1)
(a)We learned in our Mishnah that, when the Kohen Gadol performed Semichah on his bull, it was standing between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach. Where did it stand when he subsequently Shechted it?
(b)Why could the author of our Mishnah then not be Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah? Which part of the Azarah is eligible for the Shechitah of Kodshei Kodashim according to him?
(c)Rebbi adds the north side of the Azarah which is situated in the twenty-two Amos from the entrance of Ezras Yisrael up to the Mizbe'ach. We initially think that he only comes to add to the area of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, in which case he cannot be the author of our Mishnah. How do we finally establish him as the possible author?
(d)Everyone agrees however, that the section of the Azarah next to the Beis Chalipos is not eligible for the Shechitah of Kodshei Kodashim. Where is that, and why is it not eligible?
1)
(a)The bull had to be Shechted in the same spot as where the Viduy took place. Consequently, it was also Shechted between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach.
(b)The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah - in whose opinion Tzafon must correspond to the north side of the Mizbe'ach, but not to the area of between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach.
(c)We initially think that Rebbi, who adds the north side of the Azarah which is situated in the area incorporating the Ezras Yisrael and the Ezras Kohanim (i.e. the twenty-two Amos in the main Azarah up to the Mizbe'ach) - only comes to add to the area specified by Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah (i.e. due north of the Mizbe'ach), in which case he cannot be the author of our Mishnah. We conclude however, that Rebbi comes to add also to the area of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (i.e. who permits even Bein ha'Ulam v'la'Mizbe'ach), permitting the entire north section of the Azarah, east of the Beis ha'Chalipos. In that case, he too could be the author of our Mishnah.
(d)Everyone agrees however, that the section of the Azarah next to the Beis Chalipos is not eligible for the Shechitah of Kodshei Kodashim. That is the area adjoining the north side of the Ulam - which is not eligible for the Shechitah of Kodshei Kodashim, since one cannot see the Mizbe'ach from there (and the Torah writes in Tzav "Al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach Tzafonah").
2)
(a)If the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi, why does the Mishnah confine the Viduy and the Shechitah to Bein ha'Ulam v'la'Mizbe'ach? Why does it not just say 'anywhere in the Azarah'?
(b)Where about in the Azarah is the ideal location to Shecht Kodshei Kodashim according to all opinions?
2)
(a)According to Rebbi, the Mishnah confines the Viduy and the Shechitah to Bein ha'Ulam v'la'Mizbe'ach, instead of just saying 'anywhere in the Azarah' - for the same reason as it does so according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (who also agrees that he could Shecht them north of the Mizbe'ach): because Chazal want to make it as easy as possible for the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur so that he should not become weak - so they both mentioned between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach, giving him less walking distance from the place where he receives the blood and his destination with the bowl of blood (into the Heichal and Kodesh Kodshim).
(b)Everyone agrees that (under normal circumstances) the ideal location to Shecht Kodshei Kodashim - is due north of the Mizbe'ach.
3)
(a)Why did the bull have to stand crooked, with its back facing northwards and its face westwards? Why could it not stand with its back towards the east and its face towards the west?
(b)The positioning for Semichah on all Kodshei Kodashim was performed in a similar fashion as described in our Mishnah. One would confess for the appropriate sin on the appropriate Korban. According to Rebbi Yosi Hagelili, the confession for an Olah was on Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah. Why specifically these three? Why not for example, Ma'aser Rishon or Ma'aser Ani?
(c)Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Yosi Hagelili. What did an Olah atone for, according to him?
(d)Why can it not come to atone for an ordinary Lav?
3)
(a)The bull had to stand crooked, with its back facing northwards and its face westwards, rather than with its back towards the east and its face towards the west - because we are afraid that, if it is allowed to stand with its back facing the Mizbe'ach, it will debase the Mizbe'ach, by leaving droppings whilst standing with its back to the Mizbe'ach.
(b)According to Rebbi Yosi Hagelili, the confession for an Olah was on Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah - which had no Kaparah or Viduy of their own, whereas Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Ani had their own Viduy on Erev Pesach of each fourth year.
(c)According to Rebbi Akiva - an Olah atoned for any Aseh and 'Lav ha'Nitak la'Aseh', since these have no punishment of their own.
(d)It cannot come to atone for an ordinary Lav - which already has the punishment of Malkus.
36b----------------------------------------36b
4)
(a)Rebbi Yosi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva argue over the Lav of Neveilah. In which way is the Lav of Neveilah and those of Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah comparable?
(b)Why do they not fall under the category of 'Lav ha'Nitak la'Aseh'?
(c)Then why are none of them liable to receive Malkus according to Rebbi Yosi Hagelili?
4)
(a)The Lav of Neveilah and those of Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah are comparable inasmuch as all of them are followed by an Aseh ("la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha Titnenah" and "l'Ani v'la'Ger Ta'azov Osam" respectively).
(b)None of these however, fall under the category of 'Lav ha'Nitak la'Aseh' (which is Patur from Malkus - according to all opinions) - Neveilah, because it is only possible to fulfill the Aseh if one has not transgressed the Lav (since, once one has eaten it, how can one possibly give it to a Ger?), and the other three, because the Torah seems to be saying 'Do not collect Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah - but rather leave them for the poor'. (That is why, in Rebbi Akiva's opinion, they are all subject to Malkus.)
(c)Rebbi Yosi Hagelili nevertheless holds that they are Patur from Malkus, seeing as the Torah follows each Lav with an Aseh (unlike the Lav of Chasimah - "Lo Sachsom Shor b'Disho", which is placed next to the Parshah of Malkus, and which therefore serves as the example of La'avin for which one receives Malkus).
5)
(a)According to Abaye, even Rebbi Yosi Hagelili will agree that Neveilah is subject to Malkus. Why?
(b)He argues with Rebbi Akiva specifically by the Lav of Leket, etc. What is the basis of their Machlokes?
5)
(a)According to Abaye, even Rebbi Yosi Hagelili will agree that Neveilah is subject to Malkus - because, as we just explained, the Aseh is only applicable if one has not transgressed the Lav.
(b)He argues with Rebbi Akiva specifically by the Lav of Leket, etc., where the Torah writes "Ta'azov", implying that, after one has transgressed the Lav, he should then fulfill the Aseh of leaving it for the poor, making it a Lav ha'Nitak la'Aseh; whereas, according to Rebbi Akiva, "Ta'azov" implies before transgressing the Lav (as we explained earlier), and he will therefore receive Malkus.
6)
(a)Rebbi Meir (the author of our Mishnah) bases the order of Viduy ('Avisi, Pasha'ti v'Chatasi') on two Pesukim in the Torah: one of them is "v'Hisvadah Alav es Kol Avonos Bnei Yisrael, v'es Kol Pish'ehem l'Chol Chatosam" - in Acharei-Mos. The other Pasuk is in Ki Sisa. What is it?
(b)How do the Chachamim interpret the terms Avonos, Pesha'im and Chata'os? How does that give rise to their objection with Rebbi Meir's order?
(c)What is the order of the Viduy according to the Chachamim?
(d)How do the Chachamim then explain the order of Viduy in the Torah? What was Moshe saying to Hash-m?
6)
(a)Rebbi Meir (the author of our Mishnah) bases the order of Viduy 'Avisi, Pasha'ti v'Chatasi' on two Pesukim in the Torah: one of them, is in Acharei-Mos "v'Hisvadah Alav es Kol Avonos Bnei Yisrael, v'es Kol Pish'ehem l'Chol Chatosam". The other, in Ki Sisa - is "Nosei Avon va'Fesha, v'Chata'ah v'Nakei".
(b)According to the Chachamim, Avonos means - iniquities, Pesha'im -rebellious sins and Chata'os - sins performed inadvertently. In that case, why does Rebbi Meir give the order as 'Avisi, Pasha'ti v'Chatasi', seeing as it is not the done thing to confess first on sins transgressed on purpose, and then on sins transgressed by mistake.
(c)The order of the Viduy according to the Chachamim - is therefore Chatasi, Avisi u'Fasha'ti (progressing from the less serious to the more serious).
(d)According to the Chachamim, when Moshe followed the order of Avon, Fesha and Chatas - he was asking Hash-m that, when Yisrael did Teshuvah, He should consider the sins that they transgressed on purpose as if they had performed them by mistake.
7)
(a)Why does Rav find it necessary to rule like the Chachamim, in spite of the fact that they are in the majority anyway?
(b)What did that Chazan reply when Rabah asked him why he followed the Nusach of Rebbi Meir and not of the Chachamim?
7)
(a)Rav found it necessary to rule like the Chachamim, in spite of the fact that they were in the majority - because he had the backing of the Pasuk, we might otherwise have ruled like him.
(b)When Rabah asked that Chazan why he followed the Nusach of Rebbi Meir and not of the Chachamim - he replied that he held like Rebbi Meir.
8)
(a)What are the two possible interpretations of "v'Chiper Ba'ado uve'Ad Beiso" (written by the Kohen's bull)?
(b)What do we learn from "Lechaper" (written by the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach) and how do we learn it?
(c)We first try to learn from the Sa'ir la'Hashem that it means Kaparas Damim. How do we know that "v'Chiper" written by the Sa'ir la'Hashem means Kaparas Damim?
(d)So from where do ultimately learn that "v'Chiper" must mean Kaparas Devarim?
8)
(a)"v'Chiper Ba'ado u've'Ad Beiso" (written by the Kohen's bull) - either refers to verbal Kaparah, or to Kaparas Damim.
(b)We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah from "v'Chiper" and "Lechaper" (written by the Sa'ir ) that the Kaparah by the bull is Kaparas Devarim (since by the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach there was no Damim).
(c)"v'Chiper" written by the Sa'ir la'Hashem can only refer to Kaparas Dam - because, firstly, it is written immediately after the Parshah of Matan Damim, and secondly, because there is no Viduy there to which it could refer.
(d)We ultimately conclude that "Ve'Chiper" can only mean Kaparas Devarim - because it is written before the bull was even Shechted, so how can it refer to Kaparas Damim?
9)
(a)From where do we learn that the Viduy on Yom Kipur starts with 'Ana'?
(b)What do we learn from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Kaparah" "Kaparah" from Eglah Arufah?
(c)We cannot learn that, at Sinai, Moshe should have said the name of Hash-m, from Eglah Erufah, because Sinai preceded Eglah Arufah. But what problem does the Gemara have about learning Eglah Arufah from Sinai?
9)
(a)We learn that the Viduy on Yom Kipur starts with 'Ana' - from a Gezeirah Shavah 'Kaparah' 'Kaparah' from Har Sinai where, after the Eigel ha'Zahav, Moshe said to Hash-m "Ana Chata ha'Am ha'Zeh".
(b)We learn from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Kaparah" "Kaparah" from Eglah Arufah - that the Viduy on Yom Kipur must contain the Name of Hash-m, just as there, the Kohanim mentioned the Name of Hash-m ("Kaper l'Amcha Yisrael Asher Padisa Hash-m").
(c)Why, asks the Gemara, do we not learn Eglah Arufah from Sinai, to require that the Kohanim begin their Viduy there with the word 'Ana'.