1)

(a)What does Rebbi Yochanan say about someone who Shechts an animal inside the Azarah at night-time, and then sacrifices it outside the Azarah?

(b)What is his reason?

(c)We refute this however, from a Beraisa, which rules ha'Shochet Of bi'Fenim u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, Patur? How does this pose a Kashya on him?

(d)The first Lashon remains with a Tiyuvta on Rebbi Yochanan. How does the second Lashon reconcile him with the Beraisa? What is the significance of the word 'ha'Shochet'?

1)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, someone who Shechts an animal inside the Azarah at night-time, and then sacrifices it outside the Azarah - is Chayav (for Ha'ala'as Chutz) ...

(b)... because it is no worse than both Shechting it and sacrificing it outside (in the day).

(c)We refute this however, from a Beraisa, which rules ha'Shochet Of bi'Febin u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, Patur - in spite of the Seifa Shachat be'Chutz u'Ma'aleh ba'Chutz, Chayav (a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan).

(d)Although the first Lashon remains with a Tiyuvta on Rebbi Yochanan, the second Lashon reconciles him with the Beraisa - by pointing to the word ha'Shochet, which (bearing in mind that birds of Kodsshim require Melikah), is like killing it (without Shechitah), rendering it a Neveilah, and one is not Chayav for sacrificing a Neveilah outside the Azarah.

2)

(a)What does Ula say about Emurei Kodshim Kalim that are brought on the Mizbe'ach before the blood has been sprinkled?

(b)Rebbi Zeira tries to support Ula's ruling from our Mishnah, which lists she'Nishpach Damah ve'she'Yatza Damah Chutz li'Kela'im among those that Im Alu, Lo Yerdu. What Kal va'Chomer does he Darshen from there?

(c)How do we refute Rebbi Zeira's proof from ...

1. ... there?

2. ... the Beraisa, which adds the Korban Pesach to the list?

(d)What was Rebbi Zeira thinking when he brought the proof from there?

2)

(a)Ula rules that if Emurei Kodshim Kalim are brought on the Mizbeach before the blood has been sprinkled - Lo Yerdu.

(b)Rebbi Zeira tries to support Ula's ruling from our Mishnah, which lists she'Nishpach Damah ve'she'Yatza Damah Chutz li'Kela'im among those that Im Alu Lo Yerdu - because if Nishpach Damah, which is no longer subject to Zerikah, is included, Kal va'Chomer our case, which still is.

(c)We refute Rebbi Zeira's proof from ...

1. ... there however, by establishing it by Kodshei Kodshim.

2. ... the Beraisa, which adds the Korban Pesach to the list - by establishing it by she'Lo li'Sheman (like Chatas, which follows it), but not by where he sacrificed them before the Zerikah.

(d)Rebbi Zeira, on the other hand brought a proof from there, because he thought that - the P'sul of Korban Pesach is equivalent to that of the Reisha.

3)

(a)We learned in the Mishnah ve'Chulan she'Alu Chayin, Yerdu. What can we infer from there?

(b)Bearing in mind that there is no difference between Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim with regard to Chayin, how do we refute the contention that with regard to Shechutin, there is no difference between them either (a Kashya on Ula)?

(c)Then why does the Tana say ve'Chulan?

(d)What do we mean when we ask why that is not obvious?

3)

(a)We learned in the Mishnah ve'Chulan she'Alu Chayin, Yerdu - implying Ha Shechutin, Lo Yerdu.

(b)Bearing in mind that there is no difference between Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim with regard to Chayin, we refute the contention that, with regard to Shechutin, there is no difference between them either (a Kashya on Ula) - by explaining that whereas all Chulin Yerdu, Shechutin are different inasmuch as some of them Yerdu (Kodshim Kalim), whereas others (Kodshei Kodshim) Lo Yerdu ...

(c)... and when the Tana says ve'Chulan - he is referring to Chayin exclusively.

(d)We ask why that is not obvious - because, seeing as the Tana is talking about Kesheirim, which are due to be brought on the Mizbe'ach anyway, why would we have thought otherwise?

4)

(a)To answer the Kashya, how do we establish the Mishnah in a way that makes it not so obvious at all?

(b)According to which Tana does this go?

(c)What do we extrapolate from the word "Osah" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Nitach Osah li'Nesachim")?

(d)Based on the way we just established ve'Chulan she'Alu Chayin, what problem do we now have with explaining the Seifa (Shachtah be'Rosh ha'Mizbe'ach, Yafshit vi'Yenatach bi'Mekomah)?

4)

(a)To answer the Kashya - we establish the Mishnah by animals with a cataract in the eye, which, once they are taken down, will not be returned.

(b)And the author of the Mishnah is Rebbi Akiva, who holds with regard to Ba'alei-Mumin Im Alu, Lo Yerdu.

(c)We extrapolate from the word "Osah" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Nitach Osah li'Nesachim") - that only a Kasher animal is skinned (and the skin is given to the Kohanim), but not a Pasul one.

(d)Based on the fact that we just established ve'Chulan she'Alu Chayin by Pesulin, the problem with explaining the Seifa (Shachtah be'Rosh ha'Mizbe'ach, Yafshit vi'Yenatach bi'Mekomah) too, by Pesulin is that - it clashes with the Pasuk that we just quoted.

5)

(a)So we establish the Seifa by Kesheirim. What is then the Chidush?

(b)There is however, an opinion that holds Ein Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach be'Rosh ha'Mizbe'ach. What is their reason?

(c)We answer that the Tana is speaking where the animal had a Sha'as ha'Kosher. What do we mean by that? How does that justify Shechting it on top of the Mizbe'ach?

(d)And we establish the author as Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon. What does he say in Perek T'vul-Yom, with regard to the skin of a Pasul animal that had a Sha'as ha'Kosher?

5)

(a)So we establish the Seifa by Kesheirim, and the Chidush is that - Hefshet and Nitu'ach are permitted on top of the Mizbe'ach.

(b)There is however, an opinion that holds Ein Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach be'Rosh ha'Mizbe'ach - because, seeing as this can be done at the foot of the Mizbe'ach, it is not Derech Eretz to do it on top.

(c)We answer that the Tana is speaking where the animal had a Sha'as ha'Kosher - by which we mean that the animal went up the ramp when it was Kasher, and only became Pasul after having been Shechted and its blood sprinkled. Consequently, it can only be skinned and cut into pieces on the Mizbe'ach (because once it is taken down, it may not be returned), and the objection to Shechting it there falls away.

(d)We establish the author as Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who rules in Perek T'vul-Yom - that a Pasul animal that had a Sha'as ha'Kosher is skinned and the skin given to the Kohanim.

6)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa (with regard to the current case under discussion) Keitzad Oseh, Morid ha'Kirbayim Lematah u'Madichan. Why can the Kohen not just burn the intestines as they are?

(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mal'achi "Hakriveihu Na le'Pechasecha"?

(c)What do we then mean when we ask why the Kohen needs to do that?

(d)What do we answer?

(e)On what grounds do we encourage a Kohen to do something that is forbidden (albeit inadvertently)?

6)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa (with regard to the current case under discussion) 'Keitzad Oseh, Morid ha'Kirbayim Lematah u'Madichan'. The Kohen cannot just burn the intestines as they are - because it is not Kavod for Hash-m, to sacrifice in his honor animals together with their dung.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Mal'achi "Hakriveihu Na le'Pechasecha" that - whatever one would not serve a king, one may not serve Hash-m either.

(c)When we ask why the Kohen needs to do that, we mean that - since, having had to take the pieces of the Pasul Korban down from the Mizbe'ach, he may no longer return them, what is the point of washing out the intestines?

(d)And we answer that - in this way, should a Kohen who is not aware that they are Pasul come across them, he will take them up on the Mizbe'ach and burn them.

(e)We can encourage a Kohen to do something that is forbidden (albeit inadvertently) because - it is preferable to leaving Kodshei Shamayim lying around like carcasses.

85b----------------------------------------85b

7)

(a)What did Rebbi Chiya bar Aba citing Rebbi Yochanan, ask, in connection with Emurei Kodshim Kalim that are brought on the Mizbe'ach before the blood has been sprinkled?

(b)What did he reply when Rebbi Ami asked him why he did not rather ask whether they were subject to Me'ilah or not?

(c)How do we then reconcile Rebbi Yochanan conclusion Lo Yerdu with the fact that they are not subject to Me'ilah?

7)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba citing Rebbi Yochanan, asked - whether, if Emurei Kodshim Kalim are brought on the Mizbe'ach before the blood has been sprinkled, we say Lo Yerdu or not.

(b)When Rebbi Ami asked him why he did not rather ask whether they were subject to Me'ilah or not, he replied that - this was not a problem, since Me'ilah is fixed by the Zerikas Dam (exclusively).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan concluded Lo Yerdu despite the fact that they are not subject to Me'ilah (which is due to the fact that they have not attained the status of Kodshei Mizbe'ach) - because they became Lachmo shel Mizbe'ach.

8)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, when Rebbi Akiva rules Im Alu, Lo Yerdu with regard to Ba'alei Mumin, he is speaking about cataracts in the eye and similar Mumin, but not to blemishes such as missing limbs. Why is that?

(b)What other specification does Rebbi Akiva require, before he will rule Lo Yerdu?

(c)What does he therefore say about Olas Nekeivah? Why would we have thought otherwise?

8)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, when Rebbi Akiva rules 'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu' with regard to Ba'alei Mumin, he is speaking about cataracts in the eye and similar Mumin (but not to blemishes such as missing limbs) - because they are not considered Mumin with regard to Korb'nos Of.

(b)Before he will rule Lo Yerdu - Rebbi Akiva also requires the Hekdesh to have preceded the blemish.

(c)That explains why he rules that - if someone is Makdish a female animal as an Olah, Rebbi Akiva will concede that Im Alah Teired (even though an Olas Nekeivah [like a Ba'al-Mum] is Kasher by an Of).

9)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "min ha'Beheimah"?

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether the P'sul of Nirva will apply to a bird. Why does he think that it ...

1. ... may not?

2. ... nevertheless may?

(c)Why is a bird not subject to the P'sul of Rove'a?

9)

(a)From the Pasuk in Vayikra "min ha'Beheimah" we learn that - Rove'a and Nirva are disqualified from going on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether the P'sul of Nirva will apply to a bird. He thinks that it ...

1. ... may not - because whatever is not subject to the P'sul of Rove'a, is not subject to the P'sul of Nirva either.

2. ... nevertheless may - because when all's said and done, a sin was performed on it.

(c)A bird is not subject to the P'sul of Rove'a - because it is physically impossible.

10)

(a)How does Rabah resolve our She'eilah from Rebbi Akiva, who is Machshir Ba'alei Mumin?

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak supports Rabah's ruling from a Mishnah in Bechoros. What does the Mishnah say about Nirva, Muktzah, Ne'evad, Esnan and M'chir?

(c)On the other hand, the Tana inserts Tumtum and Androginus. Seeing as there is no difference between a Zachar and a Nekeivah with regard to Olas ha'Of, why does he do that?

(d)What does Rebbi Eliezer say there?

10)

(a)Rabah resolves our She'eilah from Rebbi Akiva, who is Machshir Ba'alei Mumin - implying (by virtue of omission) that he is not Machshir Nirva.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak supports Rabah's ruling from a Mishnah in Bechoros, which rules - Nirva, Muktzah, Ne'evad, Esnan and M'chir are Metamei the clothes that the person who eats them is wearing (in which case it is clear that Im Alu, Yerdu).

(c)On the other hand, the Tana inserts Tumtum and Androginus (in spite of the fact that there is no difference between a Zachar and a Nekeivah with regard to Olas ha'Of) - because in his opinion, they are a Beryah bi'Fenei Atzman (an independant species [see Sugya in Bechoros]).

(d)According to Rebbi Eliezer there - wherever both male and female are Kasher, Tumtum and Androginus are Kasher, too.

11)

(a)Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim in our Mishnah describes how his father used to remove Ba'alei-Mumin from the Mizbe'ach (Dochin Hayah Aba es Ba'alei-Mumin me'al-Gabei ha'Mizbe'ach). Bearing in mind that he is merely concurring with the Tana Kama, why does the Mishnah quote him?

(b)What additional Chidush can we learn from the words of Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim?

(c)How does Ula qualify the Din in our Mishnah Im Yardu, Lo Ya'alu? In which case will the Tana hold Ya'alu?

(d)Why is that?

11)

(a)Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim in our Mishnah describes how his father used to remove Ba'alei-Mumin from the Mizbe'ach (Dochin Hayah Aba es Ba'alei-Mumin me'al-Gabei ha'Mizbe'ach). Despite the fact that he is merely concurring with the Tana Kama, the Mishnah quotes him - because it attaches great importance to a Ma'aseh that actually took place.

(b)In addition - the word Dochin implies that they took it down discreetly, and not publicly.

(c)Ula qualifies the Din in our Mishnah Im Yardu, Lo Ya'alu - by confining it to where the fire has not yet burned most of the piece, but where it has, the Tana will hold Im Yardu, Ya'alu ...

(d)... because once a piece of Korban is well burned, it becomes Lachmo shel Eish.

12)

(a)What we just learned is Rav Mari's version of Ula's ruling. Rebbi Chanina from Sura learns it on the Seifa. What does the Tana say about the bones, the sinews, the horns and the hooves of a Korban? When are they sacrificed and when are they not?

(b)According to Rebbi Chanina from Sura, what does Ula now say about that?

(c)Rebbi Chanina from Sura agrees with Rav Mari. Why does Rav Mari not agree with Rebbi Chanina from Sura?

12)

(a)What we just learned is Rav Mari's version of Ula's ruling. Rebbi Chanina from Sura learns it on the Seifa, where the Tana says that the bones, the veins, the horns and the hooves of a Korban - must be sacrificed as long as they are still attached to the flesh, but not once they have been removed.

(b)According to Rebbi Chanina from Sura, Ula now rules that - once the fire has burned most of any particular limb, it is returned to the Mizbe'ach in any event.

(c)Although Rebbi Chanina from Sura agrees with Rav Mari, Rav Mari does not agree with Rebbi Chanina from Sura - because the bones, the sinews, the horns and the hooves - are not subject to Haktarah at all.

13)

(a)What does our Mishnah say about the Basar of Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim, Mosar ha'Omer, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim, the Sheyarei Menachos and the Ketores? What do they all have in common?

(b)Why is that?

(c)And what does the Tana rule in connection with the hair on the head of a lamb of an Olah and the beard of a goat?

(d)Which other four items does the Tana include in this list?

(e)What does he learn from the Pasuk...n

1. ... in Vayikra "Ve'hiktir ha'Kohen es ha'Kol"?

2. ... in Re'ei "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam'?

13)

(a)Our Mishnah rules with regard to the Basar of Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim, Mosar ha'Omar, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim, the Sheyarei Menachos and the Ketores were brought on the Mizbe'ach - that Im Alu, Yerdu ...

(b)... because (even though they are all Kasher) - none of them have any connection with the Mizbe'ach.

(c)And the Tana rules that - as long as the hair on the head of a lamb of an Olah and the beard of a goat are connected to the head (which is not officially skinned), Im Alu, Lo Yerdu (but not once they have been shorn).

(d)The other four items which the Tana includes in this list are - the bones of an animal, its sinews, its horns and its hooves.

(e)He learns from the Pasuk...

1. ... in Vayikra "Ve'hiktir ha'Kohen es ha'Kol" - that as long as the above are still attached, Ya'alu.

2. ... in Re'ei "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam' - that if they are not atached, Lo Ya'alu.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF