Previous daf

1)

(a) On what grounds do 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?

(b) Can we then 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)?

(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*.
Which four cases does 'all' incorporate?

(b) What did the others Zekeinim say?

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

1. ... the first group argue with the Mishnah in Ohalos? What does the Tana say there?
2. ... the second group argue with our Mishnah? What does our Mishnah say?

(d) What did Beis -Din shel Achareihem say about Rova Atzamos and Revi'is Dam?

(a) The Beis-Din shel Achareihem are a Hachra'ah Shelishis.
What is a 'Hachra'ah Shelishis'?

(b) When might the Halachah be like the Machri'a?

(c) Seeing as this is not the case here, and following the principle 'Ein Hachra'ah ke'Da'as Shelishis', on what grounds did Rebbi insert the opinion of the Beis-Din shel Achareihem here and in Ohalos?

(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.
What is 'Even ha'Sechuchis'?

(b) How do we account for the fact that both of these are already excluded, one of them in our Mishnah, the other, in a Mishnah later.

5)

(a) What problem do we have with our Mishnah, which gives the Shiur of bones as half a Kav (but not a quarter)?

(b) Seeing as a Nazir is not obligated to shave for Tum'as Ohel by a bone the size of a barley, whereas for the Shiur of half a Kav he is, what is the problem?

(c) How do we answer the initial Kashya? Why does the Tana need to insert the case of Chatzi Kav Atzamos?

(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'.
How will the Din differ if there is not the correct amount of flesh on the bone?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan infer from the Reisha 'al Eiver min ha'Meis ve'al Eiver min ha'Chai she'Yesh Aleihen Basar ka'Ra'uy'?

(c) How does Resh Lakish extrapolate that he *does* from the Seifa?

(d) How does Rebbi Yochanan counter Resh Lakish's proof?

(a) How will Rebbi Yochanan account for the fact that, 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? Why does he do that?

(b) And why did the Tana choose 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?

(a) In view of the current Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, why can the Tana of our Mishnah not be speaking when the bone is the size of a barley?

(b) If on the other hand, the Tana is speaking when it is less than the size of a barley, what is Resh Lakish's reason?

(c) What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk in Chukas (written in connection with Tum'as Ohel) ...

1. ... "ve'Chol Asher Yiga *al-P'nei* ha'Sadeh"?
2. ... "ba'Chalal"?
3. ... "ba'Chalal-Cherev"?

(d) What are the ramifications of the D'rashah 'Cherev, Harei Hu ke'Chalal'?

(a) "O be'Meis", 'Zeh Eiver ha'Nechlal min ha'Meis'.
What does this mean?

(b) "O be'Etzem Adam O be'Kaver". "O be'Etzem Adam" 'Zeh Rova Atzamos'.
What does the Tana learn from "O be'Kaver"?

(c) What does 'Tum'ah Boka'as ve'Olah' mean? When does it apply?

(d) Then why does the Tana cite it here?

Next daf