Previous daf

1)

(a) What does the Beraisa say about a corpse that was buried with clothes, or in a wooden coffin or on a floor of bricks?

(b) Will this apply even if he is buried on a stone floor?

(c) What will be the Din if one collects four or five spoons-full of dust from a corpse that was buried with clothes ... (and we can be certain that there at least one spoonful of dust is from the corpse)?

(a) Which three components must the dust comprise before it has a Din of 'Rekev'?

(b) Rava asked from a Beraisa 'Rekev ha'Ba min ha'Basar Tahor', implying that if it came from bones alone, it is 'Rekev'.
How does Ula interpret the Beraisa?

(c) How do we know that the Tana does not simply mean to say that it is Tahor until it also comprises bones and veins?

(d) Seeing as it is impossible for there to be flesh on the bones without veins, why did Ula need to mention veins?

(a) What does Rav Shmuel bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about dust that comes from two corpses?

(b) How does Rava reconcile Rebbi Yochanan with the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Nasan b'Rebbi Oshaya 'Rekev ha'Ba mi'Shtei Meisim, Tamei'? How does he explain this Beraisa?

(c) Why does Rava find it necessary to say that the dust had been completely eaten by moths?

(a) What does Rabah bar bar Chanah say about the hair of a Meis?

(b) The Mishnah in Ohalos states that every part of a Meis is Metamei except for three.
Which three?

(c) This speaks even mi'de'Rabbanan. Other parts of a Meis are Metamei mi'd'Oraysa.
Which part of a Meis is a Safek whether it is Metamei min ha'Torah or mi'de'Rabbanan?

(d) Under what circumstances are even the above three parts Metamei, too?

(a) Chizkiyah asks whether hair that was due to have been shaved is Metamei or whether whatever is due to be shaved is as if it was shaved (and it therefore males Galgalin).
Why can we not resolve Chizkiyah's She'eilah from Rebbi Yochanan, who said earlier that hair that has been shorn makes Galgalin, implying that if it has not been shorn, it does not?

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether the Din of Rekev applies to the heel or not. Why might it not? What makes the heel different than other parts of the body?

(c) How do we attempt to prove from Rebbi Nasan b'Rebbi Oshaya's Beraisa 'Rekev ha'Ba mi'Shtei Meisim, Tamei' (according to Rava's interpretation) that Rekev does indeed apply to a heel?

(d) How do we establish the She'eilah to refute the proof? What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether a fetus makes Galgalin or not.
What is the S'vara to say that it ...

1. ... does not?
2. ... does?

(b) Assuming that we take into account that the fetus is due to leave the mother's body, semen inside her body, which has not yet formed, might still be considered part of her.
Why might it, on the other hand, make Galgalin?

7)

(a) The excrement in the body of a corpse might not be considered an intrinsic part of it (regarding Rekev, because, like the semen, it comes from an external source.
Why, on the other hand, might it be considered part of the body, even if semen is not?

(b) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika asks whether the skin makes Galgalin, and Rav Huna bar Manoach asks about the mucus and the phlegm.
Assuming all of the above do make Galgalin, what would one have had to have done to the Meis for Rekev to be applicable, so that it should not be prevented by ...

1. ... the excrement, the mucus and the phlegm?
2. ... the skin and the hair?

(c) Why must the heating with hot water from the springs of Teveryah have preceded the smearing of the ointment?

(d) Is it possible to reconcile Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika with Chizkiyah, who asked above whether hair that is due to be shaved makes Galgalin or not (implying that hair that is not due to be shaved does not make Galgalin)?

(a) According to Abaye, Rekev does not apply to a corpse that was ground. Why not?

(b) We ask whether it will apply to a ground corpse that subsequently rotted.
Seeing that, at the time of rotting, the corpse comprised flesh, bones and veins, why might Rekev not apply in such a case?

(a) Ula quotes a Beraisa that the Din of Rekev does not apply to a corpse that is incomplete, and neither does the Din of Tefusah or that of Shechunas Kevaros.
What is the Din of ...

1. ... Tefusah?
2. ... Shechunas Kevaros?

(b) Considering that, in the latter case, when all's said and done, the three corpses indicate more graves in the vicinity, what difference will the fact that one of the corpses is incomplete make?
(c) When one Tana in the Mishnah in Iduyos tries to learn from a k'Zayis of flesh that came from a Meis (and that is Metamei) that a k'Zayis of flesh that came from a live person should be Metamei too, his opponent cited the three cases of 'Rov', 'Rova' and 'M'lo Tarvad'.
What does the Tana mean by ...

1. ... 'Rov'?
2. ... 'Rova'?

(d) Why does he cite these three cases?

(a) How do we initially understand the Beraisa's distinction between a M'lo Tarvad Rekev from a live person and a M'lo Tarvad Rekev from a dead one?

(b) This appears to clash with Ula's Beraisa (that the Din of Rekev does not apply to a corpse that is incomplete).
How do we re-interpret the distinction in order to reconcile the two Beraisos?

(a) What She'eilah does Rava ask about the limb of a live person that rotted before he died?

(b) How do we refute the proof from the previous Beraisa, which states 'Tomar *be'Chai*, she'Ein Lo ... M'lo Tarvad' (implying that, should he die, the Din of Rekev will apply)?

Next daf