1) THE SOURCE OF THE ARGUMENT

(a) Question: What is Chachamim’s reason?
(b) Answer: “V’Yotzak Aleha Shemen…Ve’Hevi’ah El Benei Aharon ha’Kohanim v’Komatz” – only after Kemitzah, Kohanim must do the Avodah, but Yetzikah and Belilah of a Zar are Kesherim.
(c) (Implied question): Why does R. Shimon argue?
(d) Answer #1: He says that “Benei Aharon ha’Kohanim” is expounded to refer to what precedes it (Yetzikah) and after it (Kemitzah).
(e) Objection: Elsewhere, R. Shimon does not expound what comes before and after!
1. (Beraisa): “V’Lakach…b’Etzba’o” – This teaches that Kabalah must be with the right hand.
2. “B’Etzba’o v’Nasan” – This teaches that Zerikah must be with the right hand.
3. R. Shimon: It does not say ‘Yad’ regarding Kabalah, therefore, if it was done with the left hand it is Kosher.
4. (Abaye): They argue whether “B’Etzba’o” is expounded to refer to what comes earlier (Kabalah) and/or later (Zerikah) in the verse.
(f) Answer #2: R. Shimon says that the ‘Vov’ (“V’Yotzak…*Ve*’Hevi’ah El Benei Aharon”) connects the latter Parshah (Kemitzah) to the former (Yetzikah), i.e. also Yetzikah requires Kehunah.
(g) Question (Beraisa): “V’Shochat…V’Hikrivu Benei Aharon ha’Kohanim” – from Kabalah and onwards, Kohanim must do the Avodah;
1. This teaches that a Zar may slaughter.
2. If R. Shimon expounds a ‘Vov’ to connect Parshiyos, he should also expound “V’Shochat…*V*’Hikrivu Benei Aharon” to disqualify slaughter of a Zar!
(h) Answer: There it says “V’Samach…v’Shochat”- just like Semichah of a Zar is Kosher, also slaughter.
(i) Question: If so, we should say, just like Semichah must be by the owner, also slaughter!
(j) Answer #1: A Kal va’Chomer teaches that the owner need not slaughter:
1. Zerikah is the primary Mechaper, it need not be by the owner, all the more so slaughter, which is not the main atonement!
(k) Objection: Perhaps we cannot learn from Zerikah, for (usually) it cannot be done by the owner, for it requires Kehunah, but slaughter could be done by the owner!
(l) Answer #2: “V’Shochat Es Par ha’Chatas *Asher Lo*” – the Par of Yom Kipur must belong to the slaughterer (the Kohen Gadol), but normally, the owner need not slaughter it.
2) WHAT TEACHES THAT SOMETHING IS “ME’AKEV”
(a) (Rav): Wherever the Torah says ‘Torah’ and ‘Chukah’, it is Me’akev.
1. We are thinking that this is only when it says both of them, e.g. “Zos Chukas ha’Torah…”
(b) Question #1: Regarding Nazir, it says only Torah, yet Rav taught that it is Me’akev that a Nazir do Tenufah!
(c) Answer: There it says “Ken Ya’aseh”, it is as if it says Chukah.
(d) Question #2: Regarding Todah, it says only Torah;
1. (Mishnah): A Todah is brought with four kinds of bread, they are Me’akev each other.
(e) Answer: Todah is Hukash to Nazir;
1. “Al Zevach Todas Shelamav” – this includes Shalmei Nazir.
(f) Question #3: Regarding Metzora, it says only Torah;
1. (Mishnah): The four species used for Taharas Metzora (cedar, hyssop, scarlet thread and birds) are Me’akev each other.
2. Answer: There it says “Zos Tihyeh Toras ha’Metzora”, it is as if it says Chukah.
(g) Question #4: Regarding Yom Kipur, it says only Chukah;
1. (Mishnah): The two goats of Yom Kipur are Me’akev each other.
(h) Retraction: Rather, Rav meant wherever the Torah says ‘Torah’ *or* Chukah’, it is Me’akev.
(i) Question: Regarding other Korbanos, it says “Zos ha’*Torah* la’Olah la’Minchah…”, yet Haktaras Eimurim (of Zevachim) and Hagashah (of Menachos) are not Me’akev!
(j) Retraction: When it says Torah, it is not Me’akev unless it also says Chukah; when it says Chukah, even without Torah, it is Me’akev.
(k) Question: But Rav said wherever the Torah says ‘Torah’ *or* Chukah’!
(l) Answer: He means, even if it says Torah, it is not Me’akev unless it also says Chukah.
(m) Question: Regarding Menachos it says Chukah, yet Rav taught that wherever the Torah repeats something regarding a Minchah, it is Me’akev;
1. Inference: A matter that is not repeated is not Me’akev!
(n) Answer #1: It says Chukah regarding *eating* Menachos, this does not teach Ikuv Hakravah.
(o) Objection: It says Chukah regarding eating Lechem ha’Panim (yet we learn Ikuv from this)!
1. (Mishnah): The two Sedarim are Me’akev each other, the two Bazichim are Me’akev each other.
2. Conclusion: Even when it says Chukah regarding eating, this teaches Ikuv Hakravah!
(p) Answer #2: Menachos are different, for it says “Mi’Garshah umi’Shamnah” – only Geresh (i.e. Soles flour) and oil are Me’akev.
19b—————————————19b
3) WHAT IS “ME’AKEV” THE “MENACHOS”

(a) (Rav): Wherever the Torah repeats something regarding a Minchah, it is Me’akev.
(b) (Shmuel): Only Geresh and oil are Me’akev.
(c) Question: Does Shmuel really hold that when the Torah repeats something, it is not Me’akev?!
(d) Answer: Surely, he agrees that when the Torah repeats something, it is Me’akev – rather, he and Rav argue about “Melo Kumtzo” and “B’Kumtzo”:
1. (Beraisa): “Melo Kumtzo” and “B’Kumtzo” – these teach that Kemitzah must be done with the hand, a Kohen may not use a Kli that holds as much as his Kometz.
2. Rav says that this is Me’akev, for the Torah repeated it – Va’Yakrev Es ha’Minchah va’Ymalei Chapo Mimenah”;
3. Shmuel does not learn from this, for it applies to the Milu’im, we do not learn Kodshei Doros from Kodshei Sha’ah.
(e) Question: Shmuel does learn Kodshei Doros from Kodshei Sha’ah!
1. (Mishnah): Klei Lach (Klei Shares that hold liquids) are Mekadesh liquids, dry measures are Mekadesh dry (Kodshim);
2. Klei Lach are not Mekadesh dry, dry measures are not Mekadesh liquids.
3. (Shmuel): This only applies to (liquid) measures, but buckets (even though they hold liquids, i.e. blood) are Mekadesh dry;
i. We learn from the Menachos in the buckets donated by the Nesi’im – “Shneihem Mele’im Soles”.
(f) Answer: There is different, since it is repeated 12 times, we learn Doros from Sha’ah.
(g) Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi): The Torah repeated Hagashah, yet it is not Me’akev!
1. Question: Where is it repeated?
2. Answer: “Zos Toras ha’Minchah Hakrev Osah…Lifne Hash-m”.
(h) Answer: There it is repeated to teach about where Hagashah is done
1. (Beraisa) Suggestion: “Lifnei Hash-m” – perhaps Hagashah is in the west!
2. Rejection: “El Penei ha’Mizbe’ach”.
3. Suggestion: “El Penei ha’Mizbe’ach” – perhaps Hagashah is in the south!
4. Rejection: “Lifnei Hash-m”.
i. To fulfill both verses, it suffices to do Hagashah at the edge of the southwest corner.
5. Suggestion (R. Eliezer): Perhaps Hagashah may be done at the southern or western side of the southwest corner!
6. Rejection: If there are two verses and it is possible to fulfill both of them, we do so, rather than fulfilling one in a way that precludes fulfilling the other;
i. If Hagashah would be done on the west side, we would not fulfill “El Penei ha’Mizbe’ach”;
ii. By doing it on the south, we also fulfill “Lifne Hash-m”.
7. (Rav Ashi): R. Eliezer holds that the entire Mizbe’ach is in the north (so the south side faces the Heichal, it is “Lifnei Hash-m”.)