Previous daf

1)

(a) According to the alternative explanation, Hatirshasa permitted the family of Barzilai to continue eating Terumah de'Rabbanan (as they had done in Bavel, but not Terumah d'Oraysa).
What is meant by Terumah d'Oraysa and Terumah de'Rabbanan?

(b) What do we gain by learning this way?

(c) What did Rebbi Yossi then mean when he said 'Gedolah Chazakah'?

(d) What problem do we have with this explanation from the Pasuk in Ezra "Asher Lo Yochlu mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim"? What does this Pasuk imply?

(a) Seeing as Hatirshasa was not coming to permit Terumah d'Oraysa (when he said "Asher Lo Yochlu mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim"), what did he mean by ...

1. ... "mi'Kodesh"?
2. ... "ha'Kodashim"?

(b) 'Chazakah li'Kehunah Nesi'us Kapayim, be'Bavel, va'Achilas Chalah be'Surya, ve'Chiluk Matanos bi'K'rachim'.
Why is ...

1. ... Nesi'as Kapayim (Duchening) more of a Chazakah in Bavel than eating Terumah?
2. ... Nesi'as Kapayim considered a better Chazakah in Bavel than in other places in Chutz la'Aretz?

(c) Why does eating Chalah (or Terumah) ...

1. ... not constitute a Chazakah in Bavel?
2. ... constitute a Chazakah in Syria?

(d) Seeing as Zarim are permitted to eat Matanos, why is the fact that someone ate Matanos in a large city considered proof that he is a Kohen? What are Matanos?

(a) How do we refute the proof from the above Beraisa that one can attest to Yuchsin (his lineage) from the fact that he Duchens (Birchas Kohanim)?

(b) Initially, we query this from 'Chazakah li'Kehunah ... va'Achilas Chalah be'Surya' which we think, must come to attest to Yuchsin.
What makes us think that? Why should it not come to permit him to eat Terumah?

(c) We conclude that the Chazakah of eating Chalah too, comes to permit the Kohen to eat Terumah.
How can ...

1. ... Chalah (which is also called Terumah, as we just explained) come to permit Terumah?
2. ... we permit the 'Kohen' to eat Terumah d'Oraysa on the basis of the fact that he eats Chalah de'Rabbanan?

(a) Another Beraisa states 'Chazakah li'Kehunah Nesi'as Kapayim ve'Chiluk G'ranos (Terumah) ... '. Both of these attest to a Kohen's lineage in Eretz Yisrael. In which two locations does the Tana consider Nesi'as Kapayim a Chazakah, but not Chiluk G'ranos? Why is that?

(b) What constitutes Makom she'Sh'luchei Rosh Chodesh Magi'in'?

(c) This Beraisa holds Ma'alin mi'Chalah li'Terumah (as well as Yuchsin). According to the Rabbanan of Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua, even those who hold that Terumah nowadays is de'Rabbanan, will agree that Chalah is d'Oraysa.
How do they prove this?

(d) What do the Rabbanan learn from the ...

1. ... Pasuk in Sh'lach Lecha "be'Vo'achem el ha'Aretz" (mentioned in connection with Chalah)?
2. ... Torah's connecting the Din of Ma'aser to that of Sh'mitah (in Ki Savo).

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa says 'u'Bavel ke'Surya'.
What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say?

(b) What is the basis of the Machlokes between this latter Beraisa (which does not consider 'Chiluk G'ranos' a Chazakah in Syria, and the previous one, which considers eating Chalah a Chazakah?

(c) In which point does Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua disagree with the Rabbanan with regard to the corollary between Chalah and Terumah?

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from "be'Vo'achem"?

(b) What might we perhaps have learned from the fact that the Torah changes from the usual "Ki Savo'u el ha'Aretz"?

7)

(a) Yet another Beraisa states 'Chazakah li'Kehunah Nesi'as Kapayim ve'Chiluk G'ranos ve'Eidus'.
'Eidus' is not a Chazakah, so how do we try to interpret the Beraisa in a way that resolves our She'eilah (whether 'Ma'alin mi'Nesi'as Kapayim le'Yuchsin or not)?

(b) We refute this proof however, by explaining the Beraisa to mean 'Eidus ha'Ba'ah Mi'Ko'ach Chazakah', and we illustrate this with a case of a man who came before Rebbi Ami.
What happened there? What did Rebbi Ami rule?

(c) How did Rebbi Ami know that he was not an Adam Gadol who is sometimes called-up first even when there is a Kohen (though nowadays, this is not done)?

(d) This is based on the Gemara in Gitin, which says that when there is no Kohen, 'Nispardah ha'Chavilah', which simply means that, when there is no Kohen, one does not call-up a Levi at all.
What else might 'Nispardah ha'Chavilah' mean?

(a) In a similar incident, based on the testimony of a witness, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled that a certain man who would be called-up for Sheini, was a Levi.
How did he know that he was not called-up for Sheini because he was an Adam Gadol?

(b) What does one do when there is no Levi?

(c) When does one then call-up an Adam Gadol?

(a) What did Resh Lakish ask that man who testified that someone must be a Kohen because he had seen him called-up to the Torah first?

(b) What did Rebbi Elazar comment on that?

(c) What did Resh Lakish do when, on another occasion, Rebbi Yochanan made the same comment?

(d) Who was Resh Lakish referring to when he spoke of bar Nafcha?

(a) What does Rebbi rule in a Beraisa, in a case where a man testified 'B'ni Hu ve'Kohen Hu'?

(b) What did he answer Rebbi Chiya, when he objected that if a man's father is believed to feed his son Terumah, then he should also be believed with regard to marriage?

(c) What do we prove from this Beraisa?

(d) If Rebbi believed a father to feed his son Terumah, Rebbi Chiya believe a man who testified that his brother was a Levi.
In which point do they argue? What problem do we have with Rebbi Chiya's ruling?

(a) How do we establish Rebbi Chiya to answer the above Kashya?

(b) What story did Rav Yehudah Amar tell about a certain man recalling what happened in his childhood years?

(c) How did Rebbi Chiya conclude the story?

(d) How did Rebbi react to this?

Next daf