Previous daf

1)

(a) Before they initiated the Payis for Terumas ha'Deshen, which Kohen would perform it?

(b) What would they do ...

1. ... if two people wanted to perform it?
2. ... if they both arrived within the last four Amos simultaneously?

(c) In the latter case, how many Kohanim would participate in the ensuing Payis?

(d) They later changed to determine who would perform the Terumas ha'Deshen by means of a Payis.
What caused them to withdraw the previous method?

(a) Seeing as the remaining three Payisos had been in effect for a long time, why did they not institute a Payis for the Terumas ha'Deshen until after the calamity that occurred?

(b) Then why did they initiate a Payis for bringing up the limbs of the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim on to the Mizbe'ach, even though that too, was a *night*-Avodah?

(c) Rebbi Yochanan's statement (to do with the Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim for the Terumas ha'Deshen) led us to believe that the Terumas ha'Deshen was also the beginning of the *day*-Avodah (repudiating the distinction between Terumas ha'Deshen and bringing up the limbs - that we just made).
How do we amend Rebbi Yochanan's statement?

(a) According to the Gemara's second explanation, Chazal did not include Terumas ha'Deshen in the original Payisos, because they assumed that the Kohanim would have difficulty in getting up in the morning.
Then why did they include the bringing of the limbs of yesterday's Korban?

(b) It appears from the Beraisa that the Payis for the Terumas ha'Deshen was *not a new* institution, but had always been connected with the arranging of the wood on the Ma'arachah and the placing of the two logs of wood there.
How do we reconcile this with our Mishnah, which presents it as a *new* institution?

(c) When the two Kohanim raced up the ramp, the one who reached within four Amos performed the Avodah.
Why does Rav Papa take for granted that this does not refer to ...

1. ... the four Amos preceding the ramp?
2. ... the first four Amos from the foot of the ramp and upwards?
3. ... Somewhere in the middle of the ramp?

(d) What is Rav Papa uncertain about? What is his She'eilah?

4)

(a) Why did they count the fingers and not the people?

(b) We initially try to present the source for this as the Pasuk in Shmuel "Vayifkedem be'Bezek".
How do we then interpret the word 'Bezek'?

(c) How do we refute this contention?

(d) The true source for the prohibition of counting Yisrael is a Pasuk in Hoshei'a "Vehayah B'nei Yisrael ke'Chol ha'Yam Asher Lo Yimad ve'Lo Yisafer".
What does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learn from "Lo Yimad ve'Lo Yisafer"?

(a) We first explain that the beginning of the above Pasuk "Vehayah B'nei Yisrael ke'Chol ha'Yam" (implying that the numbers of Yisrael will be countable) speaks when Yisrael do *not* behave as they should, whereas the end "Asher Lo Yimad ve'Lo Yisafer" (which implies that they will be too numerous to count) - speaks when they *do*.
What is the Gemara's second answer?

(b) How does Shmuel explain the change in the Pasuk in Shmuel, which describes how Shaul first counted the people with pieces of earthenware, and later with lambs?

(a) The Pasuk in Shmuel writes about King Shaul "Vayarev ba'Nachal". If 'Nachal" is a hint to 'the Nachal Eisan' (in the Parshah of Eglah Arufah), what does the Pasuk refer to?

(b) A Heavenly Voice announced a Pasuk in Koheles.
Which Pasuk?

(c) What did he do that gave occasion to a second Heavenly Voice to announce "Al Tirsha Harbeh"!?

(a) What is the meaning of 'Shaul be'Achas ve'Alsah Lo, David bi'Shetayim ve'Lo Alsah Lo'?

(b) What does the Gemara learn from here?

(c) What did Shaul do to lose the kingship?

(d) Why does the Gemara not include the unjust killing of Nov, the city of Kohanim, making it *two* sins?

(a) Which two sins of King David is the Gemara referring to?

(b) Why is the sin of Bas Sheva not included, making it *three*?

(c) How was David punished fourfold?

(d) This answer is rejected on the grounds that all these punishment did not strike his body. Otherwise, we could not have included the sin of counting the people either.
Why not?

(a) In the final analysis, why is the sin of Bas Sheva not included? Which bodily punishment did he receive for that sin?

(b) At first, we explain that our Sugya does not count the sin of accepting Lashon ha'Ra from the slave of Mefivoshes (Yonasan's son), because Rav Huna (who is the author of this Sugya) holds like Shmuel, in whose opinion David in fact, did *not* accept Lashon ha'Ra.
Is it possible to justify Rav Huna's omission of this sin - even according to Rav?

(a) How do we explain the Pasuk in Shmuel "Ben Shanah Shaul be'Molcho"?

(b) What happened to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak ...

1. ... when he suggested that perhaps the Pasuk means to say that Shaul was dirty with sin like a year-old baby?
2. ... when he asked for forgiveness from the bones of Shaul ben Kish?

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, the reason that Shaul's descendents did not inherit the kingdom from their father was because there was no Pesul Dofi.
What does this mean? How did David have an advantage over him in this way?

(d) What reason does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav give for Shaul losing his kingdom?