Previous daf

1)

(a) The She'eilah whether the Lechem ha'Panim became Pasul when Yisrael traveled or not, is resolved by a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
How does ...

1. ... the first opinion explain "Ka'asher Yachanu Kein Yisa'u" (Bamidbar)?
2. ... the second opinion explain "ve'Lechem ha'Tamid Alav Yih'yeh" (ibid.)?

(b) How does the latter opinion then explain "Ka'asher Yachanu Kein Yisa'u"?

(c) What problem remains?

(a) To solve the problem, Rav Dimi, when he arrived from Eretz Yisrael, qualified the Machlokes.
In which case do the disputants agree?

(b) The first opinion now learns exactly as it learned before (whereas both opinions learn from "ve'Lechem ha'Tamid Alav Yih'yeh" that as long as the loaves are on the Shulchan they never become Pasul).
What does the second opinion now learn from the Pasuk there "Ve'nasa Ohel Mo'ed"?

(c) How does he explain "Ka'asher Yachanu Kein Yisa'u"?

(d) From which Pasuk there does the second opinion learn this?

(a) What does the Beraisa, discussing various aspects of Halachah when Yisrael broke camp, say about ...

1. ... Kodshim?
2. ... Zavin and Metzora'in? Where did they go?

(b) What is the catalyst that sparks this off?

(c) According to Rav Dimi, how does this Tana hold as regards the status of the Machaneh whilst traveling?

(a) How do we attempt to reconcile this with the second opinion (that does not render the Lechem ha'Panim Pasul be'Yotzei)?

(b) On what grounds do we reject this suggestion?

(c) So when Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, quoting Mar, he reinterpreted the two statements of Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
How do both Amora'im hold with regard to the status of the Machaneh whilst traveling?

(d) How does he then establish ...

1. ... the first opinion ('Eino Nifsal")?
2. ... the second opinion ('Nifsal')?

(a) What does Abaye prove from the fact that the Beraisa ascribes the P'sul Kodshim (when they traveled) to 'Yotzei' (exclusively)?

(b) How does he prove it?

(c) Why does Abaye need a Beraisa to teach us this? Why is it not clear from the Pasuk in Beshalach "Laleches Yomam va'Laylah?

(d) On what basis would we have learned like that?

(a) We ask on this Beraisa however, from another Beraisa.
What does the Tana say there about Zavin and Metzora'in, once the Paroches has been rolled up?

(b) Rav Ashi establishes the latter Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer.
Which principle does Rebbi Eliezer learn from the Pasuk in Naso "Vi'yeshalchu min ha'Machaneh Kol Tzaru'a, ve'Chol Zav ve'Chol Tamei la'Nafesh"?

(c) How does he then apply it to Zavin and Metzora'in who entered the Azarah in the case of a Pesach which was brought be'Tum'ah?

(d) On what grounds will that ruling extend to our case (where the Paroches was rolled up and they were ready to travel)?

7)

(a) Our Mishnah discusses the Halachic similarities between the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim.
If both are kneaded and shaped outside the Azarah, where are they baked?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah is more stringent than the Tana Kama.
What does he say?

(c) Rebbi Shimon is more lenient.
What does he say? What is 'Beis Pagi'?

(d) In which third regard does the Tana compare them?

(a) What problem do we have with the fact that on the one hand, the kneading and the shaping of the Lechem ha'Panim may be performed outside the Azarah, whereas on the other, the baking must take place inside? Why do the two statements appear to clash?

(b) To whom was Rava referring when he attributed the Kashya to a particularly sharp man?

(c) How do we reject Rava's statement, by resolving the discrepancy with ease?

(d) So what Rav Sheishes really asked was from the fact that the baking must be performed inside the Azarah on the one hand, and that they do not override Shabbos on the other.
In what way do these two statements clash?

(a) How does Rav Ashi attempt to answer the Kashya? How does he interpret 'bi'Fenim'?

(b) Why would it be necessary to do this?

(c) But we consider Rav Ashi's suggestion a joke.
Why is that?

(a) What did Rebbi Aba bar Kahana say about Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, who argue in our Mishnah over whether the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim need to be prepared in the Azarah (Rebbi Yehudah) or not (Rebbi Shimon), based on the Pasuk in Shmuel "ve'Hu Derech Chol Af ki ha'Yom Yekadesh bi'Cheli"?

(b) Either way, David was criticizing Achimelech for baking the Lechem ha'Panim when he did.
What was his criticism, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion he found him baking the loaves on Friday?
2. ... Rebbi Shimon, according to whom he found Achimelech baking the loaves on Shabbos?

(c) On what grounds do we refute this explanation? Why can David not have arrived in Nov on the day that the loaves were being baked?

(d) So what *did* David mean when he said ...

1. ... ''ve'Hu Derech Chol''?
2. ... "Af ki ha'Yom Yekadesh bi'Cheli"? Why is that?

(a) So what is the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon?

(b) What proof do we for this from Rebbi Shimon's wording?

Next daf