Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yehudah cites another Beraisa which explains the Pasuk in Chukas (in connection with touching) "ve'al ha'Noge'a ba'Etzem O be'Chalal O ba'Meis O ba'Kaver". The Tana learns from ...

1. ... "ba'Etzem" - that a bone the size of a barley is Metamei through touching.
2. ... "be'Chalal" - to include a limb that was cut from a living person.
3. ... "ba'Meis" - to include a limb that was cut from a corpse.

(b) We initially establish Resh Lakish, who learns from "O ba'Kaver" that graves from before Matan Torah are Metamei - like Rebbi Shimon, who says that graves of Nochrim are not Metamei be'Ohel (because according to the Rabbanan, who says that they are, no Pasuk would be necessary) Tosfos.

(c) Considering that even Rebbi Shimon agrees that their graves are Metamei through touching (which is what we are currently dealing with), the Kashya remains. To answer it, the Riva explains - that Resh Lakish is referring (not to the graves of Nochrim from before Matan Torah, but) to the graves of Jews from before this Parshah was said (since we might have thought that it only applies to people who died afterwards) Tosfos.

(a) The problem that we have with the D'rashah from "O ba'Meis", 'Zeh Eiver ha'Nechlal min ha'Meis' is - that assuming the bone to be the size of a barley, seeing as we are speaking about the Tum'ah of touching, this seems to be a duplication of the Pasuk "ha'Noge'a ba'Etzem".

(b) Resh Lakish therefore extrapolates from there - that even if the bone that the Nazir touches is less than the size of a barley he must shave and begin his Nezirus again (as we learned at the beginning of the Sugya).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Beraisa even by a bone that is the size of a barley. He resolves the problem from "ha'Noge'a ba'Etzem" - by establishing it when the person (did not touch it, but, based on the principle 'Im Eino Inyan' [what need not be stated intrinsically, is used for something else]) carried it.

(d) The Kashya on the Lashon of the Beraisa according to Rebbi Yochanan is - why did the Tana say 'Zeh Eiver ha'Nechlal min ha'Meis' and not 'Zu Etzem ki'Se'orah'? (Tosfos)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah concludes 'u'Mazeh ba'Shelishi u'va'Shevi'i ve'Soser, ve'Eino Maschil Limnos ad she'Yit'har'. We ask whether he holds like Rebbi Eliezer - who permits a Nazir who became Tamei to count already from the seventh day, or like the Rabbanan - who forbid him to begin counting until he has brought his Korbanos on the eighth.

(b) We resolve this She'eilah from the next Mishnah, which states (regarding the cases where a Nazir does not shave) 'u'Maschil u'Moneh Miyad' - implying that in our Mishnah (which deals with cases where a Nazir is obligated to shave) must wait until the eighth day (like the Rabbanan).

(a) What 'Sechachos, Pera'os, Beis ha'P'ras, Eretz ha'Amim, ve'ha'Golel, ve'ha'Dofek, u'Revi'is Dam, ve'Ohel (ha'Meis), ve'Rova Atzamos, ve'Keilim ha'Nog'im be'Meis, u'vi'Yemei Sifro, u'vi'Yemei Gamro' all have in common is - that they do not cause a Nazir to shave and begin his Nezirus all over again.

(b) 'Beis ha'P'ras' is a field in which a grave was dug up. Up to one hundred Amos from the grave constitutes a Beis ha'P'ras.

(c) The Rabbanan enacted this decree - because of bones the size of a barley that may have been carried up to that distance by the plow.

(d) What is meant by 'Eretz ha'Amim' is - a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan which Chazal decreed upon all countries outside Eretz Yisrael.

(a) According to Rashi in Kesuvos, 'Golel' is the cover of the coffin, and 'Dofek' is the sides. Rabeinu Tam disagrees on the basis of a Sugya in Chulin, where it appears that they are both visible at ground level. He therefore defines them as - the tombstone and the stones that support it (respectively).

(b) With regard to Revi'is Dam, Ohel (ha'Meis) and Rova Atzamos, the Tana chose to say 'Revi'is rather than 'Pachos me'Chatzi Log' - because he is merely following the precedent set in the Mishnah in Ohalos.

(c) We learn that a Nazir does not need to shave on 'Keilim ha'Nog'im be'Meis' - from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yamus *Meis* Alav" (implying that he only shaves on a dead person, but not on Tamei vessels).

(d) Strictly speaking, the ruling 'al Eilu Ein ha'Nazir Megale'ch' does not really pertain to Yemei Sifro and Yemei Gomro - because , even though they do not have to shave because of their Nezirus Tum'ah, they do have to shave because of their Tzara'as (Tosfos).

(a) The list in our Mishnah includes 'Yemei Sifro' and 'Yemei Gamro'.

1. ... 'Yemei Gamro' is - the days that a Metzora has been declared a Tamei Muchlat.
2. ... 'Yemei Sifro' is - the seven days that he has to wait outside his tent after the Tzara'as has healed and he has brought his first set of Korbanos.

(b) Having listed ...

1. ... Yemei Sifro, the Tana nevertheless needs to add Yemei Gamro - because we might otherwise have thought that, since Yemei Gamro are more stringent, they will demolish the Nezirus completely.
2. ... Yemei Gamro, he still needs to add Yemei Sifro - because we might otherwise have thought that, since Yemei Sifro are more lenient, they will even count in the thirty days of Nezirus.

(c) The problem that we nevertheless have with the fact that the Tana mentions Yemei Gamro is - that it should have sufficed to insert only Yemei Sifro in the Mishnah, because if, as we suggested, Yemei Gamro would demolish the Nezirus completely, what would be the point of inserting Yemei Sifro (seeing as the Nezirus would have already terminated with the Yemei Gamro)?

(d) 'u'Mazeh pertains to 'Revi'is Dam', 'Golel' and 'Dofek'. It cannot however, pertain to ...

1. ... 'Keilim ha'Nog'im be'Meis' - because, as we will explain later, the Tana is talking about wooden vessels, and someone who touches them does not require sprinkling with ashes of the Parah Adumah.
2. ... 'Yemei Gamro' and Yemei Sifro' - do not require it either.

(a) In all of these cases, the days of Tum'ah do not count in the thirty days of Nezirus - neither do they demolish the days that the Nazir already counted prior to his becoming Tamei.

(b) Nor does he need to bring the Korbanos that a Nazir Tamei normally has to bring (Tosfos).

(c) The problem that Rashi has with the fact that, in the case of 'Keilim ha'Nog'im be'Meis', the Nazir does not count the days of Tum'ah in the days that he already counted is - we will later establish the case by vessels that are not made of metal and which only become Tamei for the day of contact. And in that case, that day that should count too (from the time that he Toveled), as we already learned.

(d) The Tana says that if a Nazir who became a Zav, a Zavah or a Metzora Musgar (who was locked-up, and during the seven days of Hesger, his Tzara'as either remained static or faded) - the days of Tum'ah count in the days of Nezirus.

8)

(a) We have already discussed the explanation of 'Sechachos' which describes it as 'a stone wall'. This is not considered a Tum'ah d'Oraysa - because it is situated in public domain, and we have a principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor'.

(b) The other description of Sechachos is - a tree whose branches are spread out over the ground, and under one of them is lying a k'Zayis from a Meis.

(c) This is not an Ohel d'Oraysa - because the branches are not close enough together (as the Gemara in Nidah explains), neither is there an opening of a Tefach to allow the Tum'ah to spread.

(d) According to the interpretation of stone wall - the stone wall is situated right beside a cemetery, and a still-born baby is buried underneath one of the projecting stones.

(a) Included in the list of things on which a Nazir does not shave is 've'Eretz ha'Amim'. Assuming that they decreed even on the air of Eretz ha'Amim, then it would even be forbidden to enter it in a wagon, or a boat, or to stand on a bridge there. The alternative would be - that they decreed on the earth of Chutz la'Aretz (as if it was full of graves).

(b) Assuming that they decreed on the earth of Eretz ha'Amim, one would only be able to travel in Chutz la'Aretz in a 'Shidah, Teivah or Migdol' without becoming Tamei - if they were sufficiently large to hold at least forty Sa'ah.

(c) Assuming that they decreed ...

1. ... on the air of Chutz la'Aretz (a decree that is even more stringent than Tum'as Ohel) - the reason for the decree would be to discourage people from leaving Eretz Yisrael (bearing in mind that they were extremely sensitive about Tum'ah in former times).
2. ... on the ground (with the same specifications as Tum'as Ohel) - the reason for the decree would be on account of the corpses of those who died in the time of the flood, or on account of the many Jews who were killed in Chutz la'Aretz.

(d) According to Rebbi Ya'akov from Orleans, the Mishnah in Ohalos, which (in spite of our Sugya) implies that there is no Tum'as Ohel on the earth of Chutz la'Aretz, speaks about loose earth that was imported from Chutz la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael. Rabeinu Tam ...

1. ... initially - establishes the Mishnah in the early stages of the decree, when they had already decreed on the earth but had not yet decreed on the air.
2. ... in his second answer (which establishes the Mishnah even after the decree) - draws a distinction between Tum'as Ohel (where even a person who sticks his hand over a grave is Tamei Tum'as Ohel, and Tum'as Eretz ha'Amim (where Chazal decreed that he is only Tamei be'Ohel if his head and most of him is actually bent over the earth (and the Tana in Ohalos is speaking when he stuck only his hand in).

(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah, which, after including 'Tum'as Eretz ha'Amim' in the list, concludes 'u'Mazeh ba'Shelishi u'va'Shevi'i' - which would not be possible if they decreed Tum'ah on the air (seeing as the Tum'ah applies even if there is a divider between the earth and the person, rendering it quite unlike a regular Tum'as Ohel. Consequently, they would not have given it the stringencies of a regular case of Tum'as Ohel).

(b) We refute that proof on the grounds - that if the Tana holds that Chazal decreed on the air, then the Din of Mazeh will refer to the other cases but not to Tum'as ha'Amim.

(c) We substantiate this from 'Keilim ha'Nog'im be'Meis', which the Tana also includes in his list - even though it is obvious that the Din of Haza'ah cannot apply to them, because (seeing as the Tana is talking about wooden vessels or other vessels not made of metal, someone who touched them would not even be Tamei for seven days (only for one). Consequently, Tum'as Ohel would certainly not apply to it.

(d) The Tana cannot be referring to metal vessels, which would render whoever touched them Tamei for seven days, and require him to be sprinkled on the third and seventh days - because then, based on the principle 'Cherev Harei Hu ke'Chalal', a Nazir would also be obligated to shave (and our Mishnah is specifically dealing with cases where he is not).

(a) Rebbi Chayim Kohen disagrees with Rabeinu Tam - in his ruling that a Nazir shaves on metal vessels, because anything on which a Nazir shaves, is Metamei because of Tum'as Ohel, and a Kohen is forbidden to enter (as it is written in Maseches Semachos). If that were so, he argues, no Kohen would be permitted to enter a house in which anybody had died, if it contained a sword or even a nail (which is inconceivable).

(b) According to Rebbi Chayim Kohen we do not refute the proof and establish our Mishnah by metal vessels (which do require Haza'ah) - because we could then bring a proof from 'Yemei Sifro' and 'Yemei Gamro' (which do not).

(c) The Sifri learns from the Pasuk in Chukas "ve'Chibastem Bigdeichem ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i that clothes that touch a person who touched a Meis are Tamei for seven days. This does not mean that the Torah equates clothes with metal vessels as regards Tum'as Ohel - because by 'clothes' the Torah metal ornaments (in the same way as the Tzitz worn by the Kohen Gadol is included in the 'Bigdei Kehunah') Tosfos.