Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Ilfa asked whether the water in the Kiyor becomes Pasul be'Linah.
What is the basis of the She'eilah?
Why might it not become Pasul?

(b) Then what are the grounds to say that it is? On what grounds might the water in the Kiyor be more stringent than the Kohanim in this regard?

(c) Assuming that it is, how can Linah be avoided?

(d) According to Ravin Amar Rebbi Yirmiyah ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Ilfa later resolved his She'eilah.
What did he say?

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Bisna queried Rebbi Yirmiyah however, from a discussion resulting from a statement of Rebbi Ami ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Ilfa.
What did Ilfa say in a case where the Kiyor has not yet been lowered into the stream, regarding the Kohanim using the water of the Kiyor ...

1. ... for Avodas Laylah?
2. ... for Avodas Yom?

(b) What She'eilah do we ask regarding Ilfa's latter ruling?

(c) What problem does this create with Rebbi Yirmiyah?

(d) Why do we try to establish the Mishnah in Yoma, which describes how ben Katin fixed a pulley system to lower the Kiyor into the stream, to prevent the water from becoming Pasul be'Linah, like Rebbi?

(a) What led us to suggest that the author is Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon is the Reisha of the Mishnah 'Ba Lo Eitzel Paro, u'Paro Hayah Omed bein ha'Ulam ve'la'Mizbe'ach ... '.
Why do we think that the author must be Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon?

(b) How does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah define Tzafon?

(c) Rebbi is more lenient still.
What does he say?

(d) Which area do all Tana'im agree, is not called Tzafon? Why is that?

(a) How do we refute the previous proof that the author of the Mishnah must be Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon? Why could the author even be Rebbi?

(b) How do we rephrase our proof? What could we have asked on Rebbi (from the Mishnah 'bein ha'Ulam ve'la'Mizbe'ach')?

(c) How do we counter this proof too? Why could we have asked the same Kashya on Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon?

(d) So how do we conclude? Why indeed *does* the Tana mention specifically 'bein ha'Ulam ve'la'Mizbe'ach, and not one of the other two locations? Who is then the author?

(a) Which is the first Avodah each morning?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan therefore state with regard to a Kohen who washed his hands and feet before performing the Terumas ha'Deshen?

(c) What problem do we have with Rebbi Yochanan's ruling?

(d) Abaye establishes the author as Rebbi.
Then why does Linah not invalidate the Kidush that preceded it?

(a) Rava disagrees. He maintains that Rebbi Yochanan follows the opinion of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.
Then why does he exempt the Kohen from washing, on account of his having washed before the Terumas ha'Deshen?

(b) What would he say in a similar case where he washed before the burning of the limbs and fat pieces the evening before?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about Kohanim who saw their fellow Kohen descending with the Terumas ha'Deshen?

(b) Why is there no problem with this Beraisa according to Abaye? Like whom will he establish it?

(c) What is the problem according to Rava?

(d) How do we therefore establish the Beraisa according to Rava? Who will then be the author?

8)

(a) What is the P'sul of 'Yotzei'?

(b) We ask whether, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, Yotzei will invalidate the Kidush.
Why might it be ...

1. ... worse than Linah?
2. ... nevertheless not invalidate the Kidush?

(c) What does the Beraisa say if, after the Kohen made Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim ...

1. ... his hands became Tamei? What sort of Tumah is the Tana talking about?
2. ... he stuck his hands outside the Azarah?

(d) Why does this Beraisa not help resolve our She'eilah?

(a) What does another Beraisa say about a Kohen who washed his hands and feet outside the Azarah with a K'li Shareis, or inside the Azarah with a K'li Chol?

(b) Which third case does the Tana add to the list?

(c) What do we extrapolate from the Beraisa, in an attempt to resolve the She'eilah?

(d) How do we establish the Beraisa, to refute the proof?

(a) Rav Z'vid cites yet another Beraisa, in an attempt to resolve our She'eilah.
What does the Tana say about a Kohen who left the Azarah for a ...

1. ... long period of time?
2. ... for a short period?

(b) How does Rav Papa establish the long and the short periods referred to by the Beraisa, to refute the proof that Yotzei requires a fresh Kidush?

(c) Why can we no longer resolve our She'eilah from there?

(d) But how can Rav Papa have said that, bearing in mind that the Beraisa specifically mentions those two cases independently?

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef requires the Kohen to perform Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim before gong out to burn the Parah Adumah.
Where did he go to?

(b) Rebbi Yochanan argues with Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef on two scores.
What does he say?

(c) Why can we not resolve our She'eilah from Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef?

(d) Then why does the Kohen need to make Kidush in the Azarah, according to him?

(a) We ask the same She'eilah that we just asked regarding Yotzei, regarding a Kohen who becomes Tamei.
Why might Tumah invalidate the Kidush, even though Linah does not?

(b) Why on the other hand, might it not?

(c) On what grounds do we refute the proof from the Beraisa that we cited earlier 'Kidesh Yadav ... ve'Nitme'u, Matbilin ve'Ein Tzarich Le'kadesh.
Why is that case different?

(a) What, according to the Mishnah in Parah, do we do with the Kohen who burns the Parah Adumah?

(b) We already cited Rebbi Chiya b'Rebbi Yosef, who holds 'Mekadesh bi'Cheli Shareis bi'Fenim, ve'Yotzei'.
Based on the Mishnah in Parah, how do we now try to resolve our current She'eilah?

(c) We conclude however, that Parah is different.
What do we mean by that?

(d) Then what is the point of the Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim?

Next daf