Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa writes that if strands that hold back the Mitzvah of Milah remain, the respective owners are forbidden to eat Terumah, Pesach, Kodshim or Ma'aser.
Why can Ma'aser not mean Ma'aser Beheimah?

(b) In that case, why does the Tana need to insert Pesach? What would we have thought had he only mentioned ...

1. ... Pesach?
2. ... Kodshim?

(c) Then how else might we interpret Ma'aser, in order to avoid being forced to resolve the She'eilah whether an Areil is forbidden to eat Ma'aser Sheini or not? Who would then be the author of the Beraisa?

(a) Why are an Onan and a T'vul Yom permitted to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah, which, when all's said and done, is considered Kodshim?

(b) Which kind of T'vul Yom is not permitted to do so?

(a) Seeing as an Areil is forbidden to eat Terumah and permitted to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah, what do we try to prove from the fact that the Tana does not include Areil in his list?

(b) We reject this proof however, by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Akiva.
What does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Akiva say?

(c) The Tana who argues with Rebbi Akiva is the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yosef ha'Bavli. Rebbi Yosef ha'Bavli permits an Onan to burn the Parah, but forbids a Mechusar Kipurim.
What does the Tana Kama say?

(d) How does this prove that he is the Tana who argues with Rebbi Akiva.

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak (like Rebbi Akiva) forbids an Areil to eat Ma'aser. He learns this from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.
Which 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?

(b) Why must the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' be Mufnah? What Kashya could we otherwise ask on it?

(a) The Torah writes "Al Tochlu *Mimenu* Na", because it belongs there, and "ve'Lo Sosiru *Mimenu* ad Boker" for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'. It might write "ve'ha'Nosar *Mimenu* ad Boker ba'Eish Tisrofu", because it goes together with the phrase which is coming as an Asei to rectify the La'av.
Alternatively, what might the phrase be coming to teach us?

(b) We need the Pasuk (by Ma'aser) "Lo Achalti *Mimenu* be'Tamei", because it belongs there.
We need the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lo Bi'arti *Mimenu* be'Tamei" for the D'rashah of Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan.
What does he learn from this Pasuk?
2. ... "ve'Lo Nasati Mimenu le'Meis" for the D'rashah of Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Samya.
What does he learn from this Pasuk?

(c) How do we know that the latter D'rashah is speaking about *Tamei* Ma'aser?

(d) Why do we require this D'rashah anyway? Why would we have thought that it is forbidden?

(a) We suggest that perhaps "le'Meis" means that he did not buy a coffin and shrouds (rather than that he did not anoint with the actual oil) with the money of Ma'aser.
What would we then deduce from there with regard to a Chai?

(b) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua answers that "Mimenu" implies from the Ma'aser itself and not from its proceeds.
What does Rav Ashi mean when he answers "Lo Nasati" Dumya de"Lo Achalti"?

(c) In any event, it is only the "Mimenu" by *Pesach* that is Mufnah (and not the one by *Ma'aser*). Those who learn that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufnah on only one side can be overruled(see above 70b.) will learn the concession of burning Tamei Terumah as fuel from Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah.
How does he learn it from the Pasuk in Korach "va'Ani Hinei Nasati Lecha es Mishmeres *Terumosai*"?

7)

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Emor "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon ... ve'Hu Tzaru'a O Zav, ba'Kodshim Lo Yochal"? Which Kodshim does the Pasuk refer to?

(b) We suggest that perhaps the Torah is referring to Chazeh ve'Shok, which female Kohanim are also permitted to eat.
What is 'Chazeh ve'Shok'?

(c) How do we know that that is not what the Torah is referring to here?

(d) But why is that any different than Terumah, which is forbidden to a Chalalah?

(a) What is the difference between a Zav who had *two* sightings and a Zav w ho had *three* with regard to eating Terumah?

(b) What is the equivalent regarding a Metzora?

(c) The Mishnah in Nega'im differentiates between three levels of Tum'ah. What do we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Nefesh Asher Tiga Bo ... ve'Lo Yochal min ha'Kodshim Ki im Rachatz Besaro ba'Mayim" (Emor)?
2. ... "u'Va ha'Shemesh ve'Taher ve'Achar Yochal min ha'Kodashim?" (Emor)
3. ... "ve'Chiper Alehah ha'Kohen ve'Taheirah"? (Tazri'a)

(a) Terumah is more stringent than Ma'aser in four regards (M.Ch.P.Z. - the same Chumros that it has over Kodshim, as we saw above on 73b.). The Chumros of Ma'aser over Terumah are contained in the acronym Ha.D.As.Tu.B.
What do these represent?

(b) Despite the fact that Ma'aser has more Chumros than Terumah, Terumah is more stringent (in the above context) than Ma'aser, for one of two reasons. One of them, because it is punishable by Misah. Rava maintains that even without that, the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yochal min ha'Kodshim" could only be speaking about Ma'aser.
Why is that?

(a) What do we learn from the two Pesukim written in connection with a Yoledes "ad Me'los Yemei Taharah" and "ve'Kiper Alehah ha'Kohen ve'Taheirah"?

(b) What would we otherwise have thought?

(c) We have already learned how Kodshim is more Chamur than Terumah.
What does Rava infer from the word "ve'Taheirah" to prove that this latter Pasuk can only be referring to Kodshim (and the former one therefore, to Terumah)?

(a) What does the Beraisa derive from the Pasuk (in Tazri'a) "Daber el B'nei Yisrael ... *Ishah* ki Sazri'a ... "?

(b) What is then the problem with the previous D'rashah?

(c) What do we prove from the Pasuk (in the same context) "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga"?

(d) Then how do we reconcile the fact that, on the one hand, the Pasuk is referring to a Giyores and a Shifchah Meshuchreres, and on the other, it spaeks about eating Terumah?

Next daf