Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa describes Nega'im and Ohalos as 'Mikra Mu'at and Halachos Merubos'. This description as inaccurate as far as Nega'im is concerned - because there are many Pesukim written about Nega'im.

(b) To answer this Kashya - Rav Papa amends the Beraisa to read - 'Nega'in Mikra Merubeh ve'Halachos Mu'atos; Ohalos Mikra Mu'at and Halachos Merubos'.

(c) We need to know this so that - should a Safek occur, we will know to look for the resolution in the *Pasuk* for Nega'im, but in the *Mishnah* for Ohalos.

(a) Dinin, the first in the list described in our Mishnah as 'Yesh Lahen al Mah she'Yismochu' (in the form of a broad hint, though they are not mentioned explicitly), are certainly clearly spelled out in the Torah. So the Tana must be referring to Rebbi's interpretation of the Pasuk "ve'Nasata Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" - which speaks about someone who meant to strike a man, but inadvertently hit a pregnant woman and killed her.

(b) Rebbi Darshens 'Nesinah from Nesinah' ("*ve'Nasata* Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" from "*ve'Nasan* bi'F'lilim", which speaks in the same case, but where he killed, not the woman, but the baby) - just as there, ("ve'Nasan bi'F'lilim" means that) he pays monetary compensation according to the judges' decision, so too here, do we Darshen "*ve'Nasata* Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" in the same way (he pays money and is not sentenced to death).

(a) The second in the current list is Avodos. These too, are well described in many Pesukim. The Tana however, is referring to the Holachas ha'Dam, a major aspect of the Avodas ha'Korbanos which is not clearly mentioned in the Torah.

(b) The Pasuk in Vayikra "*ve'Hikriv ha'Kohen es ha'Kol* ve'Hiktir ha'Mizbeichah" - refers to the Avodah of carrying the limbs to the Mizbei'ach, and ...

(c) ... "ve'Hikrivu B'nei Aharon ... " (written after "ve'Shachat es ben ha'Bakar) - to the Kabalas ha'Dam.

(d) It cannot refer to 'Holachas ha'Dam', as it implies - because it is written immediately after the Shechitah, and the Avodah that follows the Shechitah is Kabalas ha'Dam.

(a) Taharos is also spread out over many Pesukim. The aspect of Taharos that is not clearly written in the Torah - is the Shiur Mikveh.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Rachatz *ba'Mayim*" - that it has to be water that automatically gathered in a pool, and not water that was drawn. We learn this from the fact that "*ba*'Mayim" is punctuated with a 'Patach' and not with a 'Sh'va' (implying special water). See also Tosfos DH 'be'Mei'.
2. ... "es Kol Besaro" - that a Mikveh must contain sufficient water to cover an average person, which is ...

(c) ... one Amah by one Amah by three Amos = forty Sa'ah.

(a) The fourth in the current list is Tum'os, which, like the previous three, are not short of ample Pesukim in the Torah - except for Tum'as Sheretz (the amount of a Sheretz that renders something that is Tahor, Tamei - which Chazal assess as the volume of a lentil), which is not written explicitly.

(b) The Torah writes ...

1. ... "Kol ha'Nogei's *Bahem*" - to preclude a minimal amount (less than a lentil-volume), which is not Metamei.
2. ... "Kol Asher Yipol Alav *Meihem* ... " - to preclude the *entire* Sheretz (which is not a criterion for being Metamei).

(c) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa interprets the combination of *Bahem* and *Meihem* to mean the size of a lentil - because the smallest size of any Sheretz is that of a baby snail, which is the size of a lentil when it is born (fitting the description 'a bit of it which is like all of it').

(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah interprets it to mean - the tail of a lizard, which shudders like a live animal after it has been cut off (rendering it similar to a complete creature).

(a) Last on the current list is Arayos, which are clearly spelled out in Acharei-Mos and Kedoshim. The case of incest which is not expressly written - is that of a man with the daughter that was born to him from a woman whom he raped (but did not marry).

(b) Rava, quoting Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi, learns it from a combination of two sources, in Acharei Mos and Kedoshim: "Heinah" "Heinah" and "Zimah" Zimah". The Torah writes that if a man raped a woman, her *granddaughter* is forbidden. We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Heinah" "Heinah", that relations with a *daughter* born to him from a woman whom he *raped*, is considered incest too, just as the Torah does not differentiate between incest with a *daughter* born to him from a woman whom he *married* and incest with (her daughter) his *granddaughter*.

(c) We need "Heinah" "Heinah" to teach us the Isur, and "Zimah" Zimah", that he is sentenced to be burned.

(d) We cannot learn the prohibition by his *daughter* from that of his *granddaughter* with a Kal va'Chomer - because of the principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' (Beis-Din cannot derive a La'av or a punishment through a Kal va'Chomer).

7) The Tana concludes 'Hein Hein Gufei Torah' - referring to all the three groups listed in our Mishnah.

8)

(a) The exact meaning of 'Ein Dorshin ...

1. ... ba'Arayos bi'Sheloshah' is - that one may not Darshen the Parshah of Arayos when there are three people (including the Darshen).
2. ... ve'Lo be'Ma'aseh Bereishis bi'Shenayim' - that one may not Darshen Ma'aseh Bereishis to one person.
3. ... ve'Lo be'Merkavah be'Yachid' - that one may not Darshen Ma'aseh ha'Merkavah even on one's own.

(b) The problem with the continuation of the Mishnah ' ... Ela im Kein Hayah Chacham u'Meivin mi'Da'ato' (according to what we have just said) - is that having just taught that one person (who obviously understands what he is learning - since he has no Rebbe) is not permitted to study Ma'aseh ha'Merkavah on his own, how can the Tana then say that, if he understands, he may?

(c) We therefore amend the Mishnah to replace the 'Beis' with a 'Lamed' (in all three cases - 'Ein Dorshin ba'Arayos *li*'Sheloshah', ve'Lo be'Ma'aseh Bereishis *li*'Shenayim', ve'Lo be'Merkavah *le*'Yachid', meaning to three disciples, to two disciples and to one disciple respectively.

(d) If someone delves into one of four things, it would be better had he not been born ('Rasuy Lo Ke'ilu Lo Ba le'Olam'). Rasuy - can also mean merciful, meaning that it would have been merciful for him had he not been born.

(a) The meaning of ...

1. ... 'Mah le'Ma'alah u'Mah le'Matah' is - what is above the heads of the Chayos and what is below them.
2. ... 'Mah Lefanim u'Mah le'Achor' is - what happened before the world was created, and what will happen after it comes to an end.

(b) Tosfos rejects Rashi's explanation of 'Mah Lefanim' (what lies outside the sky's limit to the east) - on the basis of the Gemara's Kashya later (with regard to 'Mah Lefanim') 'Mah de'Havah Havah'? (meaning that that has already passed and why should one not discuss it?); and also on the basis of the Tosefta, which explicitly explains 'Mah Lefanim' like Tosfos.

(c) We reject the initial contention that the source for the prohibition of Darshening Arayos to three people is the Pasuk "*Ish Ish* (two) el Kol *She'er Besaro* (one)" - because then, how will we Darshen with regard to cursing Hashem and giving one's children to Molech, where the same words are used?

(d) We learn from the double Lashon "Ish Ish" (here, as well by Kilelas Hashem and by the Isur of Molech) - to include Nochrim in the prohibition of cursing Hashem, handing their children to Molech and incest.

(a) We then reject the contention that the source for 'Arayos bi'Sheloshah' is the Pasuk "u'Shemartem (two) es Mishmarti" (one) - because if that is so, how will we Darshen "*u'Sh'martem* es ha'Shabbos" (Vayakhel), "*u'Sh'martem* es ha'Matzos" (Bo) and "*u'Sh'martem* es *Mishmeres* ha'Kodesh" (Korach)?

(b) We finally establish the prohibition of teaching 'Arayos' to three people - as being a Rabinical Isur to teach the aspects of Arayos that are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah to three people, which Chazal forbade, for fear that, whilst he is teaching the Halachah to one of the Talmidim, the other two will get involved in another issue, and not hear what he is telling their friend. This in turn, could result in the most serious consequences regarding the Din of Arayos (when the two Talmidim go on to permit incest).

(c) We cannot however, apply the same logic to learning in depth ...

1. ... the rest of the Torah - because we restrict the fear of that happening to Arayos, on the basis of the Mishnah in Makos, which says that a person longs for the opportunity to steal and to commit adultery (for which one has a natural tendency).
2. ... the laws of theft - because a person's Yetzer ha'Ra only overcomes him when he is confronted with the opportunity (and the temptation) to steal (certainly not when he sitting in a Shiur); and it is only in matters like Arayos that the Yeitzer ha'Ra works a person even at a time when the opportunity to sin is not present (even in the middle of a Shiur).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ki She'al Na le'Yamim Rishonim" - that only *one* persona Yachid may ask questions about Ma'aseh Bereishis, but not *two*.
2. ... "le'Min ha'Yom Asher Bara Elokim Adam al ha'Aretz" - that even a Yachid is forbidden to ask about things that pertain before the creation (though we will soon retract from this Derashah).
3. ... "le'Yamim ha'Rishonim Asher Hayu Lefanecha" - that one is permitted to ask about matters that pertain to after the creation.
4. ... "u'le'Miktzeh ha'Shamayim ve'Ad K'tzei ha'Shamayim" - that one may not ask about what is above, what is below, what happened before and what will happen afterwards.

(b) Now that we know the prohibition of delving into what existed beyond the boundaries of space and time from the latter Pasuk, we learn from "le'Min ha'Yom Asher Bara Elokim Adam al ha'Aretz" Rebbi Elazar's Derashah - that Adam's initial height was from the earth to the heaven.

(c) He learns from the Pasuk in ...

1. ... "Achor va'Kedem Tzartani" - that Hashem created Adam twice (so to speak), first tall and then, short.
2. ... "va'Tashes Alai Kapecha" - that after he sinned, Hashem placed His Hand on him and reduced his size.