1)

(a)We just discussed the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi. According to Rebbi in a Beraisa, Zerikas ha'Dam permits the skin once it has been detached, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, it does not. What does Rebbi rule in a case where it is still attached?

(b)On what condition will Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon concede that the skin is permitted, even if it is still attached?

(c)We try to connect this Machlokes with an earlier Machlokes Tana'im. What does ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehoshua in a Beraisa extrapolate from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam"?

2. ... Rebbi Eliezer extrapolate from the Pasuk there "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech"?

(d)What does Rebbi Eliezer learn from "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam"?

1)

(a)We just discussed the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar bi'Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi. According to Rebbi in a Beraisa, Zerikas ha'Dam permits the skin once it has been detached, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, it does not. In a case where it is still attached, Rebbi rules that - it is forbidden like the Basar.

(b)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon will concede that the skin is permitted even if the skin is still attached - if the P'sul occurred after the Zerikas ha'Dam,.

(c)We try to connect this Machlokes with an earlier Machlokes Tana'im, where ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehoshua, in a Beraisa, extrapolates from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" that - Im Ein Basar, Ein Dam (once the Basar becomes Pasul, the blood cannot be sprinkled).

2. ... Rebbi Eliezer extrapolate from the Pasuk "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" that - Dam, Af-al-Pi she'Ein Basar (that it can).

(d)Rebbi Eliezer learns from "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" that - just as the blood is sprinkled, so too, is the Basar thrown (even though this entails leaving a small space between the ramp and the Mizbe'ach, as we already learned in the sixth Perek).

2)

(a)How do we initially try to link the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi with that of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yeshoshua?

(b)We conclude that they do not argue according to Rebbi Eliezer. What do we mean by that?

(c)And they argue according to Rebbi Yehoshua. On what grounds does Rebbi claim that Rebbi Yehoshua will concede that he is right?

2)

(a)Initially we try to link the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi with that of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua - by equating Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon with Rebbi Yehoshua (since both hold that Dam alone does not atone.

(b)We conclude however, that they do not argue according to Rebbi Eliezer - Rebbi and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon agree that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, Dam alone atones, and that consequently, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon cannot concur with his opinion.

(c)And they argue according to Rebbi Yehoshua - on the one hand, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon obviously holds him like him; on the other, Rebbi claims that Rebbi Yehoshua will agree with him - because even if there is no Dam without Basar, there is Dam to permit the skin to the Kohanim (to spare them from a loss).

3)

(a)And we compare it to the Mishnah in Pesachim, where Rebbi Yehoshua also concedes to Rebbi Eliezer in a case of Bedi'eved. Where the Basar became Tamei, Pasul, or left the Azarah, Rebbi Eliezer says 'Yizrok'. What does Rebbi Yehoshua say?

(b)The Tana concludes however 'u'Modeh Rebbi Yehoshua, she'Im Zarak, Hurtzah'. Which of the cases does not require the Zerikas ha'Dam to render the owner Yotzei?

(c)If Rebbi Yehoshua holds that Bedieved, the Zerikah is Meratzeh anyway (Basar that became Pasul or that that left its designated area), why do we need the reason of P'seida le'Kohanim to permit the skin?

3)

(a)And we compare it to the Mishnah in Pesachim, where Rebbi Yehoshua also concedes to Rebbi Eliezer in a case of Bedi'eved. Where the Basar became Tamei, Pasul, or left the Azarah, Rebbi Eliezer says Yizrok; Rebbi Yehoshua says - Lo Yizrok.

(b)The Tana concludes however, u'Modeh Rebbi Yehoshua, she'Im Zarak, Hurtzah. If the Basar became Tamei however, it does not require the Zerikas ha'Dam to render the owner Yotzei - since the Tzitz already atones for Tum'ah.

(c)Even though Rebbi Yehoshua holds that Bedieved, the Zerikah is Meratzeh (Basar that became Pasul or that that left its designated area), we still need the reason of P'seida le'Kohanim to permit the skin - in a case where the Basar was lost or burned.

4)

(a)How could Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim attest that he never saw the skin of Kodshei Kodshim having to be burned. How about ...

1. ... Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin?

2. ... Kodshei Kodshim before both Hefshet and Zerikah?

3. ... after Hefshet but before Zerikah, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (who is speaking about a skin that is detached), apart from establishing Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim like Rebbi?

(b)And finally we ask, what Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim will do with Nimtzeis T'reifah bi'Venei Me'ayim. What is the problem from there?

(c)We answer that the Zerikah does indeed atone in such a case. Why is that?

(d)How do we prove this from our Mishnah?

(e)Then what is Rebbi Akiva's Chidush? Why might we have thought that B'chor is different?

4)

(a)When Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim attested that he never saw the skin of Kodshei Kodshim having to be burned, he was not referring to ...

1. ... Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin - which are designated to be burned.

2. ... Kodshei Kodshim before both Hefshet (according to Rebbi) and Zerikah (according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) - because he was referring specifically to detached skins.

3. ... after Hefshet but before Zerikah, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (which is speaking about a skin that is detached), apart from establishing Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim like Rebbi - because if, as Abaye said earlier, according to Rebbi (who holds that the blood permits the skin) it never happened that the skin was removed before the Z'rikas ha'Dam, how much more so, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.

(b)And finally, we ask what Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim will do with Nimtzeis T'reifah bi'Venei Me'ayim - which we assume is burned, because the P'sul preceded both the Hefshet and the Zerikah.

(c)We answer that the Zerikah does indeed atone in such a case - because they only discovered the P'sul after the Z'rikas ha'Dam ...

(d)... like Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah (who extrapolates it from Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim).

(e)And Rebbi Akiva's Chidush is that we apply the same S'vara to a B'chor (which was Shechted outside the Beis-Hamikdash with a blemish and) which turned out to be a T'reifah - in that we consider the fact that the T'reifus was only discovered after the Hefshet (even though there was no Z'rikas Dam), like we do with regard to Kodshei Kodshim in the Beis-Hamikdash where the Hefshet took place after the Zerikah.

5)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Akiva. How does he also qualify Rebbi Akiva's ruling?

(b)We conclude however, ve'Hilch'sa ke'Divrei Chachamim. According to the text Basar bi'Kevurah, on what grounds is it ...

1. ... forbidden to feed it to one's dogs?

2. ... not burned?

(c)What problem do we have with the final words of this version ve'ha'Or bi'Sereifah?

(d)It seems however, that this version was introduced by Talmidim who misunderstood Yeitzei le'Beis ha'Sereifah (in the words of the Chachamim) in our Mishnah. If in fact, they were not referring to Rebbi Akiva, to whom were they referring?

5)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Akiva, whose ruling he also qualifies - by confining it to a B'chor whose blemish was examined and subsequently permitted by an expert.

(b)We conclude however, ve'Hilch'sa ke'Divrei Chachamim. According to the text Basar bi'Kevurah, it is ...

1. ... forbidden to feed it to one's dogs - like all Kodshim are (even if they become Pasul).

2. ... not burned - because it is only Kodshei Mikdash (Kodshim that became Pasul after entering the Azarah), that require Sereifah, and not Kodshei ha'Gevul (such as a B'chor Ba'al-Mum).

(c)The problem with the final words of this version ve'ha'Or bi'Sereifah is - why the skin needs to be burned any more than the Basar does.

(d)It seems however, that this version was introduced by Talmidim who misunderstood 'Yeitzei le'Beis ha'Sereifah' (in the words of the Chachamim) in our Mishnah. In fact, they were referring (not to Rebbi Akiva but) to the Tana Kama, who is talking about Kodshei Mikdash.

6)

(a)Our Mishnah draws a distinction between Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin that are burned ke'Mitzvasan, and those that are burned she'Lo ke'Mitzvasan. What do ke'Mitzvasan and she'Lo ke'Mitzvasan respectively, mean?

(b)What double distinction is the Tana referring to?

(c)Assuming that they are carrying Parim ha'Nisrafin ... ke'Mitzvasan, on poles, how, according to the Tana Kama, is it possible for some of the carriers together with their clothes to become Tamei, whilst the others do not?

(d)When do the latter carriers become Tamei too?

6)

(a)Our Mishnah draws a distinction between Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin that are burned ke'Mitzvasan - which did not become Pasul; and those that are burned she'Lo ke'Mitzvasan - which did.

(b)The double distinction the Tana is referring to is that - a. the former are burned outside Yerushalayim in the Beis ha'Deshen, whereas the latter are burned somewhere in the Beis Hamikdash, in a place called Birah (which will be explained in the Sugya); and b. the former render both those dealing with it and the clothes they are wearing, Tamei, whereas the latter do not.

(c)Assuming they are carrying Parim ha'Nisrafin ... ke'Mitzvasan, on poles, the Tana Kama maintains that - the moment those in front exit the walls of the Azarah, they and the clothes they are wearing become Tamei, whereas those at the back, who are still inside the Azarah, remain Tahor ...

(d)... until they too, leave the walls of the Azarah.

7)

(a)What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(b)At which stage do those who help to burn the Parim ha'Nisrafin and their clothes no longer become Tamei?

7)

(a)Rebbi Shimon disagrees with this entire Halachah. According to him - it is only from the moment that the majority of the Parim ha'Nisrafin ... are burning that whoever deals with them becomes Tamei together with his clothes, and not before.

(b)Those who helps to burn the Parim ha'Nisrafin and their clothes no longer become Tamei - once the Basar is completely burned.

104b-----------------104b

8)

(a)According to Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Birah refers to the Har ha'Bayis. Based on a Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim, how does Resh Lakish define it, based on the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim "ha'Birah asher Hachinosi"?

(b)How many Batei Deshen were there, according to Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah?

(c)The Beis ha'Deshen in the Azarah was used to burn Pesulei B'sar Kodshei Kodshim. Why did they also burn there ...

1. ... Pasul Emurin of Kodshim Kalim?

2. ... Parim ha'Nisrafin ... that became Pasul before the Z'rikas ha'Dam?

(d)We have already learned that Kasher Parim ha'Nisrafin ... are burned in the Beis ha'Deshen outside Yerushalayim. Where is the third Beis Hadeshen situated? What is it used for?

8)

(a)According to Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Birah refers to the Har ha'Bayis. Based on the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim "ha'Birah asher Hachinosi", Resh Lakish defines Birah as - the entire area of the Beis Hamikdash.

(b)According to Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah - there were three Batei Deshen.

(c)Besides burning Pesulei B'sar Kodshei Kodshim in the Beis ha'Deshen in the Azarah, they also burned there ...

1. ... Pasul Emurin of Kodshim Kalim - because the Azarah is the location where they would have been burned had they been Kasher.

2. ... Parim ha'Nisrafin ... that became Pasul before the Z'rikas ha'Dam - because they are not due to be taken out of the Azarah until after it.

(d)We have already learned that Kasher Parim ha'Nisrafin ... are burned in the Beis ha'Deshen outside Yerushalayim. The third Beis ha'Deshen is situated - on the Har ha'Bayis, to burn Parim ha'Nisrafin that became Pasul after the Z'rikas ha'Dam (when they become due to be taken out of the Azarah).

9)

(a)According to a Beraisa cited by Levi, Parim ha'Nisrafin ... that became Pasul are burned in the Beis ha'Deshen in the Azarah, even if they became Pasul after the Zerikah. In that case, what function did the Beis Hadeshen on the Har ha'Bayis serve?

9)

(a)According to a Beraisa cited by Levi, Parim ha'Nisrafin ... that became Pasul are burned in the Beis ha'Deshen in the Azarah, even if they became Pasul after the Zerikah - and the Beis ha'Deshen on the Har ha'Bayis is used to burn Parim ha'Nisrafin that became Pasul after leaving the Azarah.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether Parim ha'Nisrafin ... are subject to Linah. What are the ramifications of the She'eilah?

(b)Why might they not be, any less that the Basar of a Chatas or an Olah?

(c)When Abaye posed the same She'eilah, Rava tried to resolve it from a Beraisa. What does the Tana say about a Machshavah to eat the Basar of Parim ha'Nisrafin ... or to burn it on the following day?

(d)How did Rava attempt to resolve Abaye's She'eilah from there?

(e)How do we refute Rava's proof?

10)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether Parim ha'Nisrafin ... are subject to Linah - to become Pasul if they are left in the Azarah overnight.

(b)They might not be - because they are only fit to be burned on the ground, and are not eaten (either by Adam or by the Mizbe'ach), like the Basar of a Chatas or of an Olah is.

(c)When Abaye posed the same She'eilah, Rava tried to resolve from a Beraisa, which rules that - a Machshavah to eat the Basar of Parim ha'Nisrafin ... or to burn it on the following day does not render it Pasul.

(d)Rava thought that, by the same token - they ought not to be subject to Linah either.

(e)We refute Rava's proof from there however, on the grounds that - perhaps Machsheves Achilah is not applicable to them, but Linah is.

11)

(a)So we cite another Beraisa which declares Parim ha'Nisrafin ... subject to the Din of Me'ilah (once they have been declared Hekdesh). What does the Tana say there about the P'sul of T'vul Yom, Mechusar Kipurim and Linah?

(b)How do we reject the proof from ...

1. ... there that Linah does apply to the Basar of Parim ha'Nisrafin ... ?

2. ... the Seifa Kulan, Mo'alin bahen ad she'Yutach ha'Basar, that just as the Seifa is speaking about the Basar, so too, is the Reisha?

3. ... the Beraisa cited by Levi (which we discussed earlier) ... she'Ira bahen P'sul bi'Yetzi'asan? If the Tana is not referring to the P'sul of Linah, which P'sul is he referring to?

11)

(a)So we cite another Beraisa which declares Parim ha'Nisrafin ... subject to the Din of Me'ilah (once they have been declared Hekdesh) - and to the P'sul of T'vul Yom, Mechusar Kipurim and Linah, once they have been Shechted.

(b)We reject the proof from ...

1. ... there that Linah does apply to the Basar of Parim ha'Nisrafin ... - by establishing it with regard to the Emurim (which are obviously subject to Linah, seeing as they are due to be burned).

2. ... the Seifa Kulan, Mo'alin bahen ad she'Yutach ha'Basar, that just as the Seifa is speaking about the Basar, so too, is the Reisha - by countering Midi Ayri? Seifa Basar, Reisha Emurin (who says that they must be speaking in the same case ... ?).

3. ... the Beraisa cited by Levi (which we discussed earlier) ... she'Ira bahen P'sul bi'Yetzi'asan - by establishing the Tana (not with reference to the P'sul of Linah, but) to that of Tum'ah and Yotzei.

12)

(a)Rebbi Elazar asked whether Parim ha'Nisrafin are subject to the P'sul of Yotzei or not. Why does the She'eilah initially appear strange?

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes it according to those who say Adayin Lo Higi'a Z'mano Latzeis. What does this mean? About whom is it speaking?

(c)Why might the Din here be different than by Basar Kodshim Kalim?

(d)Once again, we try to resolve the She'eilah from Levi's Beraisa she'Ira bo P'sul bi'Yetzi'aso, which we establish by P'sul Tum'ah and P'sul Linah. What makes us initially think that the Tana is talking about P'sul Yetzi'ah?

12)

(a)Rebbi Elazar asked whether Parim ha'Nisrafin are subject to the P'sul of Yotzei or not. The She'eilah initially appears strange - since they are destined to go out anyway (so how can they possibly become Pasul by being taken out?)

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes it according to those who say Adayin Lo Higi'a Zemano Latzeis - they invalidate Kodshim Kalim that are taken out of the Azarah before the Z]rikas ha'Dam, even though they are due to be taken out after the Zerikah anyway.

(c)The Din here might be different than by Basar Kodshim Kalim however - because Parim ha'Nisrafin must later be taken out of the Azarah, whereas the Basar of Kodshim may be eaten in the Azarah.

(d)Once again, we try to resolve the She'eilah from Levi's Beraisa she'Ira Bo P'sul bi'Yetzi'aso, which we establish by P'sul Tum'ah and P'sul Linah. We initially think that the Tana is talking about P'sul Yetzi'ah - since it specifically mentions bi'Yetzi'aso.

13)

(a)Rebbi Elazar asked a She'eilah about Parim ha'Nisrafin be'Miy'ut Eiver. What is the case?

(b)What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(c)On what grounds do we dismiss the She'eilah? Why is the outcome obvious?

(d)So how do we amend it?

13)

(a)Rebbi Elazar asked a She'eilah about Parim ha'Nisrafin be'Miy'ut Eiver - where the majority of the animal is taken out of the Azarah, together with the minority of a limb most of which is still inside.

(b)The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether that minority combines with the majority of the limb that remains inside, or whether it combines with the majority of the Basar that was taken outside.

(c)We dismiss the She'eilah - because it is obvious that the bulk of the animal is more prominent than the remainder of the limb.

(d)So we amend it to - where the minority of the limb is taken out together with half the Basar, to make up a majority between them. And the question now is whether we combine the minority of the limb still inside with the majority that is outside, or whether we consider it as part of half the body that is still inside.

14)

(a)Rabah bar Rav Huna learned the She'eilah with regard to people. What is his version of the She'eilah?

(b)What is the outcome of both She'eilos?

14)

(a)Rabah bar Rav Huna learned the She'eilah with regard to people. His version of the She'eilah is - if five people are transporting the Parim ha'Nisrafin, of whom three have already left the Azarah carrying the minority of the animal, whilst two ae still inside with the majority. And the question is whether we go after the majority of the carriers or the majority of the animal.

(b)The outcome of both She'eilos is -Teiku (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos).