Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Ashi, from whom we learnt that wheat kernels must be burnt and disgusting, said this with regard to Aba Shaul, Rebbi's baker.
What was the case there?

(b) The Mishnah in Terumos says 'Shesilei Terumah she'Nitme'u, Tehorim mi'Letamei'.
Seeing as the Terumah becomes Tahor, why does the Tana conclude 'va'Asurin mi'Le'echol'? How did Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya bar Avin explain this?

(c) What is the technical difference between Gidulei Terumah and Gidulei Gidulin?

(d) What is the Halachic difference between them?

(a) Faced with other Mishnahs in Terumos forbidding both Gidulei Terumah and Gudulei Gidulin (in their respective cases), how does Rav Sheshes explain 'va'Asurin mi'Le'echol' (in 1b.), and why is it Asur?

(b) According to Resh Lakish, Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul ha'Guf.
Is this mi'd'Oraysa or mi'de'Rabbanan?

(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan hold?

(d) What are the ramifications of their Machlokes?

4)

(a) Why did the Kohanim throw the Pesulei Chatas ha'Of into a small cavity between the west side of the ramp and the Mizbei'ach? Did it remain there permanently?

(b) Which kind of Pesul is the Beraisa referring to, according to Rebbi Yochanan, and why is that?

(c) What is the difference between a Korban Pesach whose flesh became intrinsically Pasul, and one that became Pasul because its blood spilt or because the owner was Tamei?

(d) How does Resh Lakish refute the proof from the Beraisa of 'Pesulei Chatas ha'Of' that Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul *Tum'ah*, and not a Pesul *ha'Guf* (by citing the Beraisa that was quoted in the Beis-Hamedrash of Rabah bar Avuha)?

5)

(a) Rebbi Eliezer permits the blood of a Korban to be sprinkled, even if the flesh is no longer available to burn or to eat.
Which three cases (with regard to an animal that is Kodshei Kodshim) does this incorporate?

(b) What does Rebbi Yehoshua hold?

(c) The Gemara attempts to prove from Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion (in connection with 'Nifsal ha'Basar') that Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul Tum'ah, like Rebbi Yochanan. Why does the Gemara equate the Pesul of *Nifsal ha'Basar* with Hesech ha'Da'as? Why not the Pesul Machshavah of *Chutz li'Zemano* or *Chutz li'Mekomo'*?

(d) How then, does the Gemara attempt to prove that from there that Hesech ha'Da'as must be a Pesul Tum'ah?

(a) How does the Gemara establish the case of 'Nifsal ha'Basar' according to Resh Lakish?

(b) But is that not included in 'Nitma'?

(a) On the previous Amud, we asked on Rav Sheshes (who explained that 'va'Asurin mi'Le'echol' in the Mishnah in Terumos, means that the re-planted Terumah fruits are Asur for the Kohanim to eat because of the Pesul of Hesech ha'Da'as) from Rebbi Yochanan, in whose opinion Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul Tum'ah.
When Rebbi Yirmiyah (who lived in Eretz Yisrael) heard Rav Sheshes' explanation, he was not too complimentary about the Bavli'im and their explanations. What did he say about them?

(b) What is Hashakah?

(c) Resh Lakish quoting Rebbi Oshaya, who rules that if one first made Hashakah with water for Nisuch ha'Mayim (on Succos) which had become Tamei and then declared it Hekdesh, it is Tahor (and eligible to be poured on the Mizbei'ach; but that if they reversed the order, only making Hashakah *after* the water had been declared Hekdesh, then the water would remain Tamei.
In which way could the water be sanctified other than by declaring it Hekdesh?

(d) Why did they not simply draw fresh water from the Spring of Shilo'ach?

(a) In the previous question, why should there be a difference between whether the water was sanctified *before* the Hashakah or *afterwards*?

(b) How does Rebbi Yirmiyah use this answer to explain the Mishnah in Terumos, which forbids the re-planted Terumah to be eaten, even though it really becomes Tahor?

(a) Abaye asked Rav Dimi whether the above Ma'aleh applied specifically to water that became Hekdesh in a K'li Shares, or whether it also extended to water that was declared Hekdesh verbally. Rav Dimi cited a precedent from Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan by someone who was pressing grapes that had become Tamei.
What was he pressing them for?

(b) Whether or not the wine became Tamei depends on whether they were first pressed and then declared Hekdesh, or vice-versa.
Which is which, and how does Rav Dimi resolve Abaye's Sha'aleh from there?

(c) Rav Yosef disagrees with Rav Dimi. He establishes Rebbi Yochanan by grapes of *Terumah*.
Why would grapes of Terumah be any different than grapes of Hekdesh?

(a) According to the Gemara's first explanation, when Rebbi Yochanan permits pressing the Tamei Terumah grapes, he must be speaking about pressing less than a k'Beitzah at a time, in order to avoid a discrepancy beteen his statement *here*, and in the one he made *above* (on 33b).
What is the Gemara's second explanation (which establishes his statement here even when he pressed *more* than a k'Beitzah at a time)?

(b) Why should there be a difference between grapes that are a *Sheni* le'Tum'ah and grapes that are a *Shelishi*?

(c) We are talking about Chulin (which he subsequently declares Terumah). Since when is there even such a thing as a *Shelishi* le'Tum'ah by Chulin?

(a) What is the apparent self-contradiction in the Pasuk in Chukas "*ve'Nasan* Alav Mayim Chayim *El Keli*"?

(b) How does the Gemara resolve this, and what does it prove from there?

(c) What further proof does the Gemara bring for the concept of 'Ma'aleh' from the Din of Ha'arev Shemesh by a Mechusar Kipurim (a Zav, a Zavah or a Yoledes)? In which way is this Ma'aleh different than all the others?

(d) What do we learn from the 'Vav' in "*ve'ha'Basar*, kol Tahor Yochal Basar"? What final proof does the Gemara bring for the concept of Ma'alah from there?