Previous daf

1)

(a) We refute the assumption that, if Shamai says 'Etzem Echad min Shedrah O min Gulgoles', the Rabbanan will require only a quarter Kav of bones from the spinal cord and the skull - on the grounds that it is only Shamai who takes a stringent line in this issue, but the Rabbanan, who reject the stringency of one bone, also reject that of a quarter Kav of bones.

(b) Neither can we assume that the Rabbanan, who did not express in any way that they are Machmir (like Shamai did), must give the Shiur as a half a Kav (and not a quarter) - perhaps they only disagree with Shamai's Chumra of one bone, but they concede the next stage of Chumra to require a Nazir who touches a Revi'is of bones from a Shedrah and Gulgoles to shave.

(a) According to some of the Zekeinim ha'Rishonim cited by Rebbi Eliezer, only *half* a Kav of bones and *half* a Log of blood (from a Meis) render all Tamei, but not a *quarter*. The four cases that 'all' incorporates are - eating Kodshim and T'rumah, requiring a Nazir to shave and eating the Korban Pesach.

(b) The others Zekeinim said - all cases will be Tamei already for a Rova ha'Kav and a Revi'is of blood.

(c) The first group of Zekeinim disagree with the Mishnah in Ohalos, the second group, with our Mishnah.

1. The first group argue with the Mishnah in Ohalos - where the Tana requires only a quarter Kav of bones and a quarter Log of blood to render Tamei for Kodshim and T'rumah.
2. The second group argue with our Mishnah - which requires at least half a Kav of bones and half a Log of blood for a Nazir to have to shave.

(d) According to Beis-Din shel Achareihem - Rova Atzamos and Revi'is Dam render Tamei for Kodshim and T'rumah, but not for Nazir and Oseh Pesach (until there is a Chatzi-Kav and a Chatzi- Revi'is).

(a) The Beis-Din shel Achareihem are a Hachra'ah Shelishis - a third opinion which compromises between the first two opinions (According to others, it is the opinion of Talmidim who argue with their Rebbes).

(b) The Halachah might be like the Machri'a - when the original disputants indicated that there was room for compromise, and the third opinion took up the challenge (so to speak), and made it.

(c) Despite the fact that this is not the case here, and following the principle 'Ein Hachra'ah ke'Da'as Shelishis', Rebbi nevertheless inserted the opinion of the Beis-Din shel Achareihem in the Mishnah here and in Ohalos - because, as Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi explained, their opinion is based on the words of Chagi, Zecharyah and Malachi.

(a) Our Mishnah said twice 'Al Eilu ha'Nazir Megale'ach'. The first of these is to preclude a bone the size of a barley; the second, to preclude Even ha'Sechuchis - a stone-fence which has stones jutting out from it, underneath one of which a Meis is lying. A Nazir who walks under one of the stones and he doesn't know whether that was the stone with the Meis underneath it, does not need to shave.

(b) It doesn't matter that both of these cases appear explicitly in the Mishnah, since the Tana does tend to make a general statement and then go on to explain it.

5)

(a) The problem that we have with our Mishnah, which gives the Shiur of bones as half a Kav (but not a quarter) is - that if the bones are the size of a barley, why is he not Chayav for each bone?

(b) Despite the fact that a Nazir is not obligated to shave for Tum'as Ohel on a bone the size of a barley, whereas for the Shiur of half a Kav he is, there is a problem, inasmuch as it will soon become clear that the Chidush of the Reisha is (not that he is Patur for being Ma'ahil on it, but) that he is Chayav for touching or moving it (Tosfos).

(c) We answer the initial Kashya (explaining why the Tana needs to insert the case of Chatzi Kav Atzamos) - by bones that were ground to dust (in which case a bone the size of a barley is not Metamei).

(a) Our Mishnah also states the case 've'al Eiver min ha'Meis ve'al Eiver min ha'Chai she'Yesh Aleihen Basar ka'Ra'uy'. The difference between whether the bone contains the correct amount of flesh or not is - that when it does, it is Metamei be'Ohel, but not when it does not.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan infers from the Reisha 'al Eiver min ha'Meis ve'al Eiver min ha'Chai she'Yesh Aleihen Basar ka'Ra'uy' - that if the bone does not contain the required amount of flesh, the Nazir does not shave even if he touches or moves it.

(c) Resh Lakish extrapolates that he *does* from the Seifa - since the Tana does not include him among the cases where the Nazir does not shave.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan counters Resh Lakish's proof - by presenting the principle that whatever can be inferred from the Reisha, will not be repeated in the Seifa.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, even though the Tana includes half a Kav of bones in the Reisha (from which we can extrapolate that a Nazir does not shave for a quarter of a Kav), the Tana nevertheless chose to tell us so specifically in the Seifa - to confine the exclusion of a quarter Kav of bones to Tum'as Ohel, in which case the main purpose of the Reisha is to teach us that it is Metamei by means of touching and moving.

(b) And the Tana chooses to inform us in the Seifa that a Nazir does not shave for a quarter Log of blood, even though we can infer it from the Reisha, which gives the Shiur as half a Log - to teach us that even through touching and carrying, a Nazir does not shave (to preclude from the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, who says that he does).

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah cannot be speaking when the bone is the size of a barley - because then why would Rebbi Yochanan exempt a Nazir from shaving after touching or moving it?

(b) If on the other hand, the Tana is speaking when it is less than the size of a barley, Resh Lakish's reason is - due to a 'G'zeiras ha'Kasuv', as we shall soon see.

(c) The Tana learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with Tum'as Ohel) ...

1. ... "ve'Chol Asher Yiga *al-P'nei* ha'Sadeh" - Tum'as Ohel (because "al-P'nei" implies that he did not actually touch the Meis, but was only Ma'ahil over it).
2. ... "ba'Chalal" - that a limb that was cut from a living person that contains sufficient flesh for it to heal and re-grow is Metamei like a Meis.
3. ... "ba'Chalal-Cherev" - that 'Cherev, Harei Hu ke'Chalal' (any metal vessel that touched a sword has the Din of the Meis that it touched - see Rosh).

(d) The ramifications of the D'rashah 'Cherev, Harei Hu ke'Chalal' are - that that metal vessel becomes an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah to render whoever touches it or who is under the same Ohel as it, Tamei for seven days (Tosfos).

(a) "O be'Meis", 'Zeh Eiver ha'Nechlal min ha'Meis' - includes a limb that is cut from a corpse (to teach us that not only a complete corpse is Metamei).

(b) "O be'Etzem Adam O be'Kaver". "O be'Etzem Adam" 'Zeh Rova Atzamos'. From "O be'Kaver" the Tana learns - that the entire grave is Metamei like the Meis, provided there is no space of a Tefach between the Meis and the roof of the grave.

(c) 'Tum'ah Boka'as ve'Olah' means - that when there *is* a space of a Tefach between the Meis and the roof of the grave, the Tum'ah of the Meis goes directly upwards without filling the entire grave with Tum'ah.

(d) The Tana cites it here - to bring the Halachah into the Sugya, even though it does belong to our case.