Previous daf

1)

(a) What does Rav Shimi bar Chiya learn from the Pasuk in Terumah (in connection with the construction of the Mishkan) "ke'Chol Asher Ani Mareh Oscha ... *ve'Chein Ta'asu*"?

(b) Besides the seventy elders, how do we learn the necessary participation of all the dignitaries in our Mishnah, from the Mishkan?

(c) If the Meshuchah (the anointing) consecrated the vessels in the Mishkan, what was it, according to the Beraisa, that would consecrate them from now on?

(d) What problem does this Beraisa create with Rav Shimi bar Ashi's previous D'rashah?

(a) To answer the Kashya, what do we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Naso "Va'yimshachem Va'yekadesh *Osam*"?
2. ... in Bamidbar "Asher Yesharsu Osam ba'Kodesh"?

(b) Now that we have the Pasuk "Asher Yesharsu Osam ba'Kodesh", why do we need "Osam"?

(a) Nechemyah too, used two Todos for the consecration of the walls of Yerushalayim.
Where did the procession walk? Where did the Todos go?

(b) In which direction did they walk?

(c) When the Pasuk refers to "Sh'tei Todos Gedolos", it cannot mean the largest species, because then it should have written specifically 'bulls'.
Why can it not mean large animals? What do we learn from the fact that the Torah writes "Isheh Rei'ach Nicho'ach" by animals and bird-offerings and by flour-offerings?

(d) So how does Rav Chisda explain the Pasuk? How does this corroborate the ruling of a Beraisa cited in the Sugya?

(a) We have learned in the Mishnah in Menachos, that five Sa'ah Yerushalmiyos (which was originally six Midbariyos) were used for the bread of the Todah.
How many Eifah is that equivalent to?

(b) How many species of loaves did the Todah comprise? How many loaves of each species were there?

(c) Bearing in mind that there were twenty Isronos of an Eifah (an Isaron is 'a tenth'), and that ten of these were used for the Matzah loaves, and ten for the Chametz loaves, how much larger was each Chametz loaf than a Matzah one?

(a) According to Rami bar Chama, the Azarah itself can only be consecrated by the leftovers of the Minchah.
Why does he say that? How does he initially compare the Azarah to Yerushalayim (which we learn from Nechemyah)?

(b) What problem do we have with this?

(c) So how do we amend his reason?

6)

(a) What is basically wrong with the suggestion that, the Azarah, like Yerushalayim, must be consecrated with Chametz loaves?

(b) Neither is it possible to make the leftovers Chametz, in order to use them for the consecration, because of Resh Lakish's D'rashah. What does Resh Lakish Darshen from the juxtaposition of "Chelkam" (in Tzav) to "Lo Se'afeh Chametz"?

(c) There is however, one Minchah that is baked Chametz.
Which one?

(d) Then why do we not simply require the Beis-Hamikdash to be built at Shevu'os time, in order to consecrate it with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem?

(a) Why is it not possible to build the Beis-Hamikdash on Erev Shavu'os and to consecrate it ...

1. ... then?
2. ... on Shavu'os?

(b) Then why can one not build the Beis-Hamikdash ...

1. ... on Yom-Tov and consecrate it on the same day?
2. ... after Yom-Tov and consecrate it then?

(c) Which only other possibility remains?

(d) How do we reject that too, based on the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "u've'Yom Hakim es ha'Mishkan"?

(a) The Beraisa discusses the Shir.
Which instruments were played?

(b) Where were they placed?

(c) Besides 'Mizmor le'Sodah' and 'Aromimcha Hashem ' (the Song of Consecration), they also played/sang 'Yoshev be'Seiser Elyon' (until "Ki Atah Hashem Machsi ... ").
Why is this Kapitel called ...

1. ... 'Shir shel Nega'im' (meaning 'plagues')?
2. ... 'Shir shel Pega'im' (meaning 'misfortunes')?

(d) Finally, they sang Kapitel 3 ('Mizmor le'David, be'Vorcho Mipnei Avshalom B'no').
Why specifically this Kapitel?

(a) What problem do we have with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who would recite 'Sir shel Pega'im' before going to sleep?

(b) How do we resolve the problem?

(c) What does the Mishnah in Sanhedrin say about someone who 'whispers Pesukim over a wound' ('ha'Lochesh al ha'Makah')?

(d) This creates a problem with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, whose statement (merely forbidding the use of Pesukim to cure an illness) appears to clash with it. We resolve the problem by citing Rebbi Yochanan.
How does he establish that Mishnah?

(a) Our Mishnah implies that the Sanhedrin walked in front of the two Todah loaves.
How do we reconcile this with the Pasuk in Nechemyah "Vayeilech Achareihem (behind the loaves) Hoshayah va'Chatzi Sarei Yehudah"?

(b) Who carried the loaves?

(c) Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi argue over how the loaves went. One of them says 'one next to the other'.
What does the other one say?

(d) If, according to the first opinion, the 'inner loaf' (the one that was eaten) refers to the one that was closest to the wall, to which one does it refer, according to the second opinion?

(a) Why do we initially assume the fact that the inner loaf is eaten, to be easily understandable according to the second opinion?

(b) Why is this reason more problematic than we first thought?

(c) Will the problem be solved if we assume that any one of the requirements in our Mishnah will suffice?

(d) How do we finally explain the fact that the inner loaf is eaten and the outer one, burned? Does it make any difference whether the loaves went one beside the other or one behind and one, in front?

Next daf