Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Zos ha'Beheimah Asher Tochelu; Shor, Seh Kevasim ... Ayal u'Tzvi ve'Yachmur - that a Chayah is included in the Dinim of a Beheimah
2. ... "Zos ha'Chayah Asher Tochelu mi'Kol ha'Beheimah Asher al ha'Aretz; Kol Mafreses Parsah" - that a Beheimah is included in the Dinim of a Chayah.

(b) The Beraisa learns Chayah Teme'ah from Beheimah Teme'ah with regard to the Isur of interbreeding and Chayah Tehorah from Beheimah Tehorah with regard to the Simnei Shechitah - though this Hekesh also incorporates the Isur of interbreeding and Tum'as Neveilos.

(c) We know the Isur of interbreeding by a Chayah Tehorah - from the same Hekesh of Chayah to Beheimah.

(d) The Tana does not insert it (as well as the previous two cases) - because he wants to mention one (different) area of Halachah by each of the four.

(a) The problem with the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Korban Olah ve'Yored for someone who touches Tum'ah) "O be'Nivlas Chayah Teme'ah *O be'Nivlas Beheimah Teme'ah*" is - why based on the K'lal 'Beheimah bi'Chelal Chayah', the Torah needs to insert the last four words.

(b) Rebbi - uses the extra words for a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.

(c) He learn via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Nefesh ki Siga be'Chol Tamei ... O *bi'Veheimah Teme'ah*" - that a Tamei person is only Chayav a Korban Olah ve'Yored if he subsequently eats Kodesh (or enters the Beis-Hamikdash).

(d) And finally, Rebbi Yishmael learns Beheimah Tehorah from Chayah Tehorah regarding Yetzirah with reference to the Pasuk in Bereishis "Va'yitzer Hashem Elokim min ha'Adamah Kol Chayas ha'Sadeh". The area of Halachah affected by this Hekesh is - that of a woman who gives birth to the form of an animal (as we shall now explain).

(e) The same will apply to a woman who gave birth to the form of a Beheimah Teme'ah (only the Tana confines himself to one area of Halachah for each of the four cases, as we explained).

(a) In the Mishnah in Nidah, Rebbi Meir rules that a woman who gives birth to a form of Beheimah, Chayah (or Of), Tamei or Tahor, must sit for a male or for a female, depending on what the form was - meaning seven days of Tum'ah and thirty-three of Taharah in the case of the former, and fourteen days of Tum'ah and sixty-six of Taharah in the case of the latter.

(b) If she doesn't know the gender of the 'baby' - she must sit fourteen days of Tum'ah and twenty-six (what is left of the forty days of Tum'ah and Taharah that a woman sits for a boy), of Taharah.

(c) According to the Chachamim - only a human shaped baby is considered a baby regarding the Dinof Tum'ah and Taharah.

(a) The Rabanan of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili (in our Mishnah) will learn the Pasuk "O be'Nivlas Beheimah Teme'ah" (from which Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns 'Zeh Ubar she'bi'Teme'ah') - exclusively like Rebbi.

(b) It doesn't matter that in the words "Chayah Teme'ah" there, the word "Teme'ah" is superfluous too - because the Torah is prepared to repeat a Parshah for one Chidush, even though there is nothing to be learned from the rest of the Parshah, as we wrote on the previous Amud (according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak).

(a) Our Mishnah declares Tamei for seven days a midwife who touches a dead fetus inside its mother's womb. The mother herself however - remains Tahor.

(b) Rabah maintains - that Taharah Belu'ah (an absorbed Tum'ah, like the baby in our Mishnah [e.g. where someone swallowed a metal ring]), is not subject to Tum'ah, just as Tum'ah Belu'ah is not Metamei.

(c) We try to learn Tum'ah Belu'ah from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Ochel mi'Nivlasah Yechabes Begadav" - which renders the person Tahor with nightfall, even if he ate the Neveilah only just a little earlier, in which case it is still in his stomach.

(d) We refute this proof however, by suggesting that the Neveilah in his stomach is Tahor because it is not fit for a Ger to eat (the criterion for being called a food).

(a) The Kashya however, only applies according to bar Pada, but not according to Rebbi Yochanan, who says - that Neveilah that is 'fit for a Ger' at the time the animal dies - does not lose its status until it is no longer fit for a dog to eat.

(b) bar Pada rules even in such a case - that it is no longer Metamei a person (in its capacity of Tum'as Neveilos), even though he concedes to Rebbi Yochanan that it is still Metamei food (in its capacity as Tum'as Ochlin) as long as a dog will eat it.

(c) We answer that - in a case where someone swallowed whole a small piece of Neveilah, it will still be considered fit for a Ger who is not aware that someone had swallowed it.

(a) And we learn that Taharah Belu'ah is not subject to Tum'ah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from an earthenware vessel which has a sealed lid - which does not prevent Tum'ah inside it from being Metamei, due to the principle 'Tum'ah Retzutzah Boka'as ve'Olah' (Tum'ah which fills a confined space, and does not have a Tefach space, extends upwards as far as the sky.

(b) We now learn Taharah Belu'ah from there - with a 'Kal va'Chomer', from the fact that the same earthenware vessel nevertheless saves Tahor vessels from becoming Tamei. Consequently, if a person prevents Tum'ah Belu'ah from being Metamei, he should certainly prevent Taharah Belu'ah from becoming Tamei.

(c) We ask on this 'Kal va'Chomer' - from the fact that Adam have a Chumra over K'lei Cheres in that he can receive Tum'ah from the outside, which they cannot (in which case we cannot learn a Chumra from them.

(d) We refute the 'Pircha' however - on the grounds that since we are learning a Din that pertains to the inside (and not the outside), the fact remains that K'lei Cheres are the more Chamur, and the 'Kal-va'Chomer is valid.

8)

(a) The Pasuk regarding Tum'as Neveilah refers to eating it. We learn that Tum'ah Belu'ah below (that is pushed into the body via the rectum using a tube) is not Metamei either from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' - from above, where the food does not digest (how much more so below, where it does).

(b) And we counter the 'Pircha' that the food in the stomach (below) only digests what came in through the mouth (above) - by arguing that, when all's said and done, the dood does digest below and not above.

(c) We learn Tum'ah Belu'ah by an animal from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Adam - who is subject to Tum'ah even whilst he is alive, whereas an animal is not.

(d) We query this from the Din of Kibus Begadim by Tum'as Bayis ha'Menuga', which means - that whereas the clothes that the person who enters it only require 'washing' (i.e. Toveling in a Mikvah) after he has remained there for a while (as we shall see shortly), the those worn by an animal who enters there, require 'washing' immediately.

(a) We learn from the fact that the Torah writes 'Kibus Begadim' only with regard to someone who eats in a Bayis ha'Menuga (and not with regard to someone who just enters it) - that his clothes only require Tevilah after he has waited the time it takes to eat ... , but not if he leaves before that.

(b) The 'Pircha' on the 'Kal-va'Chomer' of Beheimah from Adam - is that since Beheimah has a Chumra (regarding Kibus Begadim), we cannot learn them from Adam regarding a Kula.

(c) And we answer from a Mishnah in Mikva'os, which draws a distinction between someone who enters a Bayis ha'Menuga with his clothes folded on his shoulder and holding his shoes and rings in his hand - in which case they are Tamei immediately, and someone who enters it wearing them - in which case they are Tamei only after he has waited ('K'dei Achilas P'ras', as we shall now see).

(a) The Tana describe the period of time that one must remain in the house before they become Tamei. The Tana is talking about - eating a P'ras (four egg-volumes) of wheat bread ...

(b) ... reclining (in a comfortable position) and together with condiments (all of which curtail the time involved).

(c) This Mishnah proves - that in fact, bearing in mind that animals do not generally wear clothes, whatever they do wear, is ornamental, and is therefore no different that the clothes that the person carries on his shoulder.

(a) Rava asks on Rabah from a Mishnah in Mikva'os, which rules that someone who ...

1. ... swallowed a Tamei ring - may eat Terumah after Toveling and being sprinkled with the Mei Parah on the third and seventh day.
2. ... after Toveling and being sprinkled with the Mei Parah on the third and seventh day, vomitted out the ring - the ring which remained Tamei, is Metamei him as it emerges from his throat.

(b) The Mishnah there also rules that someone who enters an Ohel ha'Meis after swallowing a Tahor ring, and then, after Toveling and being sprinkled on the third and seventh day, he vomits the ring, he remains Tahor - because the ring did not become Tamei together with him.

(c) This poses a Kashya on Rabah - since the Reisha of the Mishnah teaches us the Din of Tum'ah Belu'ah, and the Seifa, that of Taharah Belu'ah, so what is he coming to teach us that we do not already know?

(a) And we answer that Rabah is speaking when he swallowed two rings, one Tamei and one Tahor, and the Chidush is - the reason in the Mishnah in Mikva'os is (not because of Tum'ah Belu'ah, but) because of Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim ...

(b) ... because if it was, the Tamei ring would be Metamei the Tahor one, seeing as they are both together in the same area (like two rings in a box).

(c) Even though the rings are made of metal, and based on the D'rashah 'Cherev, Harei Hu ke'Chalal', are an Av ha'Tum'ah, the Tamei ring is not Metamei the person be'Masa when he walks with it - because Tum'as Masa only applies to a source of Tum'ah, but not to a Toldah (even if it received its Tum'ah from an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah).

(a) We query this explanation from the case of a midwife, in our Mishnah - which is like two rings, seeing as both the Ubar and the midwife's hand are together in the same area, yet the Ubar renders the midwife Tamei.

(b) Rava refuted Rabah's own answer (that an Ubar is different, since it stands to come out) - on the grounds that the ring stands to come out too.

(a) Rava himself ultimately answers his final Kashya by citing the Pumbedesa'i - (alias Rav Yosef) ... in the name of Shmuel.

(b) Who explained the Tum'ah in our Mishnah as - being Tum'ah de'Rabanan.

(c) When we explain that Shmuel was coming to preclude the notion that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Akiva, we are referring to Rebbi Akiva statement - that 'Ubar be'Me'ei Ishah Tamei'.

(d) The mother remains Tahor - because it is a case of Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim.

(a) The author of our Mishnah might also be - Rebbi Yishmael, who holds that the Rabanan decreed Tum'ah in this case.

(b) The reason Rav Hoshaya gives for this is in case the Ubar sticks his head out of the Perozdor (in which case it will Metamei whoever touches it min ha'Torah), without the midwife realizing it.

(c) They did not extend decree to the mother herself - because she is aware when that happens, and knows that she is Tamei.

(d) We cannot however, rely on the mother telling the midwife - because a woman in labor has other things to think about.