*1

*10 Malbim gives a very thorough analysis of this strange
word. We list some points:

10a)
Malbim explains the PREFIX TAUV as meaning INTENSE
and gives several examples (This is not necessary however)
So for example B-A-R means to BURN while TVARAH is
a sort of BONFIRE (WELL BURNED). Hence, concludes MALBIM,
the TAUV prefixing this word would indicate WELL BAKED

10b)
AFH means BAKED which indicates that this offering
was BAKED Everyone agrees on this.


10c) N-A COULD EITHER mean NA (ROASTED RAW) or NAH(NICE)
So we could infer NICELY BAKED. OR, ROASTED

10d) The actual law is that it is
- baked first
- roasted
- baked/fried in a frying pan

Malbim goes into laborious detail on how controversies
on this emanate from the
- Tauv of TFYNY
- Does the N mean NAH or NA

My goal here however is not to explain the TAUV (which
need not add explicit meaning as in TPERETH vs PAYR)

My goal here is to show that TFYNY means BAKED-ROASTED
and everyone agrees that these two procedures were done
to it (There is controversy however on ORDER and
QUANTITY (roast-bake vs bake-roast and how many bakings)

*1 From these 3 verses we infer the following
- No leaven EVER goes on ALTAR
- With one exception the remains of the offering (after
appropriate fistfuls are offered on altar) are NEVER
LEAVENED when eaten by priests
- The FIRST BREAD offering is eaten leavened

*1 From the query we infer the following

- In ORDINARY VOLUNTEERED Minchah offerings of NON PRIESTS
----------------------------------------------------------
- A FISTFUL of the Minchah is offered on the altar
- The rest is consumed by the priests

- In ORDINARY VOLUNTEERED Minchah offerings of PRIESTS
-------------------------------------------------------
- The whole Minchah is offered
- Nothing is consumed by the priests

- In INAUGRAL MANDATORY Minchah offerings of PRIESTS
--------------------------------------------------------
- The whole Minchah is offered
- Nothing is consumed by the priests

The three parameters used are
- ORDINARY-INAUGRAL
- VOLUNTEER-MANDATORY
- PRIESTS-NON-PRIESTS

*1 Rashi states the following: "If MOTHERS make mistakes it
is because they raise children; if SINGLE women make
mistakes it is because they try to pick people up"
Rashi should be perceived as giving ILLUSTRATIONS of
why being without children is disgraceful for women

*2 Jacob did not NEED permission to leave with HIS wife
But his father-in-law would perceive it as STEALING
his daughter.

*3 Gn27-41 states that Esauv hated Jacob for stealing the
blessing. Gn27-44 states that after a few years this
hatred would subside. Hence Gn33-09 with its statement
I DONT NEED YOUR MONEY confirms these other 2 verses.

*4 Rashi is NOT commenting on the MERE coincidence that
Shimon and Levi are called BROTHERS in two places.
-Gn49-05 talks about Shimon and Levi KILLING and
PLUNDERING
-Gn34 also talks about SHIMON and Levi KILLING
and plundering.
Thus the cross reference is clear. The accident
that they are called BROTHERS in both places
simply spices up the correspondence.

*5 There are many verses which explicitly confirm
Lv06-05b - that the DAILY UP OFFERING must be
the first offering of the day and the last (any
other offerings must be offered strictly inbetween
them). Here is a partial list of verses where this
principle is enunciated
Nu28-15,23,24,31 Nu29-06,11,16,22,25...Lv03-05*10

*10 Lv06-05b only speaks about THE UP..but in light
of these other verses the word THE clearly refers
to the DAILY UP.

Rashi(following the Talmud) further declares
--------------------------------------------
We also derive from this verse (Lv06-05b) That:
Just as no offering can be offered BEFORE
the DAILY UP (the DAILY UP must be the FIRST)
so no offering can be offered AFTER the
EVENING DAILY UP (the EVENING DAILY UP must
be the LAST).
--------------------------------------------

My own opinion is that Rashi simply indicates
a derivation by analogical logic (not by
verse derivation). In other words since all
the other verses state
----------------------------------------
this offering must be offered AFTER (AL)
the MORNING DAILY UP
----------------------------------------
we infer (by LOGIC, not by VERSE) that
the EVENING DAILY UP should have a similar
status (no offering offered AFTER)

*1 Rashi (Lv06-03c) uses this to justify that
- the priest removed ASHES of ANIMAL OFFERINGS
- not the ashes of the burnt altar WOOD*10

*2 Actually DESHEN refers to PLUMPNESS.

*3 These two verses refer to the ashes of the
ANIMAL PLUMP(FAT)

*10 This distinction was suggested by Malbim who
pioneered in justifying Talmudic inferences using
distinctions.