Previous daf

1)

(a) Having just precluded a Shomer from combining to make up the Shi'ur Tum'as Neveilos, we learn from the Pasuk "ha'Noge'a be'Nivlasah *Yitma* ... " (when it could have written "Tamei") - that if it has a k'Zayis Basar on the other side, it is subject to Tum'as Neveilos because of Shomer.

(b) The problem with the initial text of the Beraisa "be'Nivlasah", 've'Lo Or she'Ein Alav k'Zayis Basar. Yachol ha'Noge'a ke'Neged Basar me'Achorav Lo Yehei Tamei, Talmud Lomar "Yitma" ' is - that the Beraisa begins by precluding skin which is attached to less than a k'Zayis Basar from Tum'as Neveilos one Pasuk, and then concludes from another Pasuk that it is Tamei.

(c) Rava (or K'di) amends the text - by inserting in the Seifa that it is attached to a k'Zayis Basar.

(a) The Mishnah in Uktzin discusses Yad and Shomer, which ...

1. ... have the same Din - with regard to becoming Tamei and being Metamei others (like the Basar itself).
2. ... differ in Halachah - with regard to combining to make up a k'Beitzah of Ochel, which the Shomer does, but the Yad does not.

(b) It is possible for a bone to be a Yad but not a Shomer - if it does not contain any marrow.

(c) The Tana is referring to - Tum'as Ochlin (and not Tum'as Neveilos, where Shomer does not combine, as we just learned).

(d) When the Tana says 'Lo Yad ve'Lo Shomer, Lo Tamei ve'Lo Metamei', he is referring to - a hair or a very thin bone that is attached to Basar.

(a) The Tana learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yutan Mayim al Zera Ve'nafal mi'Nivlasam Alav, Tamei Hu *Lachem*" - that whatever is for our use (including Yados) is subject to Tum'as Ochlin.

(b) And he learns the same thing from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yamus min ha'Beheima h Asher Hi Lachem ... " - the first Pasuk refers to receiving Tum'ah (Lehachnis), the second, to being Metamei others (Lehotzi).

(c) We know that a Shomer too, both receives Tum'ah and is Metamei others - from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' (since it protects the food, which a Yad does not).

(d) And the Torah finds it necessary to write "al Kol Zera Zeru'a Asher Yizare'a" (to include a Shomer) to teach us - Tziruf (that a Shomer also combines with the food to make up the Shi'ur k'Beitzah, as we explained earlier).

(a) We query this however, by asking that perhaps we only know Yad Lehachnis by Ochel (and not Lehotzi), and Shomer Lechachnis and Lehotzi (but not Letzaref) - because the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yamus min ha'Beheimah ... " , is talking about Tum'as Neveilos (our source for Lehotzi), from which we cannot learn Tum'as Ochel (which the Pasuk "al Kol Zera Zeru'a ... " is referring to).

(b) We would then learn a. Lechachnis by Shomer from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' and b. Lehotzi from "al Kol Zera Zeru'a ... ".

(c) And we answer that it is not feasible to suggest Lehachnis and not Lehotzi - because in whatever situation the former (which has a Chazakah of Taharah) can become Tamei, the latter will certainly be Metamei.

(d) We then ask that perhaps we ought to say the reverse, Yad Lehotzi and Shomer Lehachnis and Lehotzi (but not Letzaref). When we answer that there is an extra 'Yad' ("Tanur ve'Kirayim Yutatz ... Lachem"), we mean - that besides the previous two Pesukim of "Lachem" (by Zera'im and Neveilah), we have a third Pasuk by Tanur. This therefore comes to include Lehachnis by Yad (since we do not need two Pesukim for Lehotzi), enabling us to learn Shomer from Yad, and Letzaref from "al Kol Zera Zeru'a ... ".

(a) We set about working out which Yad is superfluous. We could not learn ...

1. ... Tanur and Neveilah from Zera'im - because it is more easily susceptible to Tum'ah (since it can receive Tum'ah even from a V'lad ha'Tum'ah, which an oven cannot, and we learned in our Mishnah that Tum'as Ochlin exceeds that of Tum'as Neveilos).
2. ... Neveilah and Zera'im from Tanur - because an oven can receive Tum'ah from its air (without direct contact), which the other two cannot.
3. ... Zera'im and Tanur from Neveilah - since a. it is Metamei even a person (and vessels ; b. it is Metamei via Masa [carrying] both of which they are not) and c. its Tum'ah stems from within (whilst theirs stems from without too).

(b) If we cannot learn two from one, we try learning one from two. Initially, we refute the suggestion to learn Zera'im from Tanur and Neveilah, on the grounds that Zera'im require Hechsher, whereas they do not. Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua objects to that Pircha however - on the grounds that fruit that has not been Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah is no different than an oven that has not yet been completed.

(c) So we change the Pircha to the fact that Zera'im receives its Tum'ah through touching something Tamei, whereas Tanur and Neveilah do not. It doesn't matter that this is neither a Kula or a Chumra - bearing in mind what we learned in 'Kol ha'Basar' that on a 'Mah ha'Tzad' one can ask a Pircha Kol Dehu.

(d) Neither can we learn Tanur from Zera'im and Neveilah - since it is not a food, whereas they are.

(a) So we suggest to learn Yad Lehachnis - from Yad di'Neveilah (which we are able to learn with a 'Mah ha'Tzad') from Zera'im and Tanur). We refute this source too however - since we need the Pasuk to teach us that Yad di'Neveilah is even Metamei Adam (and not just food and drink, like Zera'im and Tanur).

(b) An example of Yad di'Neveilah being Metamei Adam is if one stuck a splinter into a k'Zayis Basar Neveilah and someone touched the splinter, or a bone from a Neveilah with a k'Zayis Basar attached to one end of it, and he touched the bone.

(a) So we try to learn Yad from Shomer di'Neveilah ("Yitma", as we learned on top of the Amud). This Pasuk is not needed to teach us that the Shomer combines with the Neveilah to make up the Shi'ur k'Zayis - because, as we learned above, a Shomer di'Neveilah is not Metzaref.

(b) We learn Yad de'Ochel from Shomer di'Neveilah with a double 'Im Eino Inyan'. 'Im Eino Inyan le'Shomer di'Neveilah, T'neihu Inyan le'Yad di'Neveilah; ve'Im Eino Inyan le'Yad di'Neveilah, T'neihu Inyan le'Yad de'Alma (Lehachnis)'.

(c) We cannot simply learn Yad de'Alma (meaning Ochel) 'Im Eino Inyan' from Shomer di'Neveilah - because there has to be some link between what is written and what we are learning from it.

(d) We refute this explanation too however, because we should rather say 'T'neihu Inyan le'Shomer' and use it for Letzaref, leaving us with Shomer Lehachnis (since there is no Pasuk by Yad from which to learn it), and Shomer Letzaref, but without a Pasuk for Yad Lechachnis.

8)

(a) We finally reinstate the original explanation 'Yad Lehachnis, Yad Lehotzi, Shomer Letzaref', by rejecting the earlier Kashya 've'Eima Yad Lehotzi ve'Lo Lehachnis ... '. That Kashya is unacceptable - because the Pasuk of "Lachem" by Ochel ("ve'Chi Yutan Mayim al Zera ... ") is a case of Lehachnis and not Lehotzi.

(b) In spite of the fact that Shomer does not combine to make up the Shi'ur Neveilah, the Torah nevertheless sees fit to write "Yitma', to include Shomer by Neveilah (and not to rely on the 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Yad) - based on the principle 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal-va'Chomer Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra' (the Torah will sometimes write something, even though we know it already from a 'Kal-va'Chomer').

(c) Nevertheless, we Darshen Letzaref from Shomer de'Alma ("al Kol Zera Zeru'a ... ") rather than say 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal-va'Chomer ... ' (and apply it to Hachnasah de'Shomer) - because of the principle 'Heicha de'Ika Lemedrash Darshinan' (that wherever it is possible to Darshen, one does).

(d) Rav Chaviva establishes the last explanation ('Im Eino Inyan le'Shomer di'Neveilah ... T'neihu Inyan le'Yad de'Alma'. And to answer the Kashya 've'Eima ... T'neihu Inyan le'Shomer de'Alma' - he explains that since there is only a Din of Yad by Shomer of Neveilah (but not of Shomer), it is more logical to apply it to Yad de'Alma.

(a) So we conclude that it is not possible to learn one Yad from the other, and that we therefore need all the Yados to teach us Yad Lehotzi. We need Yad di'Neveilah - to teach us that it is Metamei even a person (and Keilim) as well (as we already explained).

(b) And we learn ...

1. ... Yad de'Hachnasah - from the Pasuk of Shomer di'Neveilah (as we already explained).
2. ... Letzaref - from the Pasuk of Shomer de'Ochlin (as we already explained).

(a) The Mishnah in Uktzin lists the Pitum (the protuberance) of a pomegranate among the things that combine to make up the Shi'ur of Tum'as Ochlin - because it is a Shomer.

(b) And the Tana precludes the fluff inside it (which is also a Shomer) - because it is a second Shomer, and the second Shomer is not Metzaref (as we will see later in the Sugya).

(c) The problem with the Mishnah in Uktzin is - from where do we know that the Shomer of a fruit is Mitztaref (seeing as one does not plant the Shomer together with the tree, as would be required according to the source 'Asher Yizare'a).

(d) And we can ask the same Kashya - on our own Mishnah 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav ve'ha'Kifah ... Mitztaref le'Tum'as Ochlin', for the very same reason.

(e) We cite the source Pasuk once more "al Kol Zera Zaru'a Asher Yizare'a" - giving us three D'rashos ("Zera", "Zeru'a" and "Yizare'a") for Shomer, one for plants, one for fruit and one meat, eggs and fish.

(a) According to Rav Chiya bar Ashi, there is a Yad for Tum'ah, but not for Hechsher - which means that on the one hand, if Tum'ah touches the Yad, the food becomes Tamei, on the other, if water touches it, the food does not become Huchshar Lekabel Tum'ah.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan rules - that it is.

(c) The two possible approaches to explain the Machlokes are that it is based - either on a S'vara, or on the interpretation of a Pasuk.

(d) If the basis of the Machlokes is ...

1. ... a Pasuk, then bearing in mind that the Pasuk preceding the Tum'ah of Yad ("Tamei Hu *Lachem*") is "ve'Chi Yutan Mayim al Zera ... " - they are arguing over whether "Lachem" goes back to Lifnei Fanav ("ve'Chi Yutan Mayim ... " [Rebbi Yochanan]) or not (Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi).
2. ... a S'vara - then they are arguing over whether Hechsher is actually the first stage of Tum'ah (Rebbi Yochanan) or only a preparation (Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan's opinion has the support of a Beraisa.

(b) The Tana also compares Hechsher to Tum'ah - with regard to not becoming Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah before the crops or the fruit has been detached.

(c) The Toras Kohanim proves that crops can only possibly become Tamei after they have been detached - because otherwise, all crops would be bound to be Tamei (due to the dead Sheratzim that abound in the fields).

(a) According to Rav, the minimum size food to which the Din of Yad applies (both as regards Tziruf and Lehachnis and Lehotzi) is a k'Zayis, whereas the minimum size pertaining to Shomer is - a k'Pul (the size of a large bean).

(b) Bearing in mind that the minimum Shi'ur of Tum'as Ochlin is a k'Beitzah, Rav is speaking - when the article with the Yad is one of a number of articles, which total a k'Beitzah.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan says - that there is a Yad for less than a k'Zayis and a Shomer for less than a k'Pul.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan will agree however - that there is no Yad for less than the size of a bean, otherwise, he ought to have said 'There is a Yad and a Shomer for less than the size of a Pul.