Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel restricts the Chiyuv for entering the Mikdash in a state of Tum'ah to an area a hundred and eighty-seven Amos long and a hundred and thirty five Amos wide.
What is the significance of this area?
What does it preclude?

(b) What sort of Tum'ah is he referring to?

(c) When a Beraisa expert quoted a Beraisa to Rav Nachman citing these measurements, what did the latter comment in the name of his father? Which two other Halachos did he add to that mentioned by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, which are confined to this area?

(d) How do we know that the Tana is not coming to preclude the windows and the doors (that belonged to the walls of the Azarah) and the thickness of the walls, from that area?

(a) The Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini rules that rooms that are situated in a Makom Chol, but which open out to the Kodesh are Kodesh.
How do we nevertheless try to establish the Beraisa with regard to such rooms, in spite of this Mishnah?

(b) We reject this answer however, based on another Beraisa.
What does the Tana say there about such rooms?

(c) How does this prove categorically that the Isur because of Tum'ah is not just mi'de'Rabbanan and the Pasuk merely an Asmachta?

(d) What distinction does Rava draw, based on the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Minchah) cited by the Beraisa "ba'Chatzar Ohel Mo'ed Yochluhah" (in spite of having already said "Matzos Te'achel")?

(a) How does Rava amend the Beraisa which inserts in the Halachos of rooms that are situated in a Makom Chol, but which open out to the Kodesh - 've'Ein Shochtin Sham Kodshim Kalim ve'Chayavin Mishum Tum'ah'?

(b) On what basis does he do that?

(c) We ask that if 'Ein Shochtin' is because it is not facing the doorway, what is the reason for 'Ein Chayavin Mishum Tum'ah' (seeing as Tum'ah does not need to be opposite the doorway in order to be Chayav).
On what grounds do we refute this Kashya?

(d) So what common reason covers both 'Ein Shochtin' and 'Ein Chayavin Mishum Tum'ah'?

(a) What can we extrapolate from this, regarding Achilas Kodshei Kodshim?

(b) How will Rava reconcile this with the Beraisa which attributed the two Pishpeshin to the need to permit both Achilas Kodshei Kodshim and Shechitas Kodshim Kalim in the relevant sections of the Azarah?

(c) And how will he reconcile that with the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Shiv'as Yemei ha'Milu'im) "Bashlu es ha'Basar Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, ve'Sham Tochlu Oso"?

5)

(a) What does Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi learn from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Korban Shelamim) "be'Yom Hakrivo es Zivcho Ye'achel" regarding the Zerikas ha'Dam?

(b) How do we know that the Pasuk is not just coming to teach us the basic Halachah of when the Korban Shelamim may be eaten?

(c) We then suggest that maybe the Pasuk is coming to teach us that if the Shelamim is Shechted today, it may be eaten today and tomorrow, whereas if it is Shechted tomorrow, then it may be eaten tomorrow and the day after.
On what basis would we say that?

(d) How do we refute this suggestion?

(a) With regard to 'ha'Mechashev le'Or Shelishi', Chizkiyah rules Kasher.
What does 'ha'Mechashev le'Or Shelishi' mean?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(c) What is the basis of their Machlokes? Why does ...

1. ... Chizkiyah say Kasher?
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan say Pasul?

(a) By the same token, if someone ate the Basar of a Shelamim on the night after the second day, they argue as to whether he is Chayav or not.
Chayav what?

(b) What does each one say?

(c) We cite a Beraisa like Rebbi Yochanan.
When, according to the Tana, is Pigul effective by all Korbanos, with regard to ...

1. ... the Dam?
2. ... the Eimurin?

(d) What distinction does he make with regard to the Basar, between Korbanos that can be eaten for one day and Korbanos that can be eaten for two?

(a) By what logic does the Beraisa suggest that one ought to be able to eat Shelamim the night after the second day?

(b) What does the Tana extrapolate from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'ha'Nosar ad Yom ... "?

(c) And by what logic does the Tana also suggest that one ought to burn Nosar of Shelamim the night after they become forbidden?

(d) What does he extrapolate from the Pasuk there - "ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ba'Eish Yisaref"?

(a) Our Mishnah discusses the Korban Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach.
Whereabouts in the Azarah were they Shechted?

(b) From where does the Tana learn that they only require one Matanah? What does the Torah ...

1. ... write by Bechor?
2. ... not write by any of them?

(c) Whereabouts on the Mizbe'ach was the Matanah performed?

(a) In which respect does Bechor differ from Ma'aser? How does Pesach differ from them both in this regard?

(b) Both Bechor and Ma'aser can be eaten anywhere in Yerushalayim.
How about the Pesach?

(c) From where do we know this?

(d) And both could eaten in any way, for two days and the night in between. How about the Pesach?

(a) The Torah writes in Korach (in connection with Bechor) "es Damam Tizrok al ha'Mizbe'ach ve'es Chelbam Tatir".
What does Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in a Beraisa, learn from the Torah's use of the plural "Damam" and "Chelbam"?

(b) On what grounds do we establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili?
What does our Mishnah say, or not say, that indicates this?
(c) Which Tana disagrees with our Mishnah?

(a) Rebbi Elazar learns the Din of Yesod by all three via a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Zerikah" "Zerikah" from Olah.
From where do we know that Olah requires Yesod?

(b) And what do we learn from the fact that the Torah writes "Saviv" by Olah and "Saviv" by Chatas?

(c) What will we do according to those who hold 'Melamdin'?

(d) How will this affect the Limud from Olah, which is a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', and not a 'Binyan-Av' (which the principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad' generally comes to negate)?

Next daf