Previous daf

1)

(a) "Divrei", 'Eilu ha'Erchin, ha'Charamim ve'ha'Hekdeishos'. The Machlokes by Erchin revolves around a Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan.
What does Rebbi Meir say about Reuven who promises to give the Erech of a baby less than one month old? Why is that?

(b) Assuming that the Gizbar of Hekdesh claimed the money from Reuven, how might this involve a Chiyuv Kareis?

(c) How else might it involve a Chiyuv Kareis?

(d) Why, according to the Rabbanan, would Reuven not be Chayav Kareis anyway, if he brought the animal to the Azarah as an Asham Me'ilos?

(a) The Machlokes by Charamim is that of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and the Rabbanan.
What does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Kol Cherem be'Yisrael Kodesh Kodshim Hu la'Hashem"?

(b) What do the Rabbanan say?

(c) How do they explain the Pasuk in Bechukosai?

(d) How does this case then involve Kareis and Chatas?

(a) And the Machlokes by Hekdeishos is based on that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Rabbanan (that we discussed in the first Perek).
What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov say about assessing a golden fork of Hekdesh?

(b) What do the Rabbanan say?

(c) How will Kareis and Chatas apply to this case?

(a) "Rivos" 'Zeh Hashka'as Sotah, va'Arifas Eglah ve'Taharos Metzora'. The Machlokes by Hashka'as Sotah is that of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua, in the Mishnah in Sotah. According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Kinuy (husband's warning) requires two witnesses, the S'tirah (the seclusion with another man), one, or even the husband himself. What does Rebbi Yehoshua say?

(b) What monetary ramifications does this Machlokes have?

(c) How might this involve Kareis and a Korban Chatas?

(d) The basis of the Machlokes by 'Arifas Eglah' is another Mishnah in Sotah. According to Rebbi Eliezer, they would measure the distance to the nearest town from the murdered man's navel, according to Rebbi Akiva, from his nose.
What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov say?

(e) And how might this lead to a Chiyuv Kareis and Chatas?

(a) A Mishnah in Nigmar ha'Din serves as the source of the Machlokes regarding 'Taharas Metzora'. The Tana Kama holds that if the Metzora has no right thumb or big toe (on which to place the blood of the Asham), he can never become Tahor, whereas according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Kohen places it on the spot where they ought to have been.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(b) And how might this Machlokes lead to Kareis and a Chatas?

(a) "bi'She'arecha", 'Zeh Leket, Shikchah u'Pe'ah'. The first two revolve around a Machlokes Tana'im in a Mishnah in Pe'ah, where the Tana Kama considers two grains Leket and two sheaves, Shikchah, whereas three remain the owner's.
What do Beis Shamai say?

(b) The Machlokes by Pe'ah is based on a Machlokes in another Mishnah there, where the Tana Kama permits the owner to separate Pe'ah even from the sheaves, from the pile, and even after Miru'ach (the flattening of the pile), if need be.
What must the owner be careful to do in the latter case, before separating Pe'ah?

(c) What does Rebbi Yishmael say? On what grounds do the Chachamim disagree?

(d) In all three cases, how might this lead to a Chiyuv Kareis or Chatas?

(a) According to Rav Kahana, the Zaken Mamrei is not Chayav Miysah if both he and the Beis-Din say that they received their respective rulings from their Rebbes, or if they both said it from a 'S'vara'.
In which case then, is he Chayav?

(b) And he proves this from Akavya ben Mahalalel.
What did Akavya ben Mahalalel instruct his son to do before he died?

(c) Then why did he himself not retract?

(d) What do we prove from there?

(a) Rebbi Elazar disagrees.
What does he say? Why is that?

(b) Then why did they not sentence Akavya ben Mahalalel to death?

(c) Like which of the four above cases do we initially establish our Mishnah 'Kach Darashti ve'Kach Darshu Chaverai, Kach Limadti ve'Kach Limdu Chaverai'?
On whom is this a Kashya?

(d) So how do we establish our Mishnah even like Rav Kahana?

(a) Rebbi Yashiyah in a Beraisa quotes three things that he heard from Zeiri of Yerushalayim.
What did he say about Mechilah, with regard to ...

1. ... a husband and the Kinuy of his Sotah wife?
2. ... the parents of a ben Sorer u'Moreh (even after he has already received Malkos) and Beis-Din and a Zaken Mamrei?

(b) With which of the three rulings did his colleagues in the south disagree? What reason did they give for this?

(c) How do we finally prove Rav Kahana wrong from there?

10)

(a) What advantage did the generations until Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel enjoy over subsequent generations?

(b) How was this ensured?

(c) Who accompanied the Zaken Mamrei to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, besides the Beis-Din of his town?

(d) How would the Beis-Din ha'Gadol decide the Halachah in the event that they had not heard it from their Rebbes?

(a) When would the Beis-ha'Gadol convene each day?

(b) Where would they convene on Shabbos and Yom-Tov?

(c) Why (besides the possible reason that there were a lot of visitors then and it would have been squashed in the Lishkas ha'Gazis), might they have changed their location on those days?

(d) What caused the increase in Machlokes among Talmidei-Chachamim? What does 'two Toros' (an off-shoot of those Machlokos) mean?

(a) Who would appoint the members of the Sanhedriyos in the towns?

(b) What quality, besides wisdom and humility, did candidates for that post require?

(c) What procedure did they follow regarding the appointment to the Beis-Din of Har ha'Bayis, of the Azarah and of the Lishkas ha'Gazis?

(a) In which connection did they point out Rav Ula bar Aba in Eretz Yisrael?

(b) Besides constantly learning, he was also 'Lo Machzik Tivusa le'Nafsheih'.
What does this mean?

(c) Which other qualities did he possess?

(a) The Beraisa requires either that the Zaken Mamrei puts his theories into practice or that others do.
What problem do we have with the first possibility?

(b) Why would there be no problem if the sin that the Zaken ruled and perpetrated was Cheilev or blood?

(c) On what grounds do we query the suggestion that had he not been a Zaken Mamrei, he would have required a warning, which is not now necessary?

(d) So how do we finally answer the Kashya?

(a) How does our Mishnah go on to explain its statement 'Chomer be'Divrei Sofrim (i.e. what the Chachamim extrapolate from the Pasuk) mi'Divrei Torah (the actual words of the Torah)'?

(b) Which two details does Rebbi Alazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya add to 'Ikro mi'Divrei Torah, u'Pirusho mi'Divrei Sofrim'?

(c) The only possible case is that of Tefilin according to Rebbi Yehudah. Why according to Rebbi Yehudah? What did he say?

(d) Why can he not be referring to Rebbi Yehudah in Menachos, who says 'Tzarich Le'hadbik (to stick together the Parshiyos of the shel Yad, in the event that one wrote the four Parshiyos on different pieces of parchment)?

(a) We query Rebbi Elazar's statement that the four requirements of Rebbi Yehudah pertain exclusively to Tefilin, by asking 've'ha'Ika Lulav (if one added a fifth species)?'
How do we refute this Kashya on the basis of ...

1. ... 'Lulav Ein Tzarich Eged'?
2. ... 'Lulav Tzarich Eged'?

(b) And we ask exactly the same set of questions on Tzitzis (assuming that one added a fifth thread).
What is the criterion there?

(c) We ask that by Tefilin too, adding a fifth compartment afterwards (without actually affixing it) ought not to invalidate the other four, whereas if he initially made five compartments, 'Garu'a ve'Omed Hu'. In answer to this Kashya, we cite Rebbi Zeira.
What does Rebbi Zeira say about the outer compartment?

(d) How does this answer the Kashya?

Next daf