Previous daf

1)

(a) In similar style to the previous She'eilah, Rava asks 'Talah Atzmo be'Avir Azarah Mahu'?
What are the two sides of the She'eilah? Is it speaking 'K'dei Hishtachavayah or not?

(b) What does Rav Ashi then ask, assuming that Meizid requires Shehiyah like Shogeg?

(a) Rav Ashi asks further whether a Nazir who became Tamei be'O'nes in a Beis ha'Kevaros also requires a K'dei Shehiyah.
What is the case that renders him an O'nes?

(b) What is the She'eilah? Why might the Shiur ...

1. ... not pertain to him?
2. ... pertain to him too?

(c) Why do we take for granted that this She'eilah is confined to Malkos, and does not pertain to Korban at all?

(d) What is the outcome of the last three She'eilos?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the Tamei person leaves the Azarah via the shortest route, he is Patur from a Korban.
Will the amount of time it takes him to leave make any difference?

(b) Rava asks whether the Shehiyos will combine.
Why can we not resolve this She'eilah from Rava's previous statement?

(c) Abaye asked Rabah what the Din will be if the Tamei person leaves the Azarah via the longest route, but so fast that he is able exit in the same amount of time as he would have, had he left via the shortest route, walking.
Why might he be Patur in such a case?

(d) What did Rabah reply?

(a) Rebbi Zeira queries Rabah (and Rava) from the Din of 'Tamei she'Shimesh be'Misah'.
What is the difference between the Chiyuv of a Tamei who served and one who was Metamei the Azarah without serving?

(b) Why must the case be one where the Kohen became Tamei in the Azarah?

(c) What is then Rebbi Zeira's Kashya on Rabah?

(d) Why would there be no problem if the criterion was the Shiur?

(a) Abaye refutes Rebbi Zeira's Kashya by citing a ruling of Rav Huna.
What did Rav Huna say about turning over a burning limb on the Mizbe'ach with a fork?

(b) How does this explain Rabah and Rava adequately?

(c) We have a problem in establishing Rav Huna, however.
What is the problem assuming that the limb ...

1. ... would not have burned had he not turned it over?
2. ... would have burned anyway?

(d) So how do we finally establish Rav Huna's case? What is the Chidush?

6)

(a) What Chidush did Rebbi (or Rav) Oshaya want to declare about about someone who entered a house that was stricken with Tzara'as backwards?

(b) Why was he so hesitant about saying it?

(c) Rava allayed his fears by quoting the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'Lo Yitma Kol Asher ba'Bayis"? What is the Pasuk referring to?

(d) What does Rava prove from here?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about eating Kodshei Kodshim on the roof of the Azarah?

(b) Can one Shecht Kodshim Kalim there? Why is that?

(c) And what does the Tana say about a Tamei person who enters the Heichal via the roof, based on the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'el ha'Mikdash Lo Savo"?

(d) What do we prove from here?

(a) After discussing the Din of someone who became Tamei in the Azarah, the Tana concludes 'Zu hi Mitzvas Asei she'be'Mikdash she'Ein Chayavin Alehah'. What is the Tana referring to that he writes such a Lashon?

(b) Why does the Mishnah refer specifically to the Chiyuvim and the Peturim of Tum'as Mikdash and Nidah? What do they have in common?

(a) To whom is the Tana referring when he writes 'Ein Chayavin al Asei ve'al Lo Sa'aseh she'be'Mikdash'?

(b) Seeing as the Sanhedrin bring a Par He'elam Davar on an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh she'be'Nidah, why are they not also obligated to bring one on an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh she'be'Mikdash?

(a) To whom is the Tana referring when he writes 've'Ein Mevi'in Asham Taluy al Asei ve'al Lo Sa'aseh she'be'Mikdash'?

(b) Seeing as a Yachid does bring an Asham Taluy on an Asei and a Lo So Sa'aseh shel Nidah, why not she'be'Mikdash?

(c) How do we know that 'Mevi'in Asam Taluy' refers to Yechidim and not to the Sanhedrin (like the previous case)?

(a) We just learned that if a man seperates from his wife who is a Nidah immediately (be'Shogeg), he is Chayav a Chatas.
What does Abaye in the name of Rebbi Chiya bar Rav and Rava Amar ... Rav Huna say about that?

(b) Rabah (or Rava) has a problem with this ruling. On the assumption that we are speaking about 'Samuch le'Vestah' (close to the time that her fixed monthly period was due), what will be the problem, if the person concerned is ...

1. ... a Talmid-Chacham?
2. ... an Am ha'Aretz?

(c) What do we mean by 'Samuch le'Vestah'?

(a) On the assumption that we are speaking about not 'Samuch le'Vestah', what will be the problem, if the person concerned is ...

1. ... a Talmid-Chacham?
2. ... an Am ha'Aretz?

(b) So what compromise does Rava make when he finally establishes the case by a Talmid-Chacham and Samuch le'Vestah?

(c) Why is this not a case of 'two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in One He'elam?

(d) Why is he not considered a Meizid for choosing to be intimate with his wife Samuch le'Vestah?

Next daf