(a)Rebbi Yosi holds 'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos' (like Rebbi Yehoshua). Can he nevertheless be the author of our Mishnah?
(b)What is the problem with saying that Rebbi Yosi holds both 'Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar' and 'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos'?
(c)The Gemara retorts 'u'Leta'mech' from Rebbi Eliezer, who holds 'Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar'. What is the Kashya?
(d)What are the two ramifications of 'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos', even if one holds 'Dam Af al Pi she'Ein Basar'?
1)
(a)The fact that Rebbi Yosi holds 'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos' (like Rebbi Yehoshua) - does not mean that he also requires two things like him (in which case, he could not be the author of our Mishnah, as we explained above in the previous Sugya). In fact, he could hold like Rebbi Eliezer, who holds 'Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar', in which case, he could well be the author of our Mishnah.
(b)If Rebbi Yosi holds 'Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar', asks the Gemara, what is the point of saying 'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos'? What difference does it make whether it does or whether it doesn't?
(c)Rebbi Eliezer too holds 'Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar', yet he also says 'ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos', on which one can ask the same question: What is the point of saying this? What difference does it make etc.?
(d)Rebbi Eliezer holds that 'ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos', not to render the Korban Kasher (which it is anyway, because he holds 'Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar'), but to render the Korban subject to Pigul, and to remove it from the realm of Me'ilah. According to Rebbi Yosi (who holds 'Ein ha'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Achilos'), it is the opposite: the Korban is not subject to Pigul, but it is subject to Me'ilah.
2)
(a)We established that Rebbi Yosi holds 'Dam Af al Pi she'Ein Basar (like Rebbi Eliezer). By Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, there is the blood (on which the Tzitz is Meratzeh), and by the Omer, the Kometz, as we discussed earlier. What is the equivalent to the blood by the Lechem ha'Panim?
(b)The Shtei ha'Lechem however, present a problem, because they are completely eaten. Why can the Tana not be referring, not to the Shtei ha'Lechem themselves, but to the Korban that is brought together with them?
2)
(a)The equivalent to the blood by the Lechem ha'Panim - is the Bazichin (the bowls of frankincense, which are burnt on the Mizbe'ach, and which permit the bread to be eaten).
(b)The Shtei ha'Lechem present a problem, because they are completely eaten. Neither can the Tana be referring to the Korban that is brought together with them - because that is the Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, already mentioned in the Mishnah. Consequently, we would be left with four things that come b'Tum'ah, and not five, as the Tana states.
3)
(a)We then try and reconcile our Mishnah with Rebbi Yosi by establishing that he holds 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur'. What will that achieve?
(b)This is disproved from the Beraisa where Rebbi Yosi himself says that one only sprinkles the Kohen who burnt the Parah Adumah and the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur with the ashes of all the Paros Adumos that were there, on the third and the seventh days. What does Rebbi Meir hold there?
(c)How do we prove from that Beraisa that Rebbi Yosi cannot hold 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur'?
3)
(a)If Rebbi Yosi holds 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur' - then he will not require Ritzuy Tzitz, and it will not therefore matter that he holds 'Ein ha'Tzitz Merazte Al Achilos'.
(b)Rebbi Meir holds that one sprinkles the Kohen who burnt the Parah Adumah and the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur with the ashes of all the Paros Adumos that were there on each of the seven days.
(c)The Korbanos on Yom Kipur are all Korbenos Tzibur. Consequently, if Rebbi Yosi held 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur, why would the Kohen Gadol need to be sprinkled at all?
4)
(a)Rebbi Yosi seems to side with Rebbi Eliezer both by Zevachim ('Dam, Af al Pi she'Ein Basar') and Menachos ('Kometz, Af al Pi she'Ein Sham Shirayim'), and with Rebbi Yehoshua both by Menachos ('Im Ein Sham Shirayim, Ein Kometz') and Zevachim ('Im Ein Dam, Ein Basar'). How do we initially attempt to explain the apparent discrepancy in Rebbi Yosi's words?
(b)How do we reject this on the basis of the source of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua in the Torah?
(c)We then try to explain him to mean that he rules like Rebbi Eliezer by 'Nitma', and like Rebbi Yehoshua by 'Avud v'Saruf'. On what grounds does the Gemara reject this explanation, too?
(d)The Gemara then contends that Rebbi Yosi rules like Rebbi Eliezer by a Tzibur and like Rebbi Yehoshua by a Yachid. Besides the fact that this would mean that Rebbi Yosi agrees with Rebbi Eliezer that 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur' (whereas, as we saw earlier, he actually holds 'Tum'ah Dechuyah b'Tzibur'), on what other grounds does the Gemara not accept this answer?
4)
(a)Initially, we attempt to explain Rebbi Yosi, who seemingly holds like both Rebbi Eliezer and like Rebbi Yehoshua, to mean that when he was holding by Zevachim, he said that just as they argue by Zevachim, so too, they argue by Menachos; and when he was holding by Menachos, he said the reverse.
(b)Bearing in mind that the source of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua is the Pesukim by Zevachim (as we learnt above on Daf 77), what does he mean with his latter statement? Why should he learn Zevachim from Menachos, when their initial Machlokes must be by Zevachim?
(c)Explaining him to mean that he rules like Rebbi Eliezer by 'Nitma', and like Rebbi Yehoshua by 'Avud v'Saruf' does not work either - since why would he rule like Rebbi Eliezer by 'Nitma' (to say that the Korban is Kasher? Because 'Tzitz Meratzeh Al Tum'ah'? But that is impossible, since Rebbi Yosi holds 'Ein Tzitz Meratzeh Al ha'Achilos'.
(d)Besides the fact that Rebbi Yosi holds 'Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi b'Tzibur', we cannot establish him like Rebbi Eliezer by a Tzibur and like Rebbi Yehoshua by a Yachid - because we have already learnt above, that Rebbi Yehoshua agrees by a Tzibur.
78b----------------------------------------78b
5)
(a)Finally, the Gemara establishes Rebbi Yosi to mean that he holds like Rebbi Eliezer b'Di'eved, and like Rebbi Yehoshua l'Chatchilah. But did we not conclude earlier (78b) that even Rebbi Yehoshua agrees b'Di'eved 'she'Im Zarak, Hurtzah'?
(b)Is Rebbi Yosi referring to a Korban Yachid or a Korban Tzibur?
5)
(a)True, we concluded earlier that even Rebbi Yehoshua agrees 'she'Im Zarak, Hurtzah', but that was by Tum'ah, which is still there; but by Avud v'Saruf, which is not, and where they still argue, Rebbi Yosi prefers the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, who permits Avud v'Saruf bedi'Eved, 'she'Im Zarak, Hurtzah'.
(b)Rebbi Yosi is in fact speaking, by a Korban Yachid - because by a Korban Tzibur, even Rebbi Yehoshua agrees, as we just explained (in the previous question).
6)
(a)By the Korban Pesach, does one sprinkle the blood on the Chelev (even when the Basar is not there or Tamei), or vice-versa?
(b)In what way do other Kodshim differ from the Korban Pesach in this regard?
6)
(a)By the Korban Pesach, one sprinkles the blood on the Basar, even when the Chelev is not there or when it is Tamei (but not when the Chelev is there and the Basar is not - even according to Rebbi Eliezer) - because the main purpose of the Pesach is to be eaten.
(b)Other Kodshim differ from the Korban Pesach in this regard - inasmuch as if either the Basar or the Chelev is still valid, one nevertheless sprinkles the blood.
7)
(a)Rav says that if, in the case in our Mishnah when the Basar became Tamei, the blood was sprinkled, the Korban is accepted. But surely the purpose of the Pesach is to eat, and in this case, since it cannot be eaten, it should not be accepted either?
(b)What do we learn from the double Lashon (in Bo) "b'Michsas" and "Ish Le'fi Ochlo Tachosu"? This Pasuk is speaking about Menuyav. From where do we know that the same applies to Ochlav?
(c)Rav holds like Rebbi Nasan. What does Rebbi Nasan say?
7)
(a)Rav says that if, in the case in our Mishnah when the Basar became Tamei, the blood was sprinkled, the Korban is accepted - because the actual eating is not essential to the validity of the Korban.
(b)We learn from the double Lashon (in Bo) "b'Michsas" and "Ish Le'fi Ochlo Tachosu" - that if the Pesach was Shechted she'Lo li'Menuyav, it is Pasul (because by Kodshim, whenever the Torah repeats itself, it is to render Pasul even b'Di'eved).
(c)Rebbi Nasan says that the eating of the Pesach is not essential to the validity of the Korban.
8)
(a)In our search for the source of Rebbi Nasan's opinion, we quote a Beraisa where he declares that the whole of Yisrael can fulfill their obligation with one Korban Pesach. How do we attempt to prove our point from there?
(b)On what grounds is that proof rejected?
8)
(a)Rebbi Nasan learns from the Pasuk in Bo "v'Shachatu Oso Kol Kehal Yisrael" that the whole of Yisrael can be Yotzei with one lamb. Now that would certainly mean that each person would receive less than a k'Zayis, which is not termed eating; which goes to prove that the eating of the Korban is not essential to the validity of the Korban.
(b)The Gemara rejects this proof on the grounds that in that case, some of the members could withdraw (like a kind of 'Migo'), in which case, the remaining members would receive a k'Zayis. Otherwise, Rebbi Nasan may well invalidate a Korban Pesach that cannot be eaten.
9)
(a)The Gemara finally proves its point from Rebbi Nasan's opinion in the Beraisa, which speaks about a second group that was designated on a Korban Pesach, whose members did not each have a k'Zayis in it. What does he say about that, from which we can derive that eating the Pesach is not essential to the Korban's validity?
(b)How do we know that the reason there is not because if either group were to withdraw, there would be a k'Zayis for each member of the other group (like we said in the previous case)?
(c)What do the Rabanan of Rebbi Nasan say?
(d)What forces Rav to establish our Mishnah ('Nitma Basar v'Chelev Kayam, Eino Zorek es ha'Dam') by l'Chatchilah (from which he deduces that b'Di'eved, the Pesach is Kasher - like Rebbi Nasan). How does he know that the Tana is not speaking even b'Di'eved, like the Rabanan?
9)
(a)Rebbi Nasan says that, even though the second group will receive less a k'Zayis, and should therefore have really withdrawn from it before the Shechitah, they are nevertheless Patur from bringing a Pesach Sheni, if they did not do so. This is because, since the blood has already been sprinkled, they are Yotzei their obligation - even though they cannot eat it.
(b)Rebbi Nasan's reason there cannot be because if either group were to withdraw, there would be a k'Zayis for each member of the other group (like we said in the previous case) - because if that is so, then he should have given that as his reason, and not 'because the blood has already been sprinkled'.
(c)According to the Rabanan of Rebbi Nasan - it is only the members of the first group who are Patur from bringing the Pesach Sheni, but not the members of the second group, since they do not receive a k'Zayis.
(d)Rav is forced to establish our Mishnah ('Nitma Basar v'Chelev Kayam, Eino Zorek es ha'Dam') by l'Chatchilah (from which he deduces that b'Di'eved, the Pesach is Kasher - like Rebbi Nasan) - from the fact that the Tana writes 'Eino Zorek es ha'Dam', and not simply 'Pasul' (which implies b'Di'eved.
10)
(a)How does Rebbi Nasan explain the Pasuk "Ish Le'fi Ochlo"?
(b)The author of the Beraisa, which states 'Shachto l'Ochlav, v'Zarku Damav she'Lo l'Ochlav, ha'Pesach Atzmo Kasher, v'Adam Yotzei Bo Yedei Chovaso', appears to be Rebbi Nasan. Could it actually be the Rabanan?
(c)And who is the author of the Beraisa which requires the owner of the Pesach to be fit to eat it from the time of the Shechitah until it is eaten? Could it be Rebbi Nasan?
10)
(a)According to Rebbi Nasan "Ish Le'fi Ochlo" teaches us that the person must be fit to eat it (to preclude a sick or an old person) - similar to the Din of principle of Rebbi Zeira 'Kol ha'Ra'uy l'Bilah, Ein Bilah Me'akeves Bo'.
(b)The author of the Beraisa, which states 'Shachto l'Ochlav, v'Zarku Damav she'Lo l'Ochlav, ha'Pesach Atzmo Kasher, v'Adam Yotzei Bo Yedei Chovaso', could even be the Rabanan, because they hold 'Ein Machsheves Ochlin bi'Zerikah'.
(c)The author of the Beraisa which requires the owner of the Pesach to be fit to eat it from the time of the Shechitah until it is eaten, could even be Rebbi Nasan, who agrees that the owner himself must be fit to eat the Pesach, as we just explained.
11)
(a)Another Beraisa states that if the Pesach was Shechted b'Taharah, and then the owner became Tamei, the blood should be sprinkled b'Taharah, but the Pesach may not be eaten b'Tum'ah. Rebbi Elazar establishes the author to be Rebbi Nasan. In which point does Rebbi Elazar dispute the previous interpretation of Rebbi Nasan?
(b)Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rebbi Elazar. What does he say?
(c)Why is the Pesach then not eaten b'Tum'ah as well?
11)
(a)Rebbi Elazar (who establishes the author of the Beraisa - which states that if the Pesach was Shechted b'Taharah, and then the owner became Tamei, the blood should be sprinkled b'Taharah, but the Pesach may not be eaten b'Tum'ah - to be Rebbi Nasan) maintains that Rebbi Nasan does not even require the owner to be fit to eat the Pesach either (and the author of the previous Beraisa, according to him, will be the Rabanan, and not Rebbi Nasan).
(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan, the author of this Beraisa could even be the Rabanan, because the Tana is speaking about a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah).
(c)The reason that it is not eaten b'Tum'ah as well - is because it speaks when the Tzibur became Tamei between the Shechitah and the Zerikah (whereas a regular case of Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah - which is eaten - speaks when they became Tamei before the Shechitah. Consequently, Chazal decreed that it should not be eaten, in case the following year, the people will become Tamei after the Zerikah (in which case it is not a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah at all), and the people, remembering how they ate the Pesach the previous year, when they also became Tamei after the Shechitah (but before the Zerikah), will think that they may eat it this year too.
