Previous daf

1)

(a) What does our Mishnah rule with regard to Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah she'Lo li'Sheman by a Pesach or a Chatas?

(b) What does the Tana mean when it extends this ruling to ...

1. ... 'li'Sheman ve'she'Lo li'Sheman'?
2. ... 'she'Lo li'Sheman ve'li'Sheman'?

(c) With which of the above cases does Rebbi Shimon disagree with the Tana Kama? Why is that?

(d) There is a 'Holachah be'Makom she'Hu Tzarich Le'halech' and a 'Holachah be'Makom she'Eino Tzarich Le'halech' (which will be explained in the Sugya).
What distinction does Rebbi Elazar make between the two?

(a) In the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'shachat es ben ha'Bakar, Ve'hikrivu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim es ha'Dam", how does the Beraisa interpret the word "Ve'hikrivu"?

(b) And what do we learn from "B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim"?

(c) On what basis do we suggest that "Ve'hikrivu" really means 'Zerikah'?

(d) How do we then know that it does not mean ...

1. ... Zerikah?
2. ... Holachah?

(a) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with the Tana Kama's D'rashah (from "B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim").
What does he learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "B'nei Aharon" "B'nei Aharon" (from the Pasuk in Bamidbar "Eileh Sh'mos B'nei Aharon ... " [in connection with Elazar and Isamar])?

(b) What does he learn from "Asher Milei Yadam le'Chahen" written there"?

(c) What did Rebbi Tarfon comment about the corollary between Kabalah and Zerikah? What bothered him?

(a) Rebbi Akiva put Rebbi Tarfon's mind at rest, by presenting three distinctions between the two, one to do with Machshavah, one with Chutz and one with Pesulin.
Which three distinctions are we referring to?

(b) Why is Kabalah ...

1. ... ba'Chutz not Chayav Kareis?
2. ... via Pesulin not Chayav Kareis?

(c) Why was Rebbi Tarfon so impressed with Rebbi Akiva?

(d) What did he subsequently declare?

(a) In any event, Rebbi Akiva clearly states that Machshavah by Kabalah does not render the Korban Pasul. How do we reconcile this with our Mishnah, which holds that it does?

(b) How do we prove this from the Lashon in our Mishnah 'she'ha'Zevach Nifsal be'Arba'ah Avodos'?

(c) Given that in the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'B'sar Zevach Shelamav Lo Yeratzeh", "Lo Yeratzeh" refers predominantly to Zerikah, what does the Beraisa learn from the Lashon "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel"?

(d) How does the Tana extrapolate that from there?

(a) Which other two Avodos do we suggest ought to be included in the above list?

(b) We reject this suggestion however, based on the Pasuk "ha'Makriv Oso Lo Yechashev", which teaches us the Din of Pigul by Zerikah.
What is strange about this?

(c) How do we then go on to refute the current suggestion from there?

(a) In any event, we see that Kabalah is subject to Pigul.
How do we reconcile this with Rebbi Akiva, who taught us in the previous Beraisa that it is not?

(b) With regard to the Beraisa, which precludes Shefichas Shirayim ... from the Din of Pigul, a certain Chacham asked Rava from another Beraisa.
What does the Tana there learn from the double Lashon "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel"?

(c) What did Rava answer him? When is Shefichas Shirayim subject to Pigul, and when is it not?

(d) What is the guiding principle in this matter? At which point must one think, and what must one think, for Pigul to take effect?

8)

(a) With regard to the Chata'os Penimiyos, the Torah writes in Vayikra "Ve'taval ha'Kohen Etzba'o ... ". What did Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya comment about Tevilas Etzba by Chata'os Penimiyos?

(b) How does bar Pada query this ruling (from the source of Pigul), when Ilfa repeated this Chidush in front of him?

(c) The Mishnah says in Perek Sheini that if, after a Korban Chatas has been Shechted with thoughts of Pigul, the Kohen makes Kabalah or Holachah she'Lo li'Shemo, the person who eats it is not Chayav Chatas.
Why is that?

(d) Why then, if the same occurs with a Shelamim, does the Din of Pigul remain intact?

(a) If, as we explained earlier, we learn Pigul by Chatas from Pigul by Shelamim, then how will we explain the difference between the Din of Chatas and that of Shelamim that we just cited?

(b) How will this vindicate Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya?

(c) In a repeat of the Sugya, Resh Lakish (who holds like bar Pada) asks Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who holds like Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya) the same Kashya as bar Pada asked Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya. Only there, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina concludes that we do indeed learn Chatas from Shelamim.
Where do we find by Shelamim that a subsequent Machsheves P'sul negates the Machsheves Pigul that preceded it (even though a Machsheves she'Lo li'Shemo does not)?

(d) What Pircha does Rebbi Yirmiyah ask on this Limud? Why can we not learn the Din of she'Lo li'Shemo (by Chatas) from Chutz li'Mekomo (by Shelamim)?

(a) So we learn Chatas from Shelamim with a 'Mah Matzinu' from Shelamim, via a set of principles.
How (via which principle) do we then learn ...

1. ... that she'Lo li'Shemo by a Chatas negates the Pigul that preceded it?
2. ... that Tevilas Etzba renders Pigul by Chata'os ha'Penimiyos?

(b) Rav Mari tries to prove this from a Mishnah in Menachos.
What does the Tana say there about a Kohen performing the Kemitzah, placing the Minchah into a K'li Shareis, taking it to the Mizbe'ach or burning it on the Mizbe'ach? What must he have in mind to render the Minchah Pigul?

(c) To which four Avodos of a Zevach do these four Avodos correspond?

(d) If we can learn the other three from the corresponding Avodos by a Shelamim, what is the problem with learning Matan Kometz bi'Cheli from Kabalas ha'Dam?

(a) What does Rav Mari therefore learn from the Mishnah in Menachos, regarding the Din of Tevilas Etzba by Chata'os ha'Penimiyos?

(b) On what grounds do we refute Rav Mari's proof?

(c) One Beraisa states 'Tevilas Etzba Mefageles be'Chatas', whilst another Beraisa states 'Lo Mefageles ve'Lo Mispageles'.
How do we initially interpret the Machlokes?

(d) We counter that both Beraisos may well consider Tevilas Etzba like Holachah, and the author of the Beraisa 'Lo Mefageles ... ' is Rebbi Shimon. So what if it is? What does he say?

(a) What problem do we have with establishing the latter Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon, based on the fact that we are talking about Pigul in the Heichal?

(b) So we establish both Beraisos like the Rabbanan.
How then, do we explain 'Lo Mefageles ... ' in the second Beraisa? What sort of Chata'os is the Tana talking about?

(c) We ask on that 'P'shita'.
What do we mean by that?

(a) In fact, when the Torah writes (by Chatas Chitzonah) "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas be'Etzba'o", it refers to Kabalas ha'Dam.
How do we know that it does not refer to Tevilas Etzba'o?

(b) Then why might we have thought that it does?

(c) Why then, is Tevilas Etzba'o not subject to Pigul?

Next daf