Previous daf

1)

(a) 'Safek Mashkin Litamei, Tamei; Letamei Acherim, Tahor, Divrei Rebbi Meir (ve'Rebbi Elazar)'.
What does this mean, and what is the reason for it?

(b) 'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, la'Kol Tamei'
What does this mean, and why does he say 'that?

(c) The source of their Machlokes lies in the word "Yitma".
What is their Machlokes?

(d) Rebbi Yossi (and Rebbi Shimon) learns basically like Rebbi Yehudah.
In what point does he disagree with him?

(a) Rebbi Elazar cites Rebbi Yossi ben Yo'ezer, who testified that a certain type of locust called 'Eil Kamtza' is Kasher, and 'Mashkei Bei Mitbechaya Dachan'.
Which liquids is he referring to, and how does this prove, according to Rav, that, in Rebbi Elazar's opinion, liquid is only subject to Tum'ah mi'de'Rabbanan?

(b) According to Rav, Rebbi Yossi ben Yo'ezer means to say that the liquids are completely Tahor (leaving us with a contradiction in Rebbi Elazar here and Rebbi Elazar in the previous question).
How does Shmuel answer this discrepancy?

(c) The Gemara attempts to answer the contradiction according to Rav by saying that when the Tana said 've'Chen Hayah Rebbi Elazar Omer ki'Devarav (shel Rebbi Meir)', he meant to say that he only holds like part of Rebbi Meir's statement (i.e. 'Letamei Acherim, Tahor'), but not with regard to the liquid being subject to Tum'ah. On what grounds is this answer rejected?

(d) Does the Gemara offer any other answers according to Rav?

(a) According to Shmuel (in Rebbi Elazar), even though liquids can *receive* Tum'ah min ha'Torah, they cannot *transmit* it min ha'Torah.
What problem do we have with that from the Pasuk in Shemini "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel"?

(b) Why is the suggestion that liquids are comparable to a Revi'i be'Tum'ah not acceptable?

(c) How does Rav, who says that, according to Rebbi Elazar, liquids are not subject to Tum'ah at all, interpret the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'Chol Mashkeh Asher Yishaseh be'Chol K'li Yitma"?

(d) In reality, we already know the Din of Hechsher Tum'ah from the first half of the Pasuk "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel", and we need two Pesukim for Hechsher, one for drawn water, and the other, for water that remains in its source.
Why do we need both Pesukim? Why can we not learn one from the other?

(a) How is the Pasuk "Ach Mayan u'Bor Yihye Tahor" (Tazri'a) a Kashya on Rav?

(b) How will Rav resolve this difficulty?

(a) Can we reconcile Rav, who just said that detached water, as well as water that is still joined to its original source, is Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah min ha'Torah, with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who declared that liquid found in the slaughterhouse in the Azarah is not only Tahor, but is not Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah either?

(b) Why should the blood of Kodshim be different than any other liquid in this regard (Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan)?

6)

(a) What is 'Dam ha'Tamtzis'?

(b) Dam ha'Tamtzis may be spilt like water, yet it is not Machshir.
How do we learn this from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ki ha'Dam Hu ba'Nefesh Yechaper"?

(c) How does Rebbi Zeira answer this Kashya, using the Pasuk in Re'ei "Rak Chazak Levilti Achol ha'Dam, *Ki ha'Dam Hu ha'Nefesh*"?

(d) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Balak "ve'Dam Chalalim Yishteh"?

(a) If the Kohanim inadvertently sprinkled the Tamei blood of a Korban, the Korban is fully validated.
What does the Beraisa mean when it says 'be'Meizid Lo Hurtzah'? Why can it *not* mean that the owner must bring another Korban?

(b) Another Beraisa says that the Tzitz atones for the blood of a Korban that was sprinkled be'Tum'ah.
How do these two Beraisos pose a Kashya on Rav?

(c) How does Rav answer both Beraisos in one sweep?

(d) Is the atonement of the Tzitz confined to ...

1. ... when they sprinkled the Tamei blood by mistake, or does it extend even to when they did so deliberately?
2. ... blood, or does it also cover the flesh and the Chelev that became Tamei?
3. ... a Korban Yachid, or does it also cover a Korban Tzibur?

(a) When the Beraisa says that the Tzitz atones for the flesh of a Korban that became Tamei, does this mean that it may now be eaten? If not, what *does* it mean?

(b) The Beraisa says 'Bein be'Shogeg, Bein be'Meizid, Bein be'Ratzon, Bein be'Ones.
What is the difference between Meizid and Ratzon?

(a) "ve'Nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodshim". This Pasuk in Tetzaveh is referring to the Tzitz.
What do we learn from it?

(b) It is referring specifically to the sin of bringing Kodshim be'Tum'ah. Why can it not be referring to the sin of bringing them ...

1. ... when they are Pigul (i.e. a thought of 'Chutz li'Mekomo)?
2. ... when they are Nosar (a thought of 'Chutz li'Zemano')?
3. ... Why can 'Nosar' not be understood literally?

(c) What is the precedent for the Torah's leniency here of Tum'ah over the two previous Isurim?

(d) This Beraisa too, appears to pose a Kashya on Rav.
How does Rav dispense with the Kashya - without having to say that the author cannot be Rav Yosef ben Yo'ezer Ish Tzereida?

(a) Why did Chagai ha'Navi find it necessary to examine the Kohanim regarding the laws of Kodshim?

(b) He asked them whether, if a dead Sheretz touched bread, which then touched a stew of Kodshim, which in turn, touched wine, which touched oil (all of Kodshim), the oil is Tamei.
What sort of wine and oil are we talking about?

(c) What did the Kohanim answer, and why does Rav discredit their answer?

(d) Rav appears to be contradicting himself, since he is now saying that Tum'ah *is* applicable by liquids of Kodshim, whereas earlier he clearly said that it is *not*.
Why can we not simply answer that the author of this Beraisa too, disagrees with Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer?