1)

(a)What do we try to prove from the fact that the Mishnah in B'rachos gives precedence to the B'rachah over the wine of Kidush because it is Tadir?

(b)How do we refute that?

(c)On what basis does Rebbi Yochanan rule like the Tana who gives precedence to Minchah over Musaf?

(d)How do we refute the proof from there that Tadir has priority over Mekudash?

1)

(a)From the fact that the Mishnah in B'rachos gives precedence to the B'rachah over the wine of Kidush because it is Tadir, we try to prove that - Tadir overrides Mekudash.

(b)We refute that however (like we did the previous proof) - based on the fact that the Kedushah of Shabbos also affects the B'rachah over the wine (in which case, both are equally Mekudash).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan rules like the Tana who gives precedence to Minchah over Musaf - because it is Tadir.

(d)We refute the proof from there that Tadir has priority over Mekudash too - on the grounds that Shabbos adds Kedushah to Minchah, just as it does to Musaf.

2)

(a)What do we extrapolate from our Mishnah, which gives precedence to yesterday's Shelamim over today's Chatas ve'Asham?

(b)How does Rava refute the proof from there that Mekudash takes precedence over Tadir?

(c)What is the difference between Tadir and Matzuy?

2)

(a)We extrapolate from our Mishnah, which gives precedence to yesterday's Shelamim over today's Chatas ve'Asham that - if it was today's Shelamim, and not yesterday's, the Chatas and Asham would take precedence.

(b)Rava refutes the proof from there that Mekudash takes precedence over Tadir - by differentiating between Tadir (which perhaps has priority over Mekudash), and Matzuy, which doesn't.

(c)The difference between Tadir and Matzuy is that - whereas the former is obligatory, the latter (such as a Shelamim) is voluntary.

3)

(a)What do Pesach and Milah have in common that does not apply to any other Mitzvas Asei?

(b)From what does the Beraisa therefore need to preclude them?

(c)Why does the Tana think that perhaps we only preclude Pesach, but not Milah?

(d)What does Rav Huna bar Yehudah try to prove from there?

3)

(a)What Pesach and Milah have in common that does not apply to any other Mitzvas Asei is the fact that - they are both Chayav Kareis.

(b)The Beraisa therefore needs to preclude them - from a Korban Chatas in the case of someone who transgresses them be'Shogeg.

(c)The Tana thinks that perhaps we only preclude Pesach (but not Milah) - because it is not Tadir, whereas Milah is.

(d)Rav Huna bar Yehudah tries to prove from there that - there is no difference between Tadir and Matzuy (since Milah too, is Matzuy but not Tadir).

4)

(a)What do we mean when we counter Mai Tedirah, Tedirah be'Mitzvos?

(b)How else might we refute the proof from there, even assuming that Milah is Matzuy and not Tadir?

4)

(a)When we counter Mai Tedirah, Tedirah be'Mitzvos, we mean that - seeing as (unlike Shelamim, which one is not an obligation to bring at all) Milah is a Mitzvah that does occur regularly, and it therefore falls under the category of Tadir.

(b)Alternatively - Milah is so much more common than Pesach, that it is considered Tadir (unlike Shelamim, which are only slightly more common than Chatas ve'Asham).

5)

(a)We ask what the Din will be if by mistake, they Shechted the Eino Tadir before the Tadir. What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(b)What does Rebbi Chanina mi'Sura mean when he extrapolates from our Mishnah Shelamim shel Emesh, Chatas ve'Asham shel ha'Yom, Shelamim shel Emesh, Kodmin, ha 'de'Yom Dumya de'Emesh, Chatas ve'Asham Kadmi?

(c)What does he prove from there?

5)

(a)We ask what the Din will be if by mistake, they Shechted the Eino Tadir before the Tadir - whether Bedieved, they conclude the Avodah of the Korban with which they began, or whether they give the blood of the Eino Tadir to someone to stir, whilst they proceed with the Shechitah of the Tadir.

(b)When Rebbi Chanina mi'Sura extrapolates from our Mishnah Shelamim shel Emesh, Chatas ve'Asham shel ha'Yom, Shelamim shel Emesh, Kodmin, ha de'Yom Dumya de'Emesh, Chatas ve'Asham Kadmi, he means that - it is only if they Shechted yesterday's Shelamim, that the Zerikah of the Shelamim takes precedence over the Shechitah of the Chatas and the Asham, but there where they Shechted today's Shelamim first, they proceed with the Shechitah of the Chatas and the Asham (because it is Mekudash), whilst someone is given the blood of the Shelamim to stir ...

(c)... a proof for the second Tzad of the She'eilah (since it is obvious that the same will apply to a case where they Shechted the Eino Tadir instead of the Tadir).

6)

(a)To refute the proof, how do we establish both the case of Shelamim shel Emesh ve'Chatas ve'Asham shel ha'Yom, and that of de'Yom Dumya de'Emesh?

(b)What will then be the Din if only the Eino Tadir or Eino Mekudash was Shechted?

(c)How do we try to resolve the She'eilah from the Mishnah in B'rachos, which gives precedence to Birchas ha'Yayin because it is Tadir. What does that have to do with our case of Kadam ve'Shachat le'she'Eino Tadir?

(d)How do we reject ...

1. ... this proof?

2. ... a similar proof from Rebbi Yochanan's ruling, giving precedence to Minchah over Musaf, even though the time for Musaf preceded that of Minchah?

6)

(a)To refute the proof, we establish both the case of Shelamim shel Emesh ve'Chatas ve'Asham shel ha'Yom, and that of de'Yom Dumya de'Emesh - where they had already Shechted the Tadir or the Mekudash as well ...

(b)... but if only the Eino Tadir or Eino Mekudash was Shechted, the She'eilah remains.

(c)We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Mishnah in B'rachos which gives precedence to Birchas ha'Yayin because it is Tadir - since we initially think that since when Shabbos entered, the wine had not yet arrived, it is like the case of Kadam ve'Shachat le'she'Eino Tadir.

(d)We reject ...

1. ... this proof however on the grounds that - since the wine is now brought to the table, it is comparable to where both animals were already Shechted.

2. ... a similar proof from Rebbi Yochanan's ruling, giving precedence to Minchah over Musaf, even though the time for Musaf preceded that of Minchah - in exactly the same way; namely, since the time for Minchah has already arrived, it too, is comparable to where both animals were already Shechted.

7)

(a)What does the Beraisa say about a Pesach which they Shechted...

1. ... before midday?

2. ... before the Tamid?

(b)What did Ravina reply when Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ashi asked him why we cannot resolve our She'eilah from this Beraisa?

(c)How did Rav Acha Saba prove this answer from the Lashon of the Beraisa 'vi'Yehei Acher Memares be'Damo Ve'yizrok es ha'Dam'?

7)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if they Shechted a Pesach...

1. ... before midday - it is Pasul (because the Torah writes "bein ha'Arbayim").

2. ... before the Tamid - it is Kasher, provided somebody else stirs the blood until the blood of the Tamid has been sprinkled.

(b)When Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ashi asked Ravina why we cannot resolve our She'eilah from this Beraisa he replied that - the Beraisa is speaking where the Tamid was already Shechted.

(c)And Rav Acha Saba proved this from the Lashon of the Beraisa 'vi'Yehei Acher Memares be'Damo Ve'yizrok es ha'Dam' - without adding ad she'Yishchot (which it would have done had the Tana been referring to a case where the Shechitah had not yet taken place).

8)

(a)What would one assume, according to Rebbi Shimon, if, one evening, one saw oil being ...

1. ... distributed to the Kohanim in the Azarah? What could it be, besides the remainder of the Log Shemen shel Metzora?

2. ... burned on the Mizbe'ach? What could it be, besides the wafers of the Minchas Kohanim (which were completely burned)?

(b)Why, besides the fact that a lot of oil was used for the Minchas Chavitin (three Lugin per Isaron) would there inevitably be leftover oil from it?

(c)Why could it not be oil that was donated as a Nedavah?

(d)What does Rebbi Tarfon say?

8)

(a)According to Rebbi Shimon, if, one evening, one saw oil being ...

1. ... distributed to the Kohanim in the Azarah, one would assume it to be either the remainder of the Log Shemen shel Metzora - or the remainder of the oil that was used for the wafers of a Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur, on which the oil was smeared.

2. ... burned on the Mizbe'ach, one would assume it to be either the wafers of the Minchas Kohanim (which was completely burned) - or the remainder of the oil from the Chavitei Kohen Gadol.

(b)Besides the fact that a lot of oil was used for the Minchas Chavitin (three Lugin per Isaron, there would inevitably be leftover oil from it - because it came already baked, in which case it would absorb very little oil.

(c)It could not be oil that was donated as a Nedavah - because one is not permitted to donate oil alone as a Nedavah.

(d)Rebbi Tarfon says - that one is.

91b----------------------------------------91b

9)

(a)According to Shmuel, what does Rebbi Tarfon learn from the word "Korban"(in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ki Sakriv Korban Minchah")?

(b)What else does he learn from there?

(c)How does Rebbi Zeira support Shmuel from Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah 'Im Ra'isa Shemen she'Mischalek ba'Azarah ... she'Ein Misnadvin Shemen'?

(d)What does Abaye counter from the Seifa 'Im Ra'isa Shemen she'Nitan al-gabei Mizbe'ach ... she'Ein Misnadvin Shemen'?

9)

(a)According to Shmuel, Rebbi Tarfon learns from the word "Korban" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ki Sakriv Korban Minchah") that - one can donate oil as a Korban.

(b)He also learns from there that - after taking a Kometz from it, the rest is eaten by the Kohanim (like a Korban Minchah).

(c)Rebbi Zeira supports Shmuel from Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah 'Im Ra'isa Shemen she'Mischalek ba'Azarah ... she'Ein Misnadvin Shemen' - implying that according to Rebbi Tarfon, who holds Misnadvin, the oil is indeed distributed to the Kohanim to eat.

(d)Abaye counters from the Seifa 'Im Ra'isa Shemen she'Nitan al-gabei Mizbe'ach ... she'Ein Misnadvin Shemen' that - according to whoever holds Misnadvin, the oil is burned on the Mizbe'ach, and not eaten.

10)

(a)How will Rebbi Zeira deal with the apparent contradiction?

(b)How does Abaye (who disagrees with Shmuel) resolve it?

(c)How do we know that it is acceptable to learn the Reisha on account of the Seifa?

(d)How will Rebbi Zeira explain the Beraisa 'Yayin ke'Divrei Rebbi Akiva, le'Sapalim, Shemen ke'Divrei Rebbi Tarfon, le'Ishim' (which appears to support Abaye)?

10)

(a)Rebbi Zeira deals with the apparent contradiction - by establishing the Reisha by the Shirayim, whereas the Seifa is referring to the Kometz.

(b)Abaye (who disagrees with Shmuel) resolves the contradiction - by taking the Seifa as the main statement (which therefore lends itself to the above inference); whereas the Tana only mentions the Reisha to balance the Seifa (and is not therefore subject to inferences).

(c)We know that it is acceptable to learn the Reisha on account of the Seifa - because they explicitly said so in Eretz Yisrael.

(d)According to Rebbi Zeira, 'Yayin ke'Divrei Rebbi Akiva, le'Sapalim' - refers to all the wine, whereas 'Shemen ke'Divrei Rebbi Tarfon, le'Ishim' - refers only to the Kometz (Ha ke'de'Iysa, ve'Ha ke'de'Iysa).

11)

(a)According to the Tana Kama in a Beraisa, the minimum amount of oil that one can donate is a Log. What does Rebbi say?

(b)The Rabbanan sitting before Rav Papa explained the basis of the Machlokes as to whether we say 'Don Miynah u'Miynah' or 'Don Miynah, ve'Ukei be'Asrah'. What do these terms mean?

(c)'Don Miynah u'Miynah' teaches us that, just as a Minchah can be donated, so too, can oil. What do the Rabbanan learn from u'Miynah? In which two regards do we learn oil from a Minchah?

11)

(a)According to the Tana Kama in a Beraisa, the minimum amount of oil that one can donate is a Log. According to Rebbi - it is three Lugin.

(b)The Rabbanan sitting before Rav Papas explained the basis of the Machlokes as to whether we say 'Don Miynah u'Miynah' - when we learn a. from b. by means of a Gezeirah-Shavah or a Hekesh, we learn everything from it; or 'Don Miynah, ve'Ukei be'Asrah' - we learn only the basic Halachah from it, but other branches of the Halachah, we learn from a side-branch of the Halachah concerned, to which it is more similar.

(c)'Don Miynah u'Miynah' teaches us that just as a Minchah can be donated, so too, can oil. The Rabbanan learn from u'Miynah that - just as a Minchas Nedavah consists of one Log, and requires a Kemitzah which permits it to be eaten, so too, does a Nidvas Shemen.

12)

(a)How does Rebbi apply 've'Ukei be'Asra' with regard to these two issues? From where does he learn them?

(b)What is the significance of three Lugin?

(c)According to Rebbi then, where does the Kohen pour the oil?

12)

(a)Rebbi on the other hand applies 've'Ukei be'Asra' with regard to these two issues - in that he learns from Minchas Nesachim (flour mixed with oil and wine that are brought together with a Korban), that the minimum amount of oil is three Lugin of wine, which is all poured into the bowls (next to the K'ranos) without a Kemitzah.

(b)The significance of three Lugin - lies in the fact it is the smallest of the Minchos Nesachim (a quarter of a Hin that accompanies a lamb).

(c)According to Rebbi, the Kohen pours the oil - on to the Ishim (the Ma'arachah).

13)

(a)On what grounds did Rav Papa object to the Rabbanan's explanation? What would Rebbi hold, in his opinion, if he learned the Din of Shemen from Minchah?

(b)According to Rav Papa therefore, Rebbi learns Shemen from the Pasuk in Korach "Kol ha'Ezrach Ya'aseh Kachah". What exactly does he learn from there?

13)

(a)Rav Papa objected to the Rabbanan's explanation, because, he argued, if Rebbi learned the Din of Shemen from Minchah - he too would hold Don Miynah u'Miynah (like the Rabbanan).

(b)According to Rav Papa therefore, Rebbi learns Shemen from the Pasuk in Korach "Kol ha'Ezrach Ya'aseh Kachah" - which teaches us that, even if we hold Don Miynah u'Miynah, oil can be donated on its own, and that when it is, it must consist of at least three Lugin (the smallest of the Minchos Nesachim).

14)

(a)Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua queries Rav Papa from a Beraisa. What source does the Tana cite for the Nidvas Shemen, which, he says, must comprise at least three Lugin?

(b)How do we know that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi?

(c)How did Rav Papa respond?

14)

(a)Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua queries Rav Papa from a Beraisa, which cites the source for the Nidvas Shemen (which, he says, must comprise at least three Lugin) - as "Korban Minchah" (like Shmuel and Rebbi Zeira).

(b)The author of the Beraisa must be Rebbi - because he is the one who requires three Lugin.

(c)Rav Papa responded - with the words 'I Tanya, Tanya' (if it is a Beraisa, then he has no option but to accept it).

15)

(a)What does Shmuel learn from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'Yayin Takriv la'Nesech Chatzi ha'Hin, Isheh Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Hashem"?

(b)What problem do we have with this?

(c)If, as we suggest, the prohibition is confined to extinguishing the fire completely, but does not apply to 'Kibuy be'Miktzas', why does Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah declare Chayav a Kohen who takes one coal down from the Mizbe'ach and extinguishes it?

15)

(a)Shmuel learns from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'Yayin Takriv la'Nesech Chatzi ha'Hin, Isheh Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Hashem" that - a Nidvas Yayin must be poured on to the Ma'arachah.

(b)The problem with this is that - it contravenes the Isur of Kibuy (extinguishing the fire on the Mizbe'ach).

(c)If, as we suggest, the prohibition is confined to extinguishing the fire completely, but does not apply to 'Kibuy be'Miktzas', then Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah, who declares Chayav a Kohen who takes one coal down from the Mizbe'ach and extinguishes it - must be referring to the last burning coal on the Mizbe'ach.

16)

(a)What alternative answer do we give to refute the Kashya from Kibuy?

(b)What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov in a Beraisa, say about extinguishing coals in order to perform the Mitzvah of T'rumas ha'Deshen?

(c)How will we then reconcile this with Shmuel, who permits Kibuy for the sake of a Mitzvah?

16)

(a)Alternatively, we refute the Kashya from Kibuy - by differentiating between Kibuy of R'shus (which the Torah forbids) and Kibuy for a Mitzvah (which is what Shmuel permits).

(b)Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov in a Beraisa - prohibits extinguishing coals in order to perform the Mitzvah of T'rumas ha'Deshen.

(c)We reconcile this with Shmuel, who permits Kibuy for the sake of a Mitzvah - in that the Kohen has the option of waiting until the coal goes out by itself, in which case Shmuel will agree that it is forbidden.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF