Previous daf

1)

(a) We have just concluded a series of six Mishnahs that all teach us 'ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir'.
Why would we not know the case of ...

1. ... 'ha'Eidim she'Amru K'sav Yadeinu Hu Zeh' from that of 'u'Modeh Rebbi Yehoshua be'Omer la'Chaveiro Sadeh Zu shel Avicha Haysah'?
2. ... 'u'Modeh Rebbi Yehoshua be'Omer la'Chaveiro Sadeh Zu shel Avicha Haysah' from that of 'ha'Eidim she'Amru K'sav Yadeinu Hu Zeh'?
3. ... 'Eishes Ish Ani u'Gerushah Ani' from the previous cases?

(b) We suggest that the Tana needs to insert the case of 'Nishbeisi u'Tehorah Ani', because of the clause 've'Im mi'she'Niseis Ba'u Eidim, Harei Zu Lo Seitzei'.
According to whom will this answer not work?

(c) So we conclude that the Tana needs to then insert it because of the continuation 'Sh'tei Nashim she'Nishbu'.
Why is it necessary to mention that case?

(d) And why does the Tana find it necessary to add the case of 'Sh'nei Anashim, Zeh Omer Kohen Ani ... '?

(a) If one witness testifies that both he and his friend are Kohanim, he is believed to feed him Terumah. How about permitting him to marry? What does permitting him to marry mean?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah is more strict than the Tana Kama.
What does he say? What do we initially think his reason to be?

(c) In a Mishnah in D'mai, the Tana Kama holds that if two ass-drivers arrive in town, each one claiming that his produce is new or that it has not been Ma'asered, but that his friend's is old (and therefore better) and has been Ma'asered, he is not believed.
Why not?

(d) What does Rebbi Yehudah say? What do we see from here?

(a) To resolve the apparent discrepancy between Rebbi Yehudah in this latter Beraisa, and Rebbi Yehudah in the former one (where he forbids the 'Kohen' to marry a Meyucheses - of pure stock), Rav Ada bar Ahavah Amar Rav inverts the opinions in the latter Beraisa.
How does Abaye resolve the fact that Rebbi Yehudah is stringent in the Beraisa regarding the Kohen, but lenient in the Beraisa regarding D'mai without inverting the opinions?

(b) But that only resolves the discrepancy between the opinions stated by Rebbi Yehudah. Rava resolves the discrepancy between the two opinions expressed by the Rabbanan, by establishing the latter Beraisa (where the Rabbanan are stringent) like Rav Chama bar Ukva.
What does Rav Chama bar Ukva say? How does that resolve the problem?

4)

(a) Rav Chama bar Ukva referred to a case of a potter who left his jars unguarded and went to the river for a drink. What was the status of the potter?

(b) How does Rav Chama bar Ukva reconcile the Beraisa which rules 'Eilu ve'Eilu Temei'os, with the Beraisa which rules 'Eilu ve'Eilu Tehoros'?

(c) A Mishnah in Taharos concludes that the inner pots are Tahor, and the outer ones Tamei.
How does Rav Chama bar Ukva then establish the Mishnah in Taharos? What are 'Chifufi'?

(d) Alternatively, Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan (in the Beraisa - whether two witnesses who each testify that his friend is a Kohen, is believed to feed him Terumah or not), are not arguing over 'Gomlin' at all.
Then what is the basis of their dispute?

(a) We ask a She'eilah whether one can attest to a Kohen's lineage from a document.
Why can the She'eilah not be with regard to a document where the witness signs his name as so-and-so the Kohen?

(b) Then what *is* the case?

(c) We conclude that Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue over this point.
What is the basis of their Machlokes?

1. ... hold 'Ein Ma'alin mi'Duchan le'Yuchsin', even if we hold 'Ma'alin mi'Terumah le'Yuchsin'?
2. ... hold 'Ma'alin mi'Duchan le'Yuchsin', even if we hold 'Ein Ma'alin mi'Terumah le'Yuchsin'?

(a) Rav Chisda and Rav Avina argue over this She'eilah (whether 'Ma'alin mi'Duchan le'Yuchsin' or not). When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asked Rava this same She'eilah, he quoted a Pasuk in Ezra.
What was the problem with the Kohanim there?

(b) What did Hatirshasa rule, when the sons of Barzilai ha'Gil'adi were unable to find documentation to prove that they of pure lineage? Who was Hatirshasa?

(c) What did he mean when he said " ... ad Amod Kohen le'Urim ve'Tumim"?

(d) Rebbi Yossi is the one to cite this episode from Ezra.
Which principle did he extrapolate from there?

(a) Seeing as the sons of Barzilai ha'Gil'adi would be able to continue Duchening, why is this not a proof that 'Ein Ma'alin mi'Duchan le'Yuchsin'?

(b) How do we prove this answer from the fact that Ezra permitted them to eat Terumah?

(c) Then what is the significance of 'Gedolah Chazakah'? What is so great about it?

Next daf