(a)The Rabanan establish the Pasuk in Tzav "v'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah El ha'Kodesh Penimah, Lo Se'achel, ba'Esh Tisaref" by a regular Chatas whose blood was taken into the Kodesh. How does Rebbi Yosi Hagelili explain the Pasuk? What do we learn from the Lav ("Lo Se'achel"), and the Aseh ("ba'Esh Tisaref")?
(b)What does Rebbi Yosi Hagelili learn from the Pasuk in Shemini "Hen Lo Huva es Damah El ha'Kodesh Penimah"?
(c)How does this correspond with the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah in our Mishnah (who holds that even Pesul Be'alim and Pesul Dam are burned immediately)?
(d)Why does Rebbi Yochanan not equate Rebbi Yosi Hagelili with Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah?
(a)According to Rebbi Yosi Hagelili, the Pasuk "v'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah El ha'Kodesh Penimah, Lo Se'achel, ba'Esh Tisaref" - refers to Chata'os ha'Penimiyos (such as the Par He'lam Davar shel Tzibur, which is supposed to be brought outside the Azarah, whose blood was brought (legitimately) into the Kodesh; to tell us that, if they became Pasul, they must be burned, not outside the three camps (as they normally would have been), but in the Beis ha'Birah - inside the Har ha'Bayis. That is the Aseh of "ba'Esh Tisaref". The Lav of "Lo Se'achel" teaches us the prohibition of eating the flesh of those Pasul Chata'os.
(b)Rebbi Yosi Hagelili learns from the Pasuk "Hen Lo Huva es Damah El ha'Kodesh Penimah" - what the Chachamim learn from "v'Chol Chatas ... ba'Esh Tisaref" (i.e. that a Chatas Penimis whose blood was taken inside the Kodesh, must be burned).
(c)Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili (in the previous case) is referring to Chatas Aharon, which was burned immediately, even though (like the Pesul Be'alim of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah) it was only a Pesul in the blood (and not in the actual body of the Korban), explaining why Rabah equates the two opinions.
(d)Rebbi Yochanan does not equate Rebbi Yosi Hagelili with Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - because according to him, it is only the Pesul Be'alim that is considered an external Pesul, but not that of the blood, which is a Pesul ha'Guf (since the blood is considered part of the animal).
(a)In which basic point do the Rabanan disagree with Rebbi Yosi Hagelili in the previous question? Why do the Rabanan need to learn the obligation to burn a Chatas whose blood was taken inside from another Pasuk, and not from the Chatas of Aharon?
(a)The Rabanan disagree with Rebbi Yosi Hagelili in the previous question - because they do not learn Kodshei Doros from Kodshei Sha'ah. According to them, the command to burn the Chatas whose blood was taken inside pertained to that time only, and not to future generations.
(a)Which bones must be burned?
(b)When are the bones, sinews and Nosar burned only on the seventeenth of Nisan?
(a)Bones which contain marrow may not be broken.
(b)The bones, sinews and Nosar are burned only on the seventeenth of Nisan - when Erev Pesach falls on Friday.
(a)What sort of bones (of a Korban Pesach) render the hands Tamei mid'Rabanan, like Nosar, and why?
(b)What proof does the Gemara attempt to bring from the bones in our Mishnah (see 3a.)?
(c)The Gemara answers that (really, 'Shimush Nosar Lav Milsa Hi'. The reason that one is obligated to break the bones is because the Torah forbids breaking the bones even of a Pasul Korban ("Bo" 'va'Afilu b'Pasul'). How de we reconcile this with the Mishnah (on 84a) 've'ha'Shover b'Tamei Eino Sofeg es ha'Arba'im'?
(a)Bones that contain marrow after the time that the marrow becomes Nosar, render the hands Tamei mid'Rabanan - since ('Shimush Nosar Milsa Hi', and) they are a 'Basis l'Davar ha'Asur'.
(b)Our Mishnah says 'ha'Atzamos ... Yisareifu b'Shishah-Asar'. If the bones did not contain any marrow, then why would they be burned? One could just throw them away. Consequently, the Tana must be speaking about marrow-bones. If not for the fact that 'Shimush Nosar Milsa Hi', why should they require burning? Why not break them, extract the marrow, burn it, and then throw away the bones.
(c)The Mishnah which writes 've'ha'Shover b'Tamei, Eino Sofeg es ha'Arba'im' - is speaking about one which became Tamei before the Zerikah, and did not therefore have a moment when it was Kasher. The Gemara on the other hand, relates to a bone which became Tamei after the Zerikah, which did have a moment when it was Kosher, whch explains why it is Metamei the hands.
(a)Which Tana differentiates between 'Hayesah Lah Sha'as ha'Kosher' and 'Lo Hayesah Lah Sha'as ha'Kosher'?
(b)What does Rebbi Shimon hold?
(c)The Beraisa precludes marrow-bones of Kodshim other than those of a Pesach from the need to be burnt. What is now the problem with Rav Yitzchak, who holds 'Shimush Nosar, Milsa Hi'?.
(d)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Beraisa when he discovered all the bones to be broken and the marrow removed. How does he explain the distinction between the bones of the Pesach and those of other Kodshim?
(a)The Tana who differentiates between 'Hayesah Lah Sha'as ha'Kosher' and 'Lo Hayesah Lah Sha'as ha'Kosher' (in this regard) is Rebbi Yakov.
(b)Rebbi Shimon holds that the Tana Kama (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Shimon') precludes a Pasul Pesach from the prohibition of breaking a bone, whether it had a moment when it was Kasher or not.
(c)If 'Shimush Nosar, Milsa Hi', like Rav Yitzchak contends - then why should the marrow-bones of all Kodshim not require burning?
(d)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Beraisa when he discovered all the bones to be broken and the marrow removed. Because one is permitted to break bones of Kodshim, one can assume that the owner broke them before they became Nosar, in which case, they will not have served Nosar, and may be thrown away. Whereas regarding the bones of the Pesachim, due to the prohibition of breaking them, one must assume that the owner did not do so before they became Nosar, in which case, they served Nosar and must be burned.
(a)Rav Zevid disagrees. What will he hold if all the bones were found to be broken with the marrow removed, even of the Pesach?
(b)He therefore establishes the Beraisa when they found piles of bones, of which the top ones only were broken and the marrow removed. How does he now explain the Beraisa?
(a)Rav Zevid disagrees. According to him, if all the bones were found to be broken with the marrow removed - we would not assume that they were definitely broken after becoming Nosar, and would therefore be Asur because they served Nosar (in other words, we would suspect that, perhaps the bones were broken and the marrow removed before it became Nosar, in which case, they would not have served Nosar any more than the bones of other Kodshim (It seems illogical however, to suspect that the owner would have broken the bones b'Isur, rather than to assume that he did so b'Heter. See Maharsha).
(b)Rav Zevid establishes the Beraisa when they found piles of bones, of which the top ones only were broken and the marrow removed. By the bones of Kodshim, which one is permitted to break, we assume that, in order to avoid the marrow from becoming Nosar (and the bones Shimush Nosar), the owner will have also broken the bones that are underneath and removed the marrow; these may now be thrown away without examination. One cannot however, make the same assumption with regard to the bones of the Pesach, which may not be broken (as long as they are Kosher). Consequently, the bones underneath must be examined before being discarded.
(a)What distinction does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav make between the sinews of the neck and those of the rest of the body (with regard to the Korban Pesach)?
(b)What problem does the Gemara have with this from our Mishnah, which states 'ha'Atzamos, v'ha'Gidin v'ha'Nosar Yisarefu b'Shishah-Asar'?
(a)Rav maintains that all the sinews on the Korban Pesach are considered meat, except for those of the neck, which, due to their hardness, are like wood.
(b)The Gemara has a problem with this from our Mishnah, which states 'ha'Atzamos, v'ha'Gidin v'ha'Nosar Yisarefu b'Shishah-Asar'. Now if the Tana is referring to ordinary sinews, why should one not eat them? Those that are leftover are included in Nosar (already mentioned by the Tana). So he must be referring to the sinews of the neck. Again, if these sinews are considered like wood (like Rav contends), then why should they be burned? We are therefore forced to say that the sinews in the neck are considered like Basar - in spite of their hardness, a Kashya on Rav.
(a)The Gemara establishes our Mishnah by the Gid ha'Nasheh, which is edible, but may be eaten. Why then, does the Tana use the plural 'Gidin'?
(b)Do we then have a proof that Rebbi Yehudah himself is in doubt as to which of the Gidin the Torah forbids?
(c)What then, does Rebbi Yehudah mean when he says 've'ha'Da'as Machra'as shel Yemin'?
(d)Rav Ashi establishes the 'Gidin' in the plural to include the fat of the Gid, which is basically permitted, but which 'Yisrael Kedoshim Hem, v'Nahagu Bo Isur'. How does Ravina explain it?
(a)The Gemara establishes our Mishnah by the Gid ha'Nasheh, which is edible, but may be eaten. The Tana uses the plural 'Gidin' in the plural - because he holds like Rebbi Yehudah, who says that although the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh probably applies to the right one, this is not certain, in which case, the left Gid must be burnt, too.
(b)There is no proof however, that Rebbi Yehudah himself is in doubt as to which of the Gidin the Torah forbids. It may well be that he is in fact, sure that it is the right Gid which the Torah forbids. However, the Beraisa speaks when the two Gidin got mixed up, and he did not know which is which.
(c)If Rebbi Yehudah is indeed certain that it is the right Gid which is forbidden, then when he says 've'ha'Da'as Machra'as shel Yemin' - he means Da'as Torah, meaning that he derives it from the word "ha'Yerech" - 'ha'Meyumenes she'be'Yerech' (implying the right one, since the right side always has a more significance).
(d)According to Ravina, 'Gidin' in the plural, incorporates the outer Gid, which the Torah forbids, and the inner one, which it permits, but which the Rabanan forbade. Both must be burned.
(a)We learnt in our Mishnah that Nosar etc. is burnt on the sixteenth. Why, asks the Gemara, does the Aseh of ba'Esh Tisrofu not over-ride the Lav of Yom-Tov. Chizkiyah answers with the Pasuk in Bo "Lo Sosiru Mimenu Ad Boker, v'ha'Nosar Mimenu Ad Boker, ba'Esh Tisrofu". What does he mean?
(b)How do the following answer the Kashya from their respective Pesukim ...
1. ... Abaye from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Olas Shabbos b'Shabbato"?
2. ... Rava from the Pasuk in Bo "Hu Levado Ye'aseh Lachem"?
3. ... Rav Ashi from the Pasuk in Emor "Shaboson"?
(c)What does Rava learn from "Hu Levado Ye'aseh Lachem"?
(a)Chizkiyah answers why the Aseh of "ba'Esh Tisrofu" does not over-ride the Lav of Yom-Tov, with the Pasuk in Bo "Lo Sosiru Mimenu Ad Boker, v'ha'Nosar Mimenu Ad Boker, ba'Esh Tisrofu" - which teaches us that Nosar etc. is not to be burnt on the first morning (the fifteenth), but on the second (the sixteenth - i.e. Chol ha'Mo'ed).
1. ... Abaye answers from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Olas Shabbos b'Shabbato" - from which we infer 've'Lo Olas Chol b'Shabbos, v'Lo Olas Chol b'Yom-Tov'.
2. ... Rava answers from the Pasuk in Bo "Hu Levado Ye'aseh Lachem" - "Levado" v'Lo Milah she'Lo bi'Zemanah"; and burning Pesulei Kodshim are comparable to Milah after the eighth day, since Pasul Kodshim, like Milah after the eighth day, can wait until the following day (since their time is not fixed).
3. ... Rav Ashi learns it from the Pasuk in Emor "Shaboson", which implies an Aseh; since Yom-Tov is now an Aseh as well as a Lo Sa'aseh, it cannot be over-ridden by an Aseh alone.
(c)Rava learns from "Hu Levado Ye'aseh Lachem" - that Machshirei Melachah that could have been prepared before Yom-Tov, may not be performed on Yom-Tov.