Previous daf

1)

(a) The Shi'ur Yad that our Mishnah gives for a skin that is being flayed to use as ...

1. ... a spread to sit or lie on (or as a rug) is - 'K'dei Achizah' (the amount that is needed to hold it by [which will be clarified later]).
2. ... a honey jar is - all the skin from the neck up to the chest (the hardest part of the animal to flay), because since one pulls off the skin on both sides simultaneously (as opposed to the previous case, where they cut an opening down the length of the body first, making the flaying much easier), a larger Yad is needed.

(b) By ...

1. ... 'Lehachnis Tum'ah' we mean - that if he is Tamei, when he touches the Yad, he renders the Basar Tamei...
2. ... 'Lehotzi Tum'ah' we mean - that in the case of a Neveilah, when he touches the Yad, he becomes Tamei.

(c) The Tana equates a Beheimah with a Chayah, a Tehorah with a Temei'ah and a Dakah with a Gasah in this regard. By ...

1. ... a Tehorah, he means - a Kasher animal that has been Shechted (but which is Tamei [which is equivalent to 'Lehotzi']).
2. ... a Temei'ah, he means a Neveilah (and it is he who is Tahor [which is equivalent to 'Lehachnis']).

(a) The Tana adds that in a case of Margil - where he begins the flaying from the feet (with the intention of making a flask out of it, in which case he removes the skin on both sides simultaneously, like in the previous case]), it is all considered a Yad.

(b) Margil is different than Mafshit in this regard - in that one begins the flaying from the hind legs, in which case one has a long way to go until reaching the chest, and more Yad is needed (see Tiferes Yisrael).

(c) Even if the skin around the neck has not yet been removed, Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri does not consider it joined to the rest of the skin - because one tends to flay it independently.

(d) The Chachamim however, hold - that as long as it is still attached, it is considered joined.

(a) According to Rav, the skin between the 'K'dei Achizah and that which has not yet been flayed is all Tahor. Rebbi Asi holds - that the Tefach next to the skin which is still attached is a Yad, because one tends to hold it to pull off the skin that is still joined to the Basar.

(b) The skin that is still joined to the body of the animal is - Tamei as a Shomer (since it protects the Basar).

(c) Rebbi Asi explains that the Beraisa ...

1. ... (in connection with the Din of K'dei Achizah) 'mi'Ka'an va'Eilech ha'No'ge'a be'Mufshat, Tahor' means - that the remainder of the detached skin is Tahor, apart from the last Tefach.
2. ... 'Or she'Keneged ha'Basar Tamei' - incorporates the last Tefach that is next to it.
3. ... which adds, after reiterating the opening statement in our Mishnah 've'Tefach ha'Samuch le'Basar, Tahor' - is talking about the Tefach that is next to the Yad, which he never uses as a Yad. But after he has flayed a few Tefachim, when the flayed skin becomes heavy, he begins flaying from that last Tefach.

(d) Abaye reconciles the Beraisa which gives the Shi'ur of K'dei Achizah as a Tefach, with another Beraisa, which gives it as two Tefachim - by explaining the first Beraisa to mean 'Tefach Kaful' (a double Tefach [presumably because that is the way he holds the skin]).

(e) We prove Abaye right - from a third Beraisa, which specifically gives the Shi'ur as Tefach Kaful.

(a) The Mishnah in Keilim speaks about a coat that became Tamei, which the owner began to tear - in order to make it Tahor.

(b) The two parts are no longer considered joined - when the majority of the coat is torn ...

(c) ... at which point - the coat becomes Tahor.

(d) The criterion for the coat becoming Tahor is - that it can no longer be used for the purpose that it was made for.

(a) The Sugya in 'Beheimah ha'Maksheh', 'Sheloshah al Sheloshah she'Hayah Tamei Medras u'Maga ha'Zav, ve'Chilko, Tahor min ha'Medras ve'Adayin Tamei Maga ha'Zav' - is speaking when there were two Tum'os to begin with, which is why even after the one (whose Shi'ur is three Tefachim by three Tefachim, becomes Bateil, the other one (whose Shi'ur is three by three finger-breadths) remains intact. Whereas in our case, where there is only one Tum'ah, once the garment becomes Bateil, it is Bateil, and we do not contend with the fact that it is still fit to receive another Tum'ah.

(b) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah qualifies this ruling by making a distinction between a Talis that is a T'vul-Yom and one that is not - in that whereas in the case of the latter, the Chachamim decreed that, in order to save his coat, he might not tear the majority, but claim that he did, in the case of the former, this is unlikely, seeing as he already demonstrated his good faith by Toveling the garment (even though Tevilah spoils it).

(a) Rabah disagrees. He maintains, that if anything, it is worse if the coat is a T'vul-Yom - because then people who are not aware that the coat was torn in order to be able to use it, will think that Tevilah does not require Ha'arev-Shemesh (nightfall).

(b) He also asks on Rav Nachman from Olas ha'Of according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (in the first Perek), who requires the Kohen to be Molek Rov Shenayim of an Olas ha'Of. Why do we not suspect there too, that he will Shecht exactly a half, and then declare that he Shechted a majority?

(c) Rav Yosef however, defends Rav Nachman. He counters Rabah's ...

1. ... first objection - by arguing that the torn garment bears evidence that it was the tear, and not the Tevilah, that rendered the garment Tahor.
2. ... second objection - by applying the principle 'Kohanim Zerizim Heim', and are not therefore subject to such suspicions.

7)

(a) We query Rav Nachman from our Mishnah 'ha'Mafshit bi'Veheimah u've'Chayah ... li'Sheti'ach, K'dei Achizah'. We do not suspect there that he flayed K'dei Achizah and then, after touching something that is Tamei, he claims that he already flayed more, in which case the Tahor Basar will remain Tahor, when really it ought to be declared Tamei (see Tosdos DH 'Dilma') - because our Mishnah is speaking about a case of Tum'ah de'Rabbanan (to which the Gezeirah does not apply, even if the animal is Kodshim), such as someone who entered a gathering of drawn water with his head and most of his body (or any one of the other eighteen things listed in Shabbos).

(b) Tum'ah de'Rabbanan is also applicable in the case of 'Tahor bi'Temei'ah' (not where a Tahor person touched the Yad of a *Neveilah* or of a *Beheimah Temei'ah*, but) - where a Tamei person touched the Yad of a Tereifah Shechutah (which is not Tamei min ha'Torah).

(c) This latter ruling is based on a statement of Avuhah di'Shmuel, who declared a Tereifah, Tamei - by a Beheimah of Kodshim.

(a) We query Rav Nachman again from another Beraisa quoted in the name of Rebbi Shimon 'ha'Mafshit bi'Sheratzim Chibur' - because Sheratzim are particularly difficult to flay.

(b) We can extrapolate from there - that with regard to Beheimos (even Temei'os, such as camels), the flayed skin that is in excess of one Tefach, is not considered a Chibur (i.e. a Yad) ...

(c) ... a Kashya on Rav Nachman - because their Tum'ah is d'Oraysa.

(d) We answer that Kashya - by switching the inference to the skin of the neck, in a case of Margil, where one has not yet reached the skin of the neck ...

(e) ... according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who does not consider the skin of the neck joined.

(a) Reverting to the Mishnah in Keilim 'Talis she'Hischil Bah Likro'a ... Eino Chibur u'Tehorah', Rav Huna Mishum Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi Yossi rules that in a case where the remaining minority is K'dei bbMa'afores (a head-gear that hung over the neck) - which is Chashuv, it is still considered joined.

(b) Resh Lakish too, qualifies the Mishnah According to him, the Miy'ut would not become Bateil - if the torn garment was made of leather, which becomes as good as new once it has been stitched.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan - does not differentiate.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish from a Mishnah in Keilim 'Or Tamei Medras, Chishev Alav li'Retzu'os ve'Sadelim, Keivan she'Nasan bo Izmal (a knife) Tahor'. This is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. The Chachamim hold - that it remains Tamei until the Miy'ut that remains is less than five Tefachim (which is the Shi'ur Tum'as Medras of leather) ...

(b) ... a Kashya on Resh Lakish, according to whom the piece of leather should remain 'joined' as long as it is larger than 'K'dei Ma'afores'.

(c) Resh Lakish answers - by differentiating between the way one cuts a Talis (one neat cut, leaving what remains nice and strong); and the way one cuts a piece of leather (by making many cuts in it, which weakens the entire piece).

(d) According to the Chachamim, the piece of leather remain Tamei until less than the Shi'ur remains - since its status (of a piece of leather) has not changed, whereas the Talis becomes Tahor once the Rov has been cut, even though the Miy'ut contains a Shi'ur Tum'ah - because its status as a Beged becomes Bateil once a majority has been cut.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks on Resh Lakish from our Mishnah 'ha'Mafshit bi'Veheimah u've'Chayah ... li'Sheti'ach, K'dei Achizah' - from which we infer 'Ha Yoser mi'Chedei Achizah, Tahor', a Kashya on Resh Lakish, who maintaons that leather is strong.

(b) We answer however, that the two cases are not comparable - since in the latter case, once the skin has been severed from the Basar, it does not stand to be re-attached (like the leather in Resh Lakish's cased, which stands to be re-sewn.

(a) Rav Yosef asked on Rav Nachman from Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Or she'al ha'Tzavar Eino Chibur' - which speaks when the skin is still attached to the Basar, a Kashya on Rav Nachman.

(b) To which Abaye retorted - that rather than ask on Rav Nachman from Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, Rav Yosef could just as well have supported him from the Chachamim (who hold that it is a Chibur).

(c) Abaye therefore explains that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri and the Chachamim argue over - whether a Shomer that stands to be removed is considered a Shomer (the Chachamim) or not (Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri).

(d) On principle however - they both agree that if the skin was strong (permanent), it would be considered joined (like Rav Nachman).