Previous daf

1)

(a) Ravina deals with the orignal discrepancy between our Mishnah ('Ein Ma'amidin Beheimah ... ') and the Beraisa ('Lokchin Meihen Beheimah ... ') differently.
How does he resolve it?

(b) And he tries to derive this from another discrepancy between our Mishnah('Lo Sisyached Ishah Imahen ... ') and a Mishnah in Kesuvos.
What does the Tana say there about a woman who was taken captive as a security against money that her husband owed the captor?

(c) What does Ravina try to prove from here?

(a) We repudiate his proof however, by attributing the Heter there to the captor's fear that if he tries anything with his debtor's wife, he won't get his money back (and not because every Bedieved is permitted).
How do we substantiate this from the Seifa of the Mishnah?

(b) Why is she forbidden? Since when is a woman who is raped forbidden to her husband?

(c) What is there more to say on the matter?

(a) Rebbi P'das resolves the initial discrepancy by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Eliezer, and the Beraisa like the Chachamim. Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in Parah, forbids purchasing a cow from a Nochri for use as a Parah Adumah.
What do the Chachamim say?

(b) How does Rebbi P'das establish the Machlokes?

(a) We try to refute this explanation however, by citing Rav Yehudah Amar Rav.
What does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav say regarding placing a batch of empty sacks on the back of ...

1. ... a Parah Adumah?
2. ... an Eglah Arufah?

(b) What else might 'Udah shel Sakin' mean?

(c) And we suggest that Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim argue over whether the seller may have perhaps placed something on the cow's back or not.
In that case, what will even Rebbi Eliezer hold with regard to the suspicion that the animal's owner may have raped it?

(d) On what grounds do we reject this suggestion? Why is it more logical to suspect that he may have raped it?

(a) We suggest once more that even Rebbi Eliezer would not suspect the owner of raping his animal under such circumstances, and his reason for forbidding the animal is that cited by Shiloh in a Beraisa.
What does Shiloh's Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Chukas "Daber el B'nei Yisrael Ve'yikchu Eilecha Parah Adumah ... "?

(b) How do we refute Shiloh's Beraisa from the Seifa of the Mishnah in Parah 've'Chein Hayah Rebbi Eliezer Posel Kol ha'Korbanos'?

(a) Reverting to Rebbi P'das' original explanation, we suggest however, that perhaps the Chachamim only argue with Rebbi Eliezer regarding a Parah Adumah, but agree with him with regard to other Korbanos.
Why might that be?

(b) We refute this suggestion however, on the basis of a Beraisa. The Chachamim there counter Rebbi Eliezer from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Kol Tzon Keidar Yikavtzu Lach ... ".
To whom does this refer?

(c) What will happen to all those sheep? What have we now proved?

(d) What second proof do we have that the Chachamim argue with Rebbi Eliezer regarding other Korbanos too?

7)

(a) How do we try to extrapolate from the above Machlokes that the Parah Adumah must be Kodshei Mizbe'ach?

(b) What difference does it make whether it is considered Kodshei Mizbe'ach or Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis?

(c) How do we initially reject this proof? What does the Torah call the Parah Adumah?

(d) In that case we ask, a Yotze Dofen should be Pasul, too.
What is a 'Yotze Dofen'?

(a) The Rabbanan do indeed disqualify a Yotze Dofen from becoming a Parah Adumah.
On which Tana is our Kashya based?

(b) We refute the suggestion that Rebbi Shimon simply follows his own opinion that a Yotze Dofen is considered a regular baby, by citing Rebbi Yochanan.
According to Rebbi Yochanan then, in which regard does Rebbi Shimon consider a Yotze Dofen ...

1. ... irregular (and therefore Pasul)?
2. ... a regular baby?

(a) So to accommodate Rebi Shimon, we conclude that even if Parah is considered Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, a raped cow would be Pasul, based on the Pasuk in Emor "Ki Mashchasam Bahem Mum Bam".
What do we learn from there?

(b) From where do we know that a blemish disqualifies a Parah Adamah?

(c) And what do we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in No'ach "Ki Hishchis Kol Basar es Darko al ha'Aretz"?
2. ... in Va'eschanan "Pen Tashchisun Va'asisem Lachem Pesel"?

(a) On the previous Amud, we cited Shiloh's Beraisa, which, to explain Rebbi Eliezer, disqualifies a Nochri from providing a Parah Adumah from the Pasuk "Ve'yikchu Eilecha Parah Adumah".
What problem does this create with the Pasuk in Terumah "Daber el B'nei Yisrael Ve'yikchu Li Terumah"?

(b) To substantiate the Kashya we cite Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel quoting Rebbi Eliezer.
What are we going to prove from the story with the Nochri that we are about to cite?

Next daf