Previous daf

1)
(a) Under which circumstances does Rebbi Yochanan rule that according to all opinions, the Lechem and the Kevasim are Me'akev each other? What does he mean by 'Huzkeku Zeh la'Zeh'?
(b) If one of them subsequently gets lost, what does one then do with whichever one remains?
(c) Ula cited the B'nei Eretz Yisrael, who ask whether Tenufah will have the same effect as Shechitah (with regard to the Din of Ikuv). Why can we not resolve the She'eilah from the fact that Rebbi Yochanan mentioned only Shechitah, and not Tenufah?
(d) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

2)
(a) What did Rebbi Yehudah bar Chanina try to prove from the fact that ben Nannes and Rebbi Akiva argue over the interpretation of the Pasuk "Kodesh Yih'yu la'Hashem la'Kohen", even though it is written after the Tenufah took place?
(b) How did Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua counter that proof?
(c) How does he therefore explain "Kodesh Yih'yu la'Hashem la'Kohen", even assuming that neither is Me'akev?

3)
(a) We query Rebbi Yochanan from a Beraisa which discusses certain Pesulim of the Lachmei Todah. What sanctifies the Lachmei Todah?
(b) When one of the loaves broke or became Tamei before the Shechitah of the Korban, the owner is obligated to bring new loaves before proceeding with the Shechitah. What does the Tana say in a case where the loaf was taken out of its boundary? What constitutes its boundary?
(c) If any of these three Pesulim occurred after the Shechitah, the Kohen proceeds with the Zerikas ha'Dam, after which, the owner is permitted to eat the meat of the Korban. What must the Kohen have in mind when he performs the Zerikah?
(d) Seeing as, in the case where the loaf broke or was taken outside Yerushalayim, the owner has not fulfilled his obligation and the loaves are Pasul, why, in the case of 'Nitma Lachmah', does the Tana rule 'vi'Yedei Nidro Yatza'?
(e) May the Lachmei Todah be eaten?

4)
(a) What will be the Din if the Pesulim occurred after the Zerikas ha'Dam regarding ...
1. ... the loaves (one of each kind) that the Kohen receives?
2. ... the remainder that the owner retains?
(b) What do we ask from this Beraisa on Rebbi Yochanan (who holds that the Shechitah creates a Din Ikuv)?
(c) What do we answer? Why is Todah different?

5)
(a) Assuming that 'Tenufah Osah Zikah', what does Rebbi Yirmiyah say in a case where ...
1. ... the Lechem subsequently got lost?
2. ... the Kevasim got lost?
(b) On the assumption that 'Tenufah Einah Osah Zikah', he asks whether, if after the Tenufah, the Lechem got lost, the new Lechem will require Tenufah. Why does he take for granted that if the Kevasim got lost, the new Kevasim will require Tenufah?
(c) His She'eilah regarding the new Lechem, is only according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that the Lechem is the Ikar. Why is that? What will ben Nannes then hold?
(d) Why, according to Rebbi Akiva, might the new Lechem not require Tenufah?
(e) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

6)
(a) What did Rava initially reply, when Abaye asked him why the two Kevasim sanctify the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and are Me'akev them, whereas the seven Kevasim are not?
(b) How did Abaye query this from Todah?
(c) So Rava retracted, and compared the Sh'tei ha'Lechem to the Todah, where it is the Shelamim which permits the loaves (and the seven Kevasim are not Shelamim, but Olos). On what grounds do we reject that proof? In what way is Todah different?

7)
(a) How does Rava ultimately learn it from Eil Nazir? In which way can the Sh'tei ha'Lechem be compared to Eil Nazir?
(b) What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Naso (in connection with the Eil Nazir) "ve'es ha'Ayil Ya'aseh Shelamim la'Hashem al Sal ha'Matzos"?
(c) And what does the Tana extrapolate from there, regarding a case where the Shalmei Nazir was Shechted she'Lo li'Shemo?

8)
(a) What does 'Ibur Tzurah' mean?
(b) According to the Beraisa, what does one do with Sh'tei ha'Lechem that one brought without the Kevasim, before burning them in the Beis ha'Sereifah?
(c) What problem do we have with this 'mi'Mah-Nafshach'?
(d) Strictly speaking, said Rabah, they ought to be eaten. In that case, why do they in fact, require Ibur Tzurah?

9)
(a) Rabah bases his answer on the Mishnah in Shekalim (that we cited above in 'ha'Kometz Rabah') where Raban Yochanan ben Zakai maintains that the Kohanim declined to give their annual half-Shekel, based on the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tih'yeh, Lo Se'achel". How did that cause them not to donate?
(b) What will be the problem with this, in a case where the Lechem came together with the Kevasim? What is the significance of their similarity to the Lachmei Todah?
(c) What does Rabah therefore try to extrapolate from there?
(d) What does this prove?

10)
(a) Abaye refutes Rabah's proof however, by differentiating between the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lachmei Todah. What does the Pasuk in Tzav "be'Hakrivchem Minchah la'Hashem" indicate?
(b) Rav Yosef disagrees with Rabah. According to him, the loaves ought to be burned. In that case, why do they require Ibur Tzurah?
(c) Once again, Abaye objects. In what way does the burning of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem that are brought on their own, differ from a regular case of Sereifas Kodshim?
(d) What precedence do we have for this, from a case similar to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem in this regard?

11)
(a) So we amend Rav Yosef's answer to 'Gezeirah Shema Yizdamnu Lahem Kevasim le'Achar mi'Ka'an'. What does this mean?
(b) And what problem does Abaye have with this? At which point should they really be burned?

12)
(a) Rava agrees with Rabah, only he disagrees with his source (for the ruling that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem that come on their own are eaten). How does he learn this from the fact that the Torah refers to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem as Bikurim?
(b) And how does he know that the Pasuk refers to Sh'tei ha'Lechem that are brought on their own, and not together with the Kevasim?

Next daf