Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah informs us that if one Shechted the Korban Pesach for owners who cannot eat it for whatever reason, he is Chayav Chatas.
What is the problem with that?

(b) Why can we not answer that the Tana includes this case because of the Seifa 'le'Ochlav ve'she'Lo le'Ochlav etc. ... Patur'?

(c) The Gemara concludes that the Tana mentions it because of the case of 'she'Lo Lishemo'.
Why does that case need to be included?

(a) What does Mekalkel ba'Chaburah mean? Why is Mekalkel ba'Chaburah Patur (according to some opinions)?

(b) According to those opinions, why is someone who Shechts a Korban Pesach she'Lo le'Ochlav, Chayav? Why is it not a case of Mekalkel ba'Chaburah?

(c) Then why is he Chayav if he Shechted a Pesach which he subsequently found to be ...

1. ... blemished?
2. ... a Tereifah (in a visible place), seeing as, in both cases, we have learnt 'Im Alah, Yeired'?

(a) Which three Chata'os is one Chayav for Shechting a Chatas outside the Azarah to Avodah-Zarah on Shabbos?

(b) Why is he Chayav at all? Why is this not another case of Mekalkel ba'Chaburah?

(a) A Chatas whose owner died, or one whose owner brought another animal in its place, must die.
What happens to an Asham under the same circumstances.

(b) What did Rav Huna quoting Rav say about such an Asham that was put in the field to graze but was Shechted without actually specifying that it was now an Olah, and what do we learn from this statement?

(c) In that case, why will it not be Kasher even if it is Shechted *before* it is placed in the field to graze (see Tosfos DH 'Asham' that Akirah itself is only mi'de'Rabbanan)?

(d) What does Rebbi Eliezer hold with regard to an Asham whose owner died etc.?

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua also holds that one brings an Olah from an Asham whose owner died etc.
How does his opinion differ from that of the Tana Kama, who holds that it goes li'Nedavah?

(b) What are the ramifications of their Machlokes?

(c) What do we prove from the fact that it is the proceeds of the blemished Asham that goes to Nedavah and not the animal itself?

6)

(a) We learnt in our Mishnah that, if, after Shechting the Korban Pesach on Shabbos, he discovers that the owners had all withdrawn, died or become Tamei, he is Patur from bringing a Chatas. The Beraisa adds that, if a similar case were to occur on a weekday, it would be burnt immediately (without requiring Ibur Tzurah - to wait until the next morning). According to Rav Yehudah quoting Rav, who said above that an Asham whose owner died does not require Akirah - and the same will apply to a Korban Pesach after Pesach - what would then cause the Pesach to be Pasul?

(b) Why does the Beraisa now pose a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav?

(c) How do we then attempt to amend Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement?

(a) We learnt above however (on Daf 64a), that Rebbi Chiya bar Gamda establishes the Mishnah there by a Pesach whose members were all Tamei Meis, and whose Korban was therefore automatically destined for the Pesach Sheni, and requires Akirah (to become a Shelamim).
How does this prove the original statement of Rav?

(b) How do we seemingly resolve the problem by establishing the Beraisa in 6a (which states that, if a similar case were to occur on a weekday, it would be burnt immediately) by someone who designated his Pesach *before* mid-day, and who died *after* mid-day?

(c) This answer however, does not conform with Rav's opinion with regard to the Dichuy (rejection) of animals.
What does he say there?

(d) On what grounds does the Gemara also reject the suggestion that the author of that Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer of the Mishnah in 'Tamid Nishchat', who disqualifies another Korban that one Shechted in the name of a Pesach?

9)

(a) According to Rav Ashi, the Tana of the Beraisa holds that the Pesach *does* require Akirah, and Rav holds like Rebbi Yishmael Be'no shel Rebbi Yochanan Ben Berokah, who disagrees with him.
Which two statements does Rebbi Yishmael make? How do his statements conform with Rav?

(b) The Gemara refutes Rav Ashi's explanation however, on the grounds that perhaps Rebbi Yishmael Be'no shel Rebbi Yochanan Ben Beroka holds like the Tana of Bei Rabah Bar Avuha.
What does he say?

(c) And the Gemara proves its point from the case of Nitme'u Ba'lim.
What is the proof from there?