Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk "u'Vas Kohen Ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar" - that the *Bi'ah* of any man (even without betrothal) who is unfit to marry a bas Kohen makes her a Zonah and forbids her to eat Terumah and to marry a Kohen.

(b) Rebbi Akiva ultimately learns the Isur of a Sotah to her husband, the Bo'el, to a Kohen and the Isur to eat Terumah from four Pesukim - the three "Nitma'ah" and the one 'Vav' in "Ve'nitma'ah"?

(a) Rebbi Yishmael does not Darshan the 'Vav' in "Venit'ama'h", so he only has the three Pesukim of "Nitma'ah" - from which he Darshens 'le'Ba'al', 'leBo'el' and 'li'Terumah'.

(b) In fact, he learns Kehunah from a 'Kal va'Chomer'. He prefers to learn Terumah from a Pasuk and Kehunah from a 'Kal va'Chomer', rather then Kehunah from a Pasuk in which case, the Sotah would be permited to eat Terumah - because it is logical to establish the third D'rashah by Terumah, which like Ba'al and Bo'el, applies in the lifetime of the husband, rather than by Kehunah, which only applies after his death.

(c) Rebbi Akiva on the other hand, requires four Pesukim. The reason that the Torah needs four Pesukim, and will not suffice with three plus the 'Kal va'Chomer' (like Rebbi Yishmael) may be because he disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael's S'vara (that the third D'rashah must be similar to Ba'al and Bo'el). Alternatively, to answer the Kashya, we might rely on the principle - 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal va'Chomer, Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra' (the Torah specifically included a Pasuk for Kehunah, despite the fact that we would have known it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Terumah anyway).

(a) We can extrapolate from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel" - that if it is only a Safek Tum'ah, then one may eat it (without becoming Tamei).
2. ... "ve'ha'Basar Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" - that if it is a Safek Tamei, then one cannot eat it (without becoming Tamei).

(b) Rav Gidal Amar Rav learns from this apparent contradiction - that when the Safek is able to ask, it is Tamei in the Reshus ha'Yachid, whereas when it is not, it is Tahor.

(c) In view of ...

1. ... Rav Gidal's D'rashah, we nevertheless need to learn the Din of Da'as Lisha'el from Sotah - to confine the Tum'ah in a ase of 'Ein Lah Da'as Lishaeil' to a Reshus ha'Yachid, like by Sotah.
2. ... the source of Sotah, we nevertheless need Rav Gidal's D'rashah - to teach us that Da'as Lisha'el is Tamei even if it is only the Safek that is able to ask, whereas from Sotah we would have derived that both the Safek and the Tamei 'object' must both be in that category in order to be Tamei.

(a) The problem with Raban Yochanan ben Zakai in our Mishnah, who holds that everyone agrees with the concept of a Shelishi le'Tum'ah at least in Terumah; however, since he could not find a Pasuk for it, a generation would arise who would declare it Tahor. The problem with this is - if he had no Pasuk for a Shelishi le'Tum'ah, why should they not declare it Tahor?

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav cites a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a T'vul Yom - who is permitted to eat Chulin, yet he invalidates Terumah, a Sheini, which is Pasul by Chulin, should certainly make a Terumah a Shelishi.

(c) We do not apply the principle of 'Dayo' (to restrict the the Sheini to being itself Pasul to eat Terumah, like the T'vul-Yom to which it is being compared, but not to make it a Shelishi) - because that we know already, and we have a counter-principle that where the 'Kal va'Chomer' will not achieve anything new, then we ignore 'Dayo'.

(a) We refute ...

1. ... the 'Kal va'Chomer' however - on the grounds that a T'vul-Yom (a Tamei person who has Toveled and who is waiting for nightfall) is an Av ha'Tum'ah, whereas a loaf that is a Sheini is only a Toldah.
2. ... the suggestion that we are speaking about a T'vul-Yom of a Sheretz, who is only a Sheini, and who nevertheless, invalidates Terumah - on the grounds that even a T'vul Yom of a Sheretz (i.e. a person) is of the species that can become an Av ha'Tum'ah (through contact with a corpse); whereas a loaf which is a Sheini is not.

(b) Food cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah - because when the Torah speaks about a Tamei Mes becoming an Av, it has just spoken about Taharah be'Mikveh, and food cannot be purified in a Mikveh.

6)

(a) It is in order to bring a support for the 'Mah Matzinu' from a T'vul-Yom of a Sheretz from earthenware vessels (which cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah), in spite of the fact that they are different, inasmuch as they are not permitted by Chulin (like a T'vul-Yom of a Sheretz is) - because since we are basically learning a Chumra, it doesn't matter that they do not possess the Kula which sparks off the 'Mah Matzinu', Rashi explains. All that matters is that they don't possess the Chumra which creates the Pircha.

(b) We refute the suggestion to learn a loaf which is a Sheini from an earthenware vessel, which cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah, and yet it can invalidate Terumah on the grounds that earthenware vessels are different - inasmuch as they can receive Tum'ah from the inside (even when there is no physical contact between them).

(c) Raban Yachanan ben Zakai ultimately learns that loaf of bread that is a Sheini can make a Shelishi in Terumah - from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' (a combination of a T'vul-Yom and earthenware vessels (which are both permitted.

(a) Rashi changes the current text of the 'Mah ha'Tzad' (from she'Mutarin be'Chulin u'Poslin bi'Terumah') to 'she'Temei'in u'Poslin bi'Terumah'. He initially attempts to explain 'u'Poslin bi'Terumah' with regard to K'lei Cheres - by establishing the case by earthenware vessels that are covered and sealed tightly shut, in which case the vessel protects Chulin that it contains from Ohel ha'Meis, but not Terumah.

(b) One of the reasons for refuting this explanation is because the implications from a Sugya in Chagigah are that it protects Terumah, too. His second reason is - because the phrase 'u'Poslin bi'Terumah' would then be inappropriate (since the correct wording would have been 've'Eino Matzeles bi'Terumah).

(c) Rashi's main objection to the current text 'she'Mutarin be'Chulin' is - because 'she'Mutarin le'Chulin' is a Kula and not a Chumra.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "U'va ha'Shemesh *Ve'taher*" - that a T'vul Yom is considered Tamei.

(b) The later generation, that would declare a Sh'lishi le'Tum'ah Tahor, according to Raban Yochanan ben Zakai, would reject the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' because of the Pircha of 'Tzad Chamur' (which *he* does not consider a Pircha) - meaning that each of the Pirchos is particularly radical, and can therefore not combine to include a Sheini le'Tum'ah, which does not possess such a radical Chumra.

(a) Rebbi Yossi learn from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga *be'Chol Tamei*, Lo Ye'achel" - that there is a Shelishi in Chulin (seeing as the Pasuk incorporates meat that touches a Sheini).

(b) He goes on to learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mechusar Kipurim, that a Revi'i ba'Kodesh is Pasul - because, if a Mechusar Kipurim, who is permitted to eat Terumah, renders Kodesh Pasul, then a Shelishi, who is Pasul to eat Terumah, should certainly render Kodesh Pasul.

(c) We might apply here the principle of 'Dayo Lavo Min ha'Din Liheyos ka'Nadun' - and restrict the D'rashah to making a Shelishi, like a Mechusar Kipurim from which we are learning it.

(d) We do not however, apply it - because, as we explained earlier, whenever 'Dayo' renders the 'Kal va'Chomer ineffective, we ignore it (and here too, we already know that a Shelishi is Pasul.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan queries Rebbi Yossi from the opinion of the Rabbanan in a Beraisa, who say that food of Kodesh or Terumah that touched a T'vul-Yom is Pasul, yet it does not make a Revi'i ba'Kodesh. Rebbi Meir considers a T'vul-Yom a Sheini with regard to Kodesh (like with regard to Terumah). Practically, this means - that it is Metamei one and Posel one.

(b) Aba Shaul says - that a T'vul-Yom has the Din of a Rishon as regards Tum'ah, which means that it is Metamei two, and Posel one.

(a) Rav Papa suggests that Rebbi Yossi holds like Aba Shaul. He mentions Aba Shaul (and not Rebbi Meir) as if to say 'Who says that Rebbi Yossi is not even as strict as Aba Shaul'?

(b) We answer that if Rebbi Yossi held like Aba Shaul, he would learn a Revi'i ba'Kodesh from food that touched a T'vul-Yom (rather than from a Mechusar Kipurim) - because if food that comes from a T'vul-Yom (which is itself permitted to eat Chulin) makes a Revi'i, then a Shelishi that comes from a Sheini (who is forbidden to eat Chulin), should certainly make a Revi'i.

(c) We refute the Kashya that we cannot learn from a T'vul-Yom, since it is an Av ha'Tum'ah (like we asked above) - since it is clear that Rebbi Yossi does not consider this a Kashya.