Previous daf

1)
(a) What does the Beraisa say about separating ...
1. ... Terumah from Te'einim on to G'rogros?
2. ... G'rogros on Te'einim?
(b) The Reisha cannot be speaking in a case where there is a Kohen to whom to give it, due to a Mishnah in Terumos. What does the Mishnah in Terumos say about giving Terumah under such circumstances? What is then the problem?
(c) What is then the problem with the Seifa? What does The Mishnah say there under such circumstances?
(d) So how do we reconcile the Reisha with the Seifa?

2)
(a) How else might we have resolved the discrepancy?
(b) What does Rav Papa therefore extrapolate from there?

3)
(a) We already discussed our Mishnah 'Kol ha'Menachos Niloshos be'Poshrin u'Meshamran she'Lo Yachmitzu'. What does the Tana say about someone who kneads, shapes or bakes the Minchah as Chametz, after the Kemitzah has been performed?
(b) The Tana quotes the Pasuk in Tzav "Kol ha'Minchah Asher Takrivu la'Hashem Lo Sa'aseh Chametz". To which part of the Mishnah does pertain?

4)
(a) What does Resh Lakish learn from the Pasuk there "Lo Se'afeh Chametz, Chelkam"?
(b) Having already written in Vayikra "Lo Sa'aseh Chametz", what does the Beraisa learn from "Lo Se'afeh Chametz"?
(c) We also include Kituf in this D'rashah. What is 'Kituf'? Why might we have thought that one is not Chatav for performing it alone
(d) How can Resh Lakish learn the D'rashah from the same Pasuk?

5)
(a) Bearing in mind Resh Lakish's D'rashah "(Lo Se'afeh Chametz, Chelkam"), how does the Tana know to Darshen a second D'rashah from the same Pasuk (as we just explained)?
(b) And on what grounds does the Tana include all the other Melachos that we discussed. Perhaps one is only Chayav for baking, which the Pasuk specifically mentions?
(c) We also ask why "Lo Se'aseh Chametz" is not a K'lal, and "Lo Se'afeh Chametz" a P'rat. So what if they would be?
(d) What does Rebbi Apturiki answer? Why is it not a 'Klal u'P'rat'?

6)
(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah (or Kadi) queries this from a Beraisa. The Torah writes by the Sa'ir Nasi "Ve'shachat Oso bi'Mekom Asher Yishachet es ha'Olah". What does this teach us?
(b) How do we reconcile this with the Pasuk in Tzav "bi'Mekom Asher Tishachet ha'Olah Tishachet ha'Chatas", which seems to be teaching us the same thing?
(c) What alternative might we learn from these two Pesukim, based on the former Pasuk?
(d) What does the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'shachat es ha'Chatas bi'Mekom ha'Olah" finally come to teach us?

7)
(a) However, were it not for the third Pasuk, we would have learned the first two Pesukim in the way that we explained. How do we think to correlate them? Why does this pose a Kashya on what we just learned?
(b) Rav Ashi refutes this Kashya on the grounds that, even if the one was a P'rat and the other a K'lal, they could not possibly be considered a 'K'lal u'P'rat'. Why not?
(c) What would be the Din if it was a 'K'lal u'P'rat'?
(d) On what basis then, did we suggest that the Din of Shechting a Chatas in the north is confined to the Sa'ir Nasi (from the Pasuk "Ve'shachat Oso bi'Mekom ... ")?

8)
(a) Now that we include all Chata'os in the Din of Tzafon (from the third Pasuk), we try to learn from "Oso" 'Oso ba'Tzafon, ve'Ein Sa'ir Nachshon ba'Tzafon'. Why might we have otherwise thought that Sa'ir Nachshon required Tzafon?
(b) This D'rashah goes like Rebbi Yehudah. What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Sa'ir Nachshon) "Ve'samach Yado al Rosh ha'Sa'ir"?
(c) Rebbi Shimon learns from this Pasuk "Lerabos Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim li'Semichah'. What is now the problem according to Rebbi Shimon?
(d) How does Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari counter this Kashya? Why does he query our initial contention, linking the Din of Tzafon to that of Semichah?

9)
(a) Perhaps we still need "Oso" to preclude Se'ir Nachshon from Tzafon, to avoid learning it from a Binyan Av from other Chata'os?
(b) Why, at the end of the day, do we not need a Pasuk to include Se'ir Nachshon in the Din of Semichah?
(c) What does that prove (with regard to Tzafon)?

Next daf