Previous daf

1)

(a) The Par and the Sa'ir atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kadashav.
Are we speaking when he was aware of the Tum'ah, or not?

(b) Which location is referred to by ...

1. ... "ve'Chiper es Mikdash ha'Kodesh"?
2. ... "ve'es Ohel Mo'ed"?
3. ... "Yechaper"?

(c) How do we explain the three terms in the second half of the Pasuk (which refers to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach): "ha'Kohanim", "Am ha'Kahal" and "Yechaper"?

(d) What does the Tana Kama of the Beraisa learn from here?

(a) The above is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Shimon disagrees.
What does he mean when he differentiates between the blood of the Par and the Viduy?

(b) How does Rebbi Shimon explain the fact that the Torah compares the Kohanim, the Levi'im and the Yisre'elim?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh, ve'es Ohel Mo'ed ve'es ha'Mizbe'ach"?

(b) Will the Avodah become invalidated if the blood spills - after the Kohen Gadol has concluded the Matanos of the Mizbe'ach?

(c) How does Rebbi Meir (the Tana Kama of our Mishnah - who holds that, if the blood of the Par or the Sa'ir spilled in the middle of one of the sets of Matanos, he must begin that set again) interpret "mi'Dam Chatas ha'Kipurim Achas ba'Shanah"?

(d) How do Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon interpret it?

(a) Which two major Avodos were performed with the Log Shemen shel Metzora?

(b) What did Rebbi mean when he said 'Li Chilak Rebbi Ya'akov be'Lugin'?

(c) What is the difficulty with this from another Beraisa, which describes the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir on the one hand, and Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, on the other?

(d) What is the amended version of Rebbi's statement?

(a) The Beraisa concludes that Matnos ha'Rosh are not crucial to the Metzora's Kaparah.
What are Matnos ha'Rosh?

(b) Is the Noseres min ha'Minchah crucial to the validity of the Minchah?

(c) If the Matnos ha'Behonos (by which the Torah writes "u'mi'Yeser ha'Shemen") are crucial, then why are the Matnos ha'Rosh (by which the Torah adds "ve'ha'Nosar") *not*?

6)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan says that, according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, if an Asham Metzora was Shechted with the wrong intention, nothing could be done to complete the Kaparah? Why not? What does the wrong intention mean?

(b) Rav Chisda asks why that should not be the case even according to Rebbi Meir (who does not contend with the first one that he brought), since the Torah writes in Metzora "ve'Hikriv Oso le'Asham".
What ought we to learn from there even according to Rebbi Meir?

(c) What proof do we bring for Rebbi Yochanan from a Beraisa?

(d) Rav Chisda rejects this proof.
How does he explain 've'Tzarich Asham Asher Lehatiro'?

(a) A precedent for Rav Chisda's explanation lies in a Beraisa, where Beis Shamai disagree with Beis Hillel, who say that a Nazir (who is obligated to shave off all his hair) who has no hair is absolved from the need to shave it off.
What do Beis Shamai say, and how does Rav Avina explain their statement?

(b) Rebbi Pedas disagrees with Rav Avina.
How does *he* explain Beis Shamai's statement?

(c) What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rav Avina and Rebbi Pedas?

(a) Rebbi Pedas equates the opinion of Beis Shamai by Nazir with that of Rebbi Elazar regarding a Metzora who has no right thumb or big toe (on which to place the Log of oil and the blood of his Asham).
What does Rebbi Elazar say there?

(b) According to the Tana Kama of Rebbi Elazar, he cannot become Tahor from his Tzara'as.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(a) Seeing as "ve'Lakach" (written in connection with the Asham Metzora) refers to Kabalas ha'Dam, what do we learn from the Hekesh "ve'Lakach ... ve'Nasan (al T'nuch Ozen ha'Mitaher)"?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk (mentioned there) "Ki ke'Chatas ha'Asham Hu"?

(c) From where do we learn that the Kabalas ha'Dam of the Chatas itself requires a K'li?

(d) How was it possible to fulfil both Pesukim, to receive the blood in his hands and in a bowl?

(a) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon say in a Beraisa 've'Chulan Metam'in Begadim ve'Nisrafin be'Veis ha'Deshen'.
What are they referring to?

(b) What do the Chachamim say?

(c) Rava asked Rav Nachman whether they would also send out all three goats la'Azazel, if the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem spilled after the Matnos P'nim and then again after the Matnos Chutz - necessitating a fresh Hagralah each time.
Why not? Why might this be any different than the previous case, where all three goats la'Hashem would have to be burned (according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon)?