Previous daf

1)

(a) What does the Mishnah in Machshirin say about a child that one finds castaway in a town where ...

1. ... the majority of residents are non-Jews?
2. ... the majority of residents are Jews?
3. ... half the residents are non-Jews, and half, Jews?

(b) Rav restricts the ruling in case 2. to *saving his life* (if he is buried under a pile of rubble), but not to '*Yuchsin*'.
What does 'Yuchsin' mean? Why should we not follow the majority there, too?

(c) Shmuel too, says that it speaks about saving his life. What can we infer from this, that contradicts what Shmuel said earlier (about not following the majority in cases of Piku'ach Nefesh)?

(d) We establish that Shmuel refers to case 1., (where there are a majority of non-Jewish residents).
What is he now saying?

(a) In what respect does the Mishnah then consider him a non-Jew? Surely, if one is obligated to save his life, one is also obligated to sustain him? In which regard does the Beraisa say that he is considered a non-Jew?

(b) May the child be fed non-Kasher food in a case where half the residents are non-Jews?

(c) In that case, what is the Chidush of case 2., (that if there are a majority of Jews, we consider him a Jew)? In which regard do we say this?

(d) And in which regard does the Tana say 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah, Yisrael' - that we do not know already from the previous cases?

(a) We just established the case of 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah, Yisrael' by a case of damages.
Does this refer to a case of when the ox of a Jew gores his ox, and it is *he* who is claiming damages from the Jew? What would the Din be in that case?

(b) So it must speak in a case when his ox (which is a 'Tam' that has not yet gored three times) gores that of a Jew. What is the *Jew* claiming from *him*?
Why do we then give him the Din of a Jew?

(a) Our Mishnah says that if they found the buried man alive, they continue to dig.
But is this not obvious?

(b) And we establish our Mishnah, which also says that if he was dead, they must stop digging, like Rebbi Yehudah ben Lakish.
What does Rebbi Yehudah ben Lakish say?

(c) Why then does he not apply the same ruling here?

(a) Some say that, in order to establish whether, or not, the buried man is alive, one digs until the nose is uncovered, and checks his breathing. What do others say? What do they nevertheless learn from the Pasuk "Kol Asher Nishmas Ru'ach Chayim be'Apav"?

(b) If many people were buried in an accident, and the top bodies are found to be dead, do we assume that those underneath are dead, too?

(c) According to the Tana Kama, a baby is formed from the head.
What does Aba Shaul say?

(d) What will be Aba Shaul reason for agreeing with those who hold that it is the *breathing* which determines whether a person is alive or dead?

(a) A group of Tana'im were asked for the source of the Halachah that saving human life has precedence over Shabbos.
How did Rebbi Yishmael answer this from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Im ba'Machteres Yimatzei ha'Ganav ... "?

(b) Rebbi Akiva inferred it from the Pasuk (also in Mishpatim) "me'Im Mizbechi Tikachenu Lamus" 'me'Im Mizbechi, ve'Lo me'Al Mizbechi' - in conjunction with a statement of Rebbi Yochanan - 'Lo Shanu Ela le'Hamis ... '.
What was Rebbi Yochanan saying?

(c) How did Rebbi Akiva learn the Din in question from there?

7)

(a) How does ...

1. ... Rebbi Elazar learn that human life has precedence over Shabbos (even when it is only a Safek) from the Mitzvah of Milah?
2. Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah from from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Ach es Shabsosai Tishmoru"?
3. Rebbi Yonasan ben Yosef from "Ki Kodesh Hi Lachem" (Ki Sisa)?
4. Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah from "ve'Shamru B'nei Yisrael es ha'Shabbos" (Ki Sisa)?

(b) The best proof of all is that of Shmuel.
From where does he learn it?

(c) Rav disproves the proof of each and every Tana: How does he disprove ...

1. ... the proof from 'Machteres'? Why is it not a case of Safek Nefashos?
2. ... the fact that we take a Kohen off the Mizbe'ach to testify in order to save someone's life? Why is *that* too, not a Safek?
3. ... all the other cases?

(d) How does Shmuel's proof cover Safek Piku'ach Nefesh, too?

9)

(a) On what condition do Yom Kipur and death atone?

(b) A Korban Chatas and a Korban Asham atone too.
Do they require Teshuvah as well?

(c) According to our Mishnah, which kind of sins ...

1. ... require Yom Kipur?
2. ... cannot be forgiven, even with Yom Kipur?

(d) How does Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah learn this latter Halachah from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "mi'Kol Chatoseichem Lifnei Hashem Titharu"?

(a) What does the Mishnah rule, with regard to someone who says ...

1. ... 'Echta ve'Ashuv, Echta ve'Ashuv'?
2. ... 'Echta, ve'Yom ha'Kipurim Mechaper'?

(b) What does Rebbi Akiva learn from the Pasuk in Yechezkel ...

1. ... "ve'Zarakti Aleichem Mayim Tehorim u'Tehartem"?
2. ... "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem"?

(a) The Gemara asks why Asham Taluy is not mentioned in our Mishnah together with Chatas and Asham Vaday.
Why should it be?

(b) We answer that an Asham Taluy, unlike an Asham Vaday, does not atone completely.
What does this mean?

(c) What is the Gemara's second answer?

(a) According to Rebbi, Yom Kipur atones even without Teshuvah.
Which are the three exceptions to this?

(b) Is it possible to reconcile Rebbi with our Mishnah, which states that Yom Kipur atones together with Teshuvah?

(a) If Teshuvah atones for Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh, is it not obvious that it will atone for Mitzvos Asei, as well? So why does the Tana find it necessary to add that it atones for Mitzvos *Asei*? How does Rav Yehudah amend 'Al Asei ve'Al Lo Sa'aseh', to answer this Kashya?

(b) How will Rav Yehudah explain the Beraisa 'Eilu Hein Kalos: Asei ve'Lo Sa'aseh, Chutz mi'Lo Sisa' (the La'av of swearing falsely, using the Name of Hashem - implying that Teshuvah alone is sufficient to atone for a regular Lo Sa'aseh, as well)?

(c) What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from ...

1. ... "Lo Yenakeh"?
2. ... "es Shemo"?

(d) How will Rav Yehudah, who says that Teshuvah alone does not atone for a regular La'av, explain this Beraisa?