Previous daf

1)

(a) What does our Mishnah say about a Minchah, whose Kemitzah the Kohen took, having in mind to eat the Shirayim or a k'Zayis of the Shirayim ...

1. ... outside the Azarah?
2. ... after the allotted time? What is the time limit for eating a Minchah?

(b) And what does the Mishnah say if the Kohen had in mind to burn the Kometz or the Levonah or to burn a k'Zayis of the Kometz outside the Azarah or on the following day? Why does the Tana omit the case of eating or burning a k'Zayis of Levonah?

(c) What does the Toras Kohanim learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Tzav (in connection with the Din of Pigul) "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ... ha'Makriv Oso"?
2. ... in Kedoshim (also in connection with Pigul) "Im He'achol Ye'achel ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ... ha'Ocheles Mimenu Avonah Tisa"?

(d) And what do we learn from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with Pigul) "ve'Nefesh ha'Ocheles Mimenu Avonah Tisa"?

(a) By which three Avodos, besides Kometz, can a Minchah become Pigul?

(b) What will be the Din if the Kohen intends to burn the Shirayim, or to eat the Kometz in the wrong place or at the wrong time?

(c) Which external condition will also prevent the P'sul or the Pigul from taking effect?

(d) Seeing as there is no Pasuk connecting Minchah to the Dinim of Pigul, from where do we know that a Minchah is indeed subject to Pigul?

(a) What does the Tana mean by ...

1. ... 'Karav ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso'?
2. ... 'Lo Karav ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso'?

(b) Which additional case of 'Lo Karav ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso' exists by Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os, but not by other Menachos?

(c) What does the Tana say about a case where the Kohen had a dual Machshavah by the same Avodah, to eat ...

1. ... a k'Zayis ba'Chutz and a k'Zayis le'Machar?
2. ... a Chatzi Zayis ba'Chutz and a Chatzi Zayis le'Machar?

(a) In the above cases, the Tana Kama does not draw a distinction between which Machshavah came first.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(b) Does he differentiate in this matter between one Avodah and two Avodos?

(c) What do the Chachamim say?

(a) Earlier, we cited Rebbi Yochanan, who permits the Kometz to be burned if the Shirayim became Chaser after the Kemitzah.
What does he say about the Shirayim?

(b) We now ask whether the Minchah will become Pigul, if the Kohen has a Machshavah to eat the Shirayim Chutz li'Zemano, like it does in a regular case.
Why might it not?

(c) What other ramification does this She'eilah have, besides that of Pigul?
In what other way does the Haktarah normally affect the Shirayim?

(a) Rav Huna differentiates between the current She'eilah and the Din of Zerikah regarding a Yotzei, according to Rebbi Akiva.
What does Rebbi Akiva say about a case where a Kohen performed Zerikas ha'Dam on a Korban that is taken outside the Azarah after being Shechted?

(b) What does Rav Huna rule in our case? What makes Chaser different than Yotze in this regard?

(c) Rava disagrees.
What does he say, even according to Rebbi Eliezer, who rules that Zerikah is not effective regarding Yotzei?

(d) And why is Chaser better than Yotzei in this regard?

(a) Rava proves his point from our Mishnah ' ... Le'echol Shirehah ba'Chutz O k'Zayis mi'Shirehah ba'Chutz'.
Rebbi Chiya, in a Beraisa, omitted 'O k'Zayis' from this statement.
Why did he do that? How does he interpret 'O k'Zayis' with regard to 'Nasan bi'Cheli, Molich and Maktir'?

(b) Why is it not possible to interpret 'O 'k'Zayis mi'Komtzah' in this way?

(c) Does Rebbi Chiya in fact argue with Rebbi?

(d) What does he now prove from the Seifa 'Pigul, ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis'?

8)

(a) Abaye refutes Rava's proof, by establishing Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah in Zevachim. The Tana Kama there, obligates a Kohen who sacrifices ba'Chutz, a k'Zayis of 'Kometz, Levonah, Ketores, Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach', or 'Minchas Nesachim'.
What do all these have in common?

(b) What does Rebbi Elazar say?

(c) How will that explain Rebbi Chiya's omission of 'O k'Zayis' by 'Le'echol Shirehah ba'Chutz'?

(d) We query this however, on the grounds that, according to Rebbi Elazar, the Tana should have stated (not just 'Lehaktir Komtzah ba'Chutz', but) Lehaktir Komtzah u'Levonasah ba'Chutz').
Why is that? What does Rebbi Elazar say in this regard?

(a) So we establish the Beraisa by a Minchas Chotei.
How will this answer the Kashya?

(b) Is it acceptable to limit the Tana to one solitary, irregular Minchah?

(c) What does Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) say about this?

(d) Rava subsequently retracted from his previous stance.
What did he retract from?

(a) What does the Beraisa that he cites comment on the fact that the Torah writes in Emor (in connection with the Lechem ha'Panim) "Kodesh Kodashim Hu Lo" (in the singular)?

(b) Rava extrapolates from there 'Ha Yatzas, Hani de'Ika Gava'i, Kesheiros'. What does he now prove from there?

(c) Once again, Abaye refutes Rava's proof, by changing the inference to 'Ha Nitma'as, Hani de'Ika Gava'i, Kesheiros' (but not 'Yatza'as'). How does this refute Rava's proof?

(d) What makes Nitma'as better than Nifresah and Yatza'as?

(a) Why does Rebbi Eliezer then present the case of 'Nifresah Achas me'Chalosehah' and not 'Yatz'ah'?

(b) What will Rebbi Akiva then hold regarding 'Nifresah'?

(a) Our Mishnah says 'Le'echol Chatzi Zayis (le'Machar) u'Lehaktir Chatzi Zayis, Kasher'.
Why is that?

(b) What do we extrapolate from the fact that the Tana presents the case of 'Le'echol ... u'Lehaktir'?

(c) To avoid a discrepancy between this Mishnah and the Reisha 'Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol, u'Lehaktir Davar she'Darko Lehaktir (to preclude 'Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol ... u'Lehaktir'), Rebbi Yirmiyah establish the Seifa like Rebbi Eliezer.
What does Rebbi Eliezer say in the Mishnah in ha'Kometz Rabah, with regard to 'ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah Le'echol Davar she'Ein Davar Le'echol ... '?

(a) Abaye disagrees with Rebbi Yirmiyah, establishing the Seifa even like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer, who hold 'Ein Mechashvin me'Achilas Adam la'Achilas Mizbe'ach'. What do we then extrapolate from the Mishnah?

(b) What problem do we have with this? Why can the Tana not be coming to teach us ...

1. ... that Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Davar Le'echol do not combine (to make up a k'Zayis)?
2. ... that 'Le'echol u'Lehaktir' do not combine?

(c) We conclude that in fact, the Tana is coming to teach us that 'Le'echol u'Lehaktir Ein Mitztarfin'. On what grounds do we overrule the previous objection (that this is a 'Kal- va'Chomer' from 'Le'echol ve'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko Le'echol')?

Next daf