Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHEN IS TUMAH BATEL

(a) Answer: R. Yehudah holds as his reason - that something is never Batel in its own species.
(b) Question: But if it wasn't dissolved, would the law be that it is not Batel?

1. If so, rather than teaching, 'But a piece of a Tahor sin-offering which was mixed with 100 Tahor Chulin pieces is not Batel(') - we should make the distinction within a Tamei piece itself!
2. 'This only applies if it was dissolved - but if not, it is not Batel'.

(c) Answer: The Tana prefers to teach the case of a Tahor piece among Tahor pieces.
(d) Question: According to Reish Lakish, what is the difference between the beginning and end of the Beraisa?
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Shisha Brei d'Rav Idi): In the beginning, it became Tamei through liquids, which is only mid'Rabanan; the end deals with Tumah mid'Oraisa.

1. Question: But if it became Tamei through a reptile (which is mid'Oraisa) - what would be the law - it is not Batel?

i. Rather than teaching that a piece of a Tahor sin-offering which was mixed with 100 Tahor Chulin pieces is not Batel - we should make the distinction within a Tamei piece itself!
ii. Teach - 'We only say it is Batel by Tumah of liquids. But by Tumah of a reptile, it is not Batel'!

2. Answer: The Tana prefers to teach a Tahor piece mixed with Tahor pieces.

(f) Answer #2 (Rabah): The beginning permits Chayavei Lavin (Bitul permits eating a Tamei piece); the end deals with Chayavei Krisus (Bitul permits a Tamei person to eat Kadshim).

1. Objection: But Rabah taught, within mid'Oraisa laws, we do not distinguish between Chayavei Lavin and Chayavei Krisus!

i. This is left difficult.

(g) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The end deals with something which is permitted in another situation, and such a thing is never Batel, even if mixed with 1000 pieces.
(h) Objection: Rav Ashi's answer makes no sense!

1. For a Kohen - the piece is always permitted!
2. For a Yisrael - it is always forbidden!

i. Rav Ashi's answer makes no sense.

(a) Question: Does R. Yochanan really hold that Terumah is mid'Oraisa today?

1. (Beraisa): 2 baskets, 1 of Chulin, and 1 of Terumah; in front of them are 2 Se'im (measures), 1 of Terumah, 1 of Chulin. The Se'im fell into the baskets: the Chulin basket is still permitted, because we say that the Terumah fell into the Terumah, and the Chulin into the Chulin.

i. (Reish Lakish): This is only if there is more Chulin (in the basket) than the Se'ah of Terumah which might have fallen in.
ii. (R. Yochanan): Even if there is not more Chulin than the Terumah which may have fallen in.

(b) We understand Reish Lakish - he holds that even by mid'Rabanan laws, we require a majority.
(c) Question: It is hard to understand R. Yochanan (if
Terumah is mid'Oraisa - why don't we need a majority?
(d) Answer: This Beraisa is as Chachamim; R. Yochanan holds as R. Yosi.

(e) (Beraisa - Seder Olam): "That your fathers inherited, and you will inherit" - there is a 1st and 2nd inheritance, not a 3rd (i.e. the 2nd Kedushah never ceased).

1. (R. Yochanan): R. Yosi taught Seder Olam.

(f) Question: Does R. Yochanan really not require a majority by Rabbinic prohibitions?

1. (Mishnah): A Mikvah that has exactly 40 Se'ah - a Se'ah was put in, and a Se'ah was removed - it is Kosher.

i. (R. Yochanan): (Drawn water may be added, and water may be removed) until a majority.
ii. Suggestion: R. Yochanan requires that a majority remains!

(g) Answer #1: No, he requires that a majority is not removed (but half may be removed).
(h) Answer #2: The case of Terumah is different, since we can make a favorable assumption (the Terumah fell into the Terumah).

(a) (Question - Mishnah): An Androginus may marry (a woman; this shows, he is certainly a man - if so, his wife should be allowed to eat the chest and foreleg)!
(b) Answer: It means, if he married.
(c) Objection: But it says, he may marry!
(d) Counter-question: How will you explain, he may not be married to a man!

1. Just as that is b'Di'eved, also, if he married a woman.

(e) Rejection: No! He may marry a woman connotes, Lechatchilah -but even b'Di'eved, he may not stay married to a man! (The question against Reish Lakish remains.)
(f) Defense of Reish Lakish: Since R. Eliezer says that one is liable for relations with an Androginus, as a male - this implies, the 1st Tana is in doubt!
(g) Rejection: No - all agree, he is certainly a male - they argue, if one is also liable to stoning for relations in the place of his female genitals.

1. The 1st Tana says, yes; R. Eliezer says, only for (abnormal relations as with a regular) man.