Previous daf

1)

(a) How does the Beraisa establish the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection with which animals must be sacrificed and which can be redeemed) "ve'Im Kol Beheimah Temei'ah ... "?

(b) On what grounds are we forced to divest it of its simple meaning (i.e. a non-Kasher species)?

(c) And what does the Tana learn from the Pasuk there "Asher Lo Yakrivu Mimenu Isheh la'Hashem"?

(a) Rav Huna bar Mano'ach queries Shmuel (who learns that 'she'Nitme'u' in the Reisha of our Mishnah is 'La'av Davka') from the Seifa of the Mishnah itself 'ha'Ofos, ve'ha'Eitzim ve'ha'Levonah u'K'lei Shareis, mi'she'Nitme'u Ein Lahen Pidyon'.
Why are birds not redeemable?

(b) What reason does Rav Huna bar Mano'ach initially give for the latter three that poses a Kashya on Shmuel?

(c) Eitzim and Levonah are only subject to Tum'ah bacause of Chibas ha'Kodesh.
What does this mean?

(a) Why is Chibas ha'Kodesh not applicable with regard to ...

1. ... Eitzim?
2. ... Levonah?

(b) And why can Tum'ah not be the reason with regard to K'lei Shareis?

(c) How do we refute this Kashya on Shmuel? If Nesachim and Menachos are redeemable when they are Tahor, why are Eitzim, Levonah and K'lei Shareis not?

(d) What makes wood for the Mizbe'ach uncommon?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about unblemished animals that one declares Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis?

(b) What reason does the Tana give for this?

(c) Rav Papa assumes that Shmuel had not heard of this Beraisa.
Why is that? What if he had?

(d) On what grounds do we refute Rav Papa's suppositon?

(a) Rav Kahana disagrees with Shmuel.
What does he say?

(b) According to one Lashon, Rebbi Oshaya agrees with Rav Kahana.
What does the second Lashon say?

(c) Rebbi Elazar makes a compromise. Basically, he holds like Rav Kahana. In which sole case does he hold like Shmuel?

(d) And he learns it from a Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Korban Oleh ve'Yored).
What does he learn from the Pasuk there regarding a Korban ...

1. ... Ashir "me'Chataso"?
2. ... Ani "al Chataso"?

6)

(a) What did Rebbi Oshaya hear about a Minchah that a Kohen rendered Pigul, according to Rebbi Shimon (regarding the Din of Tum'as Ochlin)?

(b) What does the Tana Kama say about Isurei Hana'ah (such as Orlah, K'lai ha'Kerem and Shor ha'Niskal ... )?

(c) What is he referring to when he includes ...

1. ... 'Shor ha'Niskal'?
2. ... 'Peter Chamor'?

(d) Why can he not be referring to where the ox has actually been stoned and the donkey has already stopped convulsing?

(a) On what grounds does Rebbi Shimon concede to the Tana Kama that Basar be'Chalav is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin?

(b) But did a Shor ha'Niskal (and the other animals mentioned in the Beraisa) not also have a Sha'as ha'Kosher before it gored?

(c) Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan ascribes Rebbi Shimon's ruling to the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with Tum'as Ochlin) "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel".
How does he learn it from there?

(a) What does Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Shimon learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ki Am *Kadosh* Atah la'Hashem Elokecha, Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo" (in Re'ei) "ve'Anshei *Kodesh* Tih'yun Li, u'Basar ba'Sadeh T'reifah Lo Socheilu" (Mishpatim)?

(b) Why did he then give the reason for his conceding to the Tana Kama as the fact that it had originally been a food?

(a) We query Rebbi Oshaya from a Beraisa.
What does Rebbi Shimon there say about Nosar being Metamei Tum'as Ochlin?

(b) 'Lan Lifnei Zerikah, Eino Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, le'Achar Zerikah Metamei Tum'as Ochlin'.
Why is that?

(c) What did he say about ...

1. ... Pigul, with regard to both Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim?
2. ... Pigul by a Minchah? What do we ask from here on Rebbi Oshaya?

(d) We answer that the Beraisa is speaking about a Minchah which had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, whereas Rebbi Oshaya is speaking about one which did not.
What is the case of a Minchah that did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher?

(a) What problem do we have with this explanation? Why do we think that even wheat that is sanctified when it is still attached to the ground ought to have a Sha'as ha'Kosher?

(b) We cite the first Lashon of Rebbi Oshaya himself on the previous Amud. What did he say there, that will resolve the problem?

(c) According to the second Lashon however ('Afilu Teheran Nifdin'), the Kashya remains. What problem do we have with the answer that since the Minchah was not redeemed, it is considered as if it did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher? What principle does Rebbi Shimon hold that clashes with this?

(d) What reason does Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa give for his ruling that a Parah Adumah is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin?

(e) What does Resh Lakish add to that (creating the current problem)?

(a) How do we answer the Kashya? What basic difference is there between a Parah Adumah (that gives it a Sha'as ha'Kosher) and a Minchah (that does not)?

(b) What problem do we have with this from 'Lan Lifnei Zerikah' in our Mishnah, where the Tana rules 'Ein Metamei Tum'as Ochlin'?

(c) How do we establish the case in a way that renders it 'Lo Hayah Sha'as ha'Kosher'?

(d) And how do we answer the Kashya as to why the Tana then switches to 'Lan le'Achar Zerikah', to find a case of Haysah Lo Sha'as ha'Kosher, and not simply 'Haysah Lo Sha'us ba'Yom'?

Next daf