1)
(a)What does Rava rule with regard to Miyn be'Miyno and Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno?
(b)Which third item does he add to the list?
1)
(a)Rava rules - Miyn be'Miyno be'Ruba, Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno beTa'ama' (merely coroborating what we learned earlier ...
(b)that sometines Chazuta replaces 'Ta'ama', such as in the case of the Tevilah of a barrel (as we learned earlier).
2)
(a)Earlier in the Sugya, we cited Resh Lakish, who says Isurin Mevatlin Zeh es Zeh. What does Rebbi Elazar say about that?
(b)What is his source?
(c)What does Hillel say in a Beraisa with regard to eating Pesach, Matzah and Maror on Seider-night?
(d)What is Hillel's source?
2)
(a)Earlier in the Sugya, we cited Resh Lakish, who says Isurin Mevatlin Zeh es Zeh. Rebbi Elazar holds that - just as Mitzvos do not negate one another, neither do Isurin.
(b)His source is - Hillel in a Beraisa ...
(c)... who rules that - on Seder night, one eats Pesach, Matzah and Maror together, in the form of a sandwich (and one is Yotzei the Mitzvah of Matzah [which is basically tasteless], in spite of the strong taste of Maror).
(d)Hillel's source is - the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu", implying that one must eat them together.
79b----------------------------------------79b
3)
(a)The Beraisa discusses a Charsan of a Zav and a Zavah. What is a Charsan?
(b)What does the Tana mean when he declares it Tamei the first two times, and Tahor the third time?
(c)Why is that?
3)
(a)The Beraisa discusses a Charsan - the chamber-pot of a Zav and a Zavah.
(b)When the Tana declares it Tamei the first two times, and Tahor the third time, he means that - it remains Tamei after being washed twice with water, but Tahor after the third time ...
(c)... because by then, the urine that is absorbed in its walls will have become Bateil in the water.
4)
(a)According to the Tana Kama, the Halachah will differ if, instead of water, it is washed three times with the urine of a Tahor person. What does he rule there?
(b)Why the difference?
(c)On what grounds does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov disagree with the Tana Kama?
(d)Who is the Tana Kama?
4)
(a)According to the Tana Kama, the Halachah will differ if, instead of water, it is washed three times with the urine of a Tahor person, in which case, the Tana Kama rules that - it remains Tamei ...
(b)... because Miyn be'Miyno Eino Bateil.
(c)Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov disagrees - because he holds Miyn be'Miyno Bateil.
(d)The Tana Kama is - Rebbi Yehudah.
5)
(a)Another Beraisa declares Tahor someone who moves flax that was spun by a Nidah (despite the fact that, presumably the Nidah inadvertently spat on it whilst spinning it). Why is that?
(b)What does the Tana Kama hold in a case where the spit is still wet?
(c)Rebbi Yehudah is even more stringent. What does he say?
(d)His words imply that this is the Halachah, even if the flax was washed many times. How do we reconcile this with the previous Beraisa, where even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that by the third washing, the Tamei urine has all been exuded?
5)
(a)Another Beraisa declares Tahor someone who moves flax that was spun by a Nidah (despite the fact that the Nidah probably spat on it whilst spinning it) - because, since the spit is probably already dry, it is not Metamei.
(b)If the spit is still wet however - the Tana Kama holds, that the person who moves it is Tamei.
(c)According to Rebbi Yehudah - even if the flax is wet due to having been washed with water, the person who subsequently moves it becomes Tamei.
(d)His words imply that this is the Halachah even if the flax was washed many times. We reconcile this with the previous Beraisa, where even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that by the third washing, the Tamei urine has all been exuded - by confining the previous ruling to urine, which does not become as deeply absorbed in the K'li as spit does in flax.
6)
(a)We learned in our Mishnah be'Dam ha'Tamtzis, Yishafech le'Amah; Rebbi Eliezer Machshir. According to Rebbi Z'vid, they are arguing over whether, on principle, the Chachamim would issue a decree in the Beis-Hamikdash (the Tana Kama) or not (Rebbi Eliezer). Which decree are we referring to? Why should the blood really be Kasher?
(b)What is then Rebbi Eliezer's reason?
(c)Is the Machlokes then confined to Dam ha'Tamtzis?
6)
(a)We learned in our Mishnah be'Dam ha'Tazmtzis, Yishafech le'Amah; Rebbi Eliezer Machshir. According to Rebbi Z'vid, they are arguing over whether, on principle, the Chachamim will issue a decree in the Beis-Hamikdash (the Tana Kama) or not (Rebbi Eliezer). Really, we ought to go after the Rov, which is Dam ha'Nefesh, only the Rabbanan decreed on account of where the Dam ha'Tamtzis was in the majority.
(b)Rebbi Eliezer maintains that they did not decree - due to Hefsed Kodshim (to stop Kodshim from becoming Pasul).
(c)The Machlokes is not therefore, confined to Dam ha'Tamtzis - but extends to the previous case in the Mishnah (where the Tana Kama also rules Nis'arev be'Dam Pesulin, Yishafesh le'Amah.
7)
(a)What does Rav Papa say regarding the Chachamim in the Beis-Hamikdash?
(b)Then why does Rebbi Eliezer declare the blood Kasher, in spite of the Dam ha'Tamtzis?
(c)In that case, why will the Machlokes not extend to the blood of Pasul Korbanos?
(d)How do we now query Rav Z'vid?
(e)What is the answer?
7)
(a)According to Rav Papa - the Chachamim sometimes decreed in the Beis-Hamikdash too ...
(b)... and the reason that Rebbi Eliezer declares the blood Kasher, in spite of the Dam ha'Tamtzis is - due to the rarity of the Dam ha'Tamtzis exceeding that of the Dam ha'Nefesh.
(c)Consequently, the Machlokes will not extend to the blood of Pasul Korbanos, because in the case of Kodshim, it is not uncommon for the Pasul blood to exceed the Kasher blood.
(d)We now query Rav Z'vid as to - why the Tana presents Dam Pesulim and Dam ha'Tamtzis independently, when really, seeing as Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan argue in both cases, he ought to have presented them together.
(e)The Kashya remains unanswered.
8)
(a)Our Mishnah rules Dam Temimim be'Dam Ba'alei-Mumin, Yishafech le'Amah. What does Rebbi Eliezer say in a case where it was cups of blood that became mixed up?
(b)What do the Chachamim say?
8)
(a)Our Mishnah rules Dam Temimim be'Dam Ba'alei-Mumin Yishafech le'Amah. Where it was cups of blood that became mixed up - Rebbi Eliezer rules that once one of those cups has been sprinkled, all the others may be sprinkled as well.
(b)According to the Chachamim - even if all the cups have been sprinkled except for the last one, it goes to the Beis-ha'Sereifah.
9)
(a)What does Rebbi Eliezer say about Nitnin le'Ma'alah she'Nis'arvu be'Nitnin le'Matah?
(b)How does he justify sprinkling the blood that belongs Lematah, Lema'alah?
(c)Why does he not say Yiten Lematah ... ?
(d)What do the Rabbanan rule ...
1. ... Lechatchilah?
2. ... if Bedieved, the Kohen followed Rebbi Eliezer's ruling?
9)
(a)Rebbi Eliezer rules that Nitnin le'Ma'alah she'Nis'arvu be'Nitnin le'Matah - Yitein Lema'alah'.
(b)And he justifies sprinkling the blood that belongs Lematah, Lema'alah - by considering it as if it was water.
(c)He does not say Yiten Lematah ... - because one always gives precedence to the Matanos Lema'alah (as we will see).
(d)The Rabbanan rule ...
1. ... Lechatchilah - Yishafech le'Amah.
2. ... that if Bedieved, the Kohen followed Rebbi Eliezer's ruling - the Korban is Kasher.
10)
(a)Our Mishnah rules ha'Nitnin be'Matanah Achas she'Nis'arvu be'Nitnin be'Matanah Achas, Yinasnu be'Matanah Achas. What is the case?
(b)... Matan Arba be'Matan Arba, Yinasnu be'Matan Arba. What is the case? What is meant here by Arba?
(c)Rebbi Eliezer rules that Matan Arba be'Matanah Achas, Yinasnu be'Matan Arba. What principle will we need to apply, on the assumption that the Tana is referring to the blood of two Korbanos that became mixed up in one cup?
(d)How else might we interpret the Mishnah?
(e)What does Rebbi Eliezer then mean?
10)
(a)Our Mishnah rules ha'Nitnin be'Matanah Achas she'Nis'arvu be'Nitnin be'Matanah Achas, Yinasnu be'Matanah Achas. The case is - where the blood of a B'chor became mixed up with that of Ma'aser Beheimah.
(b)... Matan Arba be'Matan Arba, Yinasnu be'Matan Arba. The case is - where the blood of a Shelamim became mixed up with an Olah or with an Asham, all of which require sprinkling on all four Yesodos (via Sh'tayim she'Hein Arba'.
(c)Rebbi Eliezer rules that Matan Arba be'Matanah Achas Yinasnu be'Matan Arba. On the assumption that the Tana is referring to where the blood of two Korbanos became mixed up in one cup, we will need to apply the principle - Yesh Bilah (meaning that we consider the two sets of blood as being totally integrated, and each particle of the two sets of blood contains a little of each.
(d)Alternatively, we might interpret the Mishnah to mean that - the cups of blood became mixed up ...
(e)... in which case Rebbi Eliezer means that one sprinkles one Matanah from each cup.
11)
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that the Kohen performs only one Matanah. How can a Korban that requires four Matanos be Yotzei with only one?
(b)What objection does Rebbi Eliezer raise to Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling?
(c)How does Rebbi ...
1. ... Eliezer counter Rebbi Yehoshua's assertion, that by performing four Matanos, one transgresses 'bal Tosif'?
2. ... Yehoshua counter Rebbi Eliezer's assertion, that by performing one Matanah, one transgresses bal Tigra?
(d)What is Rebbi Yehoshua's final argument, taking both arguments into account?
11)
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that the Kohen performs only one Matanah and we have already learned that Bedieved - Korbanos that require four Matanos are valid with only one.
(b)Rebbi Eliezer objects to Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling - due to the fact that one transgresse the La'av of bal Tigra (detracting from a Mitzvah).
(c)Rebbi ...
1. ... Eliezer counters Rebbi Yehoshua's assertion that by performing four Matanos, one transgresses 'bal Tosif' - by restricting bal-Tosif to where the object is on its own, but not to cases such as ours, where it is mixed with something else ...
2. ... and that is exactly how Rebbi Yehoshua counters Rebbi Eliezer's assertion that by performing one Matanah, one transgresses bal Tigra.
(d)Rebbi Yehoshua's final argument, taking both opinions into account is that - if one weighs up bal Tosif against bal Tigra, it is better to transgress the latter negatively than to transgress the former positively (Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh, Adif).