(a)What problem does the Gemara have with the Mishnah in Ta'anis, which gives the dates of the families who donated wood for the Mizbe'ach annually?
(b)What is the answer? Why did they designate certain dates for specific families to donate the wood?
(c)According to Rebbi Acha, the author of that Mishnah must be Rebbi Yosi of our Mishnah. Why is that?
(d)Rebbi Yosi (alias Rebbi Asi) quoting Rebbi Ilya, establishes the Mishnah even like the Rabanan of Rebbi Yosi. How does he do that?
(a)The Gemara asks why the Mishnah in Ta'anis needs to give the dates of the families who donated wood for the Mizbe'ach annually - when in fact, anyone could donate it.
(b)In fact, the right to donate wood for the Mizbe'ach was a privilege. The respective families listed there earned the privilege to donate - even if the wood-store in the Beis-Hamikdash was full - because, when they returned from Galus Bavel, and found no (worm-free) wood, these same families stepped forward and donated wood on the very days which would later become allotted to them.
(c)According to Rebbi Acha, the author of that Mishnah must be Rebbi Yosi of our Mishnah - who says that an individual may donate a Korban Tzibur.
(d)Rebbi Yosi (alias Rebbi Asi) quoting Rebbi Iyla, establishes the Mishnah even like the Rabanan of Rebbi Yosi. According to him, the Rabanan only argue with Rebbi Yosi regarding the actual Korbanos themselves, but, as far as the wood (and other Machshirei Korban) is concerned, they too, agree, that a private individual is permitted to donate - even for the needs of a Korban Tzibur.
(a)Rebbi Acha and Rebbi Yosi quoting Rebbi Iyla have a similar dispute regarding a woman who knitted a shirt for her son (i.e. as to who the author of that Beraisa is). What does the Tana of that Beraisa say?
(b)In another Beraisa, the Rabanan of Rebbi Yosi say that, even when the Beis-Hamikdash was no longer standing, the days that were designated to the respective families to donate wood were considered private Yamim-Tovim. Why is this a Kashya on Rebbi Acha (who considers the wood-offering to be no more than Machshirei Korban - according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Yosi)?
(c)Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok claimed that he was a descendent of Sana'ah ben Binyamin. What did his family do one year when Tish'ah b'Av fell on Shabbos, and why does that pose a Kashya on Rebbi Iyla?
(a)The Tana of that Beraisa rules that if a woman knitted a shirt for her son - the Kohanim are permitted to use it during the Avodah, provided she hands it over officially for communal use.
(b)If, as Rebbi Acha maintains, the wood-offering is no more than Machshirei Korban, then why would the Rabanan say that, even when the Beis-Hamikdash was no longer standing, the days that were designated to the respective families to donate wood were considered private Yamim-Tovim. That would only be the case, if the wood-offering in its time, was considered a Korban Tzibur (like Rebbi Yosi in the Rabanan).
(c)The second proof for Rebbi Yosi is from Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok, who claimed that he was a descendent of Sana'ah ben Binyamin (who was designated the tenth of Av to donate wood). One year, when Tish'ah b'Av fell on Shabbos (and was postponed until the tenth), the family did not complete the fast, because it was their private Yom-Tov. Now, assuming that the Rabanan agreed with Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok (because of the principle 'Ma'seh Rav'), this is a sound proof for Rebbi Yosi quoting Rebbi Iyla - that even the Rabanan agree that one can donate wood for a Korban Tzibur (which explains why it remained a Yom-Tov - even after the Churban); but according to Rebbi Acha - that according to the Rabanan, a Yachid cannot donate even Machshirei Korban as a Korban Tzibur, (and their wood-offering must have been no more than a Korban Yachid) why would they have celebrated that day as a Yom-Tov -- even after the Churban, when it was no longer in practice?
(a)Which are the only two Korbanos that must come from the produce of Eretz Yisrael?
(b)What does that have to do with Rebbi Yishmael?
(c)In which three regards is Eretz Yisrael more holy than Chutz la'Aretz?
(a)The only two Korbanos that must come from the produce of Eretz Yisrael - are the Omer and the Shtei ha'Lechem.
(b)Rebbi Yishmael says that the Omer cannot be brought even from the produce of Syria (which has some of the Dinim of Eretz Yisrael), so it can certainly not be brought from anywhere else outside Eretz Yisrael.
(c)Eretz Yisrael is more holy than Chutz la'Aretz inasmuch as the Omer, the Shtei ha'Lechem and Bikurim can only be brought from the produce of Eretz Yisrael.
(a)The Tana (explaining the Pasuk in Mishpatim "b'Charish u've'Katzir Tishbos") compares plowing to harvesting, to teach us that just as plowing is voluntary (since there is no such thing as plowing that is a Mitzvah), so too, is the Pasuk referring to harvesting that is voluntary - to preclude harvesting for the Omer, which is a Mitzvah, and which over-rides Shabbos. How is the above statement of Rebbi Yishmael connected with this statement?
(b)According to the Tana of our Mishnah, the Shomrei Sefichin received their payment from the Terumas ha'Lishkah. Does everyone agree that the author must be Rebbi Yishmael (and not the Rabanan, who permit the Omer to be brought from Chutz la'Aretz)?
(c)If, in the Shemitah-year, no wild seeds were available for the Omer, they were permitted to plant wheat for the Omer. After taking the Kometz, could the Shirayim be eaten?
(d)The Gemara initially thinks that, since the Shirayim are forbidden, one cannot take the Kometz either. On what grounds do we refute that?
(a)Rebbi Yishmael, who holds that the Omer must come from Eretz Yisrael, will therefore maintain that cutting it is a Mitzvah. According to the Rabanan, who hold that the Omer can come from Chutz la'Aretz, it will not be a Mitzvah to cut it.
(b)Our Mishnah could be speaking in a year of drought, when no crops are to be found in Chutz la'Aretz. In that case, the author could even be the Rabanan, who will agree that one may plant seeds during the Shemitah in such an emergency.
(c)If, in the Shemitah-year, no wild seeds were available for the Omer, they were permitted to plant barley for the Omer. After taking the Kometz however, the Shirayim were forbidden.
(d)We refute the contention that since the Shirayim are forbidden, one cannot take the Kometz either - by comparing this to the five things that are brought when they are Tamei (because Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur), but cannot be eaten (as we learnt in Pesachim 76b) - and one of them is in fact, the Omer.
(a)What is the problem with paying the Shomrei Sefichim directly from the Terumas ha'Lishkah?
(b)How did they get round the problem?
(c)What is the problem with transferring the Kedushah of the Terumas ha'Lishkah on to the Omer - just before it is brought?
(d)What is the answer?
(a)The problem with paying the Shomrei Sefichim directly from the Terumas ha'Lishkah is - that Hekdesh cannot go out to Chulin without redemption (i.e. being transferred on to Chulin)!?
(b)What they therefore did was to pay the Shomrei Sefichim with Chulin money borrowed from a banker (so that they should not have to wait for their wages until the Omer was ripe. Then they would transfer the money from the Terumas ha'Lishkah on to the crops which the Shomrei Sefichim had been guarding (the borrowed money is then returned, the Terumas ha'Lishkah money goes to the Shomrei Sefichin, and the crops to the Beis Hamikdash).
(c)The problem with paying the Shomrei Sefichim directly from the Terumas ha'Lishkah is - that they are paying the full value of the crops, whereas, in reality, by the time the Omer is brought, it will have depreciated through the cleansing and sifting processes required until it is brought.
(d)Whatever the Gizbar paid, answers the Gemara, that is its value (irrespective of its subsequent depreciation).
(a)The Gemara cites a similar problem with paying the workers who mined and who shaped the stones, directly from the Terumas ha'Lishkah, and it presents the same answer as it did before. What is the problem there regarding the depreciation?
(a)The problem with regard to transferring the Terumas ha'Lishkah money on the stones is - that sometimes, they get spoiled during construction.
(a)The funds for the Parah Adumah, the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach and the red thread that was thrown into the burning ashes of the Parah Adumah came from the Terumas ha'Lishkah. From where were the following funded: the ramps for the Parah Adumah and for the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, the red thread for the latter, the stream that passed through the Azarah, the walls of Yerushalayim and its towers, and all the other needs of Yerushalayim?
(b)Why was the latter list not funded from the Terumas ha'Lishkah?
(c)Who funded the ramp for the Parah Adumah, according to Aba Shaul?
(d)The remains of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah were used to raise funds for Hekdesh by purchasing wine, flour and oil on behalf of people who needed to bring flour-offerings. Rebbi Akiva disagrees. Why in his opinion, does one not make profit ...
1. ... with Hekdesh money that is left-over?
2. ... with Tzedakah-money when there are currently no recipients?
(a)The ramps for the Parah Adumah and for the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, the red thread for the latter, the stream that passed through the Azarah, the walls of Yerushalayim and its towers, as well as all the other municipal needs of Yerushalayim, were funded with money from the Mosar ha'Lishkah.
(b)They were not bought with funds from the Terumas ha'Lishkah, because they were not directly connected with the Korbanos.
(c)According to Aba Shaul - the Kohanim Gedolim funded the ramp for the Parah Adumah out of their own pockets.
(d)In Rebbi Akiva's opinion, one does one not make profit ...
1. ... with Hekdesh money that is left-over - because it is a disgrace for Hekdesh to convey an impression of poverty ('Ein Aniyus bi'Mekom Ashirus').
2. ... with Tzedakah-money when there are currently no recipients - because a poor man might turn up the next day, and there will be no money in the kitty to give him.
(a)What was the Mosar ha'Terumah (after Rosh Chodesh of the next year) used for - according to the Tana Kama?
(b)Mosar ha'Peiros (which will be explained later) was used for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach. According to Rebbi Akiva, it was the Mosar ha'Terumah that went for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach. What is Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach?
(c)What was the Mosar ha'Terumah used for, according to Rebbi Yishmael?
(d)According to Rebbi Akiva, the Mosar Nesachim was used to purchase Klei Shares. Rebbi Chanina switches the Mosar Nesachim and the Mosar ha'Terumah of Rebbi Akiva. In which point do they both agree (to disagree)?
(a)According to the Tana Kama, the Mosar ha'Terumah (after Rosh Chodesh of the next year) was melted down and turned into golden plates to overlay the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.
(b)Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach is Olos Nedavah shel Tzibur, which the Kohanim brought on the Mizbe'ach whenever it was not being used.
(c)According to Rebbi Yishmael, Mosar ha'Terumah went for Klei Shares.
(d)Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Chanina agree that Mosar Peiros does not go for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach (like Rebbi Yishmael claims it does).
(a)There are three lengths of wool:
1. ... that of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach;
2. ... that of a Metzora;
3. ... that of a Parah Adumah. What was each one used for?
(b)Why did the first one weigh a Sela, the second, a Shekel and the third, two Sela'im?
(c)Others give the weight of the latter as two and a half Sela'im; yet others say ten Zuzim. What is the difference between these two?
(a)The length of wool:
1. ... for the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach - was tied between its horns before it was pushed down from the cliff-top.
2. ... for a Metzora - was dipped (together with the live bird and a piece of cedar wood) into the blood of the Shechted bird - to sprinkle on the Metzora in the course of purification ceremony.
3. ... for the Parah Adumah - was thrown into the burning cow together with a twig of hyssop and a piece of cedar-wood .
(b)The piece of wool of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach weighed one Sela - because it needed to be divided into two; that of the Metzora, half a Sela - because it did not; and that of the Parah Adumah, two Sela'im - because it had to be heavy enough to fall into the "midst of the burning cow".
(c)There is no difference between two and a half Sela'im and ten Zuzim (because there are four Zuzim in a Sela).
(a)From which funds did the following receive remuneration...
1. ... the Talmidei-Chachamim who taught the Kohanim the Hilchos Shechitah etc.?
2. ... those who examined the animals of Hekdesh for blemishes?
3. ... the Sofrim who corrected the Sefer-Torah of the Azarah (or of Ezra)?
4. ... the two Dayanim who judged matters of theft - in Yerushalayim?
(b)According to Shmuel, also the women who wove the Paroches ha'Kodesh were paid from the Terumas ha'Lishkah. What does Rebbe Choneh hold, and what is each one's reason?
(c)Why could those who examined the animals of Hekdesh for blemishes not receive part of each animal they inspected as payment for their services?
(d)The Klei Shares came out of the funds of Mosar Nesachim (like Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah). Why did the small golden Mizbe'ach come out of the same fund, and not out of the Bedek ha'Bayis (like the Mizbach ha'Olah?
1. The Talmidei-Chachamim who taught the Kohanim the Hilchos Shechitah - received their wages from the Terumas ha'Lishkah, as did ...
2. ... those who examined the animals of Hekdesh for blemishes ...
3. ... the Sofrim who corrected the Sefer-Torah of the Azarah (or of Ezra) and ....
4. ... the two Dayanim who judged matters of theft in Yerushalayim (though it is unclear what the latter two have to do with the needs of Korbanos").
(b)According to Rebbi Choneh, the women who wove the Paroches ha'Kodesh - were paid from Bedek ha'Bayis - because he considers the Paroches part of the building; whereas as far as Shmuel is concerned, it is considered the needs of the Korbanos (according to the Gra's text, it is considered like the Kelim) which is why they were paid from the Terumas ha'Lishkah.
(c)Those who examined the animals of Hekdesh for blemishes, were not permitted to receive part of each animal they inspected as payment for their services - because then, they would be encouraged to proclaim the animal Kasher - to their own advantage (so it is obvious for that reason that any Kashrus inspector may have no stakes in the goods that he is inspecting).
(d)The Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav come out of the Mosar Nesachim (the same fund as the Klei Shares, rather than out of the Bedek ha'Bayis (like the Mizbach ha'Olah) - because it was not attached to the ground and was therefore comparable to the Klei Shares, inasmuch as it was movable like them.
(a)What, besides the Mizbach ha'Olah, was funded from Bedek ha'Bayis?
(b)Whatever was outside the Azarah was funded from the remains of the Lishkas Bedek ha'Bayis. What does 'outside the Azarah comprise'?
(c)Why must the author of the Beraisa 'Avnei Yerushalayim, Mo'alin Bahen' be Rebbi Meir? What does Rebbi Meir say?
(d)What problem does Rebbi Chiya have with this - even if the Beraisa does go like Rebbi Meir?
(a)The Mizbach ha'Olah, the Heichal and the Azarah were funded from Bedek ha'Bayis.
(b)Outside the Azarah comprised anything that was outside the Ezras Yisrael - i.e. the Ezras Nashim, the Chil, the walls of the Yerushalayim and its towers.
(c)The author of the Beraisa 'Avnei Yerushalayim, Mo'alin Bahen' must be Rebbi Meir, who says Mo'alin b'Shirayim (and we just learnt that the walls of Yerushalayim came from the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah). The Rabanan hold 'Ein Mo'alin b'Shirayim'.
(d)Rebbi Chiya argues that even if the Beraisa does go like Rebbi Meir - one would not be Mo'el - because Me'ilah applies only to the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah during the first year, when one is Mo'el, according to Rebbi Meir, only because the money may still be needed during the year (see above Daf 9b. 9b.). But once the year has past, there is no Me'ilah - even according to Rebbi Meir.
(a)What does Rebbi Meir mean when he says that the Shulchan, the Menorah, the two Mizbechos and the Paroches hold back the Korban?
(b)The Rabanan disagree. What do they hold?
(c)According to some Amora'im wherever the Torah writes "Nochach", it holds back the Avodah, according to others, "Tzela", according to yet others, it is the word "va'Yasem". What do each of these incorporate?
(d)How can these Amora'im argue with the Chachamim in b., who hold that nothing but the Kiyor and its base holds back the Korban?
(a)When Rebbi Meir says that the Shulchan, the Menorah, the two Mizbechos and the Paroches hold back the Korban - he means that if any of the above are not in place, one cannot bring the Korbanos.
(b)According to the Rabanan, it is only the basin and the stand that hold the Korban back.
(c)According to some Amora'im, wherever the Torah writes "Nochach" (incorporating the Menorah), it holds back the Avodah, according to others, "Tzela" (incorporating the Shulchan) as well; according to yet others, even the word "va'Yasem" (incorporating the Aron, the Paroches and the two Mizbechos) will prevent the Korbanos from being brought .
(d)It is not clear who empowers all these Amora'im to argue with the Chachamim in b., who hold that nothing but the Kiyor and its base hold back the Korban.