Previous daf

1)

(a) What do we try to learn from the Pasuk in Melachim "Kamoni Kamocha, ke'Ami ke'Amcha"?

(b) On what grounds do we refute this proof? What does it then mean?

(c) How do we ultimately learn it from the Pasuk there "u'Melech Yisrael vi'Yehoshafat Melech Yehudah Yoshvim ... ba'Goren, Pesach Sha'ar Shomron"?

(d) Why can "Goren" not be taken literally?

(a) What does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav comment on the Pasuk there "ve'ha'Orvim Mevi'im Lo Lechem u'Basar ba'Boker, ve'Lechem u'Basar ba'Erev"?

(b) Why is there no proof from there for Rava, that 'Mumar le'Oso Davar Lo Havi Mumar', as long as it is easily available (though it is unclear who examined the knives for Achav's Shochtim [see also Tosfos DH 'al-Pi ha'Dibur')?

(a) How does Rav Ada bar Minyumi try to disprove Ravina, who translates "Orvim" as 'ravens', from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Va'yahargu es Orev be'Tzur Orev ... "?

(b) On what grounds do we reject this suggestion?

(c) How does Rebbi P'das explain the Pasuk there that refers to the young Jewish girl captured by the Syrians as a "Na'arah Ketanah"? If she was a Ketanah, then how could she have been a Na'arah at one and the same time?

(d) Why, by the same token, can we not then translate "ha'Orvim" as 'the men from Orev'?

(a) We already cited the Beraisa 'ha'Kol Shochtin va'Afilu Kuti, va'Afilu Areil, va'Afilu Mumar' earlier in the Sugya.
How do we now try to prove Rav Anan Amar Shmuel ('Mumar la'Avodas Kochavim Lo Havi Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah') from 'va'Afilu Mumar'?

(b) On what grounds do we reject this proof? What else might 'va'Afilu Mumar' refer to?

(c) Why might a Mumar la'Avodas Kochavim be worse than a Mumar le'Oso Davar (who has been given a knife that has been examined)'? What did Mar say about Avodas Kochavim?

(a) The Torah writes in Vayikra "Adam ki Yakriv Mikem Korban".
What does the Beraisa learn from "Mikem"?

(b) What does the Tana then mean when he adds "Mikem", 'Bachem Chilakti, ve'Lo ba'Umos'?

(c) How does the Tana interpret "min ha'Beheimah" allegorically?

(d) And he learns from here that one may accept Korbanos from sinners ('Posh'ei Yisrael').
How do we interpret 'sinners'? What is the reason for this ruling?

(a) In view of what we just explained, how do we interpret ...

1. ... the Reisha "Mikem" ... 'Lehotzi es ha'Mumar'?
2. ... the Seifa *'Chutz min ha'Mumar*, u'Menasech es ha'Yayin u'Mechalel Shabbasos be'Farhesya'? How do we amend this statement?

(b) What does the Beraisa prove?

7)

(a) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with a Korban Chatas) "me'Am ha'Aretz", 'P'rat le'Mumar".
What does Rebbi Shimon ben Yossi Amar Rebbi Yossi learn from the Pasuk there "Asher Lo Se'asenah bi'Shegagah ve'Ashem"?

(b) How does Rav Hamnuna explain the ramifications of their Machlokes?

(c) In spite of the fact that we already know from there that a Mumar cannot bring a Chatas, we nevertheless need the Pasuk "Mikem", 've'Lo Kulchem' (Amud Alef), to teach us that he cannot bring an Olah either.
Why would we not know ...

1. ... Olah from Chatas?
2. ... Chatas from Olah?

(d) What is the S'vara ...

1. ... on the one hand, to disqualify a Mumar from bringing an Olah?
2. ... on the other hand, to obligate him to bring a Chatas (if not for the Pasuk that disqualifies him too)?

(a) How does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav interpret the Pasuk in Tehilim "Adam u'Veheimah Toshi'a Hashem"?

(b) How do we reconcile this with the Beraisa on Amud Alef, which Darshens "min ha'Beheimah" derogatively?

(c) How do we explain the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Ve'zara'ti es Beis Yisrael Zera Adam ve'Zera Beheimah"? About whom is the Pasuk speaking when it writes ...

1. ... "Zera Adam"?
2. ... "Zera Beheimah"?

(d) How do we reconcile this with the current Beraisa, which Darshens "Adam u'Veheimah Toshi'a Hashem" positively?

(a) What does Rav Chanan ... in the name of bar Kapara say with regard to Rabban Gamliel and his Beis-Din? What did they say about the Shechitah of a Kuti?

(b) Which Raban Gamliel is he referring to?

(c) Does this mean that Raban Gamliel disagrees with our Mishnah (which validates the Shechitah of a Kuti, according to Abaye and Rava)?

(a) What was Rav Ya'akov bar Idi's reaction, when Rebbi Zeira suggested that perhaps bar Kapara statement is confined to where there was no Yisrael watching him when he Shechted (but not where there was)?

(b) What is the basis of Rav Ya'akov bar Idi's surprise?

(c) Did Rebbi Zeira accept his objection or not"?

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak cites Rebbi Asi, who saw Rebbi Yochanan eat from the Shechitah of a Nochri.
What does he say about Rebbi Asi?

(b) Under what condition did they do that?

(c) What She'eilah does Rebbi Zeira now ask on this, based on the ruling of Raban Gamliel and his Beis-Din?

(a) What prompts Rebbi Zeira to conclude that they must have heard of the ruling, but disagreed with it?

(b) On what is that conclusion based?

(c) What does this prove? According to Rebbi Zeira's initial suggestion, how could he have easily reconciled Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Asi with Raban Gamliel's ruling?

Next daf