Previous daf

1)

(a) Abaye establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, concerning 'Tamei sha'Achal Basar Kodesh Lifnei Zerikah', by Tum'as ha'Guf.
What will even Rebbi Yochanan hold as regards Tum'as Basar?

(b) And he learns it from Mar.
What does Mar Darshen from "ve'ha'Basar" (in the Pasuk "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel")?

(a) What does Rava say (based on the fact that Tum'as Basar is not subject to "ve'Tum'aso Alav ve'Nichr'sah" [which speaks after the Zerikas ha'Dam], as we explained)?

(b) Then how does he establish Mar's interpretation of "ve'ha'Basar"?

(c) This in turn, is based on a Mishnah in Me'ilah.
What distinction does the Tana draw (with regard to eating be'Tum'as ha'Guf) between Kodshim that has a Matir and Kodshim that doesn't?

(a) What does Resh Lakish extrapolate from the Pasuk in Vayikra "min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon Takrivu" (regarding a Kohen who carries the limbs of a Tamei animal on to the Mizbe'ach)? What does a 'Tamei animal' mean in this context?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(c) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah queries Resh Lakish from a Beraisa.
What does the Tana ...

1. ... extrapolate from the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with the list of Kasher animals) "Osah Tocheilu"?
2. ... add to this ruling (that prompts Rebbi Yirmiyah's Kashya)?

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov therefore amends the wording of the Machlokes. What do both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish hold with regard to someone who brings a non-Kasher animal on the Mizbe'ach?

(b) And they argue by a Chayah.
On what grounds does Rebbi Yochanan exempt someone who brings a Chayah on the Mizbe'ach from Malkos?

(c) On what grounds does Resh Lakish absolve him even from an Asei?

(d) Then why can we not say the same as regards bringing a non-Kasher animal?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Zos ha'Beheimah Asher Tocheilu, Shor ... Ayal u'Tzvi ... "?

(b) What would we then have said, had the Pasuk written " ... Adam ki Yakriv Mikem Korban ... min ha'Beheimah" and stopped?

(c) What does the Beraisa learn from the fact that the Torah adds "min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon" ...

1. ... once?
2. ... twice?

(a) What analogy of a Rebbe instructing his Talmid to bring him wheat, and he brought him wheat and barley ...

1. ... do we present to describe the first of the previous scenarios (where bringing a Chayah is Reshus)?
2. ... do we present to describe the second scenario (where it is forbidden)?

(b) What does this Beraisa prove?

7)

(a) Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Pasul person who received some of the blood (see Tosfos DH 'Li'me'utei') makes the remainder Shirayim or not.
What are the ramifications of the She'eilah?

(b) Rebbi Yochanan replied that in general, a Kabalah or a Zerikah Pesulah does not make Shirayim.
What are the two exceptions?

(c) According to Rav Z'vid, Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Kos Pasul renders the rest of the blood Shirayim or not.
What did he mean by that?

(d) What did Rebbi Yochanan reply?

(a) According to Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti, Abaye asked Rabah whether a Kos renders the rest of the blood Dachuy or Shirayim.
What is the difference between 'Dachuy' and 'Shirayim'?

(b) Rabah replied that this She'eilah is a Machlokes Tana'im in a Beraisa.
What does the Tana Kama learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra ...

1. ... (in connection with a Chatas Yachid) "ve'es Kol Damah Yishpoch el Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach"?
2. ... (in connection with a Chatas of a Nasi) "es Damo Yishpoch"?

(c) What does Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon say in the latter case?

(d) How does he then establish the Pasuk "ve'es Damo Yishpoch"?

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah presents three cases of P'sul which can be rectified by retracting what one did.
Having presented the case of ...

1. ... 'Kibeil ha'Kasher ve'Nasan le'Pasul', why did he add the case of 'Kibeil bi'Yemin ve'Nasan li'S'mol'? How would we have interpreted 'Pasul'?
2. ... 'Kibeil bi'Yemin ve'Nasan li'S'mol', why did he find it necessary to add 'Kibeil bi'Keli Kodesh ve'Nasan li'Keli Chol'?
3. .. 'Kibeil bi'Keli Kodesh ve'Nasan li'Keli Chol', why does the Tana then need to present the first two cases?

(b) What problem do we have with the Mishnah's basic ruling?

(c) Ravina told Rav Ashi quoting Rebbi Yirmiyah mi'Difti in the name of Rava that the author of our Mishnah is Chanan ha'Mitzri.
What does Chanan ha'Mitzri hold?

(d) What did he say in a Beraisa in a case where the blood of the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh bi'Fenim is already in the Kos, when the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach dies?

(a) Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah even like those who argue with Chanan ha'Mitzri. According to him, none of the cases in our Mishnah fall into the category of Dachuy.
Why not?

(b) Rav Shisha bears this out by reminding us that Chanan ha'Mitzri's disputant is Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say in a case where ...

1. ... the blood (of the Sa'ir la'Hashem) spills?
2. ... the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ch dies? What is the reason for these rulings?

(c) And what does Rebbi Yehudah say in another Beraisa about gathering the blood of the many Korbenos Pesach that spilt?

(d) What does this prove?

(a) What was the purpose of that one Zerikah?

(b) On which corner was the Kohen not able to sprinkle it?

(c) What did Rebbi Yehudah reply when they asked him that perhaps the blood fell directly from the neck on to the floor (and not from the bowl)?

(d) How could they take this for granted? How did they know that the blood had not spilt directly from the animal's neck?

(a) Perhaps, we ask, some of the blood was 'Dam ha'Tamtzis (and not Dam ha'Nefesh).
How do we initially answer this? What does Rebbi Yehudah say elsewhere?

(b) In which context does Rebbi Yehudah say that? What do the Rabbanan say?

(c) On what grounds do we reject this answer?

(d) So how do we finally resolve the problem of 'Dam ha'Tamtzis'?

Next daf