Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned above a number of times that the unspecified money of a Nazir goes to Nedavah.
Considering that the money includes that of a Chatas, what might we have expected should be done with the money?

(b) We could ask from Shelamim too.
Why is that?

(c) We extrapolate from the fact that the header is 've'Hayu Lo Ma'os S'tumin' and not 'Hayu Lo Ma'os S'tumin' that the Kashya is based on the Mishnah in Me'ilah ('ha'Mafrish Ma'os li'Neziruso ... . Meis, ve'Hayu Lo Ma'os S'tumin ... ') rather than our own Mishnah ('ha'Ishah she'Nadrah be'Nazir. ... Hayu Lo Ma'os S'tumin').
What is the significance of this fact?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan answers the initial Kashya with the principle 'Halachah Hi be'Nazir'.
What would be the Din if the money incorporated only the Olah and the Shelamim?

(b) What other reason could we give, to explain why we cannot answer here, that the owner could theoretically have purchased an Olah with it (like we answered above)?

(c) Resh Lakish disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan.
What does *he* learn from the Pasuk in Emor "le'Chol Nidreihem u'le'Chol Nidvosam"?

(d) On what grounds does Resh Lakish ...

1. ... interpret the word 'Nidreihem' to incorporate the money of Mosar Chatas (considering that a Chatas is an obligation, and not a Neder)?
2. ... use this Pasuk to teach us about the money that remains from a Nazir rather than money which remains from other Korbanos (i.e. when the price of animals dropped?

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the money of the Chatas in the case of Ma'os Mefurashin goes to the Yam ha'Melach, because that is part of the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'. Resh Lakish learns this from Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael.
What does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael say about the child and the Temurah (exchange) of a Chatas?

(b) What does that have to do with Ma'os Mefurashin of a Nazir?

(c) According to Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, what does the Pasuk in Re'ei "(Rak) Kodoshecha Asher Yih'yu Lach u'Nedarecha" refer to?

(d) And what does he then learn from ...

1. ... the continuation of the Pasuk "Tisa U'vasa el ha'Makom Asher Yivchar Hashem"?
2. ... the Pasuk "ve'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam"?
3. ... its continuation "ve'ha'Basar Tochel"?
4. ... the word "Rak (Kodoshecha Asher Yih'yu Lach u'Nedarecha)"?

(a) Why does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael state ...

1. ... 'ke'Derech she'Atah Noheg be'Olah Nehog *bi'Temurasah'*? Why does he not mention 'bi'Veladeihem' (like he does by Shelamim)?
2. ... 'Yachol af V'lad Chatas u'Temuras Asham Kein'? Why does he switch from 'V'lad Chatas' to 'Temuras Asham'?

(b) What happens to a Temuras Asham? What is the difference between it and a Temuras Olah and a Temuras Shelamim?

(c) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael.
What does Rebbi Akiva learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Asham Hu"?

(d) Considering that 'V'lad Chatas Meisah' is a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', why does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael require the Pasuk "ve'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" to teach us that 'V'ladei Kodshim u'Temurasam' (Shelamim and Olos) are not taken to Yerushalayim to die?

5)

(a) We have already learned that 'V'lad Chatas Meisah' is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
In that case, why does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael need to learn it from the Pasuk "*Rak* Kodoshecha Asher Yih'yu Lecha u'Nedarecha"?

(b) But the Din of Asham too, is incorporated in the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
What does the Halachah say about Asham?

(c) In that case, back comes the Kashya 'Why does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael require the Pasuk for Chatas and Asham'? How do we answer it?

(a) What problem do we have with Rebbi Akiva, who learns that Mosar Asham is not brought as an Asham, from the Pasuk "Asham *Hu*"?

(b) We answer according to Rav Huna Amar Rav.
What does he say? What does 'Nitko li'Re'ayah' mean?

(c) What is Rav Huna Amar Rav's reasoning?

(d) How does Rebbi Akiva now Darshen "Asham *Hu*"?

(a) Why can we not answer that the Pasuk comes to teach us an Asei (like we explained above according to Rebbi Yishmael)?

(b) Then why did Rebbi Akiva say 'Eino Tzarich', when really we do need the Pasuk to teach us an Asei (which, as we just explained, we cannot derive from his Pasuk)?

(c) According to the outcome of our Sugya, Rebbi Akiva himself does not learn Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael's D'rashah from "Asham Hu". So how can he expect Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael to do so?

(d) What then, is the Machlokes between Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva?

(a) How does Rabeinu Tam reconcile ...

1. ...Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah from "Asham *Hu*" with the Sugya in Shevu'os, which describes 'Ro'eh as a 'G'zeirah de'Rabbanan'?
2. ... the Sugya in Shevu'os with the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, which clearly states 'Kol she'be'Chatas Meisah, *be'Asham Ro'eh*'?

(b) What is the reason for the decree?

(a) The Sugya in Pesachim discusses whether Rav Huna Amar Rav requires Akirah or not, and it is with regard to that our Sugya asks (not 'Ta'ama', but) 'Mai Ta'ama'.
What is the meaning of 'Akirah'?

(b) The answer to the Kashya is 'de'Amar K'ra "Hu", 'be'Havayasa Yehei'. How does this answer the Kashya according to those who say ...

1. ... that the Asham does require Akirah?
2. ... that it does not?

Next daf