Previous daf

1)

(a) What does Rebbi Elazar learn from the Pasuk in Tehilim "S'muchim la'Ad le'Olam Asuyim be'Emes ve'Yashar"?

(b) What do we learn from the S'muchim in Ki Seitzei ...

1. ... "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez ... Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach"?
2. ... "Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho ... Ki Yeishvu Achim Yachdav" (the introductory Pasuk to Yibum)?

(c) What does Rav Yosef say about these S'muchim (that are in Devarim), as opposed to other S'muchim (in other parts of the Torah)?

(a) What does Ben Azai learn from the S'muchim in Mishpatim "Mechasheifah Lo Sechayeh ... Kol Shocheiv im Beheimah Mos Yumas"?

(b) We learn that the punishment in the latter case is S'kilah from Ov ve'Yid'oni.
What Lashon does the Torah use in both cases which indicates that?

(c) On what grounds does Rebbi Yehudah disagree with ben Azai?

(d) So from where does Rebbi Yehudah learn S'kilah by Mechasheifah?

(a) Everyone agrees that a person is permitted to marry a woman whom his *son* raped or seduced.
Why is that?

(b) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, a person is permitted to marry the woman whom his *father* raped or seduced.
What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the S'muchim of "ve'Nasan ha'Ish ha'Shochev Imah la'Avi ha'Na'arah Chamishim Kasef ... (Lo Yikach Ish es Eishes Aviv) ve'Lo Yegaleh K'naf Aviv"?

(c) On what grounds then, does the Tana Kama (who Darshens Semuchim throughout the Torah) disagree with Rebbi Yehudah?

(d) How does the Tana Kama then explain the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yegaleh K'naf Aviv"? But is she not Asur already because of Eishes Achi Aviv?

(a) In any case, we see that even Rebbi Yehudah agrees with Semuchim in Seifer Devarim. One reason for saying this in the previous Derashah is because it is evident.
Why is it evident?

(b) What is the other reason?

(c) What makes the S'muchim of Tzitzis evident, too?

(d) We retract from the contention that it is also Mufneh (because, having written in Kedoshim "u'Veged Kil'ayim Sha'atnez Lo Ya'aleh Alecha", why does the Torah need to repeat "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez" in Ki Seitzei?) on the grounds that both Pesukim are needed. Why does the Torah need to write ...

1. ... "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez"? (What would we have thought had it just written " ... Lo Ya'aleh Alecha")?
2. ... " ... Lo Ya'aleh Alecha"? What would we have thought had the Torah just written " ... Lo Silbash Sha'atnez"?

5)

(a) It is not "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez" that is Mufneh, we conclude, but "*Tzemer u'Fishtim* Yachdav", according to Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael. From where does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn that only a woolen or linen garment is called 'Beged'?

(b) But why is this Pasuk Mufneh. Surely we still need it, because we would otherwise have said that Sha'atnez comprizes wool and linen only by clothes that one puts over oneself without actually wearing them (such as blankets), but by a garment that one wears, it should apply to any two kinds of material?

(a) Sheish and Techeiles were used in the weaving of the Bigdei Kehunah. How do we prove that T'cheiles is (dark-blue) wool?

(b) Of what material were the other colors (that were neither Sheish nor Techeiles) made?

(c) If not for "Tzemer u'Fishtim" being redundant, Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael would not have learned S'muchim, and Kil'ayim would have been forbidden by Tzitzis.
Why is this strange, considering that the Torah has written "Bigdeihem" and "Techeiles" with regard to Tzitzis?

(a) We initially answer that we need "Tzemer u'Fishtim" to preclude from Rava's Derashah of "ha'Kanaf".
What does Rava hold (to answer the apparent contradiction between "ha'Kanaf" 'Min Kanaf' on the one hand, and "Tzemer u'Fishtim" on the other)?

(b) But Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael disagrees with Rava.
In which point do they argue?

(c) How would he have then Darshened "ha'Kanaf" like Rava (if not for "Tzemer u'Fishtim"), in spite of the fact that the Torah is referring exclusively to wool and linen garments?

(d) So how does "Tzemer u'Fishtim" refute that Derashah?

Next daf