1) “TADIR” VERSUS “MEKUDASH”

(a) (Gemara) Question: Which takes precedence – what is more Tadir, or what is more Kodesh?
(b) Answer #1 (Mishnah): Temidim come before Musafim.
1. Even though Musafim are more Kodesh, Temidim come first, for they are more Tadir.
(c) Rejection: Musafim are not more Kodesh – Temidim brought on Shabbos also receive the Kedushah of Shabbos!
(d) Answer #2 (Mishnah): Musafim of Shabbos come before Musafim of Rosh Chodesh.
1. Even though Musfei Rosh Chodesh are more Kodesh (Rosh Chodesh is called Mo’ed, Shabbos is not), Musfei Shabbos come first, for they are more Tadir.
(e) Rejection: They are not more Kodesh, Kedushas Rosh Chodesh affects all the Musafim.
(f) Answer #3 (Mishnah): Musafim of Rosh Chodesh come before Musafim of Rosh Hashanah;
1. Even though Musfei Rosh Hashanah are more Kodesh, Musfei Rosh Chodesh come first, for they are more Tadir.
(g) Rejection: They are not more Kodesh, Kedushas Rosh Hashanah affects all the Musafim.
(h) Answer #4 (Beraisa): Another reason (why the Brachah on wine precedes the Brachah Mekadesh haShabbos in Kidush) – the Brachah on wine is more Tadir than Mekadesh ha’Shabbos, Tadir comes first.
1. This applies, even though Mekadesh ha’Shabbos is more Kodesh!
(i) Rejection: It is not more Kodesh – the Brachah on wine also receives the Kedushah of Shabbos.
(j) Answer #5: R. Yochanan taught, if the time for Minchah came and a person did not yet pray Musaf, he should first pray Minchah (it is more Tadir), and then Musaf (which is more Kodesh).
(k) Rejection: Musaf is not more Kodesh – Minchah also receives the Kedushah of Shabbos.
(l) Answer #6 (Mishnah – R. Meir): A Shelamim of yesterday comes before a Chatas or Asham of today.
1. Inference: If both Korbanos were of today, all would agree that Chatas or Asham is first (for it is more Kodesh), even though Shelamim is more Tadir!
(m) Rejection (Rava): Shelamim is more *common*, it is not more Tadir (the only obligation to bring Shelamim is on the festivals – Chata’os must be brought every Rosh Chodesh and festival! The Diyuk only applies to Chatas – Shelamim would precede even Asham of today.)
1. Question (Rav Huna bar Yehudah): Indeed, what is more common is considered Tadir!
i. (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps there is no Chatas for (failure to bring) Korban Pesach, but Chatas is brought for (neglect of) Milah (circumcision), for this is more Tadir!
2. Answer #1: It means, it is more Tadir regarding Mitzvos (13 covenants were made regarding it).
3. Answer #2: Compared to Pesach, Milah is Tadir (Rashi – Pesach is only once a year, Milah arises (within Klal Yisrael) every day; Sefas Emes – even though Milah is not *performed* constantly, a circumcised man *fulfills* it constantly.)
2) IF THE LESS “TADIR” OFFERING WAS SLAUGHTERED FIRST
(a) Question: If the less Tadir Korban was slaughtered first, what should be done?
1. Do we finish offering it, and then offer the Tadir Korban?
2. Or, do we have someone stir its blood (so it will not congeal) until we finish offering the Tadir Korban, and then finish offering the less Tadir one?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav Huna of Sura – Mishnah – R. Meir): A Shelamim of yesterday comes before a Chatas (or Asham) of today.
1. (Assumption: The case is, the Shelamim was slaughtered, the Chatas (or Asham) is ready to be slaughtered.)
2. Inference: If both Korbanos were of today, all would agree that if Shelamim was slaughtered first, we stir its blood and delay Zerikah until we finish offering the more Kodesh Korban (Chatas; similarly, if a less Tadir Korban was slaughtered first, we delay Zerikah until offering the more Tadir Korban!)
(c) Rejection: Perhaps R. Meir and Chachamim argue when both (yesterday’s Shelamim and today’s Chatas) were slaughtered – we cannot deduce whether or not we would disgrace a Korban (to delay its Zerikah) until offering a more Tadir or Kodesh Korban!
(d) Answer #2 (Beraisa): Another reason – the Brachah on wine is more Tadir than Mekadesh ha’Shabbos, Tadir comes first. (Even though it is already Shabbos, we delay Mekadesh ha’Shabbos until after the Brachah on wine – similarly, we should delay the less Tadir Korban until we offer the more Tadir one!
(e) Rejection: Since the wine is ready in front of, this is analogous to the case when both Korbanos are already slaughtered (surely, we offer the Tadir first in this case.)
(f) Answer #3: R. Yochanan taught, if the time for Minchah came and a person did not yet pray Musaf, he should first pray Minchah (it is more Tadir), and then Musaf (even though the time for Musaf came first)!
(g) Rejection: Since it is now the time for Minchah, this is like when both Korbanos are already slaughtered.
(h) Answer #4 (Rav Acha brei d’Rav Ashi – Mishnah): If Korban Pesach was slaughtered before midday, it is Pasul, for it must be “Bein ha’Arba’im”; if it was slaughtered before the afternoon Tamid, it is Kosher, we stir its blood (and delay Zerikah) until after Zerikah (of the Tamid.)
(i) Rejection (Ravina): It means, if the Tamid *was slaughtered*, we offer it first, but l’Chatchilah, we should first finish offering the Pesach.
(j) Support (Rav Acha Sava): The Mishnah says, ‘until after *Zerikah*’, it does not say ‘until after slaughter and Zerikah’.
(k) (Mishnah): Kohanim may eat (Kodshim) any way they want… (l) Question: What is the reason?
(m) Answer: “L’Mashchah” – in grandeur, the way kings eat.
3) A “NEDAVAH” OF OIL
(a) (Mishnah – R. Shimon): One may not volunteer (a Korban of) oil – therefore:
1. The only oil that is divided among Kohanim in the Azarah is the excess oil after smearing Rekikei Menachos (Matzah wafers) of a Yisrael, or the leftovers of the Log of oil a Metzora brings;
2. The only oil that is burned on the Mizbe’ach is the excess from Rekikim of a Kohen, or from the Minchah of a Mashu’ach (anointed Kohen Gadol.)
(b) R. Tarfon says, one may volunteer oil.
91b—————————————91b

(c) (Gemara – Shmuel): According to R. Tarfon, when a Yisrael brings oil, Kemitzah is taken (and Niktar), the rest is eaten (by Kohanim). (Tosfos Yom Tov (Menachos 12:5) says, since oil cannot be held in the fingers, Shmuel must mean that a Kemitzah’s worth of oil is taken in a vessel. R. Gershom (Menachos 74B) says that the oil is solidified to take Kemitzah; Rashi (Kesav Yad) and Tosfos there say that Kemitzah of wine cannot be taken (it is too clear).)
(d) Question: What is the source of this?
(e) Answer: “*Korban* Minchah” – this is extra, it teaches that one may volunteer oil;
1. A Korban of oil is like a Minchah – Kemitzah is taken, the rest is eaten.
(f) Support (R. Zeira -Mishnah – R. Shimon): One may not volunteer oil – therefore, the only oil divided among Kohanim is the excess of Rekikei Yisrael or the leftovers of the Log Metzora.
1. Inference: According to the opinion that one may volunteer oil, it is divided among Kohanim.
(g) Question (Abaye – Seifa): One may not volunteer oil – therefore…The only oil burned on the Mizbe’ach is the excess from Rekikei Kohen or from Minchas Mashu’ach.
1. Inference: According to the opinion that one may volunteer oil, all of it is Niktar (burned on the Mizbe’ach!) (Abaye assumes that if one sees Haktarah of oil, he would see if it was only a Kemitzah or the entire excess from Rekikei Kohen or Minchas Mashu’ach. Since according to R. Tarfon, one would not know whether or not the oil is Nedavah, it must be that a Nedavah is totally Niktar; therefore, Abaye cannot explain the Mishnah like R. Zeira below (i). However, this is unlike Shitah Mekubetzes, who deletes ‘all’ from the text.)
(h) Questions: The Reisha is difficult for Abaye, the Seifa is difficult for R. Zeira!
(i) Answer – part 1: The Seifa is not difficult for R. Zeira – indeed, according to the opinion that one may volunteer oil, also Kemitzah of oil is Niktar!
(j) Answer – part 2: The Reisha is not difficult for Abaye – the inference is invalid, the Reisha was taught only for parallel structure with the Seifa.
(k) Question: We understand, a Seifa may be taught merely for parallel structure with the Reisha, but would a Tana teach a Reisha just for parallel structure with the Seifa?!
(l) Answer: Indeed, he would!
1. (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): The Reisha was taught for parallel structure with the Seifa.
(m) Support (for Abaye – Beraisa – R. Akiva): A voluntary Korban of wine is poured into the Sefalim (conduits from the top of the Mizbe’ach to the bottom);
1. R. Tarfon says, a voluntary Korban of oil is burned on the Mizbe’ach.
2. Suggestion: Just like wine is totally poured into the Sefalim, oil is totally burned on the Mizbe’ach (according to R. Tarfon!)
(n) Rejection: No, their laws are dissimilar (only a Kemitzah of oil is burned on the Mizbe’ach).
4) A “NEDAVAH” OF OIL (cont.)
(a) (Rav Papa): Tana’im argue about a Nedavah of oil:
1. (Mishnah): One who volunteers to bring oil must bring at least one Log;
2. Rebbi says, he must bring at least three Lugim.
(b) Question: What is the source of the argument?
(c) Answer #1 (Rabanan): Chachamim hold Dun Minah u’Minah (when a matter is learned from another matter, we learn everything from the source – we learned Korban oil from Menachos, the smallest amount of oil in a Minchah is one Log;
1. Also, just like a Kometz of a Minchah is Niktar and the rest is eaten, also regarding oil;
2. Rebbi holds, Dun Minah v’Uki b’Asra (we learn the basic law from the source, other laws are according to the law of the matter being learned) – from Menachos we only learn that oil may be brought voluntarily, other laws we learn from Nesachim (i.e. of wine):
i. Just like the minimal Nedavah of wine is three Lugim, also regarding oil; just as wine is totally put into the Sefalim, oil is totally Niktar.
(d) Objection (Rav Papa): If Rebbi learned from Menachos, he would agree that Dun Minah u’Minah!
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): Rather, Rebbi learns from “Ezrach”.
(f) Refutation (Rav Huna brei d’Rav Noson – Beraisa): “Korban Minchah” – this teaches that one may volunteer oil; the minimal Nedavah is three Lugim.
1. Rebbi is the one who holds that the minimal Nedavah is three Lugim, and it says that he learns from “Korban”!
(g) Rav Papa: I was wrong, I had not heard that Beraisa.
1. (Mishnah): One who volunteers to bring oil must bring at least one Log;
5) A “NEDAVAH” OF WINE
(a) (Shmuel): A voluntary Korban of wine is sprinkled on the fire (on the Mizbe’ach.)
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer: “V’Yayin Takriv la’Nesech…Ishe Re’ach Nicho’ach”- (“Ishe” refers to something burned on the Mizbe’ach).
(d) Question: The wine will (partially) extinguish the fire (where it lands), this is forbidden (“Esh Tamid Tukad Al ha’Mizbe’ach Lo Sichbeh”!)
(e) Answer #1: The Torah only forbids totally extinguishing the fire.
1. Question: But Rav Nachman taught, one who takes a coal down from the Mizbe’ach and extinguishes it is liable!
2. Answer: Rav Nachman discusses when no fire was left on the Mizbe’ach.
(f) Answer #2: (Really, one is liable even if some fire remains on the Mizbe’ach – however,) extinguishing is permitted for a Mitzvah (e.g. bringing a Nedavah of wine.)
(g) Question (Beraisa – R. Eliezer ben Yakov) Suggestion: Since Terumas ha’Deshen is a Mitzvah, perhaps it is permitted to extinguish glowing ashes for this!
1. Rejection: “Lo Sichbeh”.
(h) Answer: There it is forbidden, for there is no need to extinguish them – one can wait for them to extinguish by themselves.
(i) Question #1 (Beraisa #1 – R. Akiva): A voluntary Korban of wine is poured into the Sefalim;
1. R. Tarfon says, a voluntary Korban of oil is burned on the Mizbe’ach.
(j) Question #2 (Beraisa #2): Nesachim of wine are poured into the Sefalim.
1. Suggestion: Perhaps they are thrown onto the fire!
2. Rejection: “Lo Sichbeh”.
(k) Answer: Shmuel holds like R. Shimon, who permits Davar she’Eino Miskaven (something he does not intend for; Rashi – he does not intend to extinguish, and it is not a *Pesik Reisha* (inevitable result), wine can be thrown without extinguishing; Aruch – even though it is a Pesik Reisha, he is not happy about this), the Beraisos are like R. Yehudah, who forbids this.
(l) Question: But Shmuel holds that we may extinguish (on Shabbos) a metal coal (which is normally forbidden mid’Rabanan) in Reshus ha’Rabim, in order that people will not be harmed, but not a coal of wood (for this is forbidden mid’Oraisa);
1. R. Shimon holds that extinguishing even a wooden coal is forbidden only mid’Rabanan (unless this is done to make a wick), it is permitted to prevent injury!
(m) Answer: Shmuel holds like R. Shimon regarding Davar she’Eino Miskaven, he holds like R. Yehudah regarding Melachah she’Einah Tzerichah l’Gufah (he obligates one who does a Melachah even if he does not need the result).