Previous daf

1)

(a) What Shi'ur Yad does our Mishnah give for a skin that is being flayed to use as ...

1. ... a spread to sit or lie on (or as a rug)?
2. ... a honey jar? Why the difference?

(b) What do we mean by ...

1. ... 'Lehachnis Tum'ah'?
2. ... 'Lehotzi Tum'ah'?

(c) The Tana equates a Beheimah with a Chayah, a Tehorah with a Temei'ah and a Dakah with a Gasah in this regard.
What does he mean by ...

1. ... a Tehorah?
2. ... a Temei'ah? What is the case?

(a) The Tana adds that in a case of Margil, all the skin is considered a Yad.
What is Margil? What does he intend to use the bbbbbbskin for?

(b) Why is Margil different than Mafshit in this regard?

(c) Assuming that the skin around the neck has not yet been removed, why does Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri not consider it joined to the rest of the skin?

(d) What do the Chachamim then say?

(a) According to Rav, the skin between the 'K'dei Achizah and that which has not yet been flayed is all Tahor.
What does Rebbi Asi say? Why is that?

(b) What about the skin that is still joined to the body of the animal?

(c) How will Rebbi Asi explain the Beraisa ...

1. ... (in connection with the Din of K'dei Achizah) 'mi'Ka'an va'Eilech ha'No'ge'a be'Mufshat, Tahor'?
2. ... 'Or she'Keneged ha'Basar Tamei' (seemingly precluding the Tefach that is next to it)?
3. ... which adds, after reiterating the opening statement in our Mishnah 've'Tefach ha'Samuch le'Basar, Tahor'?

(d) How does Abaye reconcile the Beraisa, which gives the Shi'ur of K'dei Achizah as a Tefach, with another Beraisa, which gives it as two Tefachim?

(e) How do we prove Abaye right?

(a) The Mishnah in Keilim speaks about a coat that the owner began to tear.
Why did he do that?

(b) At which stage are the two parts no longer considered joined?

(c) What are the ramifications of this statement?

(d) What is the criterion for the coat becoming Tahor?

(a) How will we reconcile this with 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'?

(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.
What does he say?

(a) Rabah disagrees with Rav Nachman. He maintain that if anything, it is worse when the coat is a T'vul-Yom.
Why is that?

(b) And what does he ask 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?

(c) Rav Yosef however, defends Rav Nachman.
How does he counter Rabah's ...

1. ... first objection?
2. ... second objection?

7)

(a) We query Rav Nachman from our Mishnah 'ha'Mafshit bi'Veheimah u've'Chayah ... li'Sheti'ach, K'dei Achizah'.
Why do we not also suspect that he will flay 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 Tosfos DH 'Dilma').
How do we answer that?

(b) What Tum'ah de'Rabbanan is applicable in the case of 'Tahor bi'Temei'ah' (where a Tahor person touches the Yad of a Temei'ah)?

(c) This latter ruling is based on a statement of Avuhah di'Shmuel.
In which case did he declare a Tereifah, Tamei?

(a) We query Rav Nachman again from another Beraisa quoted in the name of Rebbi Shimon 'ha'Mafshit bi'Sheratzim Chibur'.
Why is that?

(b) What can we extrapolate from there?

(c) Why does this pose a Kashya on Rav Nachman?

(d) How do we answer this Kashya? If the inference does not refer to the flayed skin that is in excess of a Tefach, then to what does it refer?

(e) Who is then the author of the Beraisa?

(a) Reverting to the Mishnah in Keilim 'Talis she'Hischil Bah Likro'a ... Eino Chibur, u'Tehorah', what does Rav Huna Mishum Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi Yossi say about a case where the remaining minority is K'dei Ma'afores? What is a 'Ma'afores'?

(b) Resh Lakish too, qualifies the Mishnah.
In which case would the Miy'ut not become Bateil according to him?

(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish from a Mishnah in Keilim 'Or Tamei Medras, Chishev Alav li'Retzu'os ve'Sandelim, Keivan she'Nasan bo Izmal (a knife) Tahor'. That is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.
What do the Chachamim say? What is the significance of five Tefachim?

(b) What is now the Kashya on Resh Lakish?

(c) How does Resh Lakish answer it? What is the difference between the two cases?

(d) Why according to the Chachamim, does the piece of leather remain Tamei until less than the Shi'ur remains, whereas the Talis becomes Tahor once the Rov has been cut, even though the Miy'ut contains a Shi'ur Tum'ah?

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks on Resh Lakish from our Mishnah 'ha'Mafshit bi'Veheimah u've'Chayah ... li'Sheti'ach, K'dei Achizah'.
How does this pose a Kashya on Resh Lakish?

(b) How does Rebbi Avin answer this Kashya? Why are the two cases not comparable?

(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'.
What is the Kashya?

(b) What did Abaye retort?

(c) So how does Abaye explain the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri and the Chachamim?

(d) What would they hold, assuming the skin was strong (permanent)?

Next daf