Previous daf

1)

(a) We just discussed Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi. According to Rebbi in a Beraisa, Zerikas ha'Dam permits the skin when it has been detached, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, it does not.
What does Rebbi rule in a case where it is still attached?

(b) Even then, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon forbids the skin. In which case will he concede that it is permitted?

(c) We try to connect this Machlokes with an earlier Machlokes Tana'im.
What does Rebbi ...

1. ... Yehoshua in a Beraisa, extrapolate from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam"?
2. ... Eliezer extrapolate from the Pasuk there "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech"?

(d) What does Rebbi Eliezer learn from "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam"?

(a) How do we initially attempt to link the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi with that of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yeshoshua?

(b) We conclude that they do not argue according to Rebbi Eliezer.
What do we mean by that?

(c) They do however, argue according to Rebbi Yehoshua.
What does that mean? On what grounds does Rebbi claim that Rebbi Yehoshua will concede that he is right?

(a) And we compare it to the Mishnah in Pesachim, where he also concedes to Rebbi Eliezer in a case of Bedi'eved. Where the Basar became Tamei, Pasul, or left the Azarah, Rebbi Eliezer says 'Yizrok'.
What does Rebbi Yehoshua say?

(b) The Tana concludes 'u'Modeh Rebbi Yehoshua, she'Im Zarak, Hurtzah'. Which of the cases does not require the Zerikas ha'Dam to render the owner Yotze?

(c) If Rebbi Yehoshua holds that Bedieved, the Zerikah is Meratzeh anyway (Basar that became Pasul or that was Yotze), why do we need the reason of 'P'seida le'Kohanim' to permit the skin?

(a) How could Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim attest that he never saw the skin of Kodshei Kodshim having to be burned. How about ...

1. ... Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin?
2. ... Kodshei Kodshim before both Hefshet and Zerikah?
3. ... after Hefshet but before Zerikah, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (who is speaking about a skin that is detached), apart from establishing Rebbi S'gan ha'Kohanim like Rebbi?

(b) And finally we ask, what Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim will do with 'Nimtzeis T'reifah bi'Venei Me'ayim'. What is the problem from there?

(c) We answer that the Zerikah is indeed Meratzeh in such a case. Why is that? How do we prove this from our Mishnah?

(d) Then what is Rebbi Akiva's Chidush? Why might we have thought that Bechor is different?

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Akiva.
How does he also qualify Rebbi Akiva's ruling?

(b) We conclude however, 've'Hilch'sa ke'Divrei Chachamim'. According to the text 'Basar bi'Kevurah', on what grounds is it ...

1. ... forbidden to feed to one's dogs?
2. ... not burned?

(c) What problem do we have with the final words of this version 've'ha'Or bi'Sereifah'?

(d) It seems however, that this version was introduced by Talmidim who misunderstood 'Yeitzei le'Beis ha'Sereifah' (in the words of the Chachamim) in our Mishnah.
If they were not referring to Rebbi Akiva, to whom were they referring?

(a) Our Mishnah draws a distinction between Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin that are burned 'ke'Mitzvasan', and those that burned 'she'Lo ke'Mitzvasan.
What do 'ke'Mitzvasan' and 'she'Lo ke'Mitzvasan' respectively, mean?

(b) What double distinction is the Tana referring to?

(c) Assuming that they are carrying Parim ha'Nisrafin ... ke'Mitzvasan, on poles, how is it possible for some of the carriers together with their clothes to become Tamei, whilst the others do not?

(d) The moment those at the back leave the walls of the Azarah, they become Tamei, too.
What does Rebbi Shimon say about that?

(e) At which stage do whoever helps to burn them and his clothes no longer become Tamei?

7)

(a) According to Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, 'Birah' refers to the Har'ha'Bayis.
Based on a Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim, how does Resh Lakish define it?

(b) How many Beis ha'Deshanim were there, according to Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah?

(c) The Beis ha'Deshen in the Azarah was used to burn P'sulei B'sar Kodshei Kodshim.
Why did they also burn there ...

1. ... Pasul Eimurin of Kodshim Kalim?
2. ... Parim ha'Nisrafin ... which became Pasul before the Zerikas ha'Dam?

(d) We have already learned that Kasher Parim ha'Nisrafin ... were burned in the Beis ha'Deshen outside Yerushalayim.
Where was the third Beis Hadeshen situated? What was it used for?

9)

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether Parim ha'Nisrafin ... are subject to Linah.
What are the ramifications of the She'eilah?

(b) Why might they not be, any less that the Basar of a Chatas or of an Olah?

(c) Abaye posed the same She'eilah, which Rava tried to resolve from a Beraisa.
What does the Tana say about a Machshavah to eat the Basar of Parim ha'Nisrafin ... or to burn it on the following day? How did Rava attempt to resolve Abaye's She'eilah from there?

(d) How do we refute Rava's proof from there?

(a) So we cite another Beraisa which declares Parim ha'Nisrafin ... subject to the Din of Me'ilah (once they have been declared Hekdesh).
What does the Tana say about the P'sul of T'vul Yom, Mechusar Kipurim and Linah?

(b) How do we reject the proof from ...

1. ... there that Linah does apply to the Basar of Parim ha'Nisrafin ... ?
2. ... the Seifa 'Kulan, Mo'alin Bahen ad she'Yutach ha'Basar', that just as the Seifa is speaking about the Basar, so too, is the Reisha?
3. ... the Beraisa cited by Levi (which we cited earlier) ' ... she'Ira Bahen P'sul bi'Yetzi'asan'? If the Tana is not referring to the P'sul of Linah, which P'sul is he referring to?

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked whether Parim ha'Nisrafin are subject to the P'sul of Yotzei or not.
Why does the She'eilah initially appear strange?

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes it according to those who say 'Adayin Lo Higi'a Zemano Latzeis'.
What does this mean? About whom is it speaking?

(c) Why might the Din here be different than by Basar Kodshim Kalim?

(d) Once again, we try to resolve the She'eilah from Levi's Beraisa 'she'Ira Bo P'sul bi'Yetzi'aso', which we establish by P'sul Tum'ah and P'sul Linah.
Why did we initially think that the Tana was talking about P'sul Yetzi'ah?

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked a She'eilah about 'Parim ha'Nisrafin be'Miy'ut Eiver'.
What is the case?

(b) What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(c) On what grounds do we dismiss the She'eilah? Why is the outcome obvious?

(d) So how do we amend it?

(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna learned the She'eilah with regard to people.
What is his version of the She'eilah?

(b) What is the outcome of both She'eilos?

Next daf