Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan qualifies Rebbi Akiva's ruling ('Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei'), by confining it to where only some of the Basar left the Azarah.
Why is that?

(b) Rav Asi cited his Babylonian colleagues however, who said 'Mechashvin al ha'Avud ve'al ha'Saruf'.
What did they mean by that?

(c) How does this clash with Rebbi Yochanan?

(d) What did Rebbi Yochanan reply?

(a) On a previous occasion it seems, Rav Asi had asked Rebbi Yochanan about a case where the Kohen had a Machsheves Pigul on spilt blood.
What might the case be, besides where the Kohen thought whilst pouring the Shirayim on to the Yesod that he would 'eat' a k'Zayis of that Shirayim the next day?

(b) Rebbi Zeira resolved the She'eilah by citing 'Elel' (the cervical ligament) that Rebbi Yochanan had taught them citing the Mishnah in Chulin. The Tana there says that 'Elel' is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin but not Tum'as Neveilos.
Why is it not Metamei Tum'as Neveilos?

(c) What problem does this create for Rav Asi?

(d) How do we initially reconcile the Mishnah in Chulin with the 'Beraisa' (cited by Rav Asi's colleagues) 'Mechashvin al ha'Avud ve'al ha'Saruf'?

(a) How does Rava ultimately reconcile them by amending the Beraisa?

(b) What does he mean by that?

(c) What does Rav Papa say about 'Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotz'ei' (according to Rebbi Akiva) regarding Dam?

(d) We support Rav Papa with a Beraisa.
What does the Beraisa subsequently rule in a case, where after the blood left the Azarah and was returned, the Kohen had a Machsheves Pigul regarding ...

1. ... Kodshei Kodshim?
2. ... Kodshim Kalim?

(a) Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah states (in connection with the Mosar Chatas) 'ke'Shem she'Damah Poter es Besarah, Kach Poter es B'sar Chavertah'.
How does Rebbi Elazar qualify this ruling?

(b) What is the reason for the distinction? Why, if the same Kohen Shechted both Chata'os one after the other, would the Zerikas ha'Dam of one of them not cover the Basar of the second one?

(a) What did Rebbi Shimon reply when a Zaken asked him in K'far Pani whether Rebbi Akiva really said 'Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei'?

(b) What did his Chaverim in Galil comment, when he repeated this statement to them?

(c) And what did Rebbi Akiva reply, when Rebbi Shimon repeated to him his Chaverim's reservations?

(a) Among his statements, Rebbi Akiva says 'Shachat Sh'teihen ve'Harei Daman Munach be'Kosos, Mo'alin bi'Shteihen'.
Why is that?

(b) What can we extrapolate from the Lashon 'Shachat Sh'teihen'?

(c) What are the ramifications of this fact?

7)

(a) What did Resh Lakish Amar Rav Hoshaya mean when he described Rebbi Akiva's statement as 'Teshuvah Genuvah'?

(b) What did Rebbi Yochanan say about that?

(c) And he based his query on a case of two Ashamos that were designated 'le'Acharayus' and that were both Shechted.
What does Rebbi Yochanan consider obvious in a case where the Kohen then brought the Emurin of one of them on the Mizbe'ach before performing Zerikas ha'Dam on the other one?

(d) He presented a case of two Ashamos.
How do we know that the same would apply to two Chata'os?

(a) What does Rebbi Yochanan prove with this (See Rabeinu Gershom)?

(b) How do we know that it is because they are considered like two bodies? Perhaps it is because Emurin that are placed on the Mizbe'ach before the Zerikas ha'Dam must be removed? What did Ula say to the contrary (in connection with Emurei Kodshei Kalim)?

(c) Alternatively, Ula's ruling proves that 'Mo'alin bi'Sheteihen' is not due to the fact they are considered like one body.
Then what is Rebbi Akiva's reason?

(d) If on the one hand, the Zerikah of one of the Chata'os exempts even the Basar of the other one from Me'ilah, why, on the other, do we say 'Im Alu, Yerdu'?

(a) What was Resh Lakish's response to Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya?

(b) What did Rebbi Yochanan mean when he commented 'Ketzatztinun le'Riglohi di'Yenuka'?

(c) How else might one read the last word in Rebbi Yochanan's comment?

(a) Our Mishnah teaches us that Zerikas Damim by Kodshei Kodshim is sometimes Lehakeil and sometimes Lehachmir.
What about Kodshim Kalim?

(b) If before the Zerikah, both ...

1. ... the Emurim and the Basar of Kodshei Kodshim are subject to Me'ilah, what change takes place after the Zerikah?
2. ... the Emurim and the Basar of Kodshei Kalim are not subject to Me'ilah, what change takes place after the Zerikah?

(a) With regard to Pigul, Nosar and Tum'ah however, both Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim share the same Din.
What is the corollary between Pigul, Nosar and Tum'ah and Zerikah?

(b) What problem do we have with the Seifa de'Reisha 've'Ein Mo'alin be'Basar'? What ought the Tana to have said?

(c) How do we counter this? Why does the Tana say 'Ein Mo'alin' even though there is no Isur either?

(a) We make the same inference from the Seifa de'Seifa 've'Ein Mo'alin be'Basar', Ha Isura Ika'.
Why can we not give the same answer as we gave in the Reisha?

(b) Rebbi Chanina therefore answers 'le'Yotz'in, ve'Rebbi Akiva Hi'. What does this mean?

(c) But did Rebbi Akiva not say 'Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei'?

Next daf