Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TO BE "METAHER" AN OVEN

(a) Question (R. Yirmeyah, against Reish Lakish - Mishnah #1): To break a Tamei oven to be Metaher it, one cuts it into three parts, scrapes off the plaster and puts it on the ground (i.e. not on its supports);
(b) R. Meir says, he need not scrape off the plaster, nor put it on the ground;

1. It suffices to break off [part of the oven itself] until it is less than four Tefachim tall.
2. Summation of question: After making it less than four, why is it Tahor - the plaster keeps it strong!
3. Objection (Rava): Rather than ask from R. Meir, you should support Reish Lakish from Chachamim, who say that he scrapes off the plaster and puts it on the ground!

(c) Answer (Rava): Rather, to be Metaher a Tamei oven, all agree that one cuts it into three parts, scrapes off the plaster and puts it on ground;

1. The same must be done to prevent an oven from receiving Tum'ah;
2. R. Meir says, he need not scrape off the plaster, nor put it on the ground - it suffices to make it less than four Tefachim.

(d) (Mishnah #1): He cuts it into three parts...
(e) Contradiction (Mishnah #2 - R. Meir): A complete oven of four Tefachim is Mekabel Tum'ah, or a broken oven is Mekabel Tum'ah if four Tefachim remain;

1. Chachamim say, this applies to a big oven; a small oven of any size receives Tum'ah once it is finished;
2. A broken oven receives Tum'ah if the majority remains.
3. Question: Chachamim say "A small oven of any size" - how big must it be?
4. Answer (d'Vei R. Yanai): It must be one Tefach, for people make such ovens.
5. Summation of contradiction: Chachamim agree that a broken big oven receives Tum'ah only if four Tefachim remain;

i. In Mishnah #1, they require cutting it into three parts - if it was cut into two, the majority would be Tamei even if it is less than 4 Tefachim!

(f) Answer: When it is cut widthwise (i.e. perpendicular to the ground, it does not rest so well) it is only Tamei if four Tefachim remain; when it is cut lengthwise (parallel to the ground, the top piece rests on the bottom piece) it is Tamei if the majority remains (even if it is less than four).
(g) (Mishnah #2): A broken oven receives Tum'ah if the majority remains.
(h) Question: The majority of a one Tefach oven is useless!
(i) Answer (Abaye): This clause of the Mishnah applies only to big ovens.
(j) Question: But Chachamim agree about a big oven, that four Tefachim must remain!
(k) Answer: That is when the majority is less than four.

(a) Version #2 (Rav Huna): Tearing the majority of a cloak is Metaher it even if a resulting piece is large enough to make a turban.
(b) (Reish Lakish): Skin is more important, if a piece this size remains, it is Tamei.
(c) (R. Yochanan): Skin has the same law as a cloak.
(d) Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If skin is Tamei Midras:

1. If the owner planned to cut it into straps or shoes, once he starts cutting it, it is Tahor;
2. Chachamim say, it is Tahor only when he cuts it into pieces less than five Tefachim [by five Tefachim].
3. Summation of question: When he makes it this small, it is Tahor (even though this is enough to make a turban)!

(e) Answer: The case is, he needs it for a seat cover (only five by five suffices).

(a) (Mishnah): If there is a k'Zayis of (Neveilah) meat on skin, one who touches a strand coming out of the skin or a hair opposite the meat becomes Tamei;
(b) R. Yishmael says, if two half k'Zeisim of meat are on it, it has Tum'ah Masa, not Maga (it is Metamei one who carries or moves it, not one who touches it);

1. R. Akiva says, it does not have Tum'ah Masa nor Maga.
2. R. Akiva admits that if two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah are stuck on a chip of wood, it has Tum'ah Masa;

i. He argues when the pieces of meat are on skin, for they are Batel to the skin.

(c) Version #1 (Gemara - Ula citing R. Yochanan): The Tana'im hold that a k'Zayis of meat on skin is Tamei only if it is there on account of a Chayah's bite;

1. If it came off a flayer's knife, it is Batel.

(d) Question (Rav Nachman): Would R. Yochanan say that even a quarter Kav (some say - balance pan's) worth of meat is Batel? Is even a sifter's worth Batel?
(e) Answer (Ula): Yes, he would.
(f) Rav Nachman: If R. Yochanan himself would tell me so, I would not heed him.
(g) R. Oshiya repeated this dialogue in front of R. Ami.

1. R. Ami: Rav Nachman should not take R. Yochanan's teachings so lightly!

(h) Version #2 (Mishnah - R. Yishmael): If two half k'Zeisim of meat are on it, it has Tum'ah Masa, not Maga;

1. R. Akiva says, it does not have Tum'ah Masa nor Maga.

(i) (R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): This is only if the meat is on the skin on account of a Chayah's bite; if it came off a flayer's knife, it is Batel.
(j) R. Oshiya: But Ula said that R. Yochanan taught this concerning the Reisha!
(k) R. Ami: I would not believe anyone to say that R. Yochanan taught this concerning the Reisha!
(l) Ravin and all Chachamim that came from Eretz Yisrael (to Bavel) said that R. Yochanan taught this concerning the Reisha.
(m) Objection: We never answered the question (does R. Yochanan put no limit on how much meat can be Batel?)!
(n) Answer: We answer like Rav Papa taught (elsewhere) - the case is, the meat is spread out very thinly (no one would bother to gather it).

4) COMBINING "TUM'OS"

(a) (Mishnah): There were two half k'Zeisim...
(b) (Bar Pada): This is only if he touches the skin - but one who touches two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah becomes Tamei.
(c) (R. Yochanan): One who touches two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah is Tahor.
(d) This is like R. Yochanan taught elsewhere.

1. (R. Yochanan): R. Yishmael (above) teaches the same principle as R. Dosa ben Hurkanus:
2. (Mishnah - R. Dosa): If something that is Metamei b'Ohel was divided into two parts (neither has a Shi'ur for Tum'as Ohel by itself) and they were brought into a house, the house is Tahor;
3. Chachamim say, the house is Tamei.

i. Just like (R. Dosa holds that) two half k'Zeisim of Tum'as Mes do not join for Tum'as Ohel, two half k'Zeisim of Tum'ah do not join for Tum'as Maga.

(e) Question: If R. Dosa is like R. Yishmael, Chachamim must be like R. Akiva!

1. But R. Akiva holds that two half k'Zeisim are not Metamei b'Masa or b'Maga, and Chachamim say that they are Metamei b'Maga!

(f) Answer: R. Akiva said this only regarding skin, for the meat is Batel; otherwise, he holds like Chachamim.

1. (Mishnah): R. Akiva admits that if two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah are stuck on a chip of wood, one who moves them becomes Tamei;

i. He argues when the pieces of meat are on skin, for then they are Batel to the skin.

(g) Question (Rav Ukva bar Chama - Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "[One who touches] b'Nivlasam [becomes Tamei]" - not one who touches skin with two half k'Zeisim [of Neveilah] on it;

1. Suggestion: Perhaps even one who moves such a skin is Tahor!
2. Rejection: "And one who carries [will be Tamei]".
3. R. Akiva says, "One who touches...and one who carries" - only something with Tum'as Maga has Tum'as Masa.
4. Summation of question: According to Bar Pada, R. Yishmael holds that two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah on skin *are* Metamei (if one touches them, not the skin) - R. Akiva's challenge does not apply!

(h) Answer (Rava): R. Akiva means, only those things that have Tum'as Maga from every side have Tum'as Masa.
(i) Question (Rav Avya Sava): (According to Bar Pada,) is R. Yishmael Metamei a femur (thighbone, which has marrow inside) of a Neveilah?

1. Does he hold, only those things that are Metamei b'Maga (when touched from *some* side), impart Tum'as Masa? (Two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah are Metamei one who touches them, but one cannot touch the meat inside a bone.)
2. Or, does he not hold of this principle at all?

(j) Rabah bar Rav Huna changed the topic to avoid answering.

1. Rava bar Rabah: Wasn't that (the questioner) Rav Avya Sava of Pumbadisa, whom you say is a great man?!
2. Rabah: I was very weary, and his question requires deep reasoning.

(k) (Ula): If two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah are stuck on a chip of wood, they are not Metamei b'Masa.
(l) Question: What is the reason?
(m) Answer: We read "v'Nosei (and one who carries)," but it is written "v'Nasa (and it is carried)";

1. Carrying Neveilah is Metamei only if it could be carried like one entity (is connected).

(n) Question (Mishnah - R. Yishmael): If two half k'Zeisim of meat are on it, it is Metamei through moving, not through touching.

1. These are not carried like one!

(o) Answer (Rav Papa): The case is, a very thin strip of meat connects the two halves.
(p) Question (Mishnah): R. Akiva admits that two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah on a chip of wood are Metamei b'Masa.

1. These are not carried like one!

(q) Answer: Here also, the case is, a very thin strip of meat connects them.
(r) Tana'im argue about Ula's law.

1. Version #1 - Rashi (Beraisa): One who touches or moves [a Neveilah] becomes Tamei;
2. R. Eliezer says, even one who carries it becomes Tamei.
3. Objection: (What does he add -) Tum'ah of carrying is the same as Tum'ah of moving!
4. Version #2 - Tosfos ha'Rosh - Mishnah): One who touches or moves [a Neveilah] becomes Tamei;
5. R. Eliezer says, even one who bears it (even if he does not move it).
6. Objection: There is no source that *Neveilah* is Metamei for bearing without moving! (End of Version #2)
7. Answer: Rather, Chachamim are Metamei one who touches or moves a Neveilah, even if it is not carried like one;
8. R. Eliezer is Metamei for moving it only if it is carried like one.
9. Question: Why does R. Eliezer say "*even* one who carries it"?
10. Correction: It should say, R. Eliezer is Metamei "*only* if it is carried like one."