Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Hotzi es Kol ha'Par" that, even after the bull has been Shechted, it is still called a bull.
What does Rebbi Ami learn from there?

(b) And how does he reconcile the Pasuk "ve'es Par ha'Chatas ve'es Se'ir ha'Chatas" (which also refers to the animals after they have been Shechted) with the Derashah "be'Par" 've'Lo be'Damo'?

(c) How does Rav Ashi prove that the blood of the bull *is* called 'Par' from the Pasuk "be'Zos Yavo Aharon el ha'Kodesh"?

(d) How is his proof rejected?

(a) What happened to a Chatas whose owner died?

(b) What do the bull of Yom Kipur, the Chavitei Kohen Gadol and the Korban Pesach, all have in common?

(c) How does Rebbi Meir use this information to query the Tana Kama of the Beraisa's principle? What is that principle?

(d) How do we try to use Rebbi Meir's statement to prove that the bull of Yom Kipur is a Chatas Tzibur and therefore does not die?

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov queries the Tana Kama from the communal Par He'elam Davar, the communal goats of Avodah-Zarah and the Chagigah - all of which are Korbenos Tzibur, yet they do not over-ride Shabbos or Tum'ah.
How does this dispense with the contention from Rebbi Meir's words that the Tana Kama might consider them a Korban Tzibur?

(b) Then what problem do Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Ya'akov have with the Tana Kama?

(c) According to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Ya'akov, which Korbanos over-ride Shabbos and Tum'ah, and which do not?

(d) Why is the Korban Chagigah considered 'Ein Zemano Kavu'a'?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa holds that the bull and the goat of Yom Kipur, as well as the goat of Avodah-Zarah, that were lost, re-placed and then found, must die. Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon hold that they are sent to graze, and then, when they become blemished, they are redeemed, and the proceeds used for Nedavah of Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.
Why is that? Why do they not have to die?

(b) How do we amend the Beraisa to reconcile this with what we learned above (that the bull of Yom Kipur is *not* a Korban Tzibur)?

(c) Then why does the Tana say 'shel Yom ha'Kipurim'?

(d) On the basis of another Beraisa, which specifically quotes Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon with regard to the *bull of Yom Kipur*, too, and in view of the earlier Beraisa, which referred to it as a Korban Yachid, we amend their statement of 'she'Ein Chatas Tzibur Meisah'.
How does the amended version read?

(a) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon learn this principle from Temurah (since all five Chata'os that die must have the same specifications).
From where do we know that Temurah does not apply to a Korban ha'Shutfin?

(b) On principle, Rava agrees with Rebbi Amram, who explained that, even if the Kohen Gadol died, the bull of Yom Kipur did not have to die, because it was a Chatas Tzibur - only he amends 'Chatas Tzibur' to 'Chatas ha'Shutfin'. What is the practical difference between the two terms?

(c) Why are the Kohanim (the tribe of Levi) not called a 'Kahal' (even though each of the other tribes *is*?

6)

(a) Rebbi Elazar (ben Shamu'a) asks whether, according to Rebbi Meir, who calls the bull of Yom Kipur a Korban Yachid, it can make a Temurah.
Can we infer from the question, that the Chachamim consider it a Korban Tzibur?

(b) Considering that the bull undeniably atones for all the Kohanim, what is Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah? Why should Rebbi Meir refer to it as a Korban Yachid?

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, regarding a case where one person pays for another's Kaparah ...

1. ... who pays the extra fifth if, after the designated animal becomes blemished, one of the two wants to redeem it?
2. ... who has the legal right to declare a Temurah?
3. ... who has the choice of Kohen - if one person is giving Terumah to cover the crops belonging to another?

(d) In light of what we have just said (that it is the person who is being atoned for who has the right to declare a Temurah rather than the person who pays), how do we explain Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah? In view of the fact that the bull comes to atone for all the Kohanim, why might it not be considered a Korban ha'Shutfin?

(a) An original Korban has four stringencies over a Temurah. *Three* of them are: that it applies even to a communal Korban, that it over-rides Shabbos and that it over-rides Tum'ah (all of which a Temurah does not).
What is the *fourth* stringency?

(b) Whether one declares a blemished animal Hekdesh, or one declares it a Temurah, the Kedushah is effective.
What is the difference between the two in this regard?

(c) The Gemara asks to which Korban the Tana is referring: What will be the problem if it is ...

1. ... a Korban Yachid?
2. ... a Korban Tzibur?

(a) We try to establish the Beraisa by the bull of the Kohen Gadol. How will this solve our problem?

(b) How will it also resolve the She'eilah that Rebbi Elazar asked at the beginning of the Amud (about the bull of Yom Kipur making a Temurah)?

(c) How do we reject this proof? Which alternative animal could the Tana of the Beraisa be referring to?

(d) We then try to prove that the Beraisa *must* in fact be referring to Aharon's ram, and not to the bull.
Why not?

(a) We finally remain with the possibility that the Tana is referring to the bull, and explain Temurah to mean 'Shem Temurah'.
What does 'Shem Temurah' mean?

(b) Why can we not then also explain 'Zevach' to mean Shem Zevach, in which case the Kashya from Korban Yachid and Korban Tzibur falls away (and the need to establish the Beraisa by any one particular Korban)?

(c) Why does the Tana refer to 'Shem Temurah', but not to 'Shem Zevach'?