Previous daf

1)

(a) To be Chayav for eating a complete live ant - it can be any size.

(b) Rav asks whether someone who eats an ant whose legs are missing is Patur - because it is not complete (its Shiur is deficient), or whether he is nevertheless Chayav - because, seeing as it can still live without its legs, it is still considered a Beryah.

(c) The Torah writes in Shemini (with regard to Sheretz) "Asher Yipol Meihem el Tocho" (implying even part of the Sheretz) and "Asher Yiga Bahem be'Mosam" (implying the whole Sheretz, and not just part of it). The Beraisa explains this apparent contradiction - by limiting the minimum Shiur for Tum'as Sheretz to a k'Adashah (the size of a lentil).

(d) Chazal fixed this Shiur - because it is the size of a snail (the smallest of the eight Tamei insects) at birth.

(a) Rav Yehudah from Diskarta tries to resolve Rava's She'eilah from this Beraisa - because it is evident from there that the Shiur given by the Torah must remain complete (not less than a 'k'Adashah'), so too, must the Shiur of 'Beryah' for eating remain complete.

(b) Rev Sh'mayah rejects his proof however - on the basis of the fact that since a snail less than the size of a 'k'Adashah' cannot live, even a dead one (to which Tum'ah applies) is therefore not Chashuv; whereas an ant without legs can survive, in which case it is Chashuv even when it has no legs.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that a Nazir is obligated to shave on a 'Shedrah and Gulgoles' - which might mean if he touches them when they are both together, or it might mean if he touches either of them.

(b) The same She'eilah also pertains to the Mishnah in Ohalos, which lists them among the things that are Metamei be'Ohel ha'Meis.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that a spinal cord of a human being which has the majority of its ribs broken - is not Metamei.

(b) In a similar case ...

1. ... with regard to the spinal cord of a Kasher animal - he would render it T'reifah.
2. ... if the Meis was lying in a grave - it would be Metamei anyway (because the grave would combine them).

(c) We cannot infer from the Beraisa that if most of the ribs would not be broken, the spinal cord (even without the skull) would be Metamei (thereby resolving our She'eilah) - because the Tana may well be speaking when the skull was there too.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah cites six cases where Rebbi Akiva was initially Metamei, and the Rabbanan were Metaher (which will be explained shortly). The same Beraisa cites the case where they brought a box- full of bones to the Shul of the coppersmiths - which they hung in the air (in an area where there was no roof [to safeguard the Kohanim who came to Daven in the Shul]).

(b) Todos the doctor and all the doctors arrived at the conclusion - that there was not even a complete spinal cord of one corpse in the box.

(c) We cannot prove from there that even a spinal cord or a skull alone are Metamei -because what they might have meant was that there was not even a spinal cord from one corpse in the box, certainly not a spinal cord plus a skull.

(d) Despite the fact that the bones appear to have all been broken anyway (and bearing in mind what we learned earlier, that the limb must be whole for the Nazir to shave on it), it was essential to know whether there was the spinal cord of one Meis or not - because it is speaking when someone was Ma'ahil on the bones when they were still lying in the grave, in which case they are Metamei even when they are broken (as we learned above) Tosfos.

(a) The six things that Rebbi Akiva was initially Metamei are 'Eiver min ha'Meis ha'Ba mi'Sh'nei Meisim, Eiver min ha'Chai ha'Ba mi'Sh'nei B'nei Adam', Chatzi Kav Atzamos ha'Ba mi'Sh'nei Meisim, Revi'is Dam ha'Ba mi'Sh'nayim, ve'al Etzem ki'Se'orah she'Nechlak li'Sh'nayim, ve'ha'Shedra ve'ha'Gulgoles'. We reconcile this Beraisa, which states '*Chatzi* Kav Atzamos ha'Ba mi'Sh'nei Meisim' with the Mishnah in Ohalos, which gives the Shiur of Tum'as Ohel as 'Revi'is ha'Kav ... ' - by establishing that Mishnah by the Din of Tum'as Ohel, whereas we are speaking about a Nazir having to shave (Tosfos).

(b) 've'al Revi'is Dam ha'Ba mi'Sh'nayim'. A Revi'is Dam from only *one* Meis is certainly Metamei - Rebbi Akiva never retracted from that (Tosfos).

(c) The Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Akiva even in a case of *Chatzi* Log Dam that comes from two Meisim - and the Tana only mentions a *Revi'is* because of Rebbi Akiva (Tosfos).

(d) We try to prove from this Beraisa that 'Shedrah and Gulgoles must mean both together - because otherwise the list will comprise seven things and not six.

7)

(a) We refute the above proof (that the Tana must be referring to the Shedrah and the Gulgoles together, in a number of ways. We might refute 'Etzem ki'Se'orah she'Nechlak' because it is only a Yachid (Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri) who disputes him (whereas all the other cases, it is the Chachamim). We might ...

1. ... also omit 'Etzem ki'Se'orah she'Nechlak' - because a Nazir only shaves for touching or for moving it, but not for Tum'as Ohel (like he does in all the other cases listed by Rebbi Akiva).
2. ... omit 'Eiver min ha'Chai' - because the Tana is only concerned with cases concerning a dead person, and not a live one.
3. ... omit 'Revi'is Dam ha'Ba mi'Sh'nei Meisim' - because Rebbi Akiva did not retract from it, and the Tana only lists those cases from which Rebbi Akiva retracted.

(b) Rebbi Akiva seems to have had a stronger Kabalah in this latter case than in the other six cases in the Beraisa. He also has a source from a Pasuk - "ve'al Kol Nafshos Meis" (as we discussed earlier in the Perek).

(c) Rebbi Shimon's teeth turned black from all the fasts that he initiated, following the remark that he made about his Rebbe (Rebbi Akiva) which he subsequently considered disrespectful. He said - that Rebbi Akiva certainly did not retract during his lifetime and that he did not know whether or not, he retracted after his death.

(a) In a Mishnah in Iduyos, Beis Shamai say 'Rova Atzamos min Atzmin O mi'Sh'nayim O mi'Sh'loshah'. Beis Hillel say - Rova min ha'Gevi'ah me'Rov Binyan O me'Rov Minyan'.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua in a Beraisa reconciles Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel so that they are not actually arguing - by pointing out that Beis Shamai refers to Rov Binyan, and that Beis Hillel comes to add Rov Minyan.

(a) A hundred and twenty-five bones is considered 'Rov Minyan'?

(b) When Beis Shamai says ...

1. ... 'mi'Sheloshah' - he means two thigh-bones and one calf (and possibly the thigh and the calf plus the foot).
2. ... 'mi'Sh'nayim' (assuming that he means it literally) - he means the calf including the foot (which he counts as one because they are relatively small) and the thigh-bone.

(c) One will find almost the entire majority of bones - in the hands and the feet (six in each finger, making thirty on each hand) and six in each toe (making thirty on each foot, a total of one hundred and twenty bones).

(a) We try to resolve our She'eilah (whether one needs both the spinal cord and the skull for a Nazir to have to shave, or whether one of them will suffice) from Shamai, who says 'Afilu Etzem min ha'Shedrah O min ha'Gulgoles' - in which case, the Rabbanan presumably follow suit and require the entire spinal cord or the entire skull.

(b) We refute this proof on the grounds that Shamai is different, because he is stringent - he obligates the Nazir to shave even on a Rova from one of the two, whereas the Rabbanan will require both the Shedrah and the Gulgoles for the Nazir to have to shave.

(c) We cannot however, prove that the Rabbanan, who are not strict, require both the spinal cord and the skull - because they might well argue with Shamai in the way that we thought at first (that they require either a whole spinal cord or a whole skull).

(d) The Rabbanan say 'Shedrah ve'Gulgoles' (and not 'Shedrah O Gulgoles') - either because they did not find it necessary to explain it (like the way of Tana'im) or because they rely on Shamai, who did say it (Tosfos).

(a) The Shiur for bones for which a Nazir has to shave is half a Kav. Rami bar Chama however, thinks that a quarter of a Kav might suffice for bones from a spinal cord and from the skull - because they are more stringent, inasmuch as they do not need to come from Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan to be Metamei, like all other limbs do.

(b) Rava resolves Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from our Mishnah, which states 'ha'Shedrah ve'ha'Gulgoles' which, he assumes, is never less than a quarter of a Kav - and if even broken bones from them would be Metamei (as Rami bar Chama suggests), why did the Tana write 'ha'Shedrah ve'ha'Gulgoles' (implying that they are complete).

(c) We query Rava's proof however, from another statement of his (though it is initially unclear where) - 'Lo Nitzrecha Ela le'Shedrah ve'Gulgoles she'Ein Bahen Rova'.

(d) In that case - even a quarter Kav of bones from a Shedrah and Gulgoles could be Metamei, and the Tana is coming to teach us that if they are whole, then they are Metamei even if they are less than a quarter of a Kav (as Rava specifically said).

Next daf