(a)According to Beis Shamai, where does one burn Kodshei Kodashim that became Tamei inside the Azarah?
(b)This applies whether they became Tamei via an Av ha'Tum'ah or a Vlad ha'Tum'ah. Which is the sole case when Kodshei Kodashim are burned outside the Azarah?
(a)According to Beis Shamai, one burns Kodshei Kodashim that became Tamei inside the Azarah - inside the Azarah.
(b)The sole case where Kodshei Kodashim are burned outside the Azarah - is when they became Tamei outside the Azarah through an Av ha'Tum'ah .
(a)According to Beis Hillel, Kodshei Kodashim that became Tamei must be taken straight outside and burned there. What is the sole exception to this?
(b)Rebbi Eliezer goes after the degree of Tum'ah. Whatever became Tamei only through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah must be burned inside the Azarah - even if it became Tamei outside. Why is that?
(c)What does Rebbi Akiva hold?
(a)According to Beis Hillel, Kodshei Kodashim that became Tamei must be taken straight outside and burned there - unless they became Tamei inside the Azarah through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah (because there are two point in its favor: 1. It occurred inside; 2. Its Tum'ah is light.
(b)Rebbi Eliezer goes after the degree of Tum'ah. Whatever became Tamei only through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah must be burned inside the Azarah even if it became Tamei outside - because, since its Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan (as we explained, we will even bring it inside the Azarah, in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of burning it in the Kodesh.
(c)According to Rebbi Akiva - the Kodshim must be burned wherever they became Tamei (irrespective of the degree of Tum'ah).
(a)According to 'Bar Kapara, the Vlad ha'Tum'ah referred to in our Mishnah is a Tum'ah d'Rabanan. What is an example of this?
(b)How does Rebbi Yochanan, who learns that the Tana is speaking about Tum'ah d'Oraisa exclusively, explain Vlad ha'Tum'ah (See Tiklin Chadtin)?
(c)Why is there a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan ...
1. ... from Beis Shamai?
2. ... from Beis Hillel?
(d)Why is there a Kashya on Bar Kapara from Beis Shamai but not from Beis Hillel?
(a)According to 'Bar Kapara, the Vlad ha'Tum'ah referred to in our Mishnah is a Tum'ah d'Rabanan - e.g. the Tum'ah of liquids (or any other of the eighteen Tum'os decreed by Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in the first Perek of Shabbos).
(b)Rebbi Yochanan, who learns that the Tana is speaking about Tum'ah d'Oraisa, explains Vlad ha'Tum'ah to mean that the flesh touched a vessel which touched one of the liquids of a Zav.
(c)The Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan ...
1. ... from Beis Shamai is - why does he permit Kodshim which became Tamei through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah to be taken inside the Azarah - seeing as, when all's said and done, they are Tamei d'Oraisa?
2. ... from Beis Hillel is - why do they permit burning Kodshim inside the Azarah if they became Tamei inside through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah, since there too, the Tum'ah is mi'd'Oraisa?
(d)The Kashya on Bar Kapara from Beis Shamai is - why Beis Shamai make a distinction between an Av ha'Tum'ah which became Tamei outside and one which became Tamei inside, seeing as both are Tamei mid'Oraisa? (It is not however clear, why the Gemara asks this on Bar Kapara. The Kashya appears to be one on Beis Shamai - since there is no alternative explanation to Bar Kapara's - as far as Av ha'Tum'ah is concerned.)
(a)Why did the Rabanan not discuss the Kashyos on Rebbi Yochanan (only the Kashya on Bar Kapara) - according to the Korban ha'Eidah's second explanation?
(b)How do we answer Bar Kapara, using the Sevara of Rebbi Akiva?
(c)How do we explain the Kashya on Beis Hillel's distinction between a Vlad ha'Tum'ah (de'Rabanan) which became Tamei inside and one which became outside - with a statement of Rebbi Shimon (concerning food and drink of a Metzora) See Hagahos ha'Gra?
(a)The Rabanan did not discuss the Kashyos on Rebbi Yochanan - because they are definitely difficult (and it is not possible to answer them). They did however, discuss the Kashya on Bar Kapara, since they sensed that it was easy to answer.
(b)We see from Rebbi Akiva, answers the Gemara, that we go after the location where the Kodshim became Tamei. That explains why (in the case of when they became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah) Beis Shamai differentiates between whether they became Tamei inside or outside. Whereas in the case where they became Tamei through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah, since there, the Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan, the Chachamim were lenient, even permitting one to take the Tamei Kodshim inside (in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of burning it ba'Kodesh). Note: The Kashya presumed like Rebbi Eliezer, who differentiates between the degree of Tum'ah, rather than where they became Tamei.
(c)Beis Hillel's distinction between a Vlad ha'Tum'ah (de'Rabanan) which became Tamei inside and one which became outside (on which one can ask: since they are both mid'Rabanan, why are they stringent by a case when the Kodshim became Tamei outside?) is based on Rebbi Shimon, who holds that the food and drink of a Metzora may not be brought into the Azarah (even though that which is already there, may remain). Similarly, Chazal were stringent about bringing Kodshim which became Tamei outside, inside even though, that which is already, may be burnt there.
(a)The limbs of both the Tamid and those of the Musaf were initially placed on the lower half of the ramp. How did the Kohanim know which was which?
(b)What did the Kohanim do in between the placing of the limbs on the ramp and taking them up to the Mekom ha'Ma'arachah?
(c)The limbs of the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh were not placed on the ramp at all. Where were they placed?
(a)The limbs of both the Tamid and those of the Musaf were initially placed on the lower half of the ramp - the former on the west side of the ramp, the latter, on the east.
(b)In between the placing of the limbs on the ramp and taking them up to the Mekom ha'Ma'arachah - the Kohanim would go to the Lishkas ha'Gazis to read the Shema (and Daven).
(c)The limbs of the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh were not placed on the ramp at all. They were placed on the Karkov of the Mizbe'ach i.e. on top of the Mizbe'ach, on the Amah surrounding the Mekom ha'Ma'arachah, where the Kohanim used to walk.
(a)What is the difference between Shekalim and Bikurim on the one hand, and Ma'aser Dagan, Ma'aser Behemah and Bechor Behemah on the other?
(b)Why should the Mitzvah of ...
1. ... Shekalim ...
2. ... Bikurim ... not apply nowadays?
(c)Does this mean that if someone does designate either of the two, it does not become Kodesh - according to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah?
(d)What does Rebbi Shimon hold?
(a)Shekalim and Bikurim only apply when the the Beis-Hamikdash is standing; whereas Ma'aser Dagan, Ma'aser Behemah and Bechor Behemah apply even when it is not.
(b)the Mitzvah of ...
1. ... Shekalim does not apply nowadays - because there are no Korbanos, and the purpose of the Shekalim is only for the Korbanos.
2. ... Bikurim - because the Torah writes in Ki Savo "Reishis Bikurei Admascha Tavi Beis Hash-m Elokecha". Consequently, when there is no Beis Hamikdash, there are no Bikurim.
(c)According to the Tana Kama - this means that there is no obligation nowadays to give a half-Shekel or to bring Bikurim. But if someone designated either of them, they are nevertheless Kadosh.
(d)Rebbi Shimon says that if someone designated Bikurim, they are not Kadosh.
(a)Why did the Musaf of Shabbos precede that of Rosh Chodesh?
(b)Then why did the Shir of Rosh Chodesh precedes that of Shabbos?
(c)Why would this be necessary?
(a)The Musaf of Shabbos preceded that of Rosh Chodesh - because it was Tadir (more common), and whatever is more Tadir, has precedence.
(b)Nevertheless, the Shir of Rosh Chodesh took precedence over that of Shabbos - in order to publicise the fact that it was was Rosh Chodesh.
(c)This would be necessary - because Rosh Chodesh depended upon the the proclamation of Beis-Din (of which not everyone was aware), so Chazal gave the Shir of Rosh Chodesh precedence, as one method of informing the people that it was Rosh Chodesh.
(a)When was the Shir of Rosh Chodesh sung?
(a)The Shir of Rosh Chodesh was sung after the Shechitah of the Musaf of Shabbos, and was followed by the Shir of Shabbos.
(a)Rebbi Shimon says in our Mishnah that if someone designates Bikurim nowadays, they are not Kadosh. We can infer from there that he agrees with the Tana Kama that Shekalim are. How does Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah quote him?
(a)Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Shimon that neither Bikurim nor Shekalim are Kadosh nowadays.
(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa rules that a convert is obligated nowadays to set aside a Revi'is Kesef for his Kan. Which Kan?
(b)What does Rebbi Shimon say about this?
(c)For the same reason, one is forbidden to declare something Hekdesh or Cherem nowadays. What happens if one declared Hekdesh ...
1. ... clothes?
2. ... an animal?
3. ... money?
(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa rules that a convert is obligated nowadays to set aside a Revi'is Kesef for his Kan - birds which every convert is obligated to bring at the time of his conversion.
(b)According to Rebbi Shimon, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai annuled this obligation, because of Takalah (the fear that the Hekdesh money may inadvertently be used for Chulin).
(c)For the same reason, one is forbidden to declare something Hekdesh or Cherem nowadays. If one declared Hekdesh ...
1. ... clothes - they must be burned.
2. ... an animal - it must be placed in a room and left there without food to die.
3. ... money - it is thrown into the Yam-Hamelach.
(a)Why is it that if someone declares his half-Shekel Kadosh (according to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah), his declaration is invalid; whereas if a convert declared money for his Kan, Hekdesh (which is forbidden l'Chatchilah for the same reason) it is valid?
(b)What is the Halachah by Bikurim, Shekalim and the Ger's Kan? (see Tiklin Chadtin)
(a)If someone declares his half-Shekel Kadosh (according to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah), his declaration is invalid - because of the likelihood that, after he has sanctified his half-Shekel, the Beis-Hamikdash will be rebuilt in Nisan (like the Mishkan was) - in which case it will immediately become Terumah Yeshanah - and the Korbanos can only be purchased with money from the Terumah Chadashah. If, on the other hand, a convert declared money for his Kan Hekdesh - it does become Kadosh - because by the Kan of a convert it makes no difference how old the money is.
(b)The Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah - that nowadays Bikurim are not Kadosh, whereas Shekalim and the Kan of a convert are, should the owners designate them.