Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav says that if exactly half the Tzibur are Tamei, and half, Tahor, one is Metamei one person with a Sheretz, in order to create a situation of Rov Te'me'im, so that the Pesach will now be brought be'Tum'ah.
What is the problem with Rav's statement?

(b) Why can Rav's reason not be because he holds like Rebbi Elazar ben Masya (in the previous question), and he is speaking when there is already one Tamei person more than the Tehorim?

(c) Then what *is* his reason?

(a) Ula disagrees with Rav.
Why?

(b) What does *he* say that one does under those circumstances?

(c) Why does he not suggest being Metamei him be'Mes? In what way is sending him away preferable to that?

4)

(a) Rav rules that if the majority of the Tzibur were Zavin, and the minority Teme'ei Mes, the latter do not bring the Pesach at all.
Why not?

(b) Shmuel asked Rav what he will do with the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "ve'Ya'asu B'nei Yisrael es ha'Pasach be'Mo'ado".
What will he indeed do with it?

(a) What was Rav Huna referring to when he said 'Ein Tashlumin le'Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah', and what did he mean by that?

(b) What does Rav Ada Bar Ahavah hold?

(c) How does the Gemara attempt to explain their Machlokes?

(d) How does the Gemara finally explain it?

6) If one third of the Tzibur are Zavin, one third, Tahor and one third, Tamei Mes, Rav Mani bar Patish rules that the Teme'ei Mes bring neither the Pesach Rishon nor the Sheini.
Why do they not bring ...

1. ... the Pesach Rishon?
2. ... the Pesach Sheini?

(a) If after the Kohen sprinkled the blood, it was discovered that the *Pesach* or the *blood* was Tamei, the Pesach is Kasher.
Why?

(b) Will this Din also extend to where the *owners* are discovered to have been Tamei Mes?

(c) What is the connection between the above Din and the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Chi Yamus Mes ... va'ha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu"?

(d) Tum'as ha'Tehom is different.
What is Tum'as ha'Tehom, and what is its source?

(a) Our Mishnah differentiates between whether one knew of the Tum'ah before the sprinkling of the blood or not.
How does Ravina reconcile this with the Beraisa: 'Al Mah ha'Tzitz Meratzeh, Al ha'Dam ve'Al ha'Basar, ve'Al ha'Chelev she'Nitma Bein be'Shogeg Bein be'Meizid' ... ?

(b) Rav Shilo learns the other way round (Zerikaso, Bein be'Shogeg Bein be'Meizid, Hurtzah; Tum'aso, be'Shogeg, Hurtzah, be'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah'). How does he explain ...

1. ... 'Bein be'Shogeg, Bein be'Mezid' of the Beraisa?
2. ... 'Dam *she'Nizrak ve'Achar-Kach Noda'* of the Mishnah ... ?

(c) Is there any difference, by Ritzuy Tzitz, between a Korban Yachid and a Korban Tzibur?

(a) What Sha'aleh does Rami bar Chama ask about a Kohen regarding Tum'as ha'Tehom?

(b) Rebbi Chiya confines Tum'as ha'Tehom to Tum'as Mes. Assuming that his intention is to preclude Tum'as Sheretz, what do we learn from the Pasuk in Naso "Ki Yamus Mes Alav" that renders it impossible to be referring to a *Nazir* who became Tamei Tum'as ha'Tehom of a Sheretz?

(c) And why could it not be referring to the owner of a *Korban Pesach* who became Tamei Tum'as ha'Tehom of a Sheretz?

(d) We then try to establish that Rebbi Chiya comes to preclude the owner of a Korban Pesach who became Tamei Tum'as ha'Tehom of *Zivah* on his seventh day.
Why is this any better than establishing it by Tum'as Sheretz (which we just rejected)?