Previous daf

1)

(a) In refuting Rava's proof (that Techilas ha'Tzihuv is an independent species), we establish the D'rashah from "min ha'Torim" and "min b'nei Yonah" to preclude Nirva and Ne'evad (a bird that was raped or worshipped respectively).
Why does the Tana say 'Nirva' and not Ro've'a?

(b) If the Tana means to preclude 'Nirva' and 'Ne'evad', then why does he speak about 'Techilas ha'Tzihuv'?

(c) What does Tana de'Bei Resh Yishmael learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in No'ach "Ki *Hishchis* Kol Basar es Darko al ha'Aretz"?
2. ... in Va'eschanan "Pen *Tashchisun* Va'asisem Lachem Pesel"?

(d) What did Mar say about 'Tamus ve'Zachrus' by a Korban Of?

(a) What do we now try to learn from the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with Korbanos) "Ki Moshchasam Bahem Mum Bam"?

(b) On what grounds do we reject this Limud?

(a) What is a Palgas? What is its status?

(b) What She'eilah does Rebbi Zeira ask with regard to someone who actually brings a Palgas? What did he initially undertake to bring?

(c) The She'eilah is confined to bar Pada, but does not follow that of Rebbi Yochanan.
Why not?

(a) What does the Mishnah in Parah say about someone who undertook to bring a lamb or a ram and brings a Palgas?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan learn from the Pasuk in Sh'lach-Lecha (in connection with the Nesachim) "O la'Ayil"?

(c) What does this prove? Why would Rebbi Yochanan not have said that, had a Palgas been a Safek?

(d) If it had been a Safek, what would have then happened to the difference between a third of a Hin (four Lugin) of wine and oil and a quarter (three Lugin), bearing in mind that a Palgas might be a lamb?

(a) In which point does bar Pada argue with Rebbi Yochanan?

(b) According to him, what additional Safek might the Mishnah have (other than whether a Palgas is a lamb or a ram)?

(c) What would the Noder then have to stipulate (besides the possibility that the balance between a third of a Hin of wine and oil and a quarter should be a Nedavah)?

(d) What is the outcome of Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah?

6)

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked what the Din will be if someone who undertook to bring ten Chametz Chalos or ten Matzah Chalos for a Korban Todah, brings Chalos that are Si'ur.
What is Si'ur?

(b) Rebbi Meir defines 'Si'ur' as when the dough turns pale.
How does Rebbi Yehudah define it?

(c) Why can the She'eilah not pertain to the Si'ur of ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir, according to Rebbi Yehudah?
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah, according to Rebbi Meir?
3. ... Rebbi Meir, according to Rebbi Meir?

(a) The She'eilah then, pertains to the Si'ur of Rebbi Yehudah, according to Rebbi Yehudah.
What ruling does Rebbi Yehudah issue concerning Si'ur on Pesach?

(b) Why then, does the problem that we had with establishing it according to Rebbi Meir, not apply to Rebbi Yehudah?

(c) What are now the two sides of the She'eilah?

(a) What did Rav Huna say about someone who undertook to bring 'Lachmei Todah'?

(b) Then to which case must Rebbi Zeira be referring?

(c) What is the problem with that? Why will it leave Shimon in a dilemma?

(d) So we establish the case where he said 'Harei Alai 'Yud' Chalos le'Todaso shel Peloni'.
What have we gained by saying that?

(a) In the previous case, what did Reuven have in mind when he made the undertaking?

(b) What is then the She'eilah?

(c) Assuming that Si'ur is a Safek, and Reuven has indeed fulfilled his obligation, what must he do with the Chalos?

(d) And what is the outcome of the She'eilah?

(a) How does the Beraisa explain our Mishnah 'Kasher be'Parah, Pasul be'Eglah; Kasher be'Eglah, Pasul be'Parah'?

(b) How do we try to prove from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Eglah that Arifah should be eligible by a Parah?

(c) We refute this 'Kal va'Chomer however, by citing "Ve'shachat" and "Chukah" (in Chukas, in connection with the Parah Adumah).
What do we learn from there?

Next daf