1) TRANSGRESSING BOTH “LAVIM”

(a) Version #1 – Rashi – (Beraisa) Suggestion: “Lo Yasim Aleha Shemen v’Lo Yiten” – perhaps liability for both Lavim (on one Minchah) only applies when two different Kohanim put the oil and Levonah!
(b) Rejection: “Aleha” – the Lavim are based on (adding to) the Minchah itself (not the one who puts, therefore, even one Kohen can be liable twice.)
(c) Version #2 – Tosfos – (Beraisa) Suggestion: “Lo Yasim Aleha Shemen v’Lo Yiten” – perhaps liability for both Lavim only applies when there are two Kohanim (i.e. Menachos, normally a different Kohen offers each Minchah.)
(d) Rejection: “Aleha” – both Lavim apply to even one Minchah.
(e) Version #3 – R. Tam – (Beraisa) Suggestion: “Lo Yasim…” – perhaps liability for both Lavim is when two Kohanim (or one) put(s) oil and Levonah one after the other!
(f) Rejection: “Aleha” – the Lavim are for putting on the Minchah itself (as it should be, without oil or Levonah; alternatively, for putting on a valid Minchah – after the first was put, it is Pasul.)
2) “HAGASHAH” AND “TENUFAH”
(a) (Mishnah): Some Menachos require Hagashah but not Tenufah, some require Hagashah and Tenufah, some require Tenufah but not Hagashah, some do not require either.
(b) The following require Hagashah but not Tenufah:
1. Minchas Soles, Machavas, Marcheshes, Chalos, Rekikim, Minchas Kohanim, Chavitim, the Minchah of Nochrim or women, Minchas Chotei;
2. R. Shimon says, Minchas Kohanim and Chavitim do not require Hagashah, for Kemitzah is not taken;
i. Hagashah is only done on Menachos ha’Nikmatzos.
(c) (Gemara – Rav Papa): Whenever the Mishnah lists the Menachos, each is baked into 10 loaves (alternatively – it lists 10 kinds);
1. This is unlike R. Shimon, who says that Ma’afe Tanur may be brought half Chalos and half Rekikim.
(d) Question: What is the source (that these Menachos require Hagashah but not Tenufah?)
(e) Answer (Beraisa): (Regarding Minchos Nedavah it says “V’Heveisa Es ha’Minchah Asher Ya’aseh me’Eleh la’Sh-m v’Hikrivah El ha’Kohen v’Higishah”.) Had it said only ‘V’Heveisa Asher Ya’aseh…”, we would think that Hagashah only applies to the Kometz (for only it is la’Sh-m, i.e. Huktar);
1. Question: What is the source that it applies to the entire Minchah?
2. Answer: ‘(V’Heveisa) Minchah’.
3. Question: What is the source to include Minchas Chotei?
4. Answer: “(V’Heveisa) Es ha’Minchah”.
(f) Question: We should not need a verse to teach this!
1. The Torah commands to bring Chovah (Minchas Chotei) and (how) to bring (Minchas) Nedavah – just as Nedavah requires Hagashah, also Chovah!
60b—————————————60b

2. Question: We cannot learn from Nedavah, for it has oil and Levonah, but Minchas Chotei does not!
3. Answer: Minchas Kena’os (of a Sotah) dispels this – it requires Hagashah, even though it has no oil or Levonah.
4. Question: We cannot learn from (Minchas) Kena’os, for it requires Tenufah, but Minchas Chotei does not!
5. Answer: Nedavah dispels this (it requires Hagashah, it does not require Tenufah.)
6. Conclusion: Each has its own stringency; the Tzad ha’Shavah (common side) of them is that Kemitzah is done, and also Hagashah – also Minchas Chotei is Nikmetzes, therefore Hagashah should be done.
(g) Answer (and Rejection of (6)): We cannot learn from Nedavah and Kena’os, for both of them are brought by rich and poor alike, but only a very poor person brings Minchas Chotei (others bring a Behemah or birds!)
1. (Since we cannot learn from the Tzad ha’Shavah,) “Es ha’Minchah” teaches about Minchas Chotei.
(h) R. Shimon says, “V’Heveisa (…v’Higishah)” teaches that the Omer requires Hagashah, for it says similarly “*Va’Haveisem* Es Omer Reishis Ketzirchem El ha’Kohen.”
(i) We include Kena’os for Hagashah from “V’Hikrivah (…v’Higishah)”, for it says similarly “V’Hikriv Osah (Minchas Sotah) El ha’Mizbe’ach”.
(j) Question: A Kal va’Chomer should teach this!
1. Minchas Chotei does not require Tenufah, yet it requires Hagashah – Minchas Kena’os requires Tenufah, all the more so it should require Hagashah!
2. Question: We cannot learn from Minchas Chotei, for it is of wheat, but Kena’os is of barley!
3. Answer: The Omer dispels this – it requires Hagashah, even though it is of barley.
4. Question: We cannot learn from the Omer, for it has oil and Levonah, but Kena’os does not!
5. Answer: Minchas Chotei dispels this (it requires Hagashah, it does not have oil or Levonah.)
6. Conclusion: Each has its own stringency; the Tzad ha’Shavah (common side) of them is that Kemitzah is done, and also Hagashah – also Kena’os is Nikmetzes, therefore Hagashah should be done.
(k) Answer (and Rejection of (6)): We cannot learn from Minchas Chotei and the Omer, for both of them must be Soles (Geres is also Soles), but Kena’os can be from (mediocre quality) flour!
1. Therefore, we must learn from “V’Hikrivah”.
(l) R. Yehudah says, “V’Heveisa (…)” teaches that Kena’os requires Hagashah – it says (regarding Kena’os) “V’Hevi Es Korbanah Aleha”
(m) We do not need a verse to teach about the Omer, a Kal va’Chomer teaches this!
1. Minchas Chotei does not require Tenufah, yet it requires Hagashah – the Omer requires Tenufah, all the more so it requires Hagashah!
2. Question: We cannot learn from Minchas Chotei, for it is of wheat, but the Omer is of barley!
3. Answer: Minchas Kena’os dispels this – it requires Hagashah, even though it is of barley.
4. Question: We cannot learn from Kena’os, for it clarifies sin (causes the water to kill a guilty Sotah!)
5. Answer: Minchas Chotei dispels this (it requires Hagashah, it does not clarify sin.)
6. Conclusion: Each has its own stringency; the Tzad ha’Shavah of them is that Kemitzah is done, and also Hagashah – also the Omer is Nikmetzes, therefore it requires Hagashah.
(n) Question: R. Shimon uses a verse to teach about the Omer – how does he challenge the Kal va’Chomer?
(o) Answer: He does not learn the Omer from Minchas Chotei and Kena’os, for they are (potentially) more frequent than the Omer (they can occur many times in a year).
(p) R. Yehudah does not consider this to be a challenge – he considers the Omer to be more frequent, for it is definitely brought every year.
3) WHY WE DO NOT EXPOUND DIFFERENTLY
(a) (Continuation of Beraisa) Suggestion: (R. Shimon and R. Yehudah used “V’Heveisa” to teach about the Omer and Kena’os, respectively -) perhaps “V’Heveisa” rather teaches that an individual may offer a Nedavah different than the five listed in the Torah!
1. The Tzibur brings a Chovah from wheat, and also from barley – we should likewise say that an individual, who brings Nedavah from wheat, can also bring Nedavah from barley!
(b) Rejection: “Eleh” – only the Nedavos listed may be brought.
(c) Suggestion: Perhaps “Eleh” rather teaches that one who says ‘Alai (it is incumbent on me to bring) Minchah’ must bring all five Menachos!
(d) Rejection: It says “*Me*’Eleh” – he may bring as many as he desires.
(e) R. Shimon says, “Es ha’Minchah” includes other Menachos (for Hagashah), such as those of Nochrim and women.
(f) Suggestion: Perhaps we include even Shtei ha’Lechem and Lechem ha’Panim!
(g) Rejection: No, we include the others, for some of them is Huktar, but Shtei ha’Lechem and Lechem ha’Panim are totally eaten.
(h) Suggestion: Minchas Nesachim is totally Huktar, perhaps it requires Hagashah!
(i) Rejection: “V’Hikrivah (…v’Higishah” – it (one of the five Nedavos) requires Hagashah, but not Minchas Nesachim.)
(j) Question: He already expounded “V’Hikrivah” (2:i)!
(k) Answer: It could have said “V’Hikriv” – since it says “V’Hikrivah”, we learn two things.