Previous daf

1)

(a) What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Shigegas Hora'ah of the Kohen Gadol) "le'Ashmas ha'Am"?

(b) We suggest that the Torah could dispense with the 'Hekesh', and learn Kohen Gadol from Tzibur with a 'Mah Matzinu', since they have an unusual characteristic in common.
What do we mean when we describe them both as being precluded from the Din of a Yachid?

(c) We counter this 'Mah-Matzinu' however, by comparing a Kohen Gadol to a Nasi.
In which way is a Nasi different than a Yachid?

(d) What would be the Din by a Kohen Gadol, if we did compare him to a Nasi?

(a) We point out two characteristics which both a Kohen Gadol and a Tzibur posess, and a Nasi does not. One of them is that they both bring a Par. The other is in the form of a Korban which neither of them brings (but which a Nasi does).
Which Korban?

(b) Again, we counter this with two similarities that a Kohen Gadol shares with a Nasi (but not with a Tzibur). One of them is that they both bring a Se'irah by Avodas-Kochavim (whereas a Tzibur brings a Par le'Chatas and a Sa'ir le'Olah). The other is a Korban which they both bring (but which a Tzibur does not).
Which Korban?

(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk in ...

1. ... Sh'lach-Lecha (in connection with the Korban Yachid for Avodah-Zarah) "ve'Im Nefesh"?
2. ... Vayikra (in connection with the Asham Gezeilos and Me'ilos) "Nefesh"?

(d) And that is why we need the Pasuk "le'Ashmas ha'Am", as we explained. What do we then learn from "Ve'hikriv al Chataso Asher Chata"? What would we otherwise have learned in addition from "le'Ashmas ha'Am"?

(e) What does the Mishnah later then mean when it adds to the principle 'Ein Chayavin Ela al Davar she'Zedono Kareis ve'Shigegaso Chatas', 've'Chein le'Mashi'ach', implying that he is Patur from bringing an Asham?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Korban Asham Taluy) "Ve'chiper Alav ha'Kohen al Shigegaso Asher Shagag"?

(b) What is the snag in using this fact to prove that Kohen Gadol is compared to Tzibur?

(c) So what do we conclude?

(a) Our Mishnah obligates a Kohen Gadol who acted on his own erroneous ruling independently of the Beis-Din, to bring his own Par.
But is that not obvious? How do we therefore establish the case?

(b) What is the Tana then referring to when he says 'Horeh Im ha'Tzibur, Meivi Im ha'Tzibur'?

(c) Which major detail in Shigegas Hora'ah does the Tana then cite that Tzibur and Kohen Mashi'ach have in common, as a basis for the comparison?

(d) Does this ruling also extend to Beis-Din or a Kohen Gadol regarding Shigegas Hora'ah by Avodah-Zarah?

(a) We suggest that the Mishnah's second ruling ('Horeh im ha'Tzibur ... ') is based on the Din of a Nasi who did likewise, and who is atoned for together with the Tzibur. What do Kohen Gadol and Nasi have in common?

(b) Why can we in fact, not learn from Nasi? Apart from the fact that a Nasi is different than a Kohen Gadol in that, like other Yechidim, he is Chayav for Shigegas Ma'aseh alone, on which occasion does he receive atonement together with the Tzibur, whereas a Kohen Gadol does not?

(c) What do we therefore learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Par of the Kohen Gadol) "Al Chataso Asher Chata"?

(a) With regard to the first case in the Mishnah (where he and the Beis-Din issued individual rulings negating two separate Mitzvos), why can the Tana not be speaking when the Beis-din ...

1. ... were not experts, and he was?
2. ... were experts, and he was not?

(b) So how does Rav Papa establish the case?

(c) Abaye assumed that 'two Isurim' means in two different locations.
What objection did Rava raise to that?

7)

(a) Why is it ...

1. ... obvious that if the Kohen Gadol permitted Cheilev, and the Beis-Din, Avodas-Kochavim, he is obligated to bring his own Chatas?
2. ... even more obvious in the reverse case, where he permitted Avodah-Zarah, and they, Cheilev?

(b) We ask what the Din will be if he permitted the Cheilev that covers the stomach, and they, the Cheilev that covers the intestines.
Why might he be Chayav, despite the fact that they both bring the same Korban (a bull)?

(c) Why is this not considered an error with which the Tzedokim agree (and which does not therefore fall under the category of 'Shigegas Hora'ah', as we learned in the first Perek)?

(a) Finally, we ask what the Din will be if the Kohen Gadol permitted Cheilev, and the Beis-Din permitted blood.
What is the She'eilah? How does it tie up with the previous one?

(b) What is the outcome of these She'eilos?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ve'ne'elam Davar" (in Vayikra)?
2. ... "le'Ashmas ha'Am" (ibid.)?
3. ... in Sh'lach-Lecha "me'Einei" "me'Einei" (in Vayikra [Avodah-Zarah from other Mitzvos])?

(b) Why might we otherwise have thought that the requirement of 'Le'vatel Miktzas u'Le'kayem Miktzas' is not necessary by Avodah-Zarah?

(c) What else do we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?

(a) According to Rebbi in a Beraisa, a Kohen is Chayav a Korban by Avodah-Zarah for Shigegas Ma'aseh alone.
What does he bring?

(b) What do the Chachamim say?

(c) What does the Tana say about bringing an Asham Taluy (in a case of Safek)?

(a) What makes us presume that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi?

(b) What else does our Mishnah fail to mention?

(c) What conclusion do we draw from there that enables the author to be the Chachamim?

(d) The Machlokes between Rebbi and the Chachamim is based on their respective interpretations of the Pasuk in Sh'lach-Lecha "Ve'chiper ha'Kohen al ha'Nefesh ha'Shogeges *be'Chet'ah bi'Shegagah*".
What does this mean according to ...

1. ... Rebbi?
2. ... the Chachamim?

(e) And what do they both learn from the Pasuk there "ve'Im Nefesh Achas ... "?

Next daf