Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa rules that if two bones from a Meis, each containing half a k'Zayis of Basar at one end and whose other end is sticking inside a house - the house is Tamei.

(b) A bone from a Meis that does not contain a k'Zayis Basar - is Metamei be Maga u've'Masa, but not be'Ohel.

(c) Yehudah ben Nekusah in the name of Rebbi Ya'akov objects - on the grounds that two bones each containing half a k'Zayis cannot combine to form a Yad.

(a) The truth of the matter is - that this Beraisa poses a Kashya on both Rav and Rebbi Yochanan (as we shall see) though the Sugya only concerns itself with the Kashyos on Rav, before concluding with the opinions of both.

(b) The Kashya on Rav, assuming that the Beraisa is talking about ...

1. ... a Yad, from the Tana Kama - in that, according to him, half a k'Zayis Basar ought to suffice for the Yad to render the house Tamei.
2. ... a Shomer (in which case, the half-k'Zayis Basar referred to by the Tana is actually in the form of marrow inside the bone), from Yehudah ben Nekusah - in that, according to him, the house ought to be Tamei, since half a k'Zayis is more than a k'Pul, and he holds that a k'Pul is sufficient for the Shomer to be Metamei.

(c) The Beraisa on the previous Amud, which requires the Basar to be on the back of the skin at the point of contact for the latter to be a Shomer, is speaking when the Basar is visible (in which case the bone will protects it if it is at the other end) - whereas in this case the Tana is speaking about the marrow inside the bone, in which case the bone protects it anyway (in that it prevents it from leaking out).

(d) We could have also asked on Rebbi Yochanan from ...

1. ... Yehudah ben Nekusah, however one establishes the Beraisa (since Rebbi Yochanan requires neither a k'Zayis Basar for a Yad, nor a k'Pul for a Shomer).
2. ... the Tana Kama, if he is talking about a Shomer, since the latter confines breaking the k'Zayis into two half-k'Zeisim, each of which is more than a k'Pul, whereas Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Yesh Shomer Pachos mi'k'Pul'.

(a) If the Tana is talking about ...

1. ... Yad - Rav will hold like Yehudah ben Nekusah.
2. ... Shomer - he will hold like the Tana Kama.

(b) Rav cannot establish the Beraisa by both Yad and Shomer - since he is Metaher half a k'Zayis by Yad and Metamei it by Shomer, whereas the Tana Kama is Metamei by both, and Yehudah ben Nekusah is Metaher by both.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan, on the other hand - establishes the Beraisa by Yad, and he holds like the Tana Kama.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah rules that a thigh-bone that contains a k'Zayis Basar incorporates the entire bone for Tum'ah. According to Acherim - a k'Pul will suffice.

(b) The Kashya on Rav from ...

1. ... Acherim, if we establish the Beraisa by Yad, is - that the latter ought to require a k'Zayis.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah, if we establish the Beraisa by Shomer is - that as little as a k'Pul ought to suffice.

(c) According to Rav, we might establish the Beraisa - by Yad, in which case he will hold like Rebbi Yehudah, or by Shomer, and he will hold like Acherim.

(a) Whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, we will establish the Beraisa by Shomer and he follows the opinion of Acherim ...

(b) ... and the latter gives the Shi'ur of k'Pul (despite the fact that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Yesh Shomer le'Pachos mi'k'Pul') - only to balance the Tana Kama, who gave the Shi'ur of a k'Zayis.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan might also have established the Beraisa - by Yad (thereby eliminating the previous problem) ...

(d) ... yet he chose to establish it by Shomer - because the Beraisa presented specifically the case of the thigh-bone, as opposed to another bone, because it always contains marrow, which renders the bone a Shomer.

(a) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah in a Beraisa renders Tahor, a pod containing a Pul, but Tamei, one that contains a small bean or a pea ...

(b) ... because the former is large and *doesn't need a Shomer* to prevent it from becoming dirty, whereas the latter is small, *and does*.

(c) The former is Metamei - because the Tana is speaking when the Pul plus the pod makes up more than a k'Beitzah (the minimum Shi'ur for Tum'as Ochlin).

(a) This poses a Kashya on Rav - who maintains that there is no Shomer on less than a k'Pul.

(b) To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav, we cite Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava's interpretation of another Beraisa - where he establishes the case (not by a pod, but) by the stalk, which is a Yad ...

(c) ... and to which many pods are attached, which make up even more than a k'Zayis.

(d) It is not however, a Yad with regard to a Pul - because, due to its size, it does not require a Yad to transport it.

(e) Initially, we interpreted 'Mipnei she'Rotzeh *be'Mashmishan'* to mean that he wants to handle them (in order to keep them clean), now we interpret it as 'be'Tashmishan', meaning that he wants to transport them.

(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael Darshens from the Pasuk "al Kol Zera Zeru'a ... ", adding 'a wheat or barley kernel together with its shell ... ' - that seeds are subject to Tum'ah the way one takes them out to plant, to incorporate the Shomer (as we explained earlier).

(b) This poses a Kashya on Rav - since a wheat or barley kernel is smaller than a k'Pul.

(c) And we answer that a kernel of wheat or barley is different - inasmuch as it is a 'Beryah' (something complete) which is Chashuv (and therefore does need a k'Zayis or a k'Pul) ...

(d) ... whereas Rav is speaking about a broken bean or less than the Shi'ur of meat, which is not Chashuv.

9)

(a) Rav Oshaya asks whether two Shomrim (containing a k'Beitzah of food between them) will combine. We refute the suggestion that Rav Oshaya is speaking when the one Shomer is on top of the other - because then the second Shomer would not have a Din Shomer (as we shall now see).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah in Uktzin rules - that the white inner peel of an onion combines with the rest of the onion to make up a Shi'ur k'Beitzah, because he considers it part of the onion.

(c) He draws a distinction however, between the middle peel - which *combines with the onion*, provided it is whole (and not holed), and the outer one, which *does not*.

(d) Rav Oshaya's She'eilah therefore is - whether, if one cut a k'Beitzah of food into two together with its Shomer, the two Shomrim will combine, seeing as each one protects one half of the k'Beitzah, or whether they will not combine, because it no longer protects the other half.

(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa that we cited earlier 'Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah ... Metamei be'Shel Kitnis ...' - which we interpret to mean peas inside their pods, two or more Shomrim that combine to make a Shi'ur k'Beitzah (since one pod containing one pea does not make up a Shi'ur k'Beitzah.

(b) To accommodate Rav, Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava establishes the Beraisa - by pods on a stalk which combines with them to make up even more than a k'Beitzah. because of a Din Yad (not Shomer, as we originally thought).

(c) And we apply Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava to explain the Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael (that we also cited above) 'al Kol Zera Zeru'a ... ke'Derech she'B'nei Adam Motzi'in li'Zeri'ah, Chitah bi'Kelipasah ... ', which is also therefore a question of Yad and not of Shomrin.

(a) On the assumption that all the wheat on the stalk is required to make up the Shi'ur k'Beitzah, the problem with Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava's explanation with regard to this Beraisa is - that even though the top rows need the rows below them to protect them from falling out, the bottom rows do not need the rows above them, yet the Shomrim of the top rows combine with those of the bottom rows (resolving Rav Oshaya's She'eilah).

(b) We answer that the Tana is referring to the wheat kernels on one of the rows, which sometimes amount to a k'Beitzah - like we find in the days of Shimon ben Shetach, where a wheat kernel was the size of two ox kidneys (as the Gemara in Ta'anis records [see also Tosfos DH 'be'Chiti').

(c) In that case, we conclude - we do not need to come on to a row of wheat, because even one wheat kernel will suffice.

(a) Earlier in the Sugya, we discussed the Din of two bones, each with a half k'Zayis of Basar at one end and the other end inside a house. Resh Lakish confines the Din Yad in such a case to a bone. It does not, he says, apply to a strand of hair - because one hair cannot possibly serve as a Yad, since it is bound to snap.

(b) Granted, the strand of hair is a Shomer - but a Shomer only combines with the Basar that it protects, not with Basar that is a distance away from it; whereas a Yad combines anyway. Consequently, in our case, if the hair protruded from the skin at one point, whilst the Basar was attached to the skin at another point, the hair will not be considered a Shomer.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan holds - that a strand of hair is a Yad a well as a Shomer.

(a) The Beraisa rules that if skin is attached to a k'Zayis Basar of a Meis, and someone touched a thin strip of flesh or a hair that protrudes from it - he becomes Tamei.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan asked on Resh Lakish from this Beraisa, assuming that the Tana is talking about Yad and not Shomer - because seeing as the hair protrudes from the skin, it ought not to be considered a Shomer (because 'Shomer al-Gabei Shomer' is not considered a Shomer, as we already learned).

(c) To which Resh Lakish replied - that a hair is not 'Shomer al-Gabei Shomer', since it pierces the skin right through to the flesh.

(a) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov asks from here on to the writing of Tefilin however that if the skin of an animal is full of holes, how is it possible ever to write Tefilin? Why is it not a contravention of 'Kesivah Tamah' (a complete script, implying among other things that the writing must be complete, and not full of holes).

(b) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov however, seems to have forgotten what they said in Eretz Yisrael - that if the holes in the parchment on which one writes Tefilin are so small that the pen runs over them, they are not considered holes (and the Tefilin are Kasher).

(a) Alternatively, we establish the Beraisa 'Or she'Yesh Alav k'Zayis Basar ... ' by Yad, and Resh Lakish explains the Beraisa by 'M'lai she'Bein ha'Mela'im', like Rebbi Ilai elsewhere - by which we mean that it is only one hair of many (like one hair of many of the beard of wheat).

(b) We learned in the Mishnah in Uktzin 'M'lai she'be'Shibalin, Mitam'in u'Metam'in, ve'Einan Mitztarfin' - because it has a Din of Yad, and not of Shomer.

(c) The problem with the case of the Mishnah is - how one hair can possibly serve as a Yad, since it is bound to snap?

(d) Rebbi Ilai resolves the She'eilah - by establishing it by 'M'lai Bein ha'Mela'im'.

(a) In the second Lashon, which ultimately follows the same pattern as the first, we try to prove the initial answer to Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya, establishing the Beraisa ('Or she'Yesh Alav k'Zayis Basar') by Shomer - because if it was because of Yad, since when is one strand of hair fit to serve as a Yad?

(b) We refute the proof however - by citing Rebbi Ilai, that the Tana is speaking 'bi'Melai she'Bein ha'Mela'im' (as we explained above).