(a)How does Rebbi Oshayah explain Rebbi, who learns 'Hechyehu mi'Seh Af mi'Chedei Mekach', and how does he use this to resolve the problem regarding the money for the Pesach remaining Chulin?
(b)In which basic point does Abaye disagree with Rebbi Oshaya?
(c)What does Abaye do with the Beraisa which specifically writes 'she'Al Menas Ken Hikdishu Yisrael es Pischeihen'?
(a)According to Rebbi Oshayah, when Rebbi says 'Hechyehu mi'Seh Af mi'Chedei Mekach' - he means that when a person declares his lamb a Korban Pesach, he actually retains some of the animal as Chulin, in order to be able to sell some of it for his own needs. Consequently, when someone pays for his portion with money that he has sanctified for this purpose, the money becomes Chulin and the Pesach, Hekdesh.
(b)Abaye maintains that, according to Rebbi, it is not the owner of the lamb who retains some of the animal as Chulin, but the owner of the money, who refrains from sanctifying it, in order to be able to buy a portion of Korban Pesach with it. In fact, he does not even buy his portion, but donates it to the owner of the Pesach as a gift - because it is not possible to redeem Kodshei Mizbe'ach that are not blemished.
(c)According to Abaye, when the Tana writes 'she'Al Menas Ken Hikdishu Yisrael es Pischeihen', he means 'she'Al Menas Ken Hikdishu Yisrael es Ma'os Pischeihen'.
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei (written in connection with Esnan Zonah) "l'Chol Neder"?
(b)Why would we have thought to preclude them in the first place?
(c)Now that we include birds from "l'Chol Neder", why do we not also include Kodshim from a 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(d)Why do we need the Pasuk "l'Chol Neder" to preclude Kodshim from Esnan? Seeing as Kodshim belong to Hekdesh, what right does one have to render forbidden what belongs to Hekdesh?
(a)We learn from the Pasuk "l'Chol Neder" - that the Din of Esnan applies even to birds (i.e. doves and pigeons, which become invalidated as Korbanos, if given to a prostitute as an Esnan).
(b)We would otherwise have thought to preclude them from Esnan (and from Mechir Kelev) from a Kal va'Chomer from Hekdesh animals which become invalidated through a blemish (whereas birds do not).
(c)The Torah writes "l'Chol Neder" - to teach us that Esnan is only effective on something that is still subject to a Neder, but not to a Hekdesh, which is already Nadur.
(d)We need the Pasuk "l'Chol Neder" to preclude Kodshim from Esnan by someone who gives a prostitute his Pesach, according to Rebbi, who holds that a person's Pesach is considered his.
(a)The Tana Kama learns from the Pasuk in Bo "v'Im Yim'at ha'Bayis Miheyos mi'Seh" - 'Hechyehu mi'Seh Michdei Achilah, v'Lo Michedei Mekach'. What does this mean?
(b)What does Rebbi say?
(c)Rabah and Rebbi Zeira argue in this matter. According to one of them, both Tana'im agree that one may sell a portion of the Pesach in order to purchase fire-wood; in which case then, do the Rabanan argue with Rebbi?
(d)What does the other opinion hold? What is the basis of their dispute, according to him?
(a)'Hechyehu mi'Seh Michedei Achilah, v'Lo Michedei Mekach' - means that the owner is only permitted to accept money if it is needed to enhance the actual Pesach (i.e. to purchase fire-wood to roast it), but not for his own personal use (to make money on it, or even to re-gain his expenses).
(b)Rebbi holds 'Af Michedei Mekach ... u'Ma'os she'be'Yado Chulin, she'Al Menas Kein Hikdishu Yisrael es Pischeihen'.
(c)According to the opinion that both Tana'im agree that one may sell a portion of the Pesach in order to purchase fire-wood - the Rabanan argue with Rebbi with regard to purchasing Matzah and Maror (which Rebbi permits on the grounds that they are also accessories of the Pesach, and which the Rabanan forbid, because they are a separate entity, and not part of the actual Pesach itself ).
(d)The other opinion holds that even the Rabanan agree that one may purchase Matzah and Maror with the money for the Pesach, since they are considered accessories of the Pesach. What they argue over is whether one is permitted to purchase one's own personal requirements, and their Machlokes is based on the Pasuk "Miheyos mi'Seh", which the Rabanan interpret to mean 'Hechyeihu l'Seh', and Rebbi, 'Hachyeh Atzmecha mi'Seh'.
(a)What is the difference between a Zav who had two sightings and one who had three, as regards Shechting the Pesach for him is concerned?
(b)Does it matter that the latter has not yet brought his Korbanos?
(c)When does one Shecht for a woman on the second day, when on the third and when on the eighth?
(a)One may Shecht for a Zav who had two sightings on the seventh day (after he has Toveled and has become a Tevul-Yom) - even though he still remains Tamei until nightfall; and if he had three sightings, on the eighth.
(b)It does not matter that the latter has not yet brought his Korbanos, because a Mechusar Kipurim over-rides the Aseh of Hashlamah (i.e. he may bring his Korbanos even after the Tamid shel Beis Ha'arbayim, in order to bring his Korban Pesach).
(c)One Shechts for a woman who had one sighting (during the eleven days between Nidah and Nidah) on the second day (the day that she is counting her one clean day); on the third day, for a woman who had two sightings, and on the eighth for a Zavah.
(a)Rav maintains that one may Shecht a Korban Pesach and sprinkle its blood for a Tevul Yom and for a Mechusar Kipurim, but not for a Tamei Sheretz. What is the difference between a Tevul Yom and a Tamei Sheretz in this regard?
(b)What Chazakah does Rav Shemayah ascribe to the Beis-Din of Kohanim, with regard to the money in the Shofros? What were the Shofros?
(a)Rav maintains that one may Shecht a Korban Pesach and sprinkle its blood for a Tevul Yom and for a Mechusar Kipurim - because in the case of the former, nightfall arrives automatically, and in the case of the latter, it speaks when he has already handed his money to the Beis-Din of Kohanim; whereas a Tamei Sheretz still needs to Tovel, and who knows whether he will not be lax and fail to do so.
(b)The Beis-Din of Kohanim were guaranteed 'not to get up from there before they had used up all the money in the Shofros' (which contained the money of the Mechusrei Kipurim) - meaning that they would see to it that those boxes were emptied immediately, and their contents used to purchase the relevant sacrifices.
(a)Ula disagrees with Rav's initial statement. In which point does he argue with him?
(a)Ula maintains that one can also Shecht and sprinkle for a Tamei Sheretz.
(a)How does Rav's previous statement regarding a Tamei Sheretz (in 5b.) contradict what he himself said above (90a.) - that, by Mechtzah Al Mechtzah, one is Metamei one of them with a Sheretz in order to render him unfit?
(b)We conclude that Rav considers a Tamei Sheretz unfit to bring the Pesach min ha'Torah. How does Rav derive this from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ish Ish Ki Yihye Tamei la'Nefesh"?
(c)How is this borne out by the continuation of the Pasuk "v'Lo Yochlu La'asos ha'Pasach ba'Yom Hahu"?
(a)From Rav's words (in 5a.) it appears that even he agrees that min ha'Torah, Shochtin v'Zorkin l'Tamei Sheretz, and it is the Rabanan who say Ein Shochtin v'Zorkin. In other words, he considers a Tamei Sheretz to be eligible to bring the Pesach. But did he not say above (on 80a) that, by Mechtzah Al Mechtzah, one is Metamei one of them with a Sheretz in order to render him unfit?
(b)Rav derives that a Tamei Sheretz is unfit to bring the Pesach from the Pasuk "Ish Ish Ki Yihye Tamei la'Nefesh" - because the Pasuk could well be speaking about a Tamei Mes whose seventh day falls on Erev Pesach (who will be eligible to eat the Pesach that night - just like a Tamei Sheretz), yet the Torah forbids him to eat the Pesach that night (even if a Sheli'ach Shechts it on his behalf).
(c)This is borne out by the continuation of the Pasuk "v'Lo Yochlu La'asos ha'Pasach ba'Yom Hahu" - which implies that on the following day, they were able to bring the Pesach, just as we just explained Rav.
(a)If the case in our Mishnah "Zav she'Ra'ah Ba'al Shtei Re'iyos, Shochtin Alav ba'Shevi'i', speaks when he Toveled, what will be the Chidush?
(b)How does the Gemara attempt to prove this from the continuation of the Mishnah 'Ra'ah Shalosh Re'iyos, Shochtin Alav ba'Shemini'?
(c)How does the Gemara refute this proof? What will be the Chidush by Shalosh Re'iyos, even if 'Shtei Re'iyos' speaks when he did not Tovel?
(a)If the case in our Mishnah "Zav she'Ra'ah Ba'al Shtei Re'iyos, Shochtin Alav ba'Shevi'i', speaks when he Toveled, then the Chidush will be that, it does not matter that the sun has yet to set, (he is nevertheless considered eligible to bring the Pesach), seeing as it sets automatically.
(b)The Gemara attempts to prove this from the continuation of the Mishnah 'Ra'ah Shalosh Re'iyos, Shochtin Alav ba'Shemini'. If the Reisha speaks when he already Toveled, as we explained, then the Chidush in the Seifa will be that, even though there, an act still needs to be performed (i.e. that his Korban still needs to be brought), he is nevertheless considered eligible (since he already handed his money to the Beis-Din combined with the Chazakah of the Kohanim, as we explained earlier). But if the Reisha speaks when he has not yet Toveled, then what additional Chidush is there in the Seifa?
(c)The Gemara concludes that, even if 'Shtei Re'iyos' speaks when he did not Tovel, there will still be a Chidush in the Seifa - because it needs to inform us that, even though in the Seifa, bringing his Korban is not in his hands (as is the Tevilah in the Reisha), he is nevertheless considered eligible, because of the Chazakah of the Kohanim.
(a)Why did Rav Ada Bar Ahavah correct the Beraisa expert, who quoted 've'ha'Zavah Shochtin Alah ba'Shevi'i she'Lah'?
(b)What is to be gained by amending the Beraisa to read 've'ha'Zavah bi'Shemini' (which is the text in our Mishnah)? Why is that not obvious?
(a)Rav Ada Bar Ahavah corrected the Beraisa expert, who quoted 've'ha'Zavah Shochtin Alah ba'Shevi'i she'Lah' - because even according to those who hold 'Shochtin v'Zorkin Al Tamei Sheretz', it would not be possible to Shecht for a Zavah on her seventh day, before she has brought (or at least designated) her Korbanos on the eighth.
(b)The Chidush of 'Shochtin Alah bi'Shemini she'Lah' - will be as we stated above: i.e. that, although she is still a Mechuseres Kaparah, assuming that she handed the money for her Korbanos to the Beis-Din, we can rely on the Chazakah of the Kohanim.
(a)According to Ravina, the Beraisa that was being quoted was talking about a Nidah, not a Zavah. Why can one not bring a Pesach for a Nidah on her seventh day (even if we hold Shochtin v'Zorkin)?
(b)Here too, we amend the Beraisa to read on the 'eighth day'. The Gemara asks that we have known that already from a Kal va'Chomer from a Zavah. Which Kal va'Chomer?
(c)What is in fact, the Chidush?
(d)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "Shiv'as Yamim Tihyeh b'Nidasah"?
(a)One cannot bring a Pesach for a Nidah on her seventh day (even if we hold Shochtin v'Zorkin) - because (unlike a Zavah on her seventh day) a Nidah cannot Tovel until night-time, when she will become a Tevul-Yom, and will only be eligible to eat her Pesach on the following night.
(b)We should have known that one can Shecht for a Nidah on her eighth day (who is not obligated to bring Korbanos) from a Kal va'Chomer from a Zavah (who is).
(c)The Tana needs to inform us that one may Shecht for a Nidah on her eighth day - for the inference 'but not on the seventh', to let us know that a Nidah cannot Tovel before the night of the eighth day.
(d)We learn from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "Shiv'as Yamim Tihyeh b'Nidasah" - the Din currently under discussion; namely, that she must remain Temei'ah for the full seven days and may only Tovel after nightfall.