Previous daf

1)

(a) What was Rebbi Ami's initial reaction, when Rebbi Zeira asked him that if, as Ze'iri maintains, a bird whose Mafrekes and Rov Basar are broken, is considered a Neveilah, how can one subsequently perform Melikah on it?

(b) His ultimate reply conformed with that of a Beraisa.
What did he answer?

(c) The Beraisa continues 'Higi'a le'Veshet O le'Kanah, Chotech Si'man Echad O Rubo ve'Rov Basar Imo'.
What if it is an Olas ha'Of'?

(a) What problem do we have with the Lashon of the Beraisa 'u'be'Olah Shenayim O Rov Shenayim'?

(b) How do we therefore amend the Beraisa?

(c) Alternatively, the Beraisa goes according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.
Then why does the Tana mention 'Shenayim' altogether?

(a) What does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel say about a person whose Mafrekes and Rov Basar are broken?

(b) About whom does the Pasuk in Shmuel write 'Va'tishaver Mafrakto Va'yamos"?

(c) To which incident is the Pasuk referring?

(d) How will we reconcile Shmuel's ruling with this Pasuk, which refers to Eli as dead, even though Rov Basar was not broken together with the Mafrekes?

(e) What proof do we have that this answer is correct?

(a) What does Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about Reuven tearing Shimon apart like a fish?

(b) What does Rebbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak add to Rebbi Yochanan's ruling?

(c) What does Shmuel say about 'As'ah Gist'ra'? What does 'Gist'ra' mean?

(a) Rebbi Elazar considers 'Nital ha'Yerech' (if the thigh has been removed) a Neveilah?

(b) How does Rava define 'va'Chalal she'Lah'?

(c) What does the Mishnah in Ohalos say about an animal whose head has been severed, even though it is still convulsing?

(d) What does the Tana learn from the tail of a lizard?

(a) According to Resh Lakish, 'severed' is meant literally. What does Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Mani say?

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Asi what he meant.
What are the two possibilities?

(c) What did Rebbi Asi reply?

(d) How do we cite the Machlokes in the second Lashon? What did Rebbi Asi say there?

(a) In the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'es ha'Sheini Ta'aseh ka'Mishpat" (written in connection with the Olas ha'Of of a Korban Oleh ve'Yored), to which two Korbanos might "ka'Mishpat" refer?

(b) Why does the Tana of the Beraisa initially opt to learn it from Chatas Beheimah?

(c) What would the Tana learn from Olas ha'Of?

(d) What does he learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Olas Of Nedavah) "Ve'hikrivo"?

8)

(a) The Tana learns three things from the comparison to Chatas Beheimah. Two of them are that it can only be brought from Chulin, and that it can only brought in the day.
What is the third?

(b) Why could we not learn the same three things from Chatas ha'Of, and still use "Vehikrivo" to preclude Olas ha'Of from "ve'Lo Yavdil" of Chatas ha'Of?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with Olas Nedavah) "u'Malak Ve'hiktir"?

(b) What would we otherwise have thought?

(c) What forces us to make this D'rashah?

(d) Seeing as the head and the body are still joined by the skin, how can the Torah refer to this as severed?

(a) Rebbi Yishmael agrees with the Chachamim Halachah-wise, but not with their source. What does he learn from ...

1. ... "ka'Mishpat" ('ke'Mishpat Chatas ha'Of')?
2. ... "Ve'hivdilo"?

(b) How do we learn this from there?

(c) If not for "Ve'hivdilo", what would we otherwise have thought?

(d) And how do we know that Rebbi Yishmael learns like the Rabbanan (that "Ve'hikrivo" requires cutting the entire second Si'man)? Perhaps he learns from "Vehikrivo" that one must cut the second Si'man as well, but that Rov will suffice (like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon)?

(a) From where does Rebbi Yishmael know to learn 'Mul Oref' from 'ke'Mishpat Chatas ha'Of' and the Din of Havdalah from "Ve'hikrivo", and not the other way round?

(b) And what does he learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Zos ha'Torah, la'Olah ve'la'Minchah"? What does he learn from Chatas Beheimah?

(c) Why do the Rabbanan disagree with him?

(a) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon disagrees both with the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yishmael, though like the latter, he compares Olas ha'Of to Chatas ha'Of. When he said 'Mah Lehalan Ochez be'Rosh u've'Guf u'Mazeh', why can he not mean literally what he said?

(b) Then what does he mean?

(c) And what does he then learn from "Ve'hikrivo"?

(d) Why does Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon not learn from "Vehikrivo" that the second Si'man must be completely severed (like Rebbi Yishmael)?

Next daf