Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Huna rules - that the skin of a Neveilah is Mevatel two half-k'Zeisim of Basar that are stuck to it, and that someone who carries it does not become Tamei.

(b) We query this from a Machlokes between Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva in a Mishnah later. According to Rebbi Yishmael, someone who carries such a skin becomes Tamei. Rebbi Akiva holds - that he does not.

(c) The problem with Rav Huna's ruling is 'mi'Mah Nafshach' - on the one hand, he clearly does not hold like Rebbi Yishmael, whereas if he holds like Rebbi Akiva, then his statement is unnecessary.

(d) Rav Huna therefore confines Rebbi Yishmael to a case where the skin was torn off by a wild animal, without the owner's knowledge, whereas *he* is speaking when it is the owner who cut it off, in which case it is he who is Mevatel the little bits of Basar that are less than a k'Zayis.

(a) In his previous statement, Rav Huna explaining Rebbi Yehudah, stated 've'Hu she'Kinso'. Considering that Rebbi Yehudah is speaking by Paltaso Sakin, he must then hold that in a case of Paltaso Sakin, 'Ein ha'Or Mevatlo' - because otherwise, once the Basar has become Bateil, gathering them together cannot turn Or into Basar (as we explained earlier).

(b) The problem now is - that if Rebbi Yishmael agrees that by Paltoso Sakin, ha'Or Mevatlan, then Rav Huna's first ruling will go neither like Rebbi Akiva nor like Rebbi Yishmael.

(c) The Kashya on Rav Huna from Rav Huna's own statement, and not from Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, because, if not for Rav Huna, we would have established Rebbi Yehudah when the k'Zayis Basar was in one place to begin with, whereas Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva are speaking about two half-k'Zeisim in two places.

(a) We therefore establish ...

1. ... Rebbi Yishmael - by Paltaso Sakin as well as by Paltsaso Chayah.
2. ... Rav Huna - according to Rebbi Akiva.

(b) In answer to the Kashya that we asked earlier 'vi'I Aliba de'Rebbi Akiva, P'shita' we explain - Rav Huna is coming to teach us that Rebbi Akiva is speaking even by Paltaso Chayah (because he holds 'Or Mevatlan') and not just by Sakin, in which case Rebbi Akiva's reason would be because the owner is Mevatel it.

(c) And we prove this from the Lashon of the Mishnah itself, which concludes 'Mipnei Mah Rebbi Akiva Metaher, Mipnei she'ha'Or Mevatlan'.

(a) Our Mishnah lists among the things whose skin is like Basar, human skin and that of a domesticated Chazir, to which Rebbi Yehudah adds - the skin of a boar.

(b) The Mishnah then includes the skin of part of a camel and of part of a kid-goat. He includes the skin of ...

1. ... the hump of a camel.
2. ... the head of a kid goat.

(c) The Tana also includes the skin of the Beis ha'Perasos (which will be explained in the Sugya) and that of a female animal's womb. The other two skins that the Tana include in his list (besides those of rodents) are - that of a Sh'lil and the skin under the fat tail of a sheep.

(a) Of the eight rodents, the Tana includes the skins of only four. Besides the skin of a hedgehog and a Ko'ach (a type of lizard, possibly a chameleon), he includes that of a Leta'ah and a Chomet. A ...

1. ... Leta'ah is - a lizard.
2. ... Chomet is - a snail.

(b) When Rebbi Yehudah says 'ha'Leta'ah ke'Chuldah', he means - that the skin of a lizard, like that of a weasel (others translate Chuldah as a 'rat'), is not like its flesh (i.e. it is not Metamei).

(c) The Tana concludes that all of the above that one tanned - or walked with them 'K'dei Ibudah' (which will be explained in the Sugya) are Tahor.

(d) The one exception to the rule is - human skin.

(e) According to Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, the skins of all the eight Sheratzim are like their Basar.

(a) Ula maintains that Or Adam is Tahor min ha'Torah, and the Rabbanan decreed that it should be Tamei - to discourage a person from using the skin of his deceased parents (see Tosfos DH 'Oros Aviv ve'Imo') as a spread to sit or to lie on (or as a rug).

(b) According to others, Ula goes on the Seifa 've'Chulan she'Ibdan ... , Tehorin Chutz me'Or Adam' - in which case human skin as such is Asur min ha'Torah.

(c) The basis of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah regarding the skin of a boar is - whether it is soft like that of a domesticated Chazir (Rebbi Yehudah) or not (the Tana Kama).

(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi defines 'Gamal ha'Rakah' in our Mishnah as - a young camel that has not yet carried a load.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether this incorporates a camel that has reached the age at which camels normally begin to carry, even though it has not actually begun to carry yet. Whereas Abaye asked about the reverse case - where the camel has carried a load even though it has not yet reached the age that camels normally begin to carry.

(c) The outcome of the two She'eilos is - Teiku ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').

(a) When, in answer to Resh Lakish's She'eilah requesting the definition of 'Gamal ha'Rach', Rebbi Yishmael bar Aba quoted Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's answer, Resh Lakish reacted - by inviting him to come and sit next to him (in honor of his correct answer).

(b) Rebbi Zeira on the other hand, became upset with Ravin bar Chin'na - because, after, following Rebbi Zeira's question, he too, quoted Ula Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's answer, but then, thinking that Rebbi Zeira had not heard him, he repeated his answer.

(c) Misconstruing the reason for the repetition - Rebbi Zeira asked him whether this was the only D'var Torah that he knew, that he was now boasting of his full range of knowledge by repeating it again and again.

(a) To highlight the respective reactions of the two Amora'im, we announce - that people should come and see the difference between the powerful men of Eretz Yisrael and the pious men of Bavel ...

(b) ... by which we mean to point out the superiority of the Talmidei-Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael over those of Bavel.

(c) And when we describe ...

1. ... Resh Lakish as 'Tekifei Eretz Yisrael' - we are referring to the Gemara's testimony in Yoma that people would enter into business deal with anyone seen talking to Resh Lakish in the street, without witnesses (yet he honored Rebbi Yishmael bar Aba).
2. ... Rebbi Zeira as 'Chasidei Bavel' - we are referring to the Gemara in Bava Metzi'a, which describes how he used to test his spiritual level, by entering a burning oven once every thirty days (yet see how he shamed Ravin bar Chin'na).

10)

(a) Ula defines 'Eigel ha'Rach' ha'Rach' (regarding Or ke'Basar) in our Mishnah as a calf in its first year. Rebbi Yochanan says - as long as it is feeding.

(b) Assuming that Ula meant to say ...

1. ... that it must be in its first year, in addition to the fact that it is still feeding - then Rebbi Yochanan means that either one or the other is sufficient; either it is in its first year or as long as it is feeding, even beyond its first year.
2. ... that it only needs to be in its first year, irrespective of whether it is feeding or not - then Rebbi Yochanan will mean that the calf must be feeding in addition to being in its first year.

(c) And we resolve the She'eilah from the Lashon of Rebbi Yochanan 'Kol Z'man she'Yonek' - implying that as long as it is feeding, it is considered tender (like the first side of the She'eilah). Otherwise, he would have said - 've'Hu she'Yonek'.

(a) When Resh Lakish ...

1. ... asked Rebbi Yochanan whether the skin of the head of a tender calf is Metamei, he replied - in the negative.
2. ... queried him from our Mishnah, which Rebbi Yochanan himself had taught him - he replied that he should stop provoking him (with his senseless Kashyos), because he considered the Mishnah to be an individual opinion (as we shall now see).

(b) The Beraisa cited by Rebbi Yochanan rules that if someone Shechts an Olah, having in mind to burn a k'Zayis of the skin under the fat-tail in the wrong place, the Olah is Pasul but there is no Kareis. But in a case where one had in mind to bring it on the Mizbe'ach but in the wrong time - the Tana renders it Pigul, which is also subject to Kareis.

(c) He is coming to teach us - that the skin under the fat-tail is edible, because the P'sul Machshavah regarding she'Lo bi'Mekomo and she'Lo bi'Zemano only applies to things that are normally eaten or burned.

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov and Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah from the village of Ikum - extend the Tana Kama's ruling to the Or ha'Perasos, that of the head of a tender calf and that which is under under the fat-tail of a sheep.

(b) And when they add to the list 'all that the Chachamim listed with regard to Tum'ah, whose skin is like their flesh' - they mean to add the skin of the womb of a female animal ...

(c) ... a proof, says Rebbi Yochanan - that our Mishnah, which considers the skin of the head of a tender calf (as well as the other cases that it lists together with it) is a minority opinion.

(d) According to Rav, 'Beis ha'Perasos' means literally the skin of the feet. Rebbi Chanina defines it - as the skin of the calf (of the leg), that is generally sold together with the head.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Sheratzim) "Eileh *ha'Temei'im* Lachem" - that the skin of the Sheratzim that are Tamei are considered Basar in this regard.

(b) It is true that we already learned from there (in 'Kol ha'Basar') that the Tzir, Rotav and Kifah of Sheratzim are included in the Isur, only since there is no reason to include one more than the other - we apply the S'vara 'Hei Minaihu Mafkas' ('Which of them will you leave out?', forcing us to include them both).

(c) From "Eileh", the Tana learns - that the Ribuy of "ha'Temei'im" is confined to the five Sheratzim listed in the same Pasuk ('ha'Anakah, ha'Ko'ach, ha'Leta'ah, ha'Chomet ve'ha'Tinshemes [a mole]), but does not extend to the three mentioned in the previous Pasuk ('Choled, Achbor and Tzav').

(d) The reason Rav gives for this distinction is - because the earlier Pasuk ends with the word "le'Mineihu", creating a division between the two Pesukim.

(a) According to Rav, our Mishnah does not list 'Tinshemes' - because the Tana does not agree with his source (as we shall see). oHoweHH Rav however, is a Tana, who has the authority to argue with Tana'im.

(b) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi (or Rav Ashi) cites Rebbi Yehudah as the source of our Mishnah (which omits from the Din of Or ke'Basar both the three Sheratzim in the earlier Pasuk, as well as the Tinshemes). He is referring to - Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who precludes the skin of a lizard from the list (because it is thick).

(c) This explains why the Tana omits the four Sheratzim that he does - because, the Chachamim, like Rebbi Yehudah, include the skins of those Sheratzim which have thin skin, but preclude those whose skin is thick.

(d) And that is precisely the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim regarding the skin of a lizard - whether it falls under the category of thin (the Rabbanan) or thick (Rebbi Yehudah).

(a) Our Mishnah maintains that, short of tanning the skins of the animals involved, one has to walk with them in order to negate their Tum'ah. We reconcile this with the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya 'Ozen Chamor she'Tal'ah le'Kupaso, Tehorah' (implying that it is not necessary to walk with them) - by establishing that the two opinions complement each other; either one prepares the skin for use, or one walks with them.

(b) Rav Huna Amar Rebbi Yanai tranmnlates 'K'dei Ibud' into a distance - of four Milin (one Parsah).

(a) Rebbi Avahu Amar Resh Lakish says - 'le'Gabal ve'li'Tefilah Arba'as Milin'.

(b) When he says ...

1. ... 'Legabal', he means - that if Reuven hires Shimon to knead his dough be'Taharah, the latter is obligated to walk as far as one Mil, in order to find a Mikvah, should this prove necessary (see Tosfos DH 'Legabel').
2. ... 'li'Tefilah', he means - that a traveler is obligated to walk up to four Milin in order to find a Shul, to Daven with a Minyan.

(c) The third case that he adds to the list is - that of Netilas Yadayim. If someone wishes to eat and has no water, he is obligated to walk up to four Milin to find water with which to wash.

(d) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, it was Ayvu (Rav's father) who quoted Resh Lakish, and what's more, he presented not three cases, but four, the fourth case being that of - 'Hiluch K'dei Ibud' in our Mishnah.

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina qualifies the previous ruling with regard to Tefilah and Netilas Yadayim - confining the Shi'ur of four Milin to someone who is on a journey, who is obligated to travel four Mil forward in order tgo find a Shul or water. Otherwise, he does not even need to travel as much as a Mil.

(b) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov extrapolates from the Lashon ' ... Afilu Mil Echad Eino Chozer' - that he *is* obligated to travel up to a Mil to search for a Shul or water.

(c) The Beraisa rules that if a legion passing from place to place enters a house, the house is Tamei - because there is no legion that does not possess a number of complete human face-skins (which they used for witchcraft).

(d) And the Tana supports this statement - with the fact that a number of kings wore the face-skin of Rebbi Yishmael Kohen Gadol on their heads.