Previous daf

1)

(a) What problem does the Pasuk in Re'ei "Sham Tizbach es ha'Pesach ba'Arev" pose on Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya, who interprets "Bein ha'Arbayim" to mean all day?

(b) Based on a Beraisa, we answer 'ha'Hu li'Ye'uchar Davar Hu de'Asa'.
What do we mean by that (particularly as the Pesach could be brought all day)?

(c) And we find a precedent for this in a ruling of Rebbi Yochanan.
What did Rebbi Yochanan say about someone who delayed Musaf and now has to Daven Musaf and Minchah?

(a) What problem do we have with the Pasuk "Bein ha'Arbayim" written in connection with Ketores and Neiros?

(b) We also ask on Rebbi Oshaya from a Beraisa.
What does Rebbi (who holds like ben Beseira) ask on Rebbi Yehoshua, who equates a Pesach on the morning of the fourteenth with a Pesach on the thirteenth?

(c) What does this prove?

(d) What ruling does Rebbi Yochanan therefore issue (according to ben Beseira) about a Pesach that is Shechted on the morning of the fourteenth, irrespective of whether it is li'Shemo or she'Lo li'Shemo?

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of ben Beseira, Rebbi Avahu asks how it is ever possible to have a Kasher Korban Pesach. What does he mean when he comments that if is designated on the ...

1. ... fourteenth morning, it is 'Dichuy me'Ikara'? So what if it is?
2. ... thirteenth, it is Nir'eh ve'Nidcheh?

(b) Why is this not a problem according to the Rabbanan of ben Beseira (Rebbi Yehoshua)?

(c) So how does Rebbi Avuhu establish a case of a Kasher Korban Pesach, according to ben Beseira?

(d) On what grounds does ...

1. ... Abaye establish it even by a Pesach that was designated on the morning of the fourteenth?
2. ... Rav Papa establish it even by one that was designated on the night of the fourteenth?

(a) Rav Papa bases his statement on a ruling of Rebbi Apturiki.
What problem did Rebbi Apturiki have with the two Pesukim "Ve'hayah Shiv'as Yamim Tachas Imo" (Emor. [What does he extrapolate from there?] and "u'mi'Yom ha'Shemimi va'Hal'ah Yeratzeh" (ibid.)?

(b) How did he resolve the problem? What does he learn from there?

(c) Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Avahu whether Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ba'alei-Chayim Nidachin'. How did he extrapolate this from Rav Papa's explanation (to explain Rebbi Yochanan)? What would the Din be if he held 'Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachim'?

(d) What is the alternative to '*Ba'alei Chayim* Nidachin'?

(a) Rebbi Avahu replied by referring to another ruling of Rebbi Yochanan.
What did Rebbi Yochanan say in a case where Reuven declared Hekdesh his half of an animal that he owned together with Shimon, if he then bought the other half from Shimon and declared that Hekdesh, too, with regard to ...

1. ... the Hekdesh taking effect?
2. ... making a Temurah on it?

(b) Why can the animal not be sacrificed?

(c) What did Rebbi Avahu now prove from there?

(d) This ruling also proves that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Dichuy Me'ikara Havi Dichuy' (since the animal was Dachuy from the moment it was declared Hekdesh).
Which third principle does Rebbi Avahu extrapolate from it?

(a) What does Kedushas Damim mean? What are its ramifications?

(b) And what are the ramifications of 'Yesh Dichuy be'Damim'?

(c) Which alternative explanation of 'Yesh Dichuy be'Damim' do we reject?

7)

(a) What did Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about someone who designated a Chatas for having eaten Cheilev, and who then became an apostate and repented?

(b) Why did Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar ... Rebbi Yochanan find it necessary to issue the same ruling with regard to someone who went through the same process, but who went out of his mind and recovered (rather than becoming an apostate and repenting).

(c) Why for that matter, did Ula find it necessary to issue his ruling in light of that of Rebbi Yirmiyah?

(a) What She'eilah did Rebbi Yirmiyah ask with regard to a case where someone ate Cheilev and designated a Korban, and Beis-Din then permitted Cheilev and retracted?

(b) What makes this a case of Dichuy?

(c) That old man replied that on the contrary, when Rebbi Yochanan would Darshen about Dichuy, he would begin with this case.
What did he mean by that? What makes this more a classical case of Dichuy than the previous cases?

(a) When Shimon ben Azai cited the Sanhedrin of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah's ruling (equating an Olah she'Lo li'Shemo with a Pesach and a Chatas she'Lo li'Shemo), why did he refer to them as 'Shiv'im u'Shenayim Zakein', and not 'Zekeinim'?

(b) On what grounds do we reject Rav Huna's ...

1. ... suggestion that ben Azai's source is the Pasuk "*Olah Hi* Isheh Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Hashem"?
2. ... counter-argument that "Olah Hi" is written there twice (one of which comes to teach us 'Im Eino Inyan' that she'Lo li'Shemo before Haktaras Eimurin is Pasul)?

(c) We conclude that ben Azai learns the P'sul of Olah she'Lo li'Shemo from Chatas she'Lo li'Shemo.
How does he learn it from there?

(d) How do we counter the Pircha ...

1. ... 'Mah le'Chatas she'Kein Mechaperes'?
2. ... 'Mah le'Pesach she'Kein Zemano Kavu'a?

(a) How will ben Azai deal with the Pircha 'Mah le'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Kein Yesh Bahen Tzad Kareis'?

(b) Then why does he does not invalidate an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo from the same 'Binyan Av'?

(c) Alternatively, ben Azai would have asked from 'Tzad Kareis had he learned Olah from a 'Binyan Av'. But he didn't.
Then from where did he learn it?

(d) That being the case, why did Rav Huna cite the 'Kal ve'Chomer'?

Next daf