holds Mevi'in Kodshim le'Beis ha'P'sul even Lechatchilah (a Kashya on Rabah); otherwise, he would not have permitted it here in the case of a Safek Metzora.

(b)Rabah will answer however that - this case is different than the previous cases, inasmuch as the man needs to be released from his Tum'as Tzara'as (Tikunei Gavra [in which case it is considered Bedi'eved]).

7)

(a)Rebbi Shimon will justify bringing the Log of oil (bearing in mind that he may not be a Metzora Muchlat) - by making him stipulate that, in case he is not, the oil is a Nedavah.

(b)Normally - a Log of oil that someone donates as a Korban requires Kemitzah (like a Minchah).

(c)The problem this creates is that, assuming he is really a Metzora - once the Kemitzah has taken place, the Log is incomplete (and an incomplete Log is Pasul).

(d)We solve the problem - by instructing the Metzora to replace the missing oil from his own pocket.

8)

(a)The Kohen burns the Kometz on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)The problem if he burns them ...

1. ... after the seven Matanos is that - if he is not a Metzora, and the Korban is really a Nedavah, then he is left with Shirayim that diminished between the Kemitzah and the burning, which may not be burned.

2. ... before the seven Matanos then again - assuming that the Korban is a Nedavah, bearing in mind the principle Kol she'Mimenu le'Ishim, Harei hu be'Bal Taktiru' (A Korban part of which is due to go on the Mizbe'ach, it is forbidden to burn the remainder of the Korban [or to do any other Avodah with it]), how can he then perform the seven Matanos with the remaining oil?

(c)Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi solves the problem - by requiring the Metzora to stipulate when he performs the Haza'ah that - if he is not a Metzora, the oil of the Haza'os should be considered like water (in which case there is no Isur in bringing the remainder of the Log on the Mizbe'ach).

(d)Even though we are talking about a liquid, Rav Yehudah says 'le'Shem Eitzim' - because the source of the Halachah is the Pasuk "Lo Saktiru ...", and one normally burns wood, not water.

9)

(a)In the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ki Chol Se'orve'Chol D'vash Lo Saktiru Mimenu Isheh la'Hashem", we learn from ...

1. ... the word "Mimenu" (which is superfluous) - the principle Kol she'Mimenu le'Ishim, Harei hu be'Bal Taktiru.

2. ... the last two words in the following Pasuk "Korban Reishis Takrivu osam le'Re'ach Nicho'ach" - 'le'Rei'ach Ni'cho'ach I Atah Ma'aleh, Aval Atah Ma'aleh le'Shem Eitzim' (Although one is forbidden to bring yeast and honey as an official Korban, one may bring it if one stipulates that he considers it a piece of wood).