Previous daf

1)

(a) Which are the only two Korbanos that are disqualified when the owner becomes Tamei?

(b) What does the Beraisa say about the Tzitz atoning for a Nazir and someone bringing his Pesach if ...

1. ... the blood became Tamei?
2. ... the owner became Tamei?

(c) Why, according to the Ziknei Darom, can this Beraisa not be referring to where the owner was a Tamei Sheretz?

(d) If the Tana is then talking about where he was a Tamei Meis, what Kashya does this pose on the Ziknei Darom?

(a) We answer that the owner was neither the one, nor the other.
Then how *is* the Tana speaking?

(b) If the Tana is speaking about the *Kohen* becoming Tamei, why does he then mention specifically a Nazir and someone who is bringing his Korban Pesach (seeing as the Kohen is Pasul from bringing *any* Korban Yachid)?

(c) What is then the problem with the Seifa 'Nitma Tum'as ha'Tehom, ha'Tzitz Meratzeh', based on the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya - 'Lo Amru Tum'as ha'Tehom Ela le'Meis Bil'vad'?

(d) Why can we nevertheless not learn Tum'as ha'Tehom de'Sheretz with a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Meis (since it does require Haza'ah like a Tamei Meis, as we explained earlier)?

(a) If the Beraisa does not come to preclude Tum'as ha'Tehom de'Sheretz from Ritzuy Tzitz (because that would create a problem with the Ziknei Darom, as we just explained), what does it come to preclude?

(b) How will we explain Tum'as ha'Tehom with regard to Tum'as Sheretz and Tum'as Zivah anyway?

(c) What She'eilah does Rami bar Chama ask about Kohen ha'Meratzeh be'Korbenoseihem? Whose Korbanos is he talking about?

(d) Why can we not resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from the Beraisa 've'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh al Tum'as ha'Guf', according to the Ziknei Darom, as we just explained?

4)

(a) The Tzitz cannot come to atone for the sin of Pigul, says the Beraisa, because the Torah writes there "Lo Yeratzeh", or for the sin of Nosar, where it writes "Lo Yechashev".
What does the Tana mean by ...

1. ... 'Pigul' in this context?
2. ... 'Nosar'?

(b) What is the problem with our text, which pairs 'Pigul' with "Lo Yechashev", and Nosar with "Lo Yeratzeh"?

(c) The Tana concludes that the Tzitz must come to atone for the sin of Tum'ah, because it possesses the leniency that it becomes permitted be'Tzibur.
Why do we initially reject the suggestion that the Tana is speaking about Tum'as Sheretz?

(d) So it must be speaking about Tum'as Meis. If it does not pertain to where the owner was a Nazir, because he is obligated to begin his Nezirus all over again (and has therefore no justification to bring his final Korbanos) , then to whom does it pertain? On whom does this pose a Kashya?

(a) So we establish the Beraisa by a Tamei Sheretz after all. How do we reconcile this with the statement 'she'Hutrah mi'Chelalah be'Tzibur'?

(b) In the second Lashon, we ask from the inference ' "Avon ha'Kodshim" In, Avon ha'Makdishim, Lo'! What is now the problem? On whom is the Kashya?

(c) What do we answer?

(a) What does Rav Nachman learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "La'amod Le'shareis"?

(b) The Beraisa quotes this Pasuk, too.
What does the Tana then learn from the Pasuk there "ha'Omdim Sham"?

(c) What does the Beraisa say about 'Areil, Tamei, Yoshev and Onan'? What do they all have in common?

(d) What problem did Rava have with this, based on his assumption that Yoshev is considered a Zar?

(a) Rav Nachman answered Rava by citing the Halachah by a Mechusar Begadim and a Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim.
How does that answer Rava's Kashya?

(b) Why might we need to add a Kohen who drunk wine?

(c) What two problems do we have with this Sugya? Seeing as we consider Yoshev a Zar ...

1. ... why ought we not to need to learn the Chiyuv Misah from Mechusar Begadim and a Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim
2. ... why ought he not to descrate the Avodah either?

Next daf