Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Tarfon in our Mishnah, a pot in which one cooked at the beginning of Yom-Tov may be used without Merikah and Shetifah, until the end of Yom-Tov.
What do the Chachamim say?

(b) What does the Mishnah mean when it describes Merikah and Shetifah as 'ki'Merikas ha'Kos' and 'ki'Shetifas ha'Kos'?

(c) The Tana requires both Merikah and Shetifah to be in cold water (as we explained a little earlier).
What does he say about a spit-rod and a grill?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "u'Fanisa ba'Boker, ve'Halachta le'Ohalecha", in trying to find Rebbi Tarfon's source?

(b) How do we query this from Pigul and Nosar?

(a) What did Rebbi Nasan mean when he said in a Beraisa 'Lo Amar Rebbi Tarfon Ela Zu Bil'vad'? How does that corroborate our query?

(b) We finally base Rebbi Tarfon on a statement of Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah, who said - that each day becomes Gi'ul for the preceding one. What did he mean by that?

(c) That is all well and good with regard to Shelamim, which can be eaten for two days. But what will we do with Chata'os, which become Nosar the following morning?

(a) How does Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah explain the Chachamim, who say 'ad Z'man Achilah'?

(b) From which two consecutive Pesukim does Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Aba Yossi ban Aba learn this?

(a) Rebbi in a Beraisa holds 'Merikah u'Shetifah be'Tzonan' (like our Mishnah).
What do the Rabbanan say?

(b) What is the Rabbanan's source?

(c) Why does Rebbi object to that?

(d) How do the Rabbanan extrapolate their ruling from the words "u'Morak ve'Shutaf ba'Mayim"?

(a) How does Rebbi explain the Torah's need to change from "u'Morak" to "ve'Shutaf"?
What would a double Lashon ('u'Morak Morak' or 've'Shutaf Shutak') have implied, according to him?

(b) On the other hand, seeing as, according to Rebbi, both are done with cold water, why *does* the Torah change from "Morak" to "Shutaf"?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about a case where both Kodshim and Chulin or Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim were cooked in a pot simultaneously?

(b) What would this entail, assuming that the more stringent one was ...

1. ... Kodshei Kodshim?
2. ... Kodshim Kalim?

(c) What does the Tana mean when he adds 'Ein Poslin be'Maga'?

(d) And what does he rule with regard to one hot Pasul loaf or piece of meat of Kodshim, that touched another (in the same circumstances as the previous case)?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Im Yesh Bahen be'Nosen Ta'am, Harei ha'Kalim Ne'echalin ka'Chamurin'. How do we amend the continuation 've'Ein Te'unin Merikah u'Shetifah, ve'Einan Poslin be'Maga'?

(b) Abaye interprets 'Ein Te'unin Merikah u'Shetifah' to mean like Kodshei Kodshim, but like Kodshim Kalim it does. What does Rava say? Like whom does he establish the Mishnah?

(c) Abaye's explanation poses the Kashya why our Mishnah needs to mention both cases 'Kodshim ve'Chulin' and 'Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim'.
Why is there no problem according to Rava?

(d) According to Abaye, who learns that either way, the pot requires Merikah u'Shetifah like the more lenient one, why, having taught us the Din by ...

1. ... Kodshim and Chulin, does the Tana find it necessary to add the case of Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim?
2. ... Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim, does the Tana need to add the case of Kodshim and Chulin?

9)

(a) Based on the Pasuk "Kol Asher Yiga bi'Vesarah", what does the Beraisa learn from the word ...

1. ... "bi'Vesarah"?
2. ... "Yiga"?

(b) To which case is the Pasuk then referring?

(c) What would one be obligated to do in such a case?

(d) What does one not need to do?

(a) What important principle do we learn from 'ad she'Yivla'?

(b) Why can we not learn 'Ta'am ke'Ikar' from there?

(c) We just learned that if the more stringent Korban is Pasul, the more lenient Korban becomes Pasul too, and may not be eaten.
Why is that? Which La'av would one transgress if one did?

(d) We query this however, from the principle 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'.
To which Asei are we referring?

(a) In our first answer, we explain that the current La'av is different than most other La'avin, and cannot be overridden by an Asei.
Why is that?

(b) We base this answer on the La'av of "ve'Etzem Lo Sishberu Bo", according to Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya.
What does Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya say?

(c) What is now the proof from there?

(d) Rav Ashi disagrees with this.
How does Rav Ashi answer the Kashya, based on the Pasuk 'Kol Asher Yiga bi'Vesarah *Yikdash*"?

(a) Until now, we have been discussing a *Chatas* Pasul, since that is what the Torah is talking about. From where do we learn that the same applies to other Kodshim?

(b) The Hekesh actually incorporates all types of Korbanos. We learn from Olah that all Korbanos require a K'li.
Why can this not be referring to bowls for receiving the blood?

(c) Then what is it referring to?

(d) From where do we know that an Olah requires ...

1. ... a knife to Shecht? What does this come to preclude?
2. ... a bowl to receive the blood?

(a) By which two Korbanos (besides Minchah) does the Torah write in Tzav "Kol Zachar ba'Kohanim Yochlenah"?

(b) Seeing as we already know that these two Korbanos can only be eaten by male Kohanim, what do we learn from "ve'la'Minchah" with regard to the above Hekesh?

(c) How do we reconcile this with the Drashah from the Pasuk in Korach (in connection with the Minchah, the Chatas and the Asham) "ba'Kodesh ha'Kodashim Tochlenu ... Kol Zachar Yochal Osah", from which we learn the same thing?

(a) And what do we learn from "Chatas"?

(b) Why can we not learn it from Minchah, where the Torah also writes "Kol Asher Yiga Bah Yikdash"?

Next daf