Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Abaye, the Pasuk "ve'Cheilev T'reifah" is needed for itself.
What would we have otherwise learned from a non-Kasher animal (that would make it worse than Neveilah)?

(b) What would we gain by saying that?

(c) Why is this answer unacceptable? How could we learn the same thing from "u'Tereifah" by a bird?

(d) Why, in any event, could we not learn a Kasher ...

1. ... animal or a bird that became a T'reifah, from a non-Kasher one?
2. ... animal or bird that was born a T'reifah, from a non-Kasher one?

(a) What does Rava finally learn from "Cheilev Neveilah ve'Cheilev T'reifah"?

(b) Why does the Torah find it necessary to insert them both? Having written "Cheilev ...

1. ... Neveilah", why does it need to add "T'reifah"?
2. ... T'reifah", why does it need to add "Neveilah"?

(c) What have we finally proved?

(a) Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah learns from "u'Tereifah" the D'rashah that we already cited earlier (i.e. 'to preclude the Shechitah of a Chulin bird bi'Fenim') from Tum'ah'.
From where does Rebbi Yehudah learn this?

(b) Rebbi Meir learns from the latter Pasuk, to preclude a non-Kasher bird from Tum'ah (since T'reifah does not pertain to it).
From where does Rebbi Yehudah learn this?

(c) Which Din in Shiur does Rebbi Meir learn from ,,,

1. ... the first "Neveilah"?
2. ... the second "Neveilah"?

(d) Why is this latter D'rashah necessary? Why might we have thought otherwise?

(a) The Torah writes in Tzav (in connection with the exemption from Tum'ah of the Cheilev of an animal) "ve'Cheilev Neveilah ve'Cheilev T'reifah".
How does the Beraisa learn from Shechitah that the Torah must be referring specifically to the Cheilev of a Kasher animal?

(b) The Tana then suggests that, on the other hand, maybe we will learn the opposite from Neveilah.
What does the Tana mean when he says 'Mah ke'she'Tihar mi'K'lal Neveilah, bi'Temei'ah ve'Lo bi'Tehorah'? What sort of Neveilah is he referring to?

(c) Seeing as the exemption of Cheilev from Tum'ah could now be referring to the Cheilev of a Kasher animal or of a non-Kasher one (a Beheimah Temei'ah) depending on whether one learns it from Shechitah or from Neveilah, how does the Beraisa resolve the She'eilah from the word "T'reifah''?

(d) And what does the Tana go on to preclude from "ve'Achol Lo Sochluhu" (also written in connection with the exemption of Cheilev from Tum'ah)?

5)

(a) We learnt in the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Mah ke'she'Metaher mi'K'lal Neveilah, bi'Temei'ah ve'Lo bi'Tehorah'.
What did Rav Ya'akov bar Aba extrapolate from there?

(b) Rava was surprised at him making such a mistake".
What was his mistake?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan qualifies Rebbi Meir's ruling that the Melikah of a T'reifah is Tahor, by restricting it to Temimin, but not to Ba'alei Mumin.
Why is that?

(b) What does Rebbi Elazar say?

(c) In fact, Rebbi Elazar carries this even further? Which kind of birds, according to him, does Rebbi Meir declare Tahor, even though they are not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach? (d) Why is that?

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether Rebbi Meir will also declare Tahor a goat whose neck the elders broke instead of a calf.
Who tells Rebbi Yirmiyah that Rebbi Meir declares the Eglah Arufah itself Tahor?

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

1. ... be Tahor?
2. ... not be Tahor?

(c) When Abaye asked Rav Dimi on what basis Rebbi Yirmiyah compares the Eglah Arufah (which is after all, not Kodshim) to a Kodshim bird, the latter cited Amri de'Bei Rebbi Yanai.
What did Amri de'Bei Rebbi Yanai say is written in connection to the Eglah Arufah that gives it the Din of Kodshim (in this regard)?

(a) What does the Beraisa incorporate in the preclusion from Tum'ah, from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ki *Kol* Ochel *Cheilev*"?

(b) What Kashya does Rav Nasan Avuhah de'Rav Huna ask from here on Amri de'Bei Rebbi Yanai?

(c) What do we reply to that? What is the difference between the case of Amri de'Bei Rebbi Yanai and that of the Beraisa?

(d) What is the problem with establishing the Beraisa when they Shechted the animal?

(a) So we establish the Beraisa when the calf died by itself, in which case the calf itself is Tamei.
Why do we nevertheless require a Pasuk to declare the Cheilev Tahor? Why might we have thought that the Cheilev of an Eglah Arufah might be different than the Cheilev of any other Neveilah, which is Tahor?

(b) We extrapolate from here that the Eglah Arufah must be Asur be'Hana'ah already in its lifetime.
How do we extrapolate that?

(c) Rebbi Yanai specifically said that it was, but he could not recall what it was that rendered it Asur.
What did his colleagues have to say about that?

Next daf