Previous daf

1)

(a) Rami bar Chama asked whether the fruit (grapes and olives) that is permitted by the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (to be brought as Korbanos) must have reached the stage of Hanatzah (blossoming) or Chanatah (budding, a later stage than Hanatzah [see Shitah Mekubetzes 1]).
Why can this not be referring to the blossoming and the budding of the fruit?

(b) Then to what does it refer?

(c) What is then the She'eilah?

(d) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

(a) Rava bar Rav Chanin asked whether the Omer will permit wheat that one planted in the ground to be eaten. Initially, we dismiss this She'eilah on the basis of the next Mishnah.
What does the Mishnah say?

(b) How do we therefore establish the case?

(c) What is then the She'eilah? Why might the Omer ...

1. ... permit it?
2. ... not permit it?

(d) He also asked whether that wheat would be subject to Ona'ah (overcharging by more than a sixth) or not.
What is the basis of that She'eilah? Why might it not be?

(a) The She'eilah would not be valid if it referred to a case where the seller planted only five Kur instead of six, due to a statement of Rava. What did Rava say about 'Davar she'ba'Midah, she'be'Mishkal, ve'she'ba'Minyan'? Why is that?

(b) How would that negate the She'eilah?

(c) What is the underlying reason for this?

(d) So what is the case? What is then the She'eilah?

(a) What third She'eilah did Rava bar Rav Chanin pose, also based on the original question as to whether wheat that is cut before having taken root a second time is considered Karka or Metaltelin?

(b) What is the basis of this She'eilah?

(c) Rami bar Chama then asks what the Din will be regarding grains of wheat that one finds in animal's dung. He cannot be asking whether they are ...

1. ... subject to Tum'as Ochlin, due to a Beraisa.
   What distinction does the Tana make between whether the owner had in mind to eat them or whether he actually removed them?
2. ... eligible to be brought as Menachos in their present form.
   Why not?

(d) So we establish the case when the owner re-planted them, in which case they are no longer disgusting.
So what is the She'eilah? Why might they then not be eligible to bring as a Minchah?

(e) What is the outcome of both this She'eilah and those of Rava bar Rav Chanin?

(a) Rami bar Chama asked what the Din will be regarding an Egyptian wickerwork basket that an elephant swallowed whole and then exuded by way of its back-passage. The She'eilah cannot be whether the basket loses its Din of Tum'ah, due to a Mishnah in Keilim.
What does the Tana there say about Kelim ...

1. ... becoming subject to Tum'ah?
2. ... losing their Tum'ah once they are already Tamei?

(b) So how do we establish the case?

(c) What is now the She'eilah? Why might it ...

1. ... not be subject even to Tum'ah mi'de'Rabbanan?
2. ... be subject to Tum'ah (even mi'd'Oraysa)?

(d) Which two other kinds of Keilim are not subject to Tum'ah, even mi'de'Rabbanan?

6)

(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah from a ruling of Ula quoting Rebbi Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak regarding the story of two wolves.
What did two wolves once do in Eiver ha'Yarden?

(b) How did the Chachamim (quoted by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak) rule there?

(c) What do we try to prove from this?

(d) We refute the proof ...

1. ... from there however, because 'Basar is different'.
   In what way is Basar different?
2. ... from the Seifa 've'Tim'u es ha'Atzamos' (a proof that it is not considered 'Ikul').
   On what grounds do we refute that?

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked what the Din will be regarding wheat that fell from the clouds.
How did the wheat get there in the first place?

(b) Why can the She'eilah not be whether they are eligible to be used for Menachos?

(c) So we establish the She'eilah as to whether they are eligible to be used for the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.
Based on the Pasuk "mi'Moshvoseichem" ('la'Afukei Chutz la'Aretz'), why might this wheat ...

1. ... nevertheless be eligible?
2. ... be disqualified, too?

(d) In answer to the question whether such a thing is feasible, we answer 'In, bar Adi Tay'a Nechisa lei Rum Kizba Chiti bi'Telasa Parsi'.
What does this mean?

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi asked what the Din will be if, before the Omer, one uprooted oats that were one third grown, and replanted them after the Omer.
What is the significance of 'one third grown? What would be the Din if they had grown less than that?

(b) What is now the She'eilah? Why might the Omer ...

1. ... permit the oats?
2. ... not permit them?

(c) We try to resolve the She'eilah from a statement of Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan in connection with Kil'ayim.
What is the Shiur of Bitul by Kil'ayim?

(a) What does Rebbi ...

1. ... Avahu rule in a case where one grafted a branch of Orlah with fruit into an old tree, and the fruit increased by two hundred percent after it was grafted?
2. ... Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan rule in the case of an onion that was planted in a vineyard, and that grew by two hundred percent after the vineyard had been uprooted?

(b) What is the reason for these two rulings?

(c) Why is the Ikar not Bateil in two hundred in this case?

(d) On what grounds do we refute the proof from there, that we go after the Ikar (in which case the oats will be permitted?

(e) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

Next daf