Previous daf

1)

(a) If after shaving for his Taharah, a Nazir is informed that he is Tamei Meis, he is obligated to demolish all of his Nezirus. He would not need to do this - if the Tum'ah was Tum'as Tehom.

(b) He would have to demolish his Nezirus even for Tum'as Tehom - if he was informed about it before he shaved.

(c) If having touched a Sheretz, the Nazir went to Tovel in a cave and after the Tevilah, he found a k'Zayis of a Meis floating in the part of the Mikveh that was outside the cave (and is not sure whether, at the time when he Toveled, it was inside the cave or not) he is Tamei - because of the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, Tamei'.

(d) The k'Zayis of Meis is not considered Tum'as Tehom - because it was not completely covered.

(a) If after shaving, the Nazir is informed that the bone was discovered buried in the ground of the cave, assuming that he had previously Toveled ...

1. ... to cool down - he will be Tahor, because it is a classical case of Tum'as Tehom.
2. ... to Tovel for Tum'as Meis - he will be Tamei, because Tum'as Tehom is only Tahor when the man has a Chezkas Taharah, but not when he has a Chezkas Tum'ah.

(b) The Reisha of our Mishnah deliberately refers to someone who Toveled for Tum'as Sheretz - to teach us that in spite of the fact that he probably checked for any Tum'ah before immersing, and there is good reason to assume that the k'Zayis Meis was not inside the cave, he is nevertheless Tamei (because of Safek Tum'ah); whereas the Seifa deliberately refers to someone who Toveled to cool down - to teach us that, despite the fact that he probably did not check, he is nevertheless Tahor (because of Tum'as Tehom).

(c)

1. Rebbi Elazar attempts to extrapolate Tum'as Tehom from the Pasuk Naso "ve'Chi Yamus Meis *Alav* be'Fesa Pis'om" - implying that he knew about it.
2. Resh Lakish extrapolates it from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ish Ish Ki Yih'yeh Tamei la'Nefesh O *be'Derech* Rechokah" - "be'Derech" 'ke'Derech' he Darshens, just like a Derech is revealed, so too must the Derech be revealed (to preclude Tum'as Tehom, which is hidden.

(d) In Pesachim, Rebbi Elazar and Resh Lakish do not argue - because the Sugya there holds that we require a Pasuk for Pesach and and one for Nazir (because we cannot learn one from the other); whereas in our Sugya they do - because only one Pasuk is necessary (seeing as we can learn one from the other), and the Amora'im argue over which of the two Pesukim is the source (Tosfos).

(a) The Tana in a Beraisa defines Tum'as Tehom as Tum'ah that was unknown to anybody in the world - posing a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar (who learns from "Alav"), which implies that it is the Nazir who does not need to know about it, irrespective of who else does.

(b) The Tana of a Beraisa says that, if a Meis was discovered buried lying across a narrow street ...

1. ... a Kohen who wanted to eat Terumah - is Tamei, and is forbidden to do so.
2. ... a Nazir or someone who was about to bring his Korban Pesach - is Tahor.

(c) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on both opinions Rebbi Elazar and Resh Lakish - because, if we learn Tum'as Tehom from a Pasuk, why should there be a difference between a Nazir and a Korban Pesach on the one hand, and Terumah on the other?

(d) So the source for Tum'as Tehom - must be Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (according to any specifications that were handed over to Moshe with the Halachah).

(a) Our Mishnah gives the criterion for the Halachah of Tum'as Tehom as being the shaving. The author must be Rebbi Eliezer - who maintains that the shaving is crucial to the termination of the Nezirus (to permit him to drink wine).

(b) According to the Rabbanan - the criterion would be the sprinkling of the blood of the relevant Korban (Tosfos).

(a) Rebbi Eliezer draws a distinction between a Nazir who became Tamei Meis during the Me'los of his Nezirus - who demolishes thirty days, and after the Me'los - who demolishes seven days.

(b) It will make no difference - whether it is ordinary Tum'ah or Tum'as Tehom (seeing as he is speaking before the shaving according to Rebbi Eliezer (Tosfos).

(c) Rami bar Chama asked what the Din will be if someone became Tamei Meis during the Me'los but only found out about it after the Me'los - whether we go after the time that he bacame Tamei (in which case he demolishes thirty days), or the time that he made the discovery (in which case he will only demolish seven).

6)

(a) Rava proves from our Mishnah 'Im Ad she'Lo Gilach, Bein-Kach u'Vein-Kach Soser' that the Tana must be speaking when he only discovered the Tum'ah after the Me'los. He says 'I de'Isyada Lei be'Soch Me'los, Tzericha Lemeimar'? (despite the fact that the Tana needs to teach us the case where Tum'as Tehom applies) - because he has already implied that in the Reisha, when he wrote 'Noda mi'she'Gilach' (but not before).

(b) According to the Rabbanan, even if the Nazir became Tamei after the Me'los - he would still demolish all thirty days.

(c) We ...

1. ... initially refute Rava's proof from our Mishnah to resolve our She'eilah - on the grounds that the Tana does say whether the Nazir demolishes seven days or all thirty.
2. ... ultimately vindicate him - on the grounds that the Tana said 'Bein-Kach u'Vein-Kach Soser' without stating that he is speaking specifically when the Tum'ah occurred *after* the Me'los (which he should have done had there been a distinction between before and after - Rava's proof that Rebbi Eliezer goes after the 'Yedi'ah' and not after the Tum'ah).

(a) We learned earlier that if one discovers a corpse buried across the street, that a Kohen who previously passed that spot is Tamei and is forbidden to eat Terumah (though a Nazir and someone who was about to bring the Korban Pesach would be Tahor, provided nobody had known about the corpse at the moment of passing). If however, the corpse did not take up the entire width of the street, (even) the Kohen would b e Tahor - because, based on the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor', we assume that he passed at the side without being Ma'ahil over the body.

(b) The Tana permits the Kohen to eat Terumah even if the corpse took up the entire width of the street - if it was broken up in a way that made it possible for a person to pass between the pieces without being Ma'ahil.

(c) This leniency will not apply even to a Kohen who walked past that spot without carrying a load - if the corpse was buried in a grave (because the grave combines the bones).

(d) If however, he was riding or carrying a load, then even if the corpse was not buried in a grave, the Kohen is forbidden to eat Terumah - because then, one tends to stagger or sway slightly from side to side, reducing the possibility of having passed between the pieces without being Ma'ahil over the corpse.

(a) If the corpse is buried (at ground level) in straw or in pebbles it is considered Tum'as Tehom, whereas if he is buried in water, in a dark corner or in a cave it is not - because one of the conditions of Tum'as Tehom is that the corpse in its present location, is not visible to the human eye (with or without a torch).

(b) Tum'as Tehom is confined to Tum'as Meis - it does extend to any other form of Tum'ah.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if a k'Zayis of Meis is floating on the water of a Reshus ha'Yachid, that, in the case of Safek Ohel (or Safek Negi'ah) we go le'Chumra. In the equivalent case regarding Safek Negi'ah, if there is a Sheretz floating on the water, according to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa - the person is Tahor.

(b) He does not differentiate between whether the water in which the Sheretz is floating is in a vessel or whether it is in a pool on the ground. Rebbi Shimon says - that in vessels, he is Tamei, but in a pool of water on the ground he agrees with the Tana Kama, and renders him Tahor.

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

1. ... "*be'Chol* ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz (al ha'Aretz)" - that someone who touches a Sheretz is, is Tamei.
2. ... "(be'Chol) ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz al *ha'Aretz*" - that only Vaday touching renders him Tamei (wherever it is), but a Safek only when it is on the ground (i.e. not moving, but not when it is floating on water).

(d) Now that we preclude a floating Sheretz from Safek Tum'ah (even in a Reshus ha'Yachid) from "al ha'Aretz" - Tosfos is uncertain whether this preclusion will also incorporate a Sheretz that someone has thrown and that is traveling through the air or not.

1. ... "Ach Ma'ayan u'Bor Yih'yeh Tahor" - that a Sheretz floating in water that (like a spring) is not in a vessel is Tahor.
2. ... "Yitma" - that if it is floating in water that is inside a vessel, it is Tamei.