Question #1: How can one even think to say that, since the Gemara earlier (on Daf 35b) precluded her from bal Tashchis, from "Pe'as" ...

Question #1 (cont.): And it did not say that "Korchah" which is written in the first Parshah before bal Tashchis, that it interrupted the Parshah for Pe'as Zakan - How much more so does it refer to Korchah, which is the first item in the Parshah, and is closer to "B'nei Aharon" that is written there

Question #2: Moreover, how can the Tana of our Mishnah argue on Korchah - swhen he says 'except for bal Takif, bal Tashchis', but does not mention 'bal Yikr'chu' ...

Question #2 (cont.): But the Gemara explained earlier that even from "Pe'as" refers to "B'nei Aharon", how much more so to Korchah, which is even closer to 'B'nei Aharon"?

Answer: The Gemara thinks that regarding "Korchah", even though it is close to B'nei Aharon, the Pasuk interrupts because the Torah writes (in Devarim, 14) "Because you are a holy nation", including women and even among Yisrael (See Maharsha).

Conclusion: And the Gemara concludes that it does not interrupt.

Clarification: And we would derive what is written by one on to the other with a Mah Matzinu.

Implied Question: And as for the fact that the Torah gave the Kohanim more Mitzvos ...

Answer: We will not distinguish by a Mitzvah that the Torah writes explicitly by both of them, between Kohanim and Yisre'elim ...

Answer (cont.): Certainly, the Mitzvah itself we would not learn, but the explanation of the Mitzvah we do.

Question: So what if we do? Why can we nevertheless not learn Korchah from Tefilin, seeing as there is no such thing as half a Gezeirah Shavah

Question (cont.): So why do we not then say that 'Just as women are Patur from Tefilin, so too, are Patur from Korchah'?

Answer: Perhaps the Gezeirah Shavah was learnt exclusively to teach us the exact place where Tefilin must be worn.

Question: The Ram asked why we cannot then wear Tefilin anywhere on the head, just as Korchah applies anywhere on the head?

Answer: Perhaps that is what "Bein Einechem" comes to teach us, since it could otherwise have written "be'Rosheichem".

Implied Question: Even though by Korchah too, the Torah writes "Bein Einechem", in spite of which Korchah applies to the whole head ...

Answer: It writes "Bein Einechem" to Darshen the Gezeirah Shavah.

Clarification: It seems that from Hagashos and onwards refers to Kohanim, and the Pesukim cited in the Gemara preclude Kohanos ...

Clarification (cont.): Whereas S'michos and Tenufos refers to Yisre'elim.

Implied Question: The Tana omits Holachah and Z'rikah ...

Implied Question: Because Holachah is included in Kabalah, since we learn it and Kabalah from "ve'Hikrivo B'nei Aharon" (Zevachim, 4b) ...

Answer (cont.): And Z'rikah is included in Haza'ah.

Question: Why does the Gemara require a Pasuk to preclude women? Why can we not learn it from the fact that they are Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama, seeing as they only apply in the day ...

Source: As the Pasuk writes "On the day when He commanded them to bring their Korbanos"?

Answer: He nevertheless needs a Pasuk to preclude women - to invalidate a Korban that a woman sacrifices ...

Answer (cont.): Because, if not for the Pasuk, we would not have known that their Avodah invalidates; that is why he needs a Pasuk to preclude them, to teach us that they desecrate the Avodah and that their Avodah invalidates.

Question: The Kashya remains however, why he needs a Pasuk by Semichah, since the Avodah does not become Pasul when performed by a woman ...

Question (cont.): In other words, the Korban does not become Pasul even without Semichah, so if it is performed by a woman, it does not become Pasul either?

Answer: Nevertheless, the Tana requires a Pasuk, since we would otherwise have thought that because the Torah writes "ve'Samach" "ve'Shachat", Semichah is compared to Shechitah ...

Answer (cont.): And just as the Shechitah of women is Kasher - as the Mishnah states in Zevachim (31b), which is quoted in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 2b) ...

Source: 'The Shechitah of all Pesulim who Shechted is Kasher, because Shechitah is valid by Zarim and women ... '

Answer (concl.): So too is the Semichah' ...

Conclusion: Which is why we need a Pasuk to preclude them.

Implied Question: And Tenufah too, needs to be precluded ...

Answer: Since we find cases of Tenufah which are Kasher by them, as the Gemara will explain shortly - 'except for the Minchah of a Sotah and of a Nezirah, which they do wave'. (Continued on Amud Bei).

Question: Why are all these women not Pasul because they are Mechusrei Begadim ...

Source: Bearing in mind the Gemara in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 17b) - that even Kohanim are not considered Kohanim if they do not wear the Bigdei Kehunah?

Answer #1: It speaks when they actually wore the Begadim.

Answer #2: Alternatively, since they were not commanded to wear the Bigdei Kehunah, they are not Mechusrei Begadim.

Clarification: Rashi explains that even a Kohen Hedyot is Pasul, how much more so women.

Introduction to Question: That is fine according to the opinion that future generations too, require a Kohen Gadol, similar to Elazar ha'Kohen; but according to the opinion that includes a Kohen Hedyot in future generations, the Kashya remains ...

Question: What is the Gemara asking here, perhaps the Tana sees fit to preclude women, since in the future, even a Kohen Hedyot is eligible?

Answer: The Gemara asks because, since the Tana there needs to include a Kohen Hedyot, we can extrapolate that, as far as women is concerned, he finds it obvious that they are not eligible to perform the Avodah.

Conclusion: And the same explanation pertains to the continuation of the Gemara 'I di'Penim ... '.

Clarification: Rashi explains that the sprinkhe ling on the Paroches and on the Golden Mizbe'ach that are mentioned in connection with the bul of the Kohen Gadol and that of the Tzibur.

Implied Question: The Ram maintains that, although the Gemara there (Toras Kohanim Parshas Vayikra [See Masores ha'Shas]) learns that a Kohen Hedyot is eligible to perform the latter ...

Source: Since we include it from the extra 'Hey' of ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach" ...

Answer: Nevertheless, since the Tana needs a Pasuk to include a Kohen Hedyot, we can extrapolate that he finds it obvious that women are not eligible.

Question: One can ask that whereas by a lamb the Torah requires a K'li, which is why it requires a Kohen to sprinkle it, whereas a bird where it does not ...

Reason: Since the sprinkling of a bird is performed with the hand of the Kohen ...

Question (cont.): And does therefore not require a Kohen?

Precedent: Similarly the Gemara asks in Zevachim (Daf 48b), where it would learn from the same Kal va'Chomer that a bird requires Melikah on the north (side of the Azarah), were it not for this Pircha.

Answer #1: This Pircha - that it requires a K'li - is a poor one ..

Reason: Because one can say that (on the contrary) Haza'ah with a K'li is preferable to with a K'li ...

Answer #1 (cont.): That being the case, over there, where it wants to learn from the Kal va'Chomer that the Melikah of a bird must take place in the north, a major issue - since it does not apply to all Korbanos, it is logical to preclude the north, even with a poor Pircha ...

Answer #1 (concl.): Whereas a Kohen, which is a requirement by all Kodshim, it is not a major Chidush to include a Kohen by a bird, and one can therefore not excclude him, as Tosfos explained.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara's Kal va'Chomer here is - 'If already a lamb, which does not require a Kohen at the beginning' - since "Shechitah by a Zar is Kasher", 'requires a Kohen at the end' - for Kabalah. Holachah and Zerikah ...

Answer #2 (cont.): 'A bird, which requires a Kohen at the beginning, should certainly require a Kohen at the end' ...

Reason: Since the end, which is the main Avodah of a Korban, always requires a Kohen more than at the beginning ...

Answer #2 (concl.): In that case, the Kal va'Chomer is an internal one, and it is not subject to any Pircha (See Masores ha'Shas).

Question: But this constitutes a Chatzitzah? ...

Precedent: As the Gemara says in Menachos (Daf 94a) - 'There is no Tenufah by Chovrin' - partners. 'Because how would they do it? If they will will perform waving after waving' - that they wave it one after the other, 'the Torah requires one waving, and not two ...

Precedent (cont.): And if one partner places his hand underneath that of his friend, that would be a Chatzitzah'

Question (cont.): So we see that waving done in this manner is considered a Chatzitzah?

Answer #1: The cases are not comparable. Here it is not considered a Chatzitzah in this manner because it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that the Kohen and the owner perform the Tenufah ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas there, by two partners it is considered a Chatzitzah if one of them places his hand underneath that of his friend, since there is no Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that requires them both to wave (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it id not speaking here where the Kohen actually places his hand underneath the owner's, as that would indeed constitute a Chatzitzah ...

Answer #2: But where he holds the vessel at the bottom, whilst the owner holds it at the top, in which case there is no Chatzitzah at all.

Precedent #1: As so we find with regard to Bikurim, where the Kohen holds it by the edge - by the lip of the vessel on top, and the owner at the bottom (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) ...

Answer #2 (cont.): And the same applies here by Menachos, only the other way round - that the owner's is on top, and the Kohen's, at the bottom.

Question: The Yerushalmi (here, Halachah 8) asks why the Tana does not list Chalah? ...

Answer: And it answers - 'Because it does apply to the dough of a Nochri, and the Mishnah is only speaking about things that apply both to a Yisrael and to a Nochri.

Question: Why does the Yerushalmi there not also ask why the Tana does not list T'rumah and Ma'aser, like it asks regarding Chalah?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer - because they are only mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Refutation: Seeing as Chalah in Chutz la'Aretz too, is only mi'de'Rabbanan, yet the Yerushalmi asks why it does mention it, and does not reply that it is mi'de'Rabbanan?

Answer: It asks from Chalah is because they decreed on Chalah everywhere, whereas on T'rumah and Ma'aser they only decreed on locations that are close to Eretz Yisrael, but not on locaions that are far from it.

Implied Question: And the reason that they decreed on Chalah everywhere more than on T'rumah and Ma'aser is ...

Answer #1: Due to the fact that Chalah, which is subject to kneading the dough - which a person performs, is closer to a personal Chiyuv, and it is therefore correct that it should apply everywhere in Chutz la'Aretz ...

Answer #1 (cont,): Whereas T'rumah and Ma'aser is incumbent upon the person who owns the land, making it more comparable to a Chovas Karka.

Answer #2: The reason that it did not ask from T'rumah and Ma'aser is because the Yerushalmi (Chalah 4:4, 27a) states that 'Our Rabbis in Chutz la'Aretz used to separate T'rumah and Ma'aser until the Rovim - the Meturgamim, came and negated it'.

Explanation: The reason that they negated T'rumah and Ma'aser in Chutz la'Aretz may well be because nowadays, the land in Chutz la'Aretz does not belong to us, since it is Meshu'bad to the king, to whom we pay a tax ...

Explanation (cont.): Consequently, it does not have the Din of land belonging to a Yisrael, regarding the separation of T'rumah and Ma'aser.

Question: In Eretz Yisrael too, the land is Mechu'bad to the king, yet one separates T'rumah and Ma'aser from it?

Answer: 'A Nochri does not have a Kinyan in Eretz Yisrael to remove it from the Chiyuv Ma'aser' (Gitin 47a).

Halachah: From the Yerushalmi that Tosfos cited one can extrapolate that Orlah and KMil'ayim apply to the trees belonging to Nochrim.

Support #1: This is also implied in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah Zarah, Daf 35b) which explains that cheeses of Nochrim are forbidden because 'They preserve them in the sap of Orlah' ...

Proof #1: And that is speaking about Orlah of Nochrim, as it would be a Dochek to establish it by Orlah of a Yisrael.

Support #2: Similarly, later (on Daf 38b) when the Gemara states with regard to Safek Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz 'One may go down andpick it, provided the owner does not see him picking it' - And that can only be speaking about the Orlah of the Nochri ...

Proof: Because the Orlah of a Yisrael is forbidden to sell, seeing as the Proceeds of Orlah are forbidden.

Introduction to Question: But the Gemara says in Maseches Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 9b), with regard to Orlah - 'Whether someone plants, transplants or grafts, it has a Din of Orlah ...

Question: If so, how can we derive benefit from the vineyards which the Nochrim transplant each year? ...

Refuted Answer: And even though we don't know for sure that they transplant all of them ...

Refutation: We ought to still go after the majority?

Introduction to Answer: Rabeinu Shimshon relates that he asked the farmers, and they told him that they do not cut off the branch from the trunk, and that it therefore continued to feed from the original tree ...

Answer: And the Yerushalmi (in the first Perek of Orlah (Halachah 3, Daf 6a) that - 'When someone transplants, if it continues to feed from the original tree, it is Patur from Orlah; whereas if he severs it, it is Chayav'.

Answer (cont.): And one can easily discern whether it feeds from the original tree or not, because when it does, its leaves face in the opposite direction, whereas when he severs it, the leaves face in the direction of the original tree.

Conclusion: And the way to remember it is that 'Someone who eats from his friend is embarrassed to look him in the face. (Continued on Daf 37a)