Previous daf

1)

(a) What does our Mishnah mean when it rules that the Kometz, the Ketores and the Levonah are not subject to Pigul?

(b) How will we reconcile this with the Beraisa that we just cited 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, bi'Kemitzah, be'Matan K'li u've'Hiluch'?

(a) The Tana includes Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach in the list.
What makes these two Menachos different than other Menachos?

(b) What does the Tana say about Dam?

(c) Rebbi Meir includes 'Nesachim ha'Ba'in bi'Fenei Atzman' in the list.
What does this incorporate, in addition to Nesachim that are brought independently?

(d) What do the Chachamim say? Why is that?

(a) What is the direct connection between the Log Shemen shel Metzora (whose remains are eaten by the Kohanim) and the Asham Metzora?

(b) What does Rebbi Meir therefore say regarding it?

(c) What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(d) On what grounds does our Mishnah subject to Pigul ...

1. ... the Basar and the skin of the Olah?
2. ... an Olas ha'Of?
3. ... a Chatas ha'Of?

(a) What is Matir the bringing of the Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim?

(b) Where are they brought?

(c) What does Rebbi Shimon therefore say?

(a) What does Ula say with regard to a Kometz Pigul which Kohanim brought on to the Mizbe'ach?

(b) And when he gave the reason 'Im Acherim Meivi li'Yedei Pigul, Hu Atzmo Lo 'Kol-she'Kein', what did he really mean?

(c) Why can it not be understood literally?

(d) Why do we not need Ula to teach us ...

1. ... that someone who eats a Kometz Pigul is not Chayav Kareis?
2. ... that 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu'?

(a) What is the problem in saying that Ula is coming to teach us 'Im Yardu, Ya'alu'?

(b) Nevertheless, that is how we do establish Ula's Chidush.
How do we reconcile it with ...

1. ... the Mishnah in 'ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh'?
2. ... the fact that he has already taught this before with regard to the limb of a Pasul Korban?

(c) What does Rav Acha'i extrapolate from Ula's latest ruling with regard to half such a Kometz that was taken down from the Mizbe'ach, whilst the other half was left on the Mizbe'ach?

7)

(a) What did Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about Pigul, Nosar and Tamei that one brought on the Mizbe'ach?

(b) Why was Rav Chisda surprised when he heard that?

(c) What does 'Mari Dichi' mean?

(d) How did Rebbi Zeira answer Rav Chisda's Kashya?

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Bisna asked on Rebbi Yochanan from a Beraisa. What does the Tana learn from "ve'Tumaso Alav" (in connection with Kareis for someone who ate a Shelamim be'Tum'ah)?

(b) How does this pose a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan's ruling?

(c) On what grounds do we object to Rava's answer that the Beraisa is talking about removing the Tum'ah through Tevilah?

(d) Rav Papa establishes the Pasuk by *Basar* Shelamim.
How does this answer the Kashya?

(a) Ravina extends the D'rashah from "ve'Tum'aso Alav" even to the Eimurim. What makes him say that?

(b) How does he nevertheless Darshen the Pasuk to answer the Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan?

(a) The Beraisa actually discusses the current Pasuk in detail.
On what grounds does the Tana initially assume that the Pasuk is speaking about Tum'as ha'Guf (and not Tum'as Basar)?

(b) In that case, why does the continuation of the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Basar" cause him to have doubts and suggest that maybe it is talking about Tum'as Basar after all?

(c) How does the Pasuk in Chukas (in connection with Tum'as Mikdash) "Od Tum'aso Bo" settle the issue, according to the Tana Kama?

(d) How does Rebbi Yossi learn it from the Lashon "ve'Tum'aso Alav"? What ought the Pasuk to have written had it been talking about the Kodshim?

(a) Acherim learn Tum'as ha'Guf from the Lashon "ve'Tum'aso Alav", which implies that the Tum'ah can be removed (as we explained earlier). Rebbi learns it from "ve'Achal mi'Besar Zevach ha'Shelamim".
What is the problem with Rebbi's D'rashah?

(b) Without Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi's interpretation of the Pasuk, said Rava, we would not understand the Beraisa. How did Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi learn the construction of the first Pasuk from the second one?

(c) By the same token, says Rava, we would not know how to explain the Beraisa without Zeiri's interpretation. The Beraisa explains why we need to learn both Kalos and Chamuros.
In which connection is the Beraisa speaking?

(d) What would we have thought, according to the Tana, had the Pasuk written only ...

1. ... Kalos and not Chamuros?
2. ... Chamuros and not Kalos?

(a) Kalos cannot refer to Ma'aser (Sheini) and Chamuros to Terumah, because of the first statement.
Which two problems would we then have in saying that had the Torah not written Chamuros, we would have thought that they are Chayav Misah?

(b) The Pasuk by Ma'aser is "Ki-im Rachatz Besaro ba'Mayim", and the Pasuk "U'va ha'Shemesh Ve'taher". Misah and La'av aside, what major difference between Terumah and Ma'aser do we learn from this Pasuk?

(c) Neither can Kalos refer to Tum'as Sheretz, and Chamuros to Tum'as Meis (assuming we are talking about them eating Terumah), because both are in fact, Chayav Misah.
What problem do we have with the reason that we gave for the Torah writing Chamuros?

(d) And assuming that we are talking about them eating Ma'aser, what is the problem with saying that had the Torah not written Chamuros, we would have thought that he is Chayav Misah?

(a) How does Zeiri finally explain Kalos and Chamuros?

(b) Assuming that the Tana means that had the Torah written Tum'as Sheretz both by Terumah and by Ma'aser, but not mentioned Tum'as Meis, what does he now mean when he says 'Im Ne'emar Kalos ve'Lo Ne'emar Chamuros Hayisi Omer al ha'Kalos be'La'av, ve'al ha'Chamuros be'Misah'? What would we have said with regard to ...

1. ... a Tamei Sheretz eating Ma'aser?
2. ... a Tamei Sheretz eating Terumah?
3. ... a Tamei Meis eating Ma'aser?

(c) Now that the Torah does write Tum'as Meis, what is the Halachah regarding the latter case? In which regard does the Torah write it?

Next daf