Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah on Daf 49a. obligates someone who left Yerushalayim with a small piece of Kodshim-meat and who has not yet passed Tzofim, to return to Yerushalayim and to burn it in front of the Beis Hamikdash with wood for the Ma'arachah (to place on the Mizbei'ach).
How does this appear to clash with our Mishnah?

(b) Rav Chama bar Ukva differentiates between a guest, who has no wood of his own, and a resident of Yerushalayim, who *does*. Rav Papa establishes both by a guest.
How does he then resolve the discrepancy, and how does he deduce this from the wording of the earlier Mishnah? Why does the Tana make such a distinction?

(c) Rav Zevid agrees with Rav Chama bar Ukva.
How does he explain the wording of the earlier Mishnah?

(a) We do not allow someone who wishes to use wood from the Ma'arachah to burn the Tamei Pesach in his backyard, to do so, because of a Takalah.
In that case, why is he permitted to use it at all, under any circumstances, to burn his own Pesach? Why is he not Mo'el?

(b) Neither do we permit someone whose Pesach became Tamei to burn it in front of the Beis Hamikdash using his own wood. According to Rav Yosef, this is in order not to shame someone who does not have his own wood. Rava disagrees.
What reason does *he* give?

(c) What is the difference between the two reasons?

(a) Rav Yosef and Rava argue in a similar manner over the Mishnah in Tamid, where the head of the Ma'amad would stand the Tamei Kohanim by the East- gate. According to Rav Yosef, it was in order to shame them, according to Rava, because of suspicion.
Of what will they be suspected?

(b) The Gemara gives two differences between the two explanations; one of them, by a finicky Kohen who anyway does no work and is beyond suspicion. What is the second distinction?

(a) If a Pesach is taken outside the Azarah or becomes Tamei, it is burnt immediately.
Is there any difference whether this occurs on the fourteenth *before* nightfall or *after* nightfall?

(b) How will the Din differ if the owner became Tamei or died?

(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say?

(a) What do we learn initially from the Pasuk in Shemini "Hen Lo Huva es Damah El ha'Kodesh Penimah"? What was Moshe saying to Aharon (about the relevant Korban and its blood)?

(b) We learn that *Kodshim Kalim* which became Tamei must be burnt from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel, ba'Eish Tisaref".
How do we know that the same applies to *Kodshei Kodshim* which became Tamei?

(c) What is the problem with learning Yotzei from "Hen Lo Huva" ... ?

(d) What is the additional problem from a Korban whose blood became Pasul be'Linah (at nightfall) or that was spilt?

6)

(a) What does Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "ba'Kodesh ba'Eish Tisaref"?

(b) What can we not learn from that Pasuk?

(c) We finally learn the obligation to burn all Kodshim that became Pasul ba'Kodesh from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.
Where does one burn the *Basar* of Kodshim Kalim that became Pasul?

(d) Why can we not learn *other Pesulim* of Kodshim Kalim from the *Tum'ah* of Kodshim Kalim?

(a) What is the Gemara's final source for the burning of all Pasul Kodshim that were Pesulan ba'Kodesh?

(b) The Tana of Rabah bar Avuha learns that even Pigul requires Ibur Tzurah "Avon" "Avon" from Nosar.
Why does he not learn "Avon" "Avon" from the Chatas of Aharon, which was burnt immediately?

(c) The Chatas of Aharon was burnt for one of two reasons.
What are they?

(a) Now that we learn the burning of all Kodshim that were Pesulan ba'Kodesh from Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, what do we learn from "ba'Kodesh ba'Eish Tisaref"?

(b) And why do we need the Pasuk "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel, ba'Eish Tisaref"?

(a) According to Rav Yosef's initial text, the Tana Kama agrees with Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, who holds that even Nitme'u Ba'lim is burned immediately, if the Tum'ah preceded the Zerikah (so that the meat was never fit to eat). The Gemara rejects this text however, because of the Tana Kama's Lashon 'be'Dam u've'Ba'lim'.
What exactly, is the Gemara's disproof?

(b) What then, is the correct version of Rav Yosef's statement?

(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan say about this?

(d) How does this conform with another statement of his, where he equates Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah with Rebbi Nechemyah, who says that the Chatas of Aharon was burned (immediately) because of Aninus (and not because of Tum'ah, like Rebbi Yehudah explains).
What makes the Aninus there (even *before* the Zerikah) comparable to the Tum'ah of the Korban Pesach *after* the Zerikah?

(a) Which three Chata'os were brought on that day? What was their status?

(b) If the 'Chatas of Aharon' was burned because of Aninus, which Chatas must it have been? What was Moshe's mistake?

(c) What did Aharon reply when Moshe asked him whether the Chatas was perhaps brought (be'Isur) ba'Aninus (and was therefore burned because it was Pasul)?