Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yishmael, in a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Tum'as Meis) "ve'Chol Asher Yiga *al-P'nei ha'Sadeh*" - that Tum'ah Belu'ah is not Metamei.

(b) According to Rebbi Akiva on the other hand, it come to include - Golel ve'Dofek (the lid of a coffin and the board next to it), which are Tamei like the Meis himself.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael learns that Golel ve'Dofek are Metamei - from 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(a) Rav Hoshaya, according to Rebbi Akiva, learns from the Pasuk "ha'Noge'a be'Meis be'Nefesh Adam" (which refers to the soul that is inside a person, i.e. an Ubar) - that an Ubar is Tamei (min ha'Torah).

(b) Rebbi Yishmael learn from there - that a Revi'is of blood from one dead person is Metamei.

(c) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with that because of what he says in another Beraisa, where he learns from the Pasuk "ve'Al Kol Nafshos Meis Lo Yavo" - that even a Revi'is of blood from two Meisim is Metamei ...

(d) ... which explain why he disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael regarding the Pasuk "ha'Noge'a be'Meis be'Nefesh Adam" (since he no longer needs a Pasuk to teach us the Halachah of a Revi'is of blood that comes from one Meis.

3)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that in a case where the fetus of an animal that was experiencing difficulties in giving birth, stuck out its foot, which the Shochet severed before Shechting its mother - the Ubar is Tahor.

(b) If he severed it only after the Shechitah of the mother, Rebbi Meir considers it 'Maga Neveilah' - because it touched the severed foot, which had just become Eiver min ha'Chai (which in turn, is Tamei like Neveilah). Alternatively, in the event that the Ubar was found to be dead, the foot is actually Neveilah (since the Shechitah of the mother did not effect it).

(a) The Chachamim consider it only Maga Tereifah - because the Shechitah helps to remove the Tum'ah from the foot, even though it is outside the womb.

(b) The ramifications of 'Maga Tereifah are - that it is only Metamei mi'de'Rabanan.

(c) And they learn this from the Shechitah of a Tereifah, which renders the animal Tahor. Rebbi Meir disagrees with them - because whereas the Shechitah of a Tereifah affects itself, that of an Ubar entails being Matir a body that is not part of itself.

(a) The Tana suggests to learn that the Shechitah of a Tereifah ought not to render it Tahor - from a Beheimah Teme'ah, which remains Tamei even after being Shechted ...

(b) ... as we learn from the Pasuk "Kol ha'Noge'a Bahem Yitma".

(c) We object to the Tana's suggestion that one cannot learn a Tereifah from a Beheimah Teme'ah, because, unlike the latter, it did not have a 'Sha'as ha'Kosher' (a time that it was permitted) - because that argument will not apply to an animal that was Tereifah from birth.

(a) The Tana finally draws a distinction between Beheimah Teme'ah and Tereifah - in that the former, unlike the latter, belongs to a species of animals where Shechitah even permits the animal to be eaten.

(b) The status of an eighth-month baby that has been Shechted however, is - Tamei, since none of its species (i.e. of miscarriages) may be eaten.

(a) We query the Tana's ruling, rendering the Ubar, Tamei due to its contact with the severed foot whilst they were still joined, suggesting that it ought nevertheless to remain Tahor - because it is Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim.

(b) And we suggest that it is perhaps because Rebbi Meir follows his own reasoning in the Mishnah in Keilim, where he discusses a garment of three by three Tefachim that is Tamei Medras; specifically three by three Tefachim - because that is the minimum Shi'ur for Tum'as Medras.

(c) Rebbi Meir rules there that if the garment is torn in two, each half remains Tamei - because of their contact with each other when they were whole (and he holds that Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim is Tamei).

(a) Rebbi Yossi says - that it is Tamei, because when a Zav trod on it with his bare feet, besides becoming Tamei Medras, it also became a Rishon le'Tum'ah (because of Maga Zav). Consequently, when the garment is torn in two, negating the former Tum'ah, the latter Tum'ah remains intact ...

(b) ... a proof - that our Mishnah can only go like Rebbi Meir, who holds that Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim is Tamei.

(c) We refute this however, by citing a statement by Ula who rules that a piece of garment the size of three by three finger-breadths that is torn off from a large garment that was Tamei Medras - is Tamei Maga Medras because it touched the main garment as it was being torn ...

(d) ... in which case, the author of our Mishnah (including the Chachamim, who hold that the Ubar is Maga Tereifah) can even be Rebbi Yossi (as we just explained)

(a) According to Ravina, the Kashya from Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim is not valid for a different reason. He draws a distinction between a garment that is Tamei Medras - which does not stand to be divided ('Kol ha'Omed la'Chetoch ke'Chatuch Dami') and which is therefore considered Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim (according to Rebbi Yossi), and the foot of an Ubar - which does, and which is therefore Metamei the Ubar even whilst they are still joined.

(b) We suggest that the S'vara of 'Kol ha'Omed ... ' is confined to the opinion of Rebbi Meir in a Mishnah in Mikva'os who says there - that one only needs to Tovel a pot with an excessively long handle up to the point that it is needed (because of 'Kol ha'Omed Lachtoch ... ').

(c) However, we reconcile Ravina with the Rabanan there, who require the entire vessel to be Toveled - by differentiating between vessels and food, by which they concede that 'Chiburei Ochlin ke'Mifresi Dami' (meaning that because food [as opposed to vessels], is soft, it is not really considered joined in the first place, and even they will agree with the S'vara of 'Kol ha'Omed' (thereby explaining the Tum'ah in our Mishnah).

(d) According to Ravina, who considers the foot of the Ubar to be severed, our Mishnah nevertheless write 'Chatchah' - because of the Reisha, where the Ubar is Tahor only because the foot was severed before the Shechitah.