Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask on Rebbi Yossi (who holds that Tum'ah Temunah is not Boka'as ve'Olah') from a Mishnah in Ohalos, which discusses a dog that ate Basar Meis and died on the threshold of a house with its neck inside the house. If the dog was still alive - the house would be Tahor, because Tum'ah Belu'ah inside a live animal is not Metamei (as we learned in 'Beheimah ha'Makshah').

(b) According to Rebbi Meir, it depends upon whether the dog's neck is a Tefach thick or not - irrespective of the fact that the hole of the esophagus is not a Tefach thick.

(c) The minimum cubic Shi'ur that can transmit Tum'ah from one domain to another is - a cubic Tefach.

(d) We initially think that Rebbi Yossi, who says that 'We view the Tum'ah; within the lintel, the house is Tamei, outside, it is Tamei' - comes to argue with Rebbi Meir over where the dog's neck is less that a Tefach thick, where Rebbi Meir declares the house Tahor, whereas according to him, it is a question of where the Tum'ah is, if it inside, then the house is Tamei.

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, the criterion is where the dog's mouth is. Wh at he means is - that assuming that the Tum'ah is outside, then we go (not by where the mouth is, but) after where the back of the animal is, because that is where the Tum'ah was destined to leave the dog's body (like we learned above, regarding the cupboard) see Maharatz Chiyos.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira maintains that, either way, the house is Tamei - because of the possibility that the Tum'ah might have left the dog by way of its mouth (in the event that it vomited it out).

(c) Rebbi Yossi's two rulings now appear to clash - because whereas in his earlier ruling, he maintained that Tum'ah Temunah is not Boka'as ve'Olah, here he seems to hold that it is.

(a) Rava therefore explains that Rebbi Yossi argues with Rebbi Meir in two points - 1. That we do not go after the thickness of the neck, but after the hole of the esophagus, which must be a Tefach thick in order to transmit the Tum'ah into the house; 2. Even if it is, we do not consider the entire threshold part of the house (and therefore Tamei, but only the section that is within the lintel (and not the section that is outside). So that in fact, Rebbi Yossi comes is more lenient that Rebbi Meir, not like we thought at first.

(b) And we now explain his previous statement 'We view the Tum'ah, within the lintel, the house is Tamei, outside, it is Tamei' to mean - that unlike Rebbi Meir, who is not concerned as to which side of the lintel the dog's mouth is, Rebbi Yossi requires the mouth to be on the inside of the lintel for the house to be Tamei.

(c) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava agrees with his father - and he actually amends Rebbi Yossi's statement to 'We view *the hole (of the esophagus) of* the Tum'ah ... ', thereby supporting his explanation.

4)

(a) We learned earlier that Rebbi Yossi refers to Ohel as Noge'a. The author of the Mishnah in Ohalos (which argues with Rebbi Yossi [see Tosfos DH 'Ma'an Tana] and) holds that Ohel and Noge'a do not combine is - Rebbi Shimon.

(b) When Rebbi Shimon speaks of three Tum'os that emanate from a Meis, he cannot be providing us with a listof all the types of Tum'ah that emanate from a Meis - because there are many more ('k'Zayis Basar, Shedrah ve'Gulgoles she'Lo Chasru, Rov Minyan ve'Rov Binyan, besides the three that he mentions).

(c) What he is saying is - that there are only three kinds of Tum'os to which only two out of the three branches of Tum'ah (Maga, Masa and Ohel) apply.

(d) All the other types of Tum'ah - are subject to all of them.

(a) The branch that does not pertain to ...

1. ... 'M'lo Tarvad Rekev' is - Maga.
2. ... 'Etzem ki'Se'orah' is - Ohel (both of which we already learned earlier).

(b) 'M'lo Tarvad Rekev' is not subject to Maga - because since the particles of Rekev are not connected, it is governed by the principle 'Ein Noge'a ve'Chozer ve'Noge'a.

(c) When Rebbi Shimon says 've'Heichan Maga'o/Ohalo/Masa'o, be'Achad Meihen', he means - that Maga ... applies to both of the other two.

(d) Rebbi Shimon argues with Rebbi Yossi - in that he lists 'M'lo Tarvad Rekev' as not being subject to Maga (because he does not refer to Ohel as Maga), whereas Rebbi Yossi (on the previous Amud [who does]) specifically stated that 'M'lo Tar vad Rekev' is subject to Maga too.

(a) 'Golel' is - the top-board of the coffin in which a Meis is buried, whereas 'Dofek' is - one of the side-boards.

(b) Masa does not apply to Golel and Dofek - Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (see also Tosfos DH 'Golel ve'Dofek').

(a) With reference to the Din of Kulyas Neveilah in our Mishnah, the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "be'Nivlasah" - 've'Lo be'Kulyah S'tumah' (that a closed bone is not Metamei).
2. ... "ha'Noge'a *Y*itma" - that as long as one can touch the marrow inside, it is Metamei.

(b) When Rav Papa asked Rava why, in that case ...

1. ... a Neveilah, which is covered with skin, is Metamei - he told him to go and see how many holes there are in the skin (the mouth, the nose, the eyes).
2. ... the kidney of a Neveilah, which is covered with Cheilev, is Metamei - he told him to go and see how many strips of flesh protrude from it.

(c) The Cheilev is not Metamei - because the Torah writes regarding Cheilev "Ye'aseh *le'Chol* Melachah" (incorporating work for Hekdesh, which the Torah only needs to include because it is not Tamei).

(a) Rav Oshaya asked whether the bone containing marrow will be Metamei if one had in mind to make a hole in it but did not yet manage to do so - whether the absence of a hole is considered lacking the act of boring, or not.

(b) Rav Oshaya himself concluded - that it is and that the egg is therefore not Metamei (see Shitah Mekubetzes).

(a) According to our Mishnah, the egg of a Sheretz is Metamei - if a. a chick has begun to form inside it and b. it is holed.

(b) It is not Metamei when it has a shell - because a Shomer is only Metamei as long as the Tamei object is accessible, as we already learned.

(c) Even though most Sheratzim do not lay eggs - some, such as toads, lizards and snails, do.

(d) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk there "*ha*'Teme'im" that (among other things) the holed egg and thigh-bone of a Sheretz are Metamei. The Tana learns from ...

1. ... "ha'Sheretz" - that the egg of a Sheretz, is only Metamei if, like the Sheretz itself, it already fertilized.
2. ... "ha'Noge'a *Y*itma" - that, like we learned by a Neveilah, it is only Metamei if it can be touched

(a) The hole the size of a hair is sufficient in this regard - because a hair is considered part of the person (so that when a person's hair touches something it is as if their flesh had.

(b) The Toras Kohanim learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'ha'Noge'a bi' Vesar ha'Zav ... *ve'Tamei* ... " - that the hair and the nails of a Tamei are Metamei like his flesh.
2. ... "ve'Chol Asher Yiga bo ha'Zav ... *ve'Tamei* ... " - that the hair and the nails of a person render a Tahor person Tamei like his flesh (and are also considered part of him regarding the above Halachah).

(a) A mouse that is half-mouse and half-earth is - one that is not born of a mother and father, but is the half-finished product of one that is created from a worm-infested trash-heap.

(b) The Tana Kama rules that someone who touches the flesh is Tamei the earth; is Tahor. Rebbi Yehudah maintains - that someone who touches the earth part of it is Tamei too (since it is destined to become part of the mouse).

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi qualify the ruling in our Mishnah 'Achbor she'Chetzyo Basar ... '? In which case will the earth part of it not render the person who touches it Tamei?

(d) In the second Lashon, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is referring to Rebbi Yehudah 'Af ha'Noge'a ba'Adamah sheke'Neged ha'Basar, Tamei'. What is the difference between the two Leshonos?

(a) The only species of land animal that has no equivalent in the sea is - the weasel.

(b) Based on this piece of information, the Beraisa suggests that, just as, among the rodents, only a land-weasel is Tamei, so too, is only a land-mouse Tamei (but not a sea one). It counters this however - by learning from the Hekesh that just as whatever is called 'a weasel' is Tamei, so too whatever is called 'a mouse' is Tamei (even if it lives in the sea.

(c) The Tana therefore learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ha'Shoretz *al ha'Aretz*" - that only a land-Sheretz is Tamei.
2. ... "ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz" (when it should have written ve'Zeh Lachem ha'Tamei") - that even if the land Sheretz went down to the sea, died and touched something there, it still renders it Tamei.
3. ... "*ba'Sheretz* ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz" - that even a mouse that is created from the ground and not born from parents, is Tamei.

(d) We cannot learn this from the Hekesh to weasel, by saying that just as whatever is called 'Chuldah' is Tamei, so too, whatever is called 'Achbar' is Tamei - because we can counter that and say that just as a weasel is born from parents, so too, is any Sheretz that is born from parents Tamei (but not one that is created from the ground).

(a) A certain Rav suggested to Rava that perhaps "ba'Sheretz" comes to include a mouse that is created from the earth, and "ha'Shoretz", whatever crawls, even a sea-Sheretz. We would then learn from "al ha'Aretz" - that if the land Sheretz went down to the sea, died and touched something there, it would not render it Tamei.

(b) Rava replied - that having included sea Sheratzim in the realm of Tum'ah, it would be illogical to preclude a land Sheretz from being Metamei in the sea.

(c) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avdimib learns from "al ha'Aretz" 'Lehotzi Safek Tum'ah Tzafah' - meaning that if a dead land Sheretz is floating on the water and there is a Safek whether it touched something, then that article remainsTahor, even in a Reshus ha'Yachid, where we would otherwise apply the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, Tamei'.

(d) The Beraisa can use the same word to preclude a sea-Sheretz - because the word "al ha'Aretz" is written twice.