Previous daf

1)

(a) How does Rav Shimi bar Ashi try to resolve the She'eilah (whether Cohanim are Yisrael's Sheluchim or the Torah's), from the Beraisa 'Im Hayah Cohen, Yizrok Alav Dam Chataso ve'Dam Ashamo'?

(b) Why does he not bring the same proof from our Mishnah, which also permits the Madir to bring the Chata'os and Ashamos of the Mudar, should he be a Cohen?

(c) How do we reject the proof from the Beraisa?

(a) The Tana in a Mishnah in Menachos states 'ha'Cohanim she'Piglu be'Mikdash Mezidin, Chayavin', from which we infer 'Ha be'Shogeg, Peturin', to which the Beraisa adds 'Ela she'Pigulan Pigul'.
How do we try to prove from the inference that the Cohanim are Sheluchim of the Torah?

(b) Why do we make no attempt to bring the same proof from the Reisha?

(c) We reject the proof by quoting the Pasuk in Tzav "Lo Yechashev Lo". What does this Pasuk teach us?

(a) Earlier, Rebbi Yochanan proved that a Mechusar Kipurim does not require Da'as, from the fact that a father is obligated to bring the Korbanos of his son who is a Zav.
What do we then try and prove from Rebbi Yehudah, who obligates a man to bring a Chatas Cheilev (a regular Chatas) on behalf of his wife who is a Shotah? What did Rebbi Elazar say about someone who brought a Chatas Cheilev on behalf of his friend without his express consent?

(b) What problem do we have with Rebbi Yehudah, if he is really referring to the Chatas Cheilev that one brings on behalf of one's wife, assuming she ate (Cheilev ... ) whilst she was ...

1. ... a Shotah?
2. ... a Pikachas, and then became a Shotah?

(c) So how do we establish Rebbi Yehudah? Which Korban *is* he referring to?

(d) What is the basis of the Machlokes whether we learn a Gadol from a Katan or a Pikei'ach from a Shotah or not?

(a) May a father include his young children in his Korban Pesach?

(b) According to those who do learn Gadol from Katan (Efshar mi'she'I Efshar'), why does Rebbi Elazar then rule that if one Shechted the Pesach on behalf of one's friend without his express knowledge, his friend will not have fulfilled his obligation? Why do we not learn the opposite from a Katan?

(c) If 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa', how can a child, who has not been designated, be permitted to eat from the Korban Pesach (which requires designation)?

(a) What does the Mishnah state in Pesachim regarding a father who announces that he is about to Shecht the Pesach on behalf of whichever of his sons arrives in Yerushalayim first?

(b) How do we prove from there that 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa'?

(c) On what grounds would the son who arrived first have earned *his* part in the Pesach even if Seh le'Veis Avos would be d'Oraysa?

(d) We support the proof (for 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa') with the Beraisa, which relates a story of a father who issued such a challenge to his sons and daughters, and, when the man's daughters came in before his sons, comments that his daughters were keen, and his sons, slow.
How does this Beraisa prove that 'Seh le'Veis Avos La'av d'Oraysa'?

6)

(a) Seeing as a person may act in favor of his friend even without his consent ('Zachin le'Adam she'Lo Befanav') - why might Reuven not be permitted to separate Terumah from his own crops on behalf of Shimon without his knowledge?

(b) Why would this She'eilah not even come into question regarding Reuven taking Terumah from *Shimon's* crops without his knowledge?

(c) We try to resolve this She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Torem es Terumaso'. We have just explained why the Tana cannot be speaking when the Noder took Terumah from the Mudar's crops *without* his knowledge.
Why can he not be speaking when he took from the Mudar's crops *with* his knowledge?

(d) How do we then attempt to resolve our She'eilah from there?

(a) According to the Rashba, the Mishnah will hold like Chanan, who also permits the Madir to pay the Mudar's debt, but not according to the Rabbanan, who forbid that.
On what grounds do we nevertheless establish our Mishnah even according to the Rabbanan?

(b) We refute this proof however, by reinstating our Mishnah when the Madir separates the Terumah from the *Mudar's* crops. And we dispense with the Kashya that he is then his Sheli'ach (and is therefore giving him Hana'ah by carrying out his Shelichus by quoting Rava).
What did the Mudar announce, according to Rava? What do we achieve by saying this?

(c) What would be the Din if he announced ...

1. ... 'Kol ha'Shomei'a Koli, Yitrom'?
2. ... 'Kol ha'Torem, Eino Mafsid'?

(a) Presuming that Reuven may separate Terumah from his crops on behalf of Shimon, Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira who will receive the Tovas Hana'ah.
What are ...

1. ... the two sides of the She'eilah?
2. ... its ramifications?

(b) Rebbi Zeira replied with the Pasuk "es Kol Tevu'as Zar'echa -ve'Nasata". What did he prove from this Pasuk?

(c) How does Rava (whose name does not appear in our texts) establish our Mishnah, which states 'Torem es Terumosav ... le'Da'ato', to avoid having to disprove Rebbi Zeira from there?

(a) We nevertheless prove Rebbi Zeira wrong from a statement by Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan. According to Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who ...

1. ... adds the extra fifth, should Reuven declare his animal Hekdesh on behalf of Shimon, and the animal develops a wound?
2. ... has the right to declare a Temurah?

(b) He also says that it is the one who *separates* the Terumah who has the Tovas Hana'ah, and not the owner of the crops.
How does he then explain the Pasuk "Aser Te'aser ... es Kol Tevu'as Zar'echa ... ve'Nasata"?

Next daf