Previous daf

1)

(a) Assuming that Kevuras Meis Mitzvah does not override Shabbos, how will we use Kevuras Meis Mitzvah to refute the 'Kal va'Chomer' that Retzichah ought to override Shabbos?

(b) How do we counter this (and re-instate the 'Kal va'Chomer')? Why *should* Kevuras Meis-Mitzvah override Shabbos?

(a) We initially thought that the Beraisa's original contention that Retzichah overrides Shabbos is based on the principle 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'.
On what grounds does the Tana reconsider this and suggest that perhaps "Mechalelehah Mos Yumas" incorporates Retzichah? Why should the Asei of Retzichah *not* override the La'av of "Mechalelehah Mos Yumas"?

(b) We counter that an Asei anyway overrides a La'av, in spite of the fact that the La'av is more stringent than it (so what difference does it make if the La'av carries with it Kareis or not?).
What makes a La'av more stringent than an Asei?

(a) The Torah includes all Kodshim in the Kareis of "Kol Ish Asher Yikrav ... el ha'Kodoshim Asher Yakdishu ... ".
So why does it find it necessary to add the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal B'sar Zevach ha'Shelamim ve'Tum'aso Alav ... ve'Nichresah"?

(b) Which principle governs this D'rashah?

(c) We are still searching for a source to include Achos Ishah in the Heter of Yibum (for the need to preclude her from "Alehah").
How do we attempt to use this principle as the source?

(d) On what grounds do we reject that contention? Why is it not acceptable as the source?

(a) The Torah writes in Metzora "ve'Shachat es ha'Keves bi'Mekom Asher Yishchat es ha'Chatas ve'es ha'Olah bi'Mekom ha'Kodesh, Ki ka'Chatas ha'Asham".
Why do we not need "Ki ka'Chatas ha'Asham" to designate ...

1. ... the location where the Asham had to be Shechted?
2. ... the way the blood was to be sprinkled or how it was to be eaten?

(b) Then what *does* the Hekesh come to teach us?

(c) Which can we deduce from this Hekesh? Which principle emerges?

(d) How does this compound the problem of why we need "Alehah"?

5)

(a) On what grounds then ought Achos Ishto to be included in the Mitzvah of Yibum?

(b) How do we deal with the problem that whereas Eishes Achiv constitutes only *one* Isur, Achos Ishto constitutes *two*?

(a) No Tamei person may enter the Azarah.
Some Tum'os however, are permitted in the Har ha'Bayis. May a ...

1. ... Tamei Meis or Sheretz enter the Har ha'Bayis?
2. ... Ba'al Keri or Zav do so?
3. ... T'vul Yom of a Ba'al Keri do so?

(b) Where was the Sha'ar Nikanor? What Kedushah did Chazal ascribe to it, that of the Azarah or that of Har ha'Bayis?

(c) Why did Chazal permit a Metzora on his eighth day to enter the Sha'ar Nikanor (for the placing of the blood of his Asham on his thumb etc.) on Erev Pesach, even if he saw Keri on that day, provided he had also Toveled?

(d) What does Rebbi Yochanan learn from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim 2 "va'Ya'amod Yehoshafat bi'Kehal Yehudah Lifnei *ha'Chatzer ha'Chadashah*"?

(a) What problem does Ula have with a Metzora who is also a Ba'al Keri placing his hands inside the Azarah?

(b) How does he solve the problem?

(c) How does that reflect on the need to write "Alehah"? Why would we now have thought that Eishes Achiv should perform Yibum?

Next daf