Previous daf

1)

(a) When the Tana of the Beraisa says 'Kol ha'Nitalin ve'ha'Nigrarin S'feikan Tamei' - he means that if someone is carrying or dragging a Sheretz in the water, and there is a Safek whether the person standing in the water touched it or not, he is Tamei.

(b) We will reconcile this with what we just learned (that Safek Tum'ah by floating Tum'ah is Tahor) - by stressing that here (unlike in the previous case) a person is holding the Tum'ah (which removes it from the category of floating).

(c) If (under the same circumstances) the person is standing in the water, and someone throws across the water ...

1. ... a Sheretz (regarding Safek Negi'ah) - he is Tahor. Note: It would seem that according to Tosfos, who, at the foot of the previous Amud, was uncertain about this Din, this statement did not appear in the text.
2. ... a k'Zayis min ha'Meis (regarding Safek Ohel) - he is Tamei, because, as we learned earlier, the Din of 'floating' is confined to Tum'as Sheretz (which, according to our text in the following Sugya, means Tum'as Maga), but does not extend to Tum'as Meis (i.e. Tum'as Ohel).

(d) If the person is walking in the water and the Sheretz is still - the Din will be exactly the same as in the reverse case.

3)

(a) Rami bar Chama asks whether a k'Zayis Meis in a box which is floating on the water - is considered static, since it is in a box, or floating, since the box itself is floating.

(b) Based on the assumption that in the first She'eilah, we go after its position in the box (and the k'Zayis Meis is considered static) - he asks what the Din will be if the k'Zayis Meis is lying on a Sheretz, which might also be considered like a box, since the one is the source of a one-day Tum'ah, and the other, of a Tum'ah of seven days; or which might be considered one entity, since they are both Tum'os (in which case, the top Sheretz will be considered to be floating).

(c) A Sheretz on a Neveilah might also be considered as if it was in a box, despite the fact that both are sources for Tum'os that last one day - because they have different Shiurim (a Sheretz k'Adashah, Neveilah, a k'Zayis).

(a) A Sheretz floating on a Sheretz might be considered less static than a Sheretz on a Neveilah, because there is no difference between them (and it is as if they were both lying on the water). It might nevertheless be considered as if the top Sheretz was lying in a box - because, when all's said and done, they are two independent entities.

(b) A Sheretz on ...

1. ... a melted Neveilah might be less static than a Sheretz on a Sheretz - because, since it is a liquid, the melted Neveilah merges with the water.
2. ... Shichvas Zera might be less static than on a melted Neveilah (even if the latter is considered like food, whose Tum'ah is a k'Zayis [as we wrote earlier]) - because we would not have thought to label Shichvas Zera as food.

(c) Assuming that even Shichvas Zera that has left the body is considered food with regard to Tum'ah and the Sheretz is therefore considered static, Mei Chatas (which is certainly not considered a food) might well be considered part of the water, and a Sheretz that is on top of it will be considered to be moving. On the other hand, even Mei Chatas might be considered like a vessel in this regard - because the ashes with which it is mixed, renders it thick, giving it the Din of a solid.

(d) The outcome of all these She'eilos is - Teiku ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibay'os').

5)

(a) Rav Hamnuna says that a Nazir and someone who wants to bring his Korban Pesach who walked over a Kever Tehom on their seventh day (after they had been sprinkled with the ashes of the Parah Adumah) are Tahor - because Tum'as Tehom does not have the power to demolish the Taharah.

(b) Rav Hamnuna answers ...

1. ... Rava, who queries him from our Mishnah, which ruled (with regard to Tum'as Tehom by a Tamei Meis) 'she'Chezkas Tamei, Tamei ... ' - that the Mishnah speaks when the Nazir has not even Toveled (and certainly not shaved), whereas he is speaking after he shaved (giving him a Chezkas Taharah).
2. ... Abaye, who queries him from the fact that, in any case, they are still lacking Ha'arev Shemesh (the advent of nightfall) - that seeing as Ha'arev Shemesh comes automatically (i.e. it does not require an act on the Nazir's part), it is not considered lacking.

(a) When the Tana in the Beraisa says (regarding a woman who gives birth to a second child needs to bring a second Korban of not) ...

1. ... 'Yom Me'los, Tavi' - he means that a woman who gave birth to a second baby on the eighty-first day after the first, is obligated to bring two Korbenos Leidah.
2. ... 'Toch Me'los, Lo Tavi' - that if the second baby was born before the eighty-first day, she only needs to bring one Korban.

(b) The Tana then goes on to learn from the Pasuk "u'vi'Me'los Yemei Taharah" - that should she give birth to a second baby, say, on the sixty-fourth day after the first, and again on the sixty-fourth day after the second, that it is still called 'Toch Me'los' and she only brings one Korban.

(a) We ask 'Hasam Nami Mechusar Ha'arev-Shemesh" (a term that would hardly be applicable if the woman Toveled sixty-seven days earlier, in which case she would be a 'Tevulas-Yom Aruch') - we are speaking when she did not Tovel on the fourteenth day, as she should have, but on the eighty-first (Tosfos).

(b) Ha'arev-Shemesh is a bigger Chesaron than Tevilah, seeing as it is out of her hands, whereas regarding Tevilah, the Mikvah is there, and all she needs to do is to enter it (Tosfos). Note: It nevertheless seems strange to refer to someone who needs to Tovel as not being a Chesaron.

(c) The reason that (despite the fact that this latter case is lacking Tevilah and even Ha'arev Shemesh) Rav Kahana gives to differentiate between it(where she does not need to bring a second Korban), and that of 'Yom Me'los' (where she does) is - that in the latter case, she is not yet fit to bring her Korban, whereas in the former case, she is.

(d) Abaye then answers the Kashya that there too, she is lacking Ha'arev-Shemesh - by pointing out that Ha'arev-Shemesh comes automatically, a proof that he accepted Rav Hamnuna's answer, and retracted from his initial opinion.

(a) Someone who discovers a solitary buried corpse, lying in a normal position - is obligated to move him together with some of the earth on which he is lying, to a regular burial-site.

(b) When he says 'bi'Techilah' - the Tana means that it was not previously known that he was buried there.

(c) We will reconcile this Mishnah with the Sugya in Sanhedrin, which forbids moving a corpse from one place to another - by establishing the latter in the case of a corpse who was known to have been buried there (Tosfos).

(d) The reason for the Din of 'Nimtza' is - that he was probably buried there temporarily (Tosfos).

(a) The same applies to someone who finds two corpses. But if he finds three - he is forbidden to move them, provided they are placed not less than four Amos apart and not more than eight (this will be discussed in more detail in Bava Basra).

(b) He is obligated to search - twenty Amos in all directions (see Rosh) in case he has come across a 'Shechunas Kevaros' (an extended burial-site consisting of a number of burial-chambers).

(c) The Tana of our Mishnah adds 'she'Raglayim le'Davar', she'Ilu Techilah Matz'o Notlo ve'es Tefusaso' - he means that the obligation to search twenty Amos is logical, since the discovery of the third grave constitutes hard evidence that this is indeed a Shechunas Kevaros.

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, asks the Sugya in Bava Basra, the discoverer should have been obligated to search twenty-two Amos, rather than twenty - because Rebbi Shimon gives the measurement of each cave (containing the graves, as eight by six Amos). Consequently, the two eight-Amah caves (one of which he discovered, the other, which he is searching for), plus the six-Amah Chatzer in the middle, totals twenty-two Amos.

(b) We answer there - that Chazal only required a twenty-Amah search (and not twenty-two), because it was common for one of the caves to be designated for still-born babies, in which case, it was no more than four by six Amos (reducing the total length by two Amos.

(c) And we reconcile the Mishnah with the Rabbanan, in whose opinion each cave is only four by six Amos, and not six by eight, and in which case, the measurement ought to have been eighteen Amos (rather than twenty) - by establishing that he searched the first twenty Amos diagonally (turning the six Amos into eight).