(a)What was Rebbi Ami's initial reaction, when Rebbi Zeira asked him that if, as Ze'iri maintains, a bird whose Mafrekes and Rov Basar are broken, is considered a Neveilah, how can one subsequently perform Melikah on it?
(b)His ultimate reply conformed to that of a Beraisa, as well as to the answer given by Rava. What did he answer?
(c)The Beraisa continues 'Higi'a le'Veshet O le'Kanah, Chotech Si'man Echad O Rubo ve'Rov Basar Imo'. What if it is an Olas ha'Of'?
1)
(a)When Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Ami that if, as Ze'iri maintains, a bird whose Mafrekes and Rov Basar are broken is considered a Neveilah, how can one subsequently perform Melikah on it - the latter was initially taken aback, and could offer no explanation.
(b)His ultimate reply that - when performing Melikah, one breaks the Mafrekes, but without Rov Basar, conformed to that of a Beraisa (as well as to the answer given by Rava, as we just learned).
(c)The Beraisa continues 'Higi'a le'Veshet O le'Kanah, Chotech Si'man Echad O Rubo ve'Rov Basar Imo'. And if it is an Olas ha'Of - 'Shenayim O Rov Shenayim'.
2)
(a)What problem do we have with the Lashon of the Beraisa 'u'be'Olah Shenayim O Rov Shenayim'?
(b)How do we therefore amend the Beraisa?
(c)Alternatively, the Beraisa goes according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon. Then why does the Tana mention Shenayim altogether?
2)
(a)The problem with the Lashon of the Beraisa 'u'be'Olah Shenayim O Rov Shenayim' is that - this encroaches on a Machlokes Tana'im; the Rabbanan hold specifically Shenayim, and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, Rov Shenayim.
(b)We therefore amend the Beraisa to read - 'Shenayim le'Rabbanan, Rov Shenayim, le'Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon'.
(c)Alternatively, the Beraisa goes according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, and the Tana mentions Shenayim - to teach us that Rov Shenayim must be a clear Rov that looks like it is divided into two (that is clearly discernible, and not just a fraction more than half.
3)
(a)What does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel say about a person whose Mafrekes and Rov Basar are broken?
(b)About whom does the Pasuk in Shmuel write "Vatishaver Mafrakto Vayamos"?
(c)To which incident is the Pasuk referring?
(d)How will we reconcile Shmuel's ruling with this Pasuk, which refers to Eli as dead, even though Rov Basar was not broken together with the Mafrekes?
(e)What proof do we have that this answer is correct?
3)
(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules that a person whose Mafrekes and Rov Basar are broken - is Metamei be'Ohel (even if he is still convulsing, as is the case with all the rulings that we are now about to discuss).
(b)The Pasuk in Shmuel writes "Vatishaver Mafrakto Vayamos" - about Eli ha'Kohen ...
(c)... when he received the news that the P'lishtim had captured the Aron, causing him to fall backwards from his chair.
(d)Despite Shmuel's ruling, this Pasuk refers to Eli as dead, even though Rov Basar was not broken together with the Mafrekes - on account of Eli ha'Kohen's advanced age ...
(e)... proven by the fact that the Pasuk adds " ... "Vayamos ki Zakein ha'Ish ... ".
4)
(a)What does Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about Reuven tearing Shimon apart like a fish?
(b)What does Rebbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak add to Rebbi Yochanan's ruling?
(c)What does Shmuel say about As'ah Gistera? What does Gistra mean?
4)
(a)Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that if Reuven tears Shimon apart like a fish - the latter is Metamei be'Ohel.
(b)Rebbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak adds that - this speaks specifically if he did so from the back.
(c)Shmuel rules that As'ah Gistera - Reuven cut Shimon in half down to the hollow of the body, either by the neck or by the backbone), Shimon is Metamei be'Ohel.
5)
(a)On what condition does Rebbi Elazar consider Nital ha'Yerech (if the thigh has been removed) a Neveilah?
(b)How does Rava define va'Chalal she'lah?
(c)What does the Mishnah in Ohalos say about an animal whose head has been severed, even though it is still convulsing?
(d)What has this to do with the tail of a lizard?
5)
(a)Rebbi Elazar considers Nital ha'Yerech (if the thigh has been removed) a Neveilah - provided it is missing all the way up to the hollow of the body (va'Chalal she'lah).
(b)Rava defines va'Chalal she'Lah to mean that - when the animal crouches, one can actually see a gap in the body where the thigh had previously been.
(c)The Mishnah in Ohalos rules that if an animal's head has been severed, even though it is still convulsing - it is Metamei Meis ...
(d)... like the severed tail of a lizard, which continues to wriggle, even though it is obviously not alive.
6)
(a)According to Resh Lakish, severed is meant literally. What does Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Mani say?
(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Asi what he meant. What are the two possibilities?
(c)What did Rebbi Asi reply?
(d)How do we cite the Machlokes in the second Lashon? What did Rebbi Asi say there?
6)
(a)According to Resh Lakish, severed is meant literally. Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Mani says - like the Havdalah of an Olas ha'Of.
(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Asi what he meant - like the Havdalas Olas ha'Of of the Rabbanan (which tallies with Rebbi Lakish), or like the Havdalas Olas ha'Of of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (which argues with him, considering the animal dead already at that point).
(c)Rebbi Asi replied that - the second possibility was the correct one.
(d)In the second Lashon - Rebbi Asi initially said 'ke'Havdalas Olas ha'Of le'Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon' (dispensing with Resh Lakish's She'eilah).
7)
(a)In the Pasuk in Vayikra (written in connection with the Olas ha'Of of a Korban Oleh ve'Yored) "ve'es ha'Sheini Ta'aseh ka'Mishpat", to which two Korbanos might "ka'Mishpat" refer?
(b)Why does the Tana of the Beraisa initially opt to learn Olas ha'Of from Chatas Beheimah?
(c)What would the Tana learn from Chatas ha'Of?
(d)What does he conclude, based on the word "Vehikri*vo*" (in the Pasuk there [written in connection with Olas Of Nedavah] "Vehikrivo ha'Kohen el ha'Mizbe'ach")?
7)
(a)In the Pasuk in Vayikra (written in connection with the Olas ha'Of of a Korban Oleh ve'Yored) "ve'es ha'Sheini Ta'aseh ka'Mishpat", "ka'Mishpat" refers either to - Chatas Beheimah or to Chatas ha'Of.
(b)The Tana of the Beraisa initially opts to learn Olas ha'Of from Chatas Beheimah - because it not only precedes it, but it is also what it (the Chatas ha'Of) replaces (if the sinner is a poor man).
(c)The Tana would learn from Chatas ha'Of that - when performing Melikah, one should not sever the Simanim (as the Torah writes there "ve'Lo Yavdil").
(d)However, based on the word "Vehikri*vo*" (in the Pasuk there [written in connection with Olas Of Nedavah] "Vehikrivo ha'Kohen el ha'Mizbe'ach") - he concludes that Olas ha'Of is unique and that one cannot learn it from Chatas ha'Of in this regard (forcing us to learn the previous Limud from Chatas Beheimah).
21b----------------------------------------21b
8)
(a)The Tana learns three things from the comparison of Olas ha'Of to Chatas Beheimah. Two of them are that it can only be brought from Chulin, and that it can only be brought in the day. What is the third?
(b)Why could we not learn the same three things from Chatas ha'Of and preclude Olas ha'Of from "ve'Lo Yavdil" (of Chatas ha'Of)?
8)
(a)The Tana learns three things from the comparison of Olas ha'Of to Chatas Beheimah: That it can only be brought from Chulin, that it can only be brought in the day - and that it must be performed with the right hand.
(b)We could not learn the same three things from Chatas ha'Of, and still preclude Olas ha'Of from "ve'Lo Yavdil" (of Chatas ha'Of), from "Vehikrivo" - because we only know these three things with regard to a Chatas ha'Of from a Hekesh (since the Torah calls it a Chatas), and we have a principle 'Ein Lemeidin Hekesh min ha'Hekesh be'Kodshim'.
9)
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with Olas Nedavah) "u'Malak Ve'hiktir"?
(b)What would we otherwise have thought?
(c)What forces us to make this D'rashah?
(d)Seeing as the head and the body are still joined by the skin, how can the Torah refer to this as severed?
9)
(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with Olas Nedavah) "u'Malak Ve'hiktir" that - just as the head is burned independently from the body, so too, should Melikah separate the head from the body.
(b)We would otherwise have thought that - it will suffice to cut the majority of the Siman, like Chatas Beheimah, from which we learn it (as we just explained).
(c)We are forced to make this D'rashah - because the Pasuk continues "Venimtza Damo", and it is obviously impossible to squeeze the blood of a bird that has already been burned. So the Pasuk must be coming to compare the Melikah to the Haktarah, as we explained.
(d)Even though the head and the body are still joined by the skin, the Torah refers to this as severed - because the Simanim (which require Shechitah) are severed, as we learned earlier.
10)
(a)Rebbi Yishmael agrees with the ruling of the Chachamim, but not with their source. What does he learn from ...
1. ... "ka'Mishpat" ('ke'Mishpat Chatas ha'Of')?
2. ... "Ve'hikrivo"?
(b)How does he learn it from there?
(c)If not for "Ve'hikrivo", what would we otherwise have thought?
(d)And how do we know that Rebbi Yishmael learns like the Rabbanan (that "Ve'hikrivo" requires cutting the entire second Si'man), and not that one must cut the second Si'man as well, but that Rov will suffice (like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon)?
10)
(a)Rebbi Yishmael agrees with the ruling of the Chachamim, but not with their source. He learns from ...
1. ... "ka'Mishpat" that - Olas ha'Of, like Chatas ha'Of, must be cut mi'Mul Oref (like we learned above).
2. ... "Ve'hivdi*lo*" that - unlike Chatas ha'Of, the head of the Olas ha'Of must be severed.
(b)He learns it from there - because "Ve'hikri*vo*" implies that Olas ha'Of is different than Chatas ha'Of, at least in one respect.
(c)If not for "Ve'hikrivo", we would otherwise have thought that - once one has cut the first Si'man (or the majority of it), there is no point in cutting the second (which ultimately, one only cuts to fulfill the Mitzvah of Havdalah).
(d)We know that Rebbi Yishmael learns like the Rabbanan (that "Ve'hikrivo" requires cutting the entire second Si'man, and not that one must cut the second Si'man as well, but that Rov will suffice (like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) - because the Torah says nothing about a second Si'man, only "Ve'hikrivo" (precluding it from "ve'Lo Yavdil"), which obligates cutting whatever is included in Shechitah (incorporating the second Si'man, and precluding the skin, as we explained earlier).
11)
(a)From where does Rebbi Yishmael know to learn Mul Oref from ke'Mishpat Chatas ha'Of and the Din of Havdalah from "Ve'hikrivo", and not the other way round?
(b)And what does he learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Zos ha'Torah, la'Olah ve'la'Minchah"? What does he learn from Chatas Beheimah?
(c)Why do the Rabbanan disagree with him?
11)
(a)Rebbi Yishmael learns Mul Oref from ke'Mishpat Chatas ha'Of and the Din of Havdalah from "Ve'hikrivo", and not the other way round - because he also relies on the D'rashah of the Tana Kama ("u'Malak Ve'hiktir" which teaches Havdalah. We shall see later, why he still requires "Ve'hikrivo").
(b)And he learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "Zos ha'Torah, la'Olah ve'la'Minchah" that - a Korban Of, like a Chatas Beheimah, must be purchased from Chulin, during the daytime and with the right hand.
(c)The Rabbanan disagree with him - because they confine the Hekesh (of "Zos ha'Torah ... ") to animal Korbanos, but not to birds.
12)
(a)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon disagrees with both the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yishmael, though like the latter, he compares Olas ha'Of to Chatas ha'Of. When he said 'Mah Lehalan Ochez be'Rosh u've'Guf u'Mazeh', why can he not have meant literally what he said?
(b)Then what *did* he mean?
(c)And what does he then learn from "Vehikrivo"?
(d)Why does Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon not learn from "Vehikrivo" that the second Si'man must be completely severed (like Rebbi Yishmael)?
12)
(a)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon disagrees with both the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yishmael, though, like the latter, he compares Olas ha'Of to Chatas ha'Of. When he said 'Mah Lehalan Ochez be'Rosh u've'Guf u'Mazeh', he cannot have meant literally what he said - because there is no source to obligate the Kohen to hold the head and the body within the palm of his hand.
(b)He must therefore have meant that - just as when sprinkling the blood of the Chatas ha'Of, the head and the body are joined, so too, must the Melikah leave the head and the body joined.
(c)And from "Vehikrivo", he learns that - it is necessary to cut part of the second Si'man too (to make Rov Shenayim).
(d)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon cannot learn from "Vehikrivo" that the second Si'man must be completely severed (like Rebbi Yishmael) - because it would clash with his D'rashah from 'ke'Mishpat Chatas ha'Of' (which prohibits Havdalah).
