Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan invalidates a Minchah that is mixed (with oil) outside the precincts of the Azarah. What does Resh Lakish say?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'yatzak Alehah Shemen ... Ve'hevi'ah el B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim Ve'kamatz"?

(a) What does Resh Lakish extrapolate from the previous D'rashah?

(b) How does Rebbi Yochanan counter that?

(c) We quote a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yochanan.
What does the Tana say there?

(a) What should one do, according to Rebbi Yochanan, if a Minchah became Chaser before the Kemitzah?

(b) Why is that?

(c) On what grounds does Resh Lakish invalidate the Minchah?

(d) The basis of their Machlokes is how to interpret the D'rashah from the Pasuk "min ha'Minchah".
Which D'rashah?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan asked on Resh Lakish from a Beraisa.
What does the Tana rule in a case where the Log Shemen shel Metzora became Chaser before the Kohen poured it into his left palm?

(b) What does Resh Lakish answer to that?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Shirayim she'Chasru bein Kemitzah le'Haktarah, Maktir Kometz Aleihen'. What does Resh Lakish say.

(b) The two parties do not dispute Rebbi Eliezer's opinion.
What does Rebbi Eliezer in a Mishnah in ha'Kometz Rabah, say about Shirayim of a Minchah that became Tamei, burned or lost?

(c) Their dispute is based on the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua.
What does Rebbi Yehoshua say?

(d) The basic Machlokes of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua concerns Zevachim.
What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(e) Resh Lakish certainly follows Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion.
How does Rebbi Yochanan reconcile his opinion with Rebbi Yehoshua?

(a) In fact, Rebbi Yehoshua himself in a Beraisa, corroborates Rebbi Yochanan's opinion.
In a case where a little Basar or Cheilev remain, when does he permit the Kohen to go ahead with the Zerikas Dam, and when does he not?

(b) By which Korban does he even permit half a k'Zayis of Basar and half k'Zayis of Cheilev, and by which does he not?

(c) How does Rav Papa explain Rebbi Yehoshua's statement 'u've'Minchah, Af-al-Pi she'Kulah Kayemes, Lo Yizrok'? Since when is there blood by a Minchah?

(d) What is the Chidush? What would we have otherwise thought?

7)

(a) What does Resh Lakish learn from the Pasuk "Ve'heirim ha'Kohen min *ha'Minchah* es Azkarasah Ve'hiktir ha'Mizbeichah"?

(b) How does Rebbi Yochanan interpret "min ha'Minchah"?

(c) Rebbi Yochanan questions Resh Lakish from the Beraisa (that we already discussed above).
What does the Tana say about Lechem ha'Panim that breaks after it has been removed from the Shulchan (which is equivalent to after the Kemitzah of a Minchah)?

(d) What is now the Kashya on Resh Lakish?

(a) Like whom does Resh Lakish establish the Beraisa to refute the Kashya?

(b) Why did Rebbi Yochanan not accept that? What ought the Beraisa to have said, had the author been Rebbi Eliezer?

(c) How did Resh Lakish react to Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya?

(d) We ask why Resh Lakish did not answer that the Lechem ha'Panim is different, seeing as it is a Minchas Tzibur.
How might that affect the Din of Chaser?

(a) What did Rav Ada bar Ahavah answer?

(b) When Rav Papa repeated the previous Kashya (regarding the distinction between a private Minchah and the Lechem ha'Panim [see also Shitah Mekubetzes]), Rav Yosef expressed surprise.
Why was that? How did he establish Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish's Machlokes?

(a) Rav Malkiyo cites two Beraisos, which quote two individual Pesukim in Vayikra.
What does ...

1. ... the first Beraisa learn from "mi'Saltah, u'mi'Shamnah"?
2. ... the second Beraisa learn from "ve'ha'Noseres min ha'Minchah" (as regards the Minchah, the Kometz and the Levonah)?

(b) Both Beraisos are referring to a Minchah that became Chaser at one point.
What exactly is the problem with this? Which item requires elaboration?

(c) How does Rav Malkiyo ask on Rebbi Yochanan on two scores?

(d) We counter that however, by establishing the Beraisa by two aspects of Minchah she'Chasrah with which Rebbi Yochanan agrees.
Which two cases?

(a) They asked whether, according to Rebbi Yochanan (who is Machshir the Kometz), if the Shirayim became Chaser between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah, the Kohanim may eat the Shirayim. Ze'iri and Rebbi Yanai argue over this point (neither, it appears, saw the previous Beraisa) based on Pesukim in Tzav.
How does ...

1. ... Ze'iri resolve the She'eilah from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Noseres min ha'Minchah"?
2. ... Rebbi Yanai (assuming that he argues with Ze'iri's basic ruling) resolve it from "min ha'Minchah"?

(b) How else might we interpret Rebbi Yanai's words?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Kamatz bi'Semol, Pasul'.
How do we initially learn that from the Pasuk in Shemini in connection with the Milu'im) "Va'yakrev es ha'Minchah Va'yemalei *Chapo* Mimenah", based on the Pasuk in Metzora (in connection with the Asham Metzora Ashir) "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Log ha'Shemen Ve'yatzak al *Kaf* ha'Kohen ha'Semalis"?

(b) How do we answer the Kashya that we need the Pasuk to teach us the intrinsic Halachah?

(c) What problem do we have with that, that forces us to answer that ...

1. ... a third "Semalis" mentioned there?
2. ... a fourth "Semalis"?

(d) Where exactly will we find the four "Semolis"?

Next daf