1) THE AMOUNT OF OIL IN “CHAVITIM”

(a) Support (for Rava – Beraisa): “Al Machavas” – this teaches that they must be cooked in a Kli Shares;
1. “Ba’Shemen” – we add extra oil to them.
2. Question: How do we know how much to add?
3. Answer #1: Here it says ‘Shemen’, like it says regarding Minchas Nesachim (for a lamb) – just like there, there are three Lugim (of oil) for an Isaron (of flour), also here.
i. Question: It also says ‘Shemen’ regarding Minchas Nedavah – perhaps we should learn from there, there is only one Log for an Isaron!
ii. Answer: It is more reasonable to learn from Minchas Nesachim, for this resembles Chavitim regarding TaBShaT, i.e. *T*adir (or *T*amid, both are brought twice daily), *B*a’ah Chovah (there is an obligation to bring them; Rashi’s text omits this, the acronym is TaShaT), both are Docheh *S*habbos and *T*um’ah.)
iii. Rejection: Perhaps we learn from Minchas Nedavah, for this resembles Chavitim regarding YaGYL, i.e. a *Y*achid (individual) brings them, they are brought *G*alal Atzmo (on their own accord), they are not brought with *Y*ayin (Rashi’s text omits this, the acronym is YaGaL), they are brought with *L*evonah.
4. Answer #2 (R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben Brokah): “Soles Minchas Tamid” – Chavitim are like Minchas Tamid, three Lugim per Isaron.
5. Answer #3 (R. Shimon): The Torah taught that Chavitim are made with extra oil, just like the Minchas Keves (Nesachim brought with a lamb);
i. Just like Minchas Keves is three Lugim per Isaron, also Chavitim.
6. Question: The Torah also taught that Menachos brought with bulls and rams are made with extra oil, two Lugim per Isaron – perhaps we should learn from them!
7. Answer: It is more reasonable to learn from (the Minchah of) a lamb, which is one Isaron, than from (that of) a bull or ram, which is three or two Esronim.
(b) Question: The Tana learned from “Ba’Shemen” that we add *extra* oil to them – how can he later suggest learning from Minchas Nedavah (which has the minimal amount of oil?)
(c) Answer #1 (Abaye): R. Shimon learns from “Ba’Shemen” that we add extra oil, he gave Answer #1 (c), he would not suggest learning from Minchas Nedavah;
1. R. Yishmael suggested this, for he does not expound ‘Ba’Shemen’ like R. Shimon.
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua): R. Yishmael taught the entire Reisha:
1. First he assumes that Ba’Shemen teaches that we add extra oil, since we do not need it to teach one Log;
i. We know one Log from “Al Machavas” – it is like Minchas Machavas.
2. Later, he retracts – we cannot learn from “Al Machavas”, for one might have thought that Chavitim are dry, like Minchas Chotei, so we need Ba’Shemen to teach one Log;
i. Therefore, he suggests learning from Minchas Nedavah, i.e. only one Log!
ii. He tried to show that it is more reasonable to learn from Minchas Nesachim, but failed (for there are just as many similarities to Minchas Nedavah.)
iii. Therefore, he needs to learn from “Soles Minchas Tamid.”
(e) Answer #3 (Rabah): R. Shimon taught the entire Reisha:
1. In truth, Ba’Shemen teaches that we add extra oil, since we do not need it to teach one Log – we know one Log from “Al Machavas”, it is like Minchas Machavas.
2. He asks (rhetorically), why do we need Ba’Shemen to teach about extra oil – without this, we would learn from Minchas Nesachim!
i. He then shows that it is just as reasonable to learn from Minchas Nedavah, therefore we need Ba’Shemen.
ii. Finally, he asks why we learn from Minchas Keves (and not from bulls or rams), and answers, it is more reasonable to learn one Isaron from one Isaron…
51b—————————————51b
2) WHEN THERE IS NO KOHEN GADOL, WHO PAYS FOR “CHAVITIM”

(a) (Mishnah): If (the Kohen Gadol died after offering half in the morning, and) a new Kohen was not appointed, who supplies the Chavitim (until a new Kohen is appointed?)
(b) Answer #1 (R. Shimon): The Tzibur pays for it (from Terumas ha’Lishkah);
(c) Answer #2 (R. Yehudah): The heirs pay for it.
(d) A full Isaron is brought.
(e) (Gemara – Beraisa) Question: If the Kohen Gadol died and a new Kohen was not appointed, what is the source that his heirs supply the Chavitim?
1. Answer #1 (R. Yehudah): “Veha’Kohen ha’Mashi’ach Tachtav mi’Banav Ya’aseh Osah”
2. Suggestion: Perhaps it is offered in halves (like when the Kohen Gadol was alive!)
3. Rejection: “Osah” – all is offered (at a time), not half.
4. Answer #2 (R. Shimon): “Chok Olam” – it is offered from the Tzibur;
i. “Kalil Taktar” – it is entirely Huktar.
(f) Question: “Veha’Kohen ha’Mashi’ach…” teaches something else!
1. (Beraisa) Suggestion: “Zeh Korban Aharon u’Vanav Asher Yakrivu la’Sh-m b’Yom Himashach Oso” – perhaps they bring one Korban together!
2. Rejection: “Asher Yakrivu la’Sh-m” – Aharon brings by himself, his children bring by themselves.
3. ‘Banav’ refers to regular Kohanim.
4. Question: Perhaps it refers to Kohanim Gedolim (after Aharon)!
5. Rejection: “Veha’Kohen ha’Mashi’ach Tachtav mi’Banav” refers to Kohanim Gedolim, so ‘Banav’ must refer to regular Kohanim.
(g) Answer: If “Veha’Kohen ha’Mashi’ach…” only taught that heirs bring the Chavitim, it should have said ‘…Tachtav Banav Ya’asu Osah’;
1. Rather, it says “Tachtav mi’Banav”, therefore, we learn both laws.
(h) Question: How does R. Shimon expound “Osah”
(i) Answer: This teaches that if the Kohen Gadol died (after offering half in the morning) and a new Kohen was appointed, in the afternoon he may not bring (only) half, nor offer the half remaining from the morning (he must bring a full Isaron.)
(j) Question: We learn this from: “*U*’Machatzisah ba’Erev”!
(k) Answer: R. Shimon does not expound the ‘Vov’.
(l) Question: How does R. Yehudah expound “Chok Olam”
(m) Answer: This Chok (Minchas Chinuch) applies forever.
(n) Question: How does he expound “Kalil Taktar”
(o) Answer (Beraisa): The Torah teaches that Chavitei Kohen Gadol are entirely Huktar, then it forbids eating Minchas Kohen (Hedyot) with a Lav;
1. Question: What is the source that the first law (Kalil) applies to the latter (Minchas Kohen), and that the latter (a Lav against eating) applies to the first (Chavitim)?
2. Answer: We learn from a Gezerah Shavah “Kalil-Kalil” that both laws apply to both Menachos.
3) ENACTMENTS OF “BEIS DIN”
(a) Question: R. Shimon learned from verses that the Tzibur brings Chavitim (when there is no Kohen Gadol) – but he holds that this is only mid’Rabanan!
1. (Mishnah – R. Shimon): (If Reuven found an animal near Yerushalayim (it may be a lost Korban) and wanted to bring Korban(os) on behalf of the loser, Reuven must bring the Nesachim;
i. At first, Beis Din would take a security from Reuven; because of this, finders would flee – they enacted that the Tzibur will bring the Nesachim.)
2. R. Shimon says, this is one of seven enactments of Beis Din (regarding paying for Korbanos or benefit from Hekdesh);
3. (Other enactments:) If a Nochri sent an Olah to be offered in the Mikdash and (money for) its Nesachim, we offer the Nesachim from his money;
i. If he sent an Olah without Nesachim, the Tzibur pays for the Nesachim.
4. If a convert died (without heirs) leaving over Zevachim:
i. If he left (money for) Nesachim, they are offered; if not, the Tzibur pays for the Nesachim.
5. If the Kohen Gadol died and a new Kohen was not appointed, the Tzibur supplies the Chavitim.
(b) Answer (R. Avahu): There were two enactments:
1. Mid’Oraisa, the Tzibur pays for it; this was depleting the Shekalim (for Korbanos Tzibur; in Bayis Sheni, almost every Kohen Gadol died in his first year), so they enacted to take the money from the Kohen’s heirs;
2. Chachamim saw that the heirs were negligent (about bringing it), so they reverted to the mid’Oraisa law.
(c) (Continuation of the above Mishnah): They enacted that Me’ilah should not apply to the ashes of Parah Adumah;
(d) Question: That is a mid’Oraisa law!
1. (Beraisa): “Chatas Hi” – this teaches that Me’ilah applies to the Parah;
2. “Hi” – Me’ilah applies to it, not to its ashes.
(e) Answer (R. Ashi): There were two enactments:
1. Mid’Oraisa, Me’ilah applies to Parah, not to its ashes;
2. Since people were treating the ashes lightly, using them to cure wounds, Chachamim decreed Me’ilah on the ashes;
3. They saw that people would refrain from being sprinkled on (with water with the ashes) in doubtful cases of Tum’as Mes (for fear of transgressing Me’ilah), Taharah, so Chachamim reverted to the mid’Oraisa law.