Previous daf

1)

(a) We now go back on all our previous answers (such as establishing our Mishnah when one Shi'ur of blood became mixed up with the same Shi'ur, and four with four, and explaining that 'Tachtonim Alu Lo' refers to the Shirayim of the Chatas).
How does Rabah now interpret 'got mixed up' instead?

(b) How does this solve all the Kashyos on Rav Ashi?

(c) What is now the only bone of contention that remains between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan?

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan only argue in a case where the blood of a Chatas Temimah became mixed up with that of a Ba'alas-Mum. What will they both hold in a case where the blood of a Chatas became mixed up with that of ...

1. ... an Olah?
2. ... a Rovei'a or Nirva?

(b) How can Rebbi Yehudah quote the Rabbanan as saying that one is permitted to bring the blood of a Chatas which became mixed up with that of an Olah, seeing as they do not hold of 'Ro'in'?

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Eliezer permits the blood of a Temimah that became mixed up with a Ba'alas-Mum Lechatchilah (even though nothing has been brought yet).
Why is that?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah concludes 'she'Rebbi Eliezer Omer Yikarev Bein be'Balul, Bein be'Kosos'.
How will we reconcile this with what we just concluded (to accommodate Rav Ashi), that Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan argue specifically by Kosos, and not by Ta'aroves Damh?

(b) Why is Rebbi Yehudah happy to learn like that, when we just rejected this explanation out of hand in our Mishnah?

(a) What does Abaye mean when he confines the Rabbanan's ruling 'Yishafech le'Amah' to Techilas Chatas, but by Sof Chatas, he holds 'Makom Olah Makom Shirayim'?

(b) What objection does Rav Yosef (quoting Rav Yehudah) raise to this?

(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan (or Rebbi Elazar) say?

(d) Rav Huna bar Yehudah quotes a Pasuk in Korach (in connection with a Bechor Beheimah) "Kodesh Hu".
What does the Tana learn from there with regard to its blood that became mixed with the blood of another Korban?

(a) What do we now try to prove from this Beraisa?

(b) How do we refute this proof?

(c) Bearing in mind that this Beraisa goes according to the Rabbanan, on which principle is this ruling based?

(d) What is the Tana then coming to teach us?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'lakach mi'Dam ha'Par u'mi'Dam ha'Sa'ir"?

(b) Why do we now require two Pesukim to teach us the same thing?

7)

(a) The Beraisa learns from the word "ha'Dam" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'hikrivu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim es ha'Dam") that if the blood of an Olah became mixed with that of other Korbanos, it must nevertheless be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach.
Why would this D'rashah certainly come to include ...

1. ... an Olah, a Temurah and Chulin?
2. ... a Todah and Shelamim?
3. ... an Asham?

(b) And which three Korbanos (which fall into none of these categories) does the Tana then include from the second "ha'Dam" (in the Pasuk "Ve'zarku es ha'Dam")?

(c) Based on the assumption that the latter D'rashah is referring to Sof Olah u'Bechor, what is the Pasuk coming to teach us?

(d) How do we refute the Kashya from there on Rav Yosef?

(a) Seeing, as we just concluded, the Pasuk is referring to Techilas Olah u'Bechor, what is then the Chidush?

(b) How many Pesukim do we now have that teach us 'Ein Olin Mevatlin Zeh es Zeh'?

(c) On what grounds do the other two Tana'im decline to learn it from ...

1. ... "Ve'lakach mi'Dam ha'Par u'mi'Dam ha'Sa'ir"?
2. ... "Dam" "Dam"?
3. ... "Kodesh Heim"? What do they learn from there instead?

(d) What do the other two Tana'im learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection with Bechor) "Im Shor Im Seh la'Hashem Hu"?

(a) We already cited the Beraisa 'Nasan Lema'alah ve'Lo Nimlach, Eilu ve'Eilu (Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan) Modim she'Yachzor Ve'yiten Lematah. Eilu ve'Eilu Olin Lo'.
What do we now attempt to prove from there? On whom is this a Kashya?

(b) Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef quoting the B'nei Ma'arva, establishes the Beraisa by the blood of a Chatas Chitzonah that became mixed up with the Shirayim of a Chatas ha'Penimis.
How will this conform with the opinion of Rav Yosef?

(c) Abaye asked him why the B'nei Ma'arva did not rather establish it when the blood of a Chatas Chitzonah became mixed with its own Shirayim.
What is the advantage of learning this way?

(d) What do we answer? What extra Chidush do we learn by establishing it by the blood of a Chatas Penimis?

(a) Earlier in the Sugya, we established 'Nasan Lema'alah ve'Lo Nimlach' when the Kohen placed the Shi'ur Olah plus a Mashehu above the Chut ha'Sikra.
How did we then explain 'Yiten Lematah'?

(b) What would we resolve with this explanation?

(c) In that case, Rava Tosfa'ah asked Ravina why the B'nei Ma'arva found it necessary to establish the case by Ta'aroves Dam of a Chatas Penimis and a Chatas Chitzonah.
What did he reply?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about 'ha'Nintin bi'Fenim she'Nis'arvu be'Nintin ba'Chutz'?

(b) What does our Mishnah rule in a case where, without consulting, the Kohen performed the Matanos first ba'Chutz and then bi'Fenim?

(c) Where the Kohen did the reverse, Rebbi Akiva rules Pasul.
Why is that?

(a) The Chachamim restrict the P'sul to a Chatas.
Why is that?

(b) Then on what grounds does Rebbi Eliezer add Asham?

(a) We ask why Rebbi Eliezer does not argue with the Tana Kama in the Reisha (and say 'Yiten ... ' like he did in the previous Mishnah).
If he had, why would he not have said 'Yiten ba'Chutz ve'Ro'in ... ve'Yachzor Ve'yiten bi'Fenim'?

(b) Then what would he have said?

(c) So why did he decline to answer that?

Next daf