1) INTENT TO LEAVE OVER

(a) Answer #2: There is a three-way argument in the Beraisa:
1. The first Tana holds that they argue about improper intents, all agree that intent to leave over is Kosher;
2. R. Yehudah holds that they argue about improper intents, all agree that intent to leave over is Pasul;
i. Question: What is the reason?
ii. Answer: We decree that intent to leave some of the blood (until tomorrow) is Pasul on account of intent to leave all of the blood, which is Pasul mid’Oraisa;
iii. (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): You (Chachamim) agree with me that if he left all of the blood until tomorrow, it is Pasul (Zerikah was not done) – also intent to leave all of the blood is Pasul!
3. R. Elazar says that they argue even about intent to leave over, R. Eliezer is Posel, Chachamim Machshir.
(b) Question (Beraisa – Rebbi): When I went to learn from R. Elazar ben Shamu’a (to clarify my doubts, or to learn what R. Elazar knew that I did not), I saw Yosef ha’Bavli learning in front of him.
1. Yosef: If one slaughtered a Korban with intent to leave some of the blood until tomorrow, what is the law?
2. R. Elazar: It is Kosher.
3. R. Elazar repeated this answer that night, the next morning, and noontime. In the afternoon, he said ‘It is Kosher, R. Eliezer is Posel.’ Yosef beamed with delight.
4. R. Elazar: Do you think that what I said until now was not correct?!
5. Yosef: What you said until now was fine;
i. I was delighted to hear that R. Eliezer is Posel, for R. Yehudah taught this to me, and I did not find anyone else who said so until now – you returned what I had lost (I feared, perhaps I forgot what I heard!)
6. R. Elazar: Happy are Chachamim, that Torah is so dear to them – “Mah Ahavti Sorasecha”;
i. Because R. Yehudah’s father (R. Ilai) was a Talmid of R. Eliezer, he taught him R. Eliezer’s opinion (that it is Pasul), even though it is not the Halachah.
7. Summation of question: If R. Yehudah holds that all Posel intent to leave over, this is unlike R. Elazar (who said that they argue about this, Yosef would not have rejoiced to hear unlike what he was taught!)
8. Counter-question: You infer that R. Elazar taught exactly like R. Yehudah, i.e. it is Kosher, R. Eliezer is Posel;
i. If so, why did R. Elazar say that R. Yehudah taught thusly because he heard from his father, who was a Talmid of R. Eliezer – R. Elazar taught just the same!
(c) Answer: Rather, R. Yehudah taught (Stam) that all Tana’im are Posel;
1. Yosef said ‘You returned what I had lost’, for at least he found someone else who says that (at least one Tana holds that) such intent is Posel.
2) WHICH AVODOS ARE “ME’AKEV”
(a) (Mishnah): (Even) if any of the following was not done to a Minchah, it is Kosher:
1. Yetzikah (the third application of oil), Blilah (mixing with oil), Petisah (breaking it into pieces), salting, Tenufah, Hagashah 2. If it was broken into big (or many) pieces, or if oil was not smeared on it, it is Kosher.
(b) (Gemara) Question: What does it mean ‘Yetzikah was not done’?
1. Suggestion: It was not done at all.
2. Rejection: The Torah teaches that it is Me’akev (by repeating the command to do it; alternatively, it says “V’Yatzakta…Minchah Hi”, implying that without Yetzikah, it is not a Minchah.)
(c) Answer: A Kohen did not do Yetzikah, rather, a Yisrael did.
(d) Question: If so, we should say similarly regarding Blilah, a Kohen did not do Belilah, rather, a Yisrael did;
1. Inference: If Belilah was not done at all, it is Pasul.
18b—————————————18b

2. Rejection (Mishnah): A Minchah of up to 60 Esronim of flour (may be brought in one vessel, for it) can be mixed with the oil, but 61 cannot (for only one Log of oil is put in a vessel; some explain, even though one Log is put for each Isaron, there is not room to mix 61.)
i. Question: Why does it matter whether or not it can be mixed – our Mishnah teaches, even if Belilah was not done, it is Kosher!
ii. Answer (R. Zeira): If a Minchah could have been mixed, mixing is not Me’akev; if it could not have been mixed, (e.g. it is too big), mixing is Me’akev (i.e. it is Pasul.)
(e) Answer: Blilah need not be like Yetzikah!
1. Yetzikah was done by a Zar, not a Kohen; Belilah was not done at all.
(f) (Mishnah): If it was broken into big pieces…
(g) Question: The Mishnah taught that if Petisah was not done at all, it is Kosher, all the more so (partial Petisah was done, i.e.) if it was broken into big pieces!
(h) Answer #1: It means, if it was broken into *many* pieces (even though they are too small, it is Kosher.)
(i) Answer #2: Really, it means, it was broken into big pieces;
(j) One might have thought that when Petisah was not done at all (except for Kemitzah), it is Kosher, for the loaves are (virtually) whole, but if it was broken into big pieces, we do not have whole loaves nor proper Petitim (pieces), it is Pasul – the Mishnah teaches, this is not so.
(k) Suggestion: If a Zar did Yetzikah, our Mishnah is Machshir – this is unlike R. Shimon!
1. (Beraisa – R. Shimon): If a Kohen denies that Hash-m commanded about the Avodah, he gets no share in Kodshim – “Hamakriv…Lo Tihyeh…l’Manah”.
2. Question: This only teaches that he must admit to Holachah – how do we know that he must admit to the other 15 Avodos, namely Yetzikah (putting oil on a Minchah), Blilah, breaking the Minchah into pieces, salting, Tenufah, bringing close to the Altar, Kemitzah, Haktarah, Melikah, Kabalah, sprinkling blood, giving a Sotah to drink, Eglah Arufah, Taharah of a Metzora, to give Birkas Kohanim in and outside the Mikdash?
3. Answer: “Mi’Benei Aharon” – if a Kohen does not admit to all the Avodos of Kohanim, he has no share of Kodshim.
(l) Version #1 – Rejection (Rav Nachman): It is even like R. Shimon – our Mishnah discusses Minchas Yisrael, the Beraisa discusses Minchas Kohanim;
1. Minchas Yisrael requires Kemitzah, the Torah teaches that only *after* Kemitzah, Kohanim must do the Avodah;
2. Minchas Kohanim does not require Kemitzah, Kohanim must do the Avodah from the beginning.
(m) Objection (Rava): We learn that Minchas Kohanim needs Yetzikah from Minchas Yisrael – we should say, just like Yetzikah of a Zar is Kosher for Minchas Yisrael, also for Minchas Kohanim!
(n) Version #2 – Rejection (Rav Nachman): It is even like R. Shimon – our Mishnah discusses Menachos that require Kemitzah, the Beraisa discusses Menachos that do not;
1. In Menachos that require Kemitzah, the Torah teaches that only after Kemitzah, Kohanim must do the Avodah;
2. In Menachos that do not require Kemitzah, Kohanim must do the Avodah from the beginning.
(o) Objection (Rava): We learn Yetzikah in Menachos that do not require Kemitzah from Menachos that require it – we should say, just like Yetzikah of a Zar is Kosher for the latter, also for the former! (End of Version #2)
(p) Affirmation: Indeed, our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon.