Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask whether, if there is no dust, the Kohen is permitted to take ashes instead. That She'eilah is confined to the opinion of Beis Hillel, but will not be a She'eilah according to Beis Shamai.
Why not?

(b) In which regard do Beis Hillel consider 'Eifer' as dust?

(c) Then why might ashes not be eligible by Sotah?

(d) In that case, why might they be eligible?

(a) What, according to Rebbi Yochanan citing Rebbi Yishmael, do the following have in common: covering the blood of a Shechted bird or wild animal with dust, the prohibition of a Nazir shaving with a razor, and writing a Get on parchment?

(b) The Torah writes "be'Afar" by Kisuy ha'Dam, and "Ta'ar" by a Nazir.
How does it indicate that a Get should be written on parchment?

(c) Why is the prohibition of a Nazir shaving with a razor not simply an addition (like the case of Metzora that will be cited later)?

(a) What does the Yerushalmi include in the three cases instead of shaving a Nazir?

(b) Why does Rashi prefer the Yerushalmi's version (see Tosfos Shantz)?

(a) How do we attempt to prove our She'eilah (whether ashes may replace dust) from Rebbi Yochanan's statement?

(b) How do we reject the proof?

(c) We suggest that the Tana also omits the second shaving of a Metzora.
What ...

1. ... do we learn from the 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal' "Ve'hayah ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i, Yegalach es Kol Se'aro (K'lal), es Rosho, es Zekano ve'es Gabos Einav" (P'rat) "ve'es Kol Se'aro Yegale'ach" (K'lal)?
2. ... ought this to include?
3. ... ought it to exclude?

(d) What in fact, is the Halachah?

(a) Why is there no proof from the Reisha of the Mishnah in Nega'im 'Ba Lo Lehakif es ha'Metzora, Ma'avir Ta'ar Al Kol Besaro'?

(b) Then from where is the proof?

(c) What does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak mean when he differentiates between 'Halachah Okeves Mikra' and 'Halachah Okeves de'Rabbanan'?

(d) What does Rav Papa mean when he says 'Ki ka'Chashiv, Halachah Okeves ve'Okeres, Ha Okeves u'Mosefes Hi'? What do they both prove with this?

(a) Rav Ashi arrives at the same conclusion by establishing the Beraisa of 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal' like Rebbi Yishmael who, throughout the entire Torah, Darshens 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal' (in the manner that we described). And according to him, the Metzora will not be completely shaven.
Then who is the author of the Mishnah in Nega'im (which holds that the Metzora must be shaven like a pumpkin, even the second time?

(b) What is the one thing that the Mi'ut (" es Rosho, es Zekano ve'es Gabos Einav") comes to exclude according to Rebbi Akiva?

(c) If Rebbi Yishmael's tradition stems from Rebbi Nechunyah ben Hakaneh, who taught Rebbi Akiva his tradition?

7)

(a) In which regard do we ask 'Mai Havi Alah'?

(b) How do we resolve the She'eilah from Rav, who permits the use of rotting vegetables in place of dust?

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa adds two things that must be visible besides the Mei Sotah. One of them is the ashes of the Parah Adumah in the water.
What is the other?

(b) What is Rebbi Yishmael referring to when he cites the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Taval Osam be'Dam ha'Tzipor ha'Shechutah"?

(c) Does it matter then, if there is only blood and no water in the vessel?

(d) Why does Rebbi Yishmael give the Shiur of water as a Revi'is ha'Lug?

(a) According to the Rabbanan, why does the Torah write "ve'Taval Osam be'Dam ha'Tzipor ha'Shechutah" and "Al ha'Mayim ha'Chayim"?

(b) Rebbi Yishmael counters this with the argument that the Torah could then have written "ve'Taval Bahem ... ".
On what grounds do the Chachamim disagree with him?

(c) Rebbi Yishmael learns the obligation to mix the water and the blood from the Pasuk "ve'Shachat es ha'Tzipor ha'Echas el K'li Cheres al Mayim Chayim".
How would the Rabbanan have explained that Pasuk?

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira (his Rebbe) what the Din would be if the bird was so big that the water was no longer visible once its blood dripped into it, or if it was so small that the blood was not visible in the water. Rebbi Zeira initially gave a sharp reply.
What did he say?

(b) So why was Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah irrelevant?

(a) The Tana Kama invalidates the Mei Sotah, if the Kohen placed the dust into the cup before the water.
What is his source for this?

(b) What does Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pesukim in Chukas (in connection with the Parah Adumah) "ve'Nasan Alav ... " and "... Mayim Chayim el Keli"?

(c) What does he now extrapolate from the fact that the Torah writes there "ve'Lakchu la'Tamei *me'Afar* S'reifas ha'Chatas", and not " ... *me'Eifer* S'reifas ha'Chatas"?

(d) What does the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' teach us? What do we learn with regard to ...

1. ... Parah Adumah from Sotah?
2. ... Sotah from Parah Adumah?

(a) The Tana Kama learns from "Mayim Chayim el Keli" that the water had to be placed in the vessel first.
How do they interpret the Pasuk "ve'Nasan *Alav* Mayim Chayim"?

(b) Alternatively, they might have learned from "Alav" that the dust must be placed inside the vessel first.
Then how would he have explained "Mayim Chayim el Keli"?

(c) Why does the Tana Kama decline to accept this interpretation?

(d) We find this principle in two other cases: by Sotah and by Metzora.
What is the Machshir ...

1. ... by Sotah?
2. ... by Metzora?

Next daf