1) A “STAM MINCHAH”

(a) (Mishnah): If he said ‘Alai Minchah’, he may bring any Minchas Nedavah…(R. Yehudah obligates bringing Soles, the choice Minchah.)
(b) (Beraisa): This (R. Yehudah’s opinion) is because the Torah taught about Minchas Soles first.
(c) Question: If so, R. Yehudah should always require one to bring the first species the Torah teaches (but he does not!)
1. If one said ‘Alai Olah’, he should have to bring a bull; ‘Alai Olah of Tzon’, he should have to bring a lamb; ‘Alai Of’, he should have to bring a Tor!
2. (Mishnah): If one said ‘Alai Olah’, he may bring a lamb (the smallest Zevach);
3. R. Elazar ben Azaryah says, he may bring a Tor or Ben Yonah.
i. Summation of question: R. Yehudah does not argue!
(d) Retraction: Rather, R. Yehudah requires Minchas Soles because it does not have an accompanying name (the Torah calls it just ‘Minchah’, the others have an added name, e.g. ‘Minchas Machavas’, ‘Minchas Ma’afe Tanur’…’.)
(e) Question: The Beraisa said differently, i.e. because the Torah taught Minchas Soles first!
(f) Answer: It means, the choice Minchah without an accompanying name that R. Yehudah refers to is the first one the Torah taught.
(g) Objection: This is obvious, R. Yehudah explicitly said that he must bring Minchas Soles!
(h) Answer: The Beraisa merely gives a way to remember which one R. Yehudah requires.
2) TYPES OF “MINCHAH”
(a) (Mishnah): If he said ‘(Alai) Minchah’, or ‘a type of Minchah’…
(b) Question (Rav Papa): If he said ‘Types of Minchah’, what is the law?
1. ‘Types’ connotes at least two – all the Menachos are also called ‘Minchah’, “V’Zos Toras ha’Minchah”;
2. Or, since he said ‘Minchah’, surely he means only one – he means, of the *types* of Minchah, I will bring one.
(c) Answer (Mishnah): If he said ‘(Alai) Minchah’, or ‘a type of Minchah’, he brings one.
(d) Inference: Had he said ‘Types of Minchah’, he would bring two!
(e) Contradiction (Mishnah): If he said ‘Menachos’, or ‘types of *Menachos*’, he brings two.
(f) Inference: Had he said ‘Types of Minchah’, he would bring one!
(g) Conclusion: The inferences contradict one another – we cannot determine which is correct, we cannot resolve the question from here.
(h) (Beraisa): If he said ‘Menachos’, or ‘types of *Menachos*’, he brings two of the same type.
(i) Inference: Had he said ‘Types of Minchah’, he would bring one!
(j) Rejection: Perhaps if he said ‘Types of Minchah’, he would bring two of different types.
(k) Question: A Beraisa teaches otherwise!
1. (Beraisa): If he said ‘A type of Menachos is Alai’, he brings two Menachos of one type;
2. ‘Types of Menachos are Alai’ – he brings two Menachos of two types.
3. Inference: Had he said ‘Types of Minchah’, he would bring one!
(l) Answer: The Beraisa is like R. Shimon, who permits bringing a Minchah half Chalos, half Rekikim (this fulfills ‘*types* of Minchah’);
1. According to Chachamim, such a Minchah may not be brought, he must bring two Menachos, of different types.
3) CAN THE MISHNAH BE REBBI SHIMON?
(a) (Mishnah): If he knows that he specified which type, but does not remember which, he must bring all five.
(b) Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
(c) Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah): It is not R. Shimon (according to him there are more than five) – he says that one may bring some of the loaves of a Minchah (Ma’afe Tanur) Chalos, the rest Rekikim!
1. (If R. Shimon holds like R. Meir (who says that 12 loaves are brought), there are 11 additional possibilities, i.e. perhaps he specified a number of Chalos anywhere between one and 11, and the rest Rekikim):
2. Even if R. Shimon holds like R. Yehudah, who says that 10 loaves are brought, there are still (nine additional possibilities, a total of) 14 types of Menachos!
(d) Objection (and Answer #2 – Abaye): It is even like R. Shimon – R. Shimon holds that one may bring and stipulate (here also, he brings 10 (or 12, according to R. Meir) Chalos, and 10 (or 12) Rekikim and stipulates the amount (of each) he vowed are for his vow, all loaves in excess of his vow are a Nedavah):
1. (Beraisa – R. Shimon): (A Nazir became doubtfully Tamei Mes; additionally, he was a Metzora Muchlat (the Tzara’as has gone away), he is unsure if he must perform Taharas Metzora or if he already fulfilled it. He brings Tziporim (birds) today for the first step of Taharah; on day 30, he shaves all his hair.) The next day, he brings a (lamb for) Asham Metzora and a Log of oil, and stipulates:
105b—————————————105b

2. If I need to bring Asham Metzora, this is the Asham and the oil that must be brought with it; if I need not bring it, this lamb is a Shelamim;
3. (Since it might be Asham Metzora,) it must be slaughtered in the north, some of the blood must be put on his ear, thumb and toe;
4. It requires Semichah and Nesachim (in any case; some say, it is not a proper Semichah, for Asham Metzora does not require Semichah mid’Oraisa, it is permitted to lean on a Korban only when (definitely) fulfilling the Mitzvah of Semichah.)
5. It requires Tenufah of Chazeh v’Shok (in case it is a Shelamim), it may be eaten only by male Kohanim for one day and the following night (in case it is an Asham).
6. Summation of objection: Granted, you hold that R. Shimon only allows stipulating (l’Chatchilah) when this is the only solution (there is no other way to Metaher the Metzora to eat Kodshim), but normally, he forbids it l’Chatchilah!
(e) Answer: Normally, R. Shimon forbids stipulating about a Shelamim (that it might be an Asham), for this may lead to wasting Kodshim (perhaps it is really a Shelamim, it should be permitted for two days, but we may not eat it on the second day for we suspect that it might be an Asham);
1. All Menachos are eaten for one day (and a night), l’Chatchilah one may stipulate, this will not cause them to be wasted.
(f) Question (against Abaye – Rav Papa): (You establish our Mishnah even like R. Shimon – even though) R. Shimon holds that one Minchah may be (hybrid, i.e.) partially Chalos and partially Rekikim, he can bring an Isaron of Chalos and an Isaron of Rekikim and stipulate;
1. How can the Isaron and/or Log of oil for the Minchah he vowed be brought from two separate Esronim/Lugim?
(g) Answer (Abaye): Indeed, we know that R. Shimon is Machshir if an Isaron and/or Log was brought from two separate Esronim/Lugim. (Tosfos – we know this regarding an Isaron, for R. Shimon holds that dry measures do not Mekadesh their contents.)
(h) Question: How is Kemitzah done?
(i) Answer: He takes a Kometz from the Chalos and a Kometz from the Rekikim and stipulates:
1. If the Chalos are a Minchah by themselves (and also the Rekikim), the Kometz from the Chalos exempts the Chalos, the Kometz from the Rekikim exempts the Rekikim;
2. If I vowed some Chalos and some Rekikim, the Kometz from the Chalos exempts those Chalos and Rekikim, the Kometz from the Rekikim exempts the Nedavah of the additional Chalos and Rekikim.
(j) Question: If he vowed some Chalos and some Rekikim, the Kometz must be from both of them – a Kometz from Chalos cannot exempt Rekikim, a Kometz from Rekikim cannot exempt Chalos!
(k) Answer: Indeed, we know that R. Shimon says that if the Kometz consisted only of Chalos or Rekikim, it is valid.