Previous daf

1)

(a) We just established our Mishnah 'u've'Mukdashin' like the Tana who holds that the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh applied to Yisrael before Matan Torah.
Which Tana holds like that?

(b) We also learned in our Mishnah that Gid ha'Nasheh applies to both legs. What does Rebbi Yehudah hold (in another Mishnah later)?

(c) How can we establish one part of the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah, when the other part holds not like him?

(d) We query that however, based on the fact that regarding the Chumra of 'she'Kein Isuro Noheg bi'Venei No'ach', Rebbi Yehudah is referring to its taking effect on a Beheimah Teme'ah.
Why can we not learn from there that it will also take effect on the Isur of Mukdashin?

(a) So we confine 'Mukdashin' in our Mishnah to a Bechor.
How does that solve our problem? If Gid ha'Nasheh cannot take effect on other Kodshim, why will it take effect on a Bechor?

(b) Is this answer confined to the Tana Kama, who holds 'Gid ha'Nasheh Noheg bi'Sh'lil?

(c) Alternatively, we establish the Mishnah by V'lados Kodshim, like we tried to do earlier.
What would the Tana then have to hold?

(d) The term 'be'Havayasan' is based on the Pasuk in Re'ei "Rak Kodoshecha Asher *Yih'yu* Lecha Tisa u'Vasa".
What do we learn from this Pasuk?

(a) According to Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, Gid ha'Nasheh is confined to Kodshim that are eaten (Chatas, Asham and Shelamim), but not to Olos.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(b) Rav Papa explains that there is no Machlokes, but one speaks with regard to Malkos, and the other, with regard to bringing it on the Mizbe'ach. Who says what?

(c) What is the reason for the difference?

(d) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak however, Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef do argue.
What is their Machlokes?

(a) According to other texts, Rav Papa says 'Ka'an Lechaltzo, Ka'an Leha'aloso'.
What is each one now saying?

(b) What does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak now mean when he says that they do in fact argue?

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's source lies in a Beraisa, which cites a Machlokes Tana'im.
What does one Beraisa learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Re'ei "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam"?
2. ... in Vayikra "Ve'hiktir ha'Kohen es ha'Kol ha'Mizbecha"?

(a) The Tana Kama in another Beraisa Darshens from the Pasuk in Vayikra, that even if the bones and the nerves ... have been removed from the animal, they must be burned on the Mizbe'ach.
What does the Tana mean when he then establishes the Pasuk in Re'ei by Pok'in?

(b) What does Rebbi Darshen from the two Pesukim?

(c) On what grounds do the Rabbanan decline to learn like Rebbi? Why can the Pasuk in Vayikra not be coming to teach us that 'Mechubarin' do not need to be removed from the Mizbe'ach?

(d) How does Rebbi counter that? If 'Mechubarin de'Heteira' do not require a Pasuk to be incorporated, which kind of Mechubarin does?

(a) Why do the Rabbanan not accept Rebbi's answer? What do they learn from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael"?

(b) On what grounds do they refute Rebbi's counter argument, that Gid ha'Nasheh is no different than Cheilev and Dam, which the Torah also permits on the Mizbe'ach (even though they are not 'mi'Mashkeh Yisrael)?

7)

(a) According to Rav Huna, the Kohanim would remove the Gid ha'Nasheh from the Olah and burn it on the Tapu'ach. What is the Tapu'ach?

(b) What does Rav Chisda say? On what basis does he argue with Rav Huna?

(c) How does Rav Huna counter Rav Chisda's Kashya?

(a) What does another Beraisa say they did with the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Shelamim?

(b) Why did it not require burning because of Nosar?

(c) What other difficulty do we have with the Beraisa?

(d) To answer the Kashya, we might amend the text to 'Chatas ve'Asham' (instead of 'Shelamim'), which could only be eaten in the Azarah.
Alternatively, how might we establish the Beraisa even with regard to a Shelamim?

(a) How does Rav Huna explain the continuation of the Beraisa 've'shel Olah Ma'aleihu'?

(b) Why was this necessary? Why not remove it *before* ascending the Mizbe'ach?

(c) On what grounds will we rule like Rav Huna?

(a) What does Rava comment on the Mishnah in Tamid, which states that sometimes, there was as much as three hundred Kur (nine thousand Sa'ah) of ashes piled up on the Tapu'ach?

(b) Regarding which Mishnah there (in connection with watering the Tamid) does he make the same comment?

(c) Rebbi Ami cites this Mishnah, as well as a Pasuk in Devarim, and a Pasuk in Melachim.
What point is he making?

(d) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeni Amar Shmuel refers to three cases of Chazal as 'Guzma', Tapu'ach, Gefen (shel Zahav) and Paroches.
Why does he not include the case of watering the Tamid with a gold cup?

(a) What was the Gefen shel Zahav? What would they hang on it?

(b) What statement did Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok make, which Shmuel referred to as a Guzma?

(a) In a Mishnah in Shekalim, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the name of Rebbi Shimon ha'Segan, describes the Paroches. It was a Tefach thick and was woven on seventy-two Nirin (part of the weaving loom, through which the threads passed). Each thread of the Paroches consisted of twenty-four individual threads.
What did the Paroches measure?

(b) What, besides the Paroches ha'Kodesh, might the Paroches currently under discussion, be referring to?

(c) It consisted of eight hundred and twenty thousand threads.
What else might this number represent?

(d) The Tana also informs us that they would manufacture two Parochos annually.
What does he finally say that Shmuel considers a Guzma?

(a) Our Mishnah, which ascribes the Din of Gid ha'Nasheh to both the right and the left legs.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say in a Beraisa?

(b) What might Rebi Yehudah mean when he concludes 've'ha'Da'as Machra'as she'Hi shel Yemin'?

(c) According to the second interpretation, why did Rebbi Yehudah conclude that it means the right thigh?

(a) What does the Beraisa rule with regard to bones, Gidin, and Nosar of a Korban Pesach? What does one do with them all?

(b) What kinds of bones is the Tana talking about?

(c) What problem do we have with Gidin? What if they were ...

1. ... Gidei Basar?
2. ... leftovers of Gidei Basar?

(a) So how does Rav Chisda establish 'Gidin'? What sort of Gidin is the Tana referring to, according to which Tana?

(b) What do we try to prove from here? What would be the problem if Rebbi Yehudah was certain that the Torah forbade the right Gid?

(c) How does Rav Ika bar Chin'na establish the case even according to the first side of the She'eilah?

Next daf