(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel restricts the Chiyuv for a Tamei person to enter the Mikdash to an area a hundred and eighty-seven Amos long and a hundred and thirty five Amos wide. What is the significance of this area?
(b)What does it preclude?
(c)What sort of Tamei is he referring to?
(d)When a Beraisa expert quoted a Beraisa to Rav Nachman citing these measurements, what did the latter comment in the name of his father? Which two other Halachos did he add to that mentioned by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, which are confined to this area?
(e)How do we know that the Tana is not coming to preclude the windows and the doors (of the walls of the Azarah) and the thickness of the walls, from that area?
1)
(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel restricts the Chiyuv for a Tamei person to enter the Mikdash in a state of Tum'ah to an area a hundred and eighty-seven Amos long and a hundred and thirty five Amos wide - comprising the entire area of the Azarah, including the Ulam, the Heichal and the D'vir (the Kodesh Kodshim [even incorporating the Ta'im, the rooms in the wall behind it]) ...
(b)... but precluding the Har ha'Bayis surrounding it.
(c)He is referring to - a Tamei Meis, but not to a Metzora, a Zav, or a Yoledes, who are Chayav for entering the Har ha'Bayis, too.
(d)When a Beraisa expert quoted a Beraisa to Rav Nachman citing these measurements, the latter commented in the name of his father that - besides the Chiyuv Tum'ah, the Kohanim are permitted to eat Kodshei Kodshim, and one is permitted to Shecht Kodshim Kalim there as well.
(e)The Tana cannot be coming to preclude the windows and the doors (of the walls of the Azarah) and the thickness of the walls, from that area - since the Mishnah in Pesachim includes them.
2)
(a)The Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini rules that rooms that are situated in a Makom Chol, but which open out to the Kodesh are Kodesh. How do we try to establish the Beraisa with regard to such rooms, in spite of this Mishnah?
(b)We reject this answer however, based on another Beraisa. What does the Tana say there about such rooms?
(c)How does this prove categorically that the Isur because of Tum'ah is not just mi'de'Rabbanan and the Pasuk merely an Asmachta?
(d)From which Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with eating the Menachaos) does the Beraisa learn the concession to eat Kodshei Kodshim in those areas?
(e)How does Rava now answer the apparent contradiction between the two Beraisos? Bearing in mind the latter D'rashah, on what grounds is a Tamei Meis then permitted to enter those very same rooms?
2)
(a)The Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini rules that rooms that are situated in a Makom Chol, but which open out to the Kodesh are Kodesh. In spite of this Mishnah, we try to establish the Beraisa with regard to such rooms - by suggesting that the Mishnah is speaking mi'de'Rabbanan.
(b)We reject this answer however, based on another Beraisa - which specifically permits eating Kodshei Kodshim and the Sheyarei Menachos in those rooms ...
(c)... proving categorically that the Isur Tum'ah is not just mi'de'Rabbanan and the Pasuk merely an Asmachta - because if the Rabbanan declare Chol to be Kodesh, it can only be le'Chumra, not le'Kula.
(d)The Beraisa learns the concession to eat Kodshei Kodshim in those areas, based on the Pasuk - (written in connection with the Minchah) "ba'Chatzar Ohel Mo'ed Yochluhah" (in spite of having already said "Matzos Te'achel ... ") ...
(e)... which the Torah is permitting here even though they are not really Kadosh. Therefore, Rava explains, a Tamei Meis is also permitted to enter.
3)
(a)How does Rava amend the Beraisa which inserts in the Halachos of rooms that are situated in a Makom Chol, but which open out to the Kodesh - 've'Ein Shochtin Sham Kodshim Kalim, ve'Chayavin Mishum Tum'ah'?
(b)On what basis does he do that?
(c)On what grounds do we ...
1. ... query the suggestion that the reason that Ein Shochtin is because it is not facing the doorway?
2. ... refute the Kashya?
(d)So what common reason covers both Ein Shochtin and Ein Chayavin Mishum Tum'ah?
3)
(a)Rava amends the Beraisa which inserts in the Halachos of rooms that are situated in a Makom Chol, but which open out to the Kodesh - 've'Ein Shochtin Sham Kodshim Kalim, ve'Chayavin Mishum Tum'ah', to read - ' ... ve'Ein Chayavin Mishum Tum'ah'.
(b)And he does that - based on the preceding phrase 've'Ein Shochtin Sham Kodshim Kalim'.
(c)We ...
1. ... query the suggestion that the reason that Ein Shochtin is because it is not facing the doorway in that - if it was, what is the reason for Ein Chayavin Mishum Tum'ah (seeing as Tum'ah does not need to be opposite the doorway in order to be Chayav).
2. ... refute the Kashya inasmuch as - if that was the reason, why should Chazal not institute that one Shechts opposite the doorway (even though it is not necessary to do so in the Azarah proper, as we explained).
(d)The common reason that covers both Ein Shochtin and Ein Chayavin Mishum Tum'ah is - the fact that these rooms were not sanctified with the Kedushah of the Azarah.
4)
(a)What can we extrapolate from what we just said, regarding Achilas Kodshei Kodshim?
(b)How will Rava reconcile this with the Beraisa which attributed the two Pishp'shin to the need to permit both Achilas Kodshei Kodshim and Shechitas Kodshim Kalim in the relevant sections of the Azarah?
(c)And how will he reconcile that with the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Shiv'as Yemei ha'Milu'im) "Bashlu es ha'Basar Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, ve'Sham Tochlu oso"?
4)
(a)We can extrapolate from what we just said - that Achilas Kodshei Kodshim - does not require Pesach Ohel Mo'ed (see Tzon Kodshim).
(b)Rava will reconcile this with the Beraisa, which attributed the two Pishp'shin to the need to permit both Achilas Kodshei Kodshim and Shechitas Kodshim Kalim in the relevant sections of the Azarah - by omitting Achilas Kodshei Kodshim from the text.
(c)And he reconciles that with the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Shiv'as Yemei ha'Milu'im) "Bashlu es ha'Basar Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, ve'Sham Tochlu oso" - by confining the latter to the Shiv'as Yemei ha'Milu'im, which were Kodshei Sha'ah (a one-off occurrence), and we cannot learn Doros from Sha'ah.
56b----------------------------------------56b
5)
(a)What does Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi learn from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Korban Shelamim) "be'Yom Hakrivo es Zivcho Ye'achel" regarding the Zerikas ha'Dam?
(b)How do we know that the Pasuk is not just coming to teach us the basic Halachah of when the Korban Shelamim may be eaten?
(c)We then suggest that maybe the Pasuk is coming to teach us that if the Shelamim is Shechted today, it may be eaten today and tomorrow, whereas if it is Shechted tomorrow, then it may be eaten tomorrow and the day after. On what basis would we say that?
(d)How do we refute that suggestion as well, based on the word "Zivcho"?
5)
(a)Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi learns from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Korban Shelamim) "be'Yom Hakrivo es Zivcho Ye'achel" (regarding the Zerikas ha'Dam) that - a Kodshim animal can only be brought (Zerikas Dam) on the day that it is Shechted (since nightfall renders the blood Pasul).
(b)The Pasuk cannot just be coming to teach us the basic Halachah of when the Korban Shelamim may be eaten - because then it would have omitted the word "Hakrivo" (and written "be'Yom Zivcho Ye'achel").
(c)We then suggest that maybe the Pasuk is coming to teach us that if the blood is sprinkled today, it may be eaten today and tomorrow, whereas if it is sprinkled tomorrow, then it may be eaten tomorrow and the day after - based on the Lashon "Hakrivo Ye'achel", implying that the time period during which it may be eaten is determined by the Zerikah, and not by the Shechitah.
(d)We refute that suggestion too, however based on the word "Zivcho" - which would then be superfluous (and the Torah ought to have written "be'Yom Hakrivo Ye'achel ... ").
6)
(a)With regard to ha'Mechashev le'Or Shelishi, Chizkiyah rules Kasher. What does ha'Mechashev le'Or Shelishi mean?
(b)What does Rebbi Yochanan say?
(c)What is the basis of their Machlokes? Why does ...
1. ... Chizkiyah say Kasher?
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan say Pasul?
6)
(a)With regard to ha'Mechashev le'Or Shelishi - meaning that the Shochet has in mind to eat the Korban the night after the second day, Chizkiyah rules Kasher ...
(b)Rebbi Yochanan rules - Pasul.
(c)According to ...
1. ... Chizkiyah, the Korban is Kasher - because it is not completely Pasul until the morning, when it must be burned.
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless says Pasul - because once the second day ends, it may no longer be eaten.
7)
(a)By the same token, if someone eats the Basar of a Shelamim on the night after the second day, they argue as to whether he is Chayav or not. Chayav what?
(b)What does each one say?
(c)We cite a Beraisa like Rebbi Yochanan. When, according to the Tana, is Pigul effective by all Korbanos, with regard to ...
1. ... the Dam?
2. ... the Emurin?
(d)What distinction does he draw with regard to the Basar, between Korbanos that can be eaten for one day and Korbanos that can be eaten for two?
7)
(a)By the same token, if someone eats the Basar of a Shelamim on the night after the second day, they argue as to whether he is Chayav - a Korban for Shig'gas Nosar or not.
(b)There too, Chizkiyah rules - Patur, and Rebbi Yochanan - Chayav (based on the same reasoning as to why, in the previous case, they ruled Kasher and Pasul, respectively,).
(c)We cite a Beraisa like Rebbi Yochanan. According to the Tana, Pigul is effective by all Korbanos, with regard to ...
1. ... the Dam - if he has in mind to sprinkle it from the nightfall following the Shechitah.
2. ... the Eimurin - if he has in mind to burn them the next morning.
(d)He draws a distinction however, with regard to the Basar, between Korbanos that can be eaten for one day - when Pigul is effective if during the Shechitah, he has in mind to eat the Korban at dawn-break (like by burning the Emurim), and Korbanos that can be eaten for two - if he intends to eat them after the following nightfall (like Rebbi Yochanan).
8)
(a)By what logic does the Beraisa suggest that one ought to be able to eat Shelamim the night after the second day?
(b)What does the Tana extrapolate from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'ha'Nosar ad Yom ... " that refutes it?
(c)And by what logic does the Tana also suggest that one ought to burn Nosar of Shelamim the night after they become forbidden?
(d)What does he extrapolate from the Pasuk there - "ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ba'Eish Yisaref"?
8)
(a)The Beraisa suggests that one ought to be able to eat Shelamim the night after the second day - just like one can eat Kodshei Kodshim the night after the first day.
(b)The Tana extrapolates from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'ha'Nosar ad Yom ... " that - one may only eat them until the end of the second day (but not at night [thereby refuting it]).
(c)The Tana also suggests that one ought to burn Nosar of Shelamim the night after they become forbidden - just as one burns Kodshei Kodshim immediately after they become Asur (at the end of the first night).
(d)He refutes that however by extrapolating from the Pasuk there "ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ba'Eish Yisaref" that - in fact, they may only be burned the morning after they become Asur.
9)
(a)Our Mishnah now discusses the Korban B'chor, Ma'aser and Pesach. Whereabouts in the Azarah are they Shechted?
(b)From where does the Tana learn that they only require one Matanah? What does the Torah ...
1. ... write by B'chor?
2. ... not write by any of them?
(c)Whereabouts on the Mizbe'ach is the Matanah performed?
9)
(a)Our Mishnah discusses the Korban B'chor, Ma'aser and Pesach, which can be Shechted - anywhere in the Azarah.
(b)The Tana learns that they only require one Matanah, because the Torah ...
1. ... writes by B'chor - "es Damam Tizrok", and ...
2. ... does not write by any of them "Saviv".
(c)The Matanah is performed - on any corner of the Mizbe'ach that has a Y'sod.
10)
(a)In which respect does B'chor differ from Ma'aser? How does Pesach differ from them both in this regard?
(b)Both B'chor and Ma'aser can be eaten anywhere in Yerushalayim. How about the Pesach?
(c)From whereabouts in Parshas Re'ei do we know this?
(d)And both can be eaten in any way, for two days and the night in between. How about the Pesach?
10)
(a)B'chor differs from Ma'aser - inasmuch as it is given to, and eaten by, Kohanim, whereas Ma'aser can be eaten by anybody (provided he is Tahor). Pesach on the other hand, can only be eaten by someone who has registered to eat that particular Pesach.
(b)Both B'chor and Ma'aser can be eaten anywhere in Yerushalayim - and so can Pesach.
(c)We know this - from the Pasuk in Parshas Re'ei, which requires all Korbanos (including Shelamim, B'chor and Ma'aser) to be brought to Yerushalayim. And since no other boundaries are prescribed for Kodshim Kalim, it is assumed that they can be eaten anywhere in the city.
(d)And both can be eaten in any way, for two days and the night in between - whereas the Pesach can only be eaten from nightfall until mid-night, and has to be roasted.
11)
(a)The Torah writes in Korach (in connection with B'chor) "es Damam Tizrok al ha'Mizbe'ach ve'es Chelbam Tatir". What does Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili in a Beraisa learn from the Torah's use of the plural ("Damam" and "Chelbam")?
(b)On what grounds do we establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili? What does our Mishnah say, or not say, that indicates this?
(c)Which Tana disagrees with our Mishnah?
11)
(a)The Torah writes in Korach (in connection with B'chor) "es Damam Tizrok al ha'Mizbe'ach ve'es Chelbam Tatir". Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili in a Beraisa, learns from the Torah's use of the plural ("Damam" and "Chelbam") - that the blood of Ma'aser Beheimah and of Pesach has to be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach, and their Cheilev burned on the Mizbe'ach, like that of B'chor.
(b)We establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - because the Tana differentiates between the way the three Korbanos have to be eaten, but not the way their blood is sprinkled or regarding what happens to their Eimurim.
(c)Rebbi Yishmael disagrees with our Mishnah - inasmuch as he holds that Pesach requires Shefichah and not Zerikah.
12)
(a)Rebbi Elazar learns the Din of Y'sod by all three via a Gezeirah-Shavah "Zerikah" "Zerikah" from Olah. From where do we know that Olah requires Y'sod?
(b)And what do we learn (with regard to B'chor, Ma'aser and Pesach) from the fact that the Torah writes "Saviv" by Olah and "Saviv" by Chatas?
(c)What will we do according to those who hold 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad, Melamdin'?
(d)How will this affect the Limud from Olah, which is a Gezeirah-Shavah, and not a Binyan-Av (which the principle Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad generally comes to negate)?
12)
(a)Rebbi Elazar learns the Din of Y'sod by all three via a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Zerikah" "Zerikah" from Olah, which we know - because the Torah writes (by Chatas "el Y'sod Mizbach ha'Olah [at least, we would learn it from there if not for the fact that we have a Kal-va'Chomer from Chatas] see also Shitah Mekubetzes).
(b)And from the fact that the Torah writes "Saviv" by Olah and "Saviv" by Chatas, we learn that - B'chor, Ma'aser and Pesach do not require four Matanos in the manner that Olah and Chatas do (See Tosfos and Shitah Mekubetzes here and in the Hashmatos), due to the principle Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad, Ein Melamdin).
(c)According to those who hold 'Melamdin' - we have a third Pasuk by Asham (and everyone agrees that Sheloshah Kesuvim ... , Ein Melamdin).
(d)From this Sugya it is clear - that even though Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad generally comes to negate a Binyan-Av, it can also negate a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.
