Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked what the Din will be if those who took the Parim ha'Nisrafin out of the Azarah took it back.
What exactly is the She'eilah?

(b) How do we try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah, which renders Tahor those carriers who have not yet left the Azarah?

(c) How does Ravina (or Rava) refute this proof (as well as the current version of Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah), based on the Pasuk in Metzora "va'Achar Yavo el ha'Machaneh"?

(d) Then what is really Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about ...

1. ... the one who burns the Parah Adumah and the Parim ha'Nisrafin, those who take it out from the Azarah, and the one who takes out the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach?
2. ... the Parah Adumah, the Parim ha'Nisrafin and the Sa'ir themselves?

(b) According to Rebbi Meir, all three are Metamei food and drink.
What do the Chachamim say?

(c) What reason do they give for that?

(d) If the Din of Metam'in Begadim is written explicitly by the Parah Adumah and by the Par of Yom Kipur, from where do we know it by Par Kohen Mashi'ach and Par ha'Eidah?

(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael Darshens the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with Hechsher Tum'ah) "Al Kol Zera Zeru'a .. ", which he restricts to things which will not be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah.
What does he mean by that?

(b) What does he then learn from there with regard to ...

1. ... Nivlas Of Tahor?
2. ... Parah, Parim and Sa'ir? In what way would they then be unique?

(c) What Kashya does this pose on the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir?

(d) How do we therefore amend Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael? What do we mean when we say 'Tz'richin Hechsher Tum'ah mi'Makom Acher'?

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked whether Parim and Se'irim ha'Hisrafin are Metamei food and drink (Tum'ah Kalah) whilst they are still inside the Azarah.
What is the She'eilah? Why might they be Metamei them, bearing in mind that they are not yet Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah?

(b) What was his conclusion?

(c) In similar vein, Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asked Rebbi Chiya bar Aba whether a k'Zayis of Nivlas Of Tahor is Metamei.
What makes this She'eilah similar to the previous one? Why is Nivlas Of Tahor considered Mechusar Ma'aseh even though the bird is already dead?

(d) Why is this She'eilah confined to the opinion of Rebbi Meir?

(a) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal added that his She'eilah did not pertain to a case where the Nivlas Of Tahor was either lying on the floor or already in the mouth of the person eating it (which contained Tahor food).
Why not?

(b) Then what is the case?

(c) What is then his She'eilah?

(d) What did Rebbi Chiya bar Aba reply?

6)

(a) What does the Beraisa mean when it presents one of the thirteen things said in connection with Nivlas Of Tamei 'Tzerichah Machshavah ve'Einah Tzerichah Hechsher'?

(b) What does the Tana add in connection with 'Metam'in Tum'as Ochlin'?

(c) Why must the Tana be speaking when the person is holding the bird in his hand?

(a) What do we try to prove from the Seifa of this Beraisa?

(b) On what grounds do we query our attempt to establish the Seifa like the Rabbanan?

(c) The Beraisa continues 'Shechitasah u'Melikasah Metaheres Tereifasah mi'Tum'asah', which as we already learned in 'Chatas ha'Of', is the opinion of Rebbi Meir.
How do we answer both the previous query and the Kashya from the continuation 'Reisha ve'Seifa Rebbi Meir, u'Metzi'asa, Rabbanan'?

(a) What did Rav Hamnuna say to Rebbi Zeira when he asked him whether Rishon le'Tum'ah and Sheini le'Tum'ah apply to Nivlas Of Tahor?

(b) Rav Zeira replied that Rishon and Sheini le'Tum'ah only apply to something that is Metamei through touching.
What is his source for that?

(a) What does the Mishnah in Taharos say about two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah which are joined by liquid that is 'Tofe'ach' (enough to wet the hand that touches it sufficiently that it will in turn, make other things wet)?

(b) What did Rebbi Zeira ask Rebbi Avin bar Chiya (or Rebbi Avin bar Kahana) about food or drink that touched one of the half-k'Zeisim?

(c) What did Rebbi Avin bar Chiya reply?

(a) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk writes in connection with the Par Kohen ha'Mashi'ach "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh", and then compares the Par ha'Eidah to it, when it writes "Ka'asher Saraf es ha'Par ha'Rishon", what does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... (written in connection with the latter) "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh"?
2. ... (written in connection with the Terumas ha'Deshen) "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh"?

(b) What makes this latter Pasuk superfluous?

(c) Bearing in mind that the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur also belong to the above category, what does another Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh", implying 'outside the first Machaneh' (i.e. as soon as they leave Machaneh Shechinah)?

(a) What problem do we now have with Rebbi Shimon (in our Mishnah)?

(b) We therefore establish Rebbi Shimon like Rebbi Eliezer in yet a third Beraisa, who learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah "Chutz la'Machaneh" (by Yom Kipur) and "Chutz la'Machaneh" (by the burning of the Parah Adumah).
Which Halachah do we learn ...

1. ... in connection with Parah Adumah, from the Par ve'Sa'ir of Yom Kipur?
2. ... in connection with Yom Kipur, from Parah Adumah?

(c) How do we know that the Parah Adumah is burned on the east side of Yerushalayim?

Next daf