Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah said 'ha'Motzei Meis ... Mushkav ke'Darko Notlo ve'es Tefusaso'.
What does Rav Yehudah preclude from ...

1. ... 'ha'Motzei'?
2. ... 'Meis'?
3. ... 'Mushkav'?
4. ... 'ke'Darko'?

(b) What is the reason for these exceptions?

(c) What constitutes 'Tefusaso'?

1. ... a corpse that is incomplete?
2. ... two corpses that are buried side by side, one from north to south and the other, from south to north (see Rosh)?

(a) The Tana also exempts all three corpses that one finds from both the Din of 'Notlo ve'es Tefusaso' and of 'Shechunas Kevaros', if one of them was known and the two were not.
Will the same apply if two of them were known and one was not?

(b) According to the Rashbam, this is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.
What does the Ri say?

(c) What did Rebbi Akiva tell Rebbi Yeshevav, who wanted to make a Shechunas Kevaros out of the area where he discovered one unknown corpse, in addition to the two that were already known to be there?

(a) What does Rav Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Vayechi (concerning Ya'akov's request from Yosef not to bury him in Egypt) "u'Nesasani mi'Mitzrayim"?

(b) How much earth comprises 'Tefusaso' according to Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das)? What is the reason for this Shiur?

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok in a Beraisa, one takes the Kismin and the K'sasos. The Kismin are the shards that remain from the marble coffin.
What are the K'sasos?

(d) He throws away those clods of earth that are definitely not from the Meis.
What does he do with those that are ...

1. ... a Safek?
2. ... definitely from the corpse?

(a) Why can K'sasos not refer to spices that were placed in the coffin together with the Meis?

(b) Why does this Beraisa pose a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar (who gives the Shiur of Tefusah as the soft earth plus three Tefachim of virgin soil)?

(c) How do we resolve Rebbi Elazar with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok?

6)

(a) What does Rava say about a case where they have already discovered and moved two single corpses, when they discover a third one? May they move it too?

(b) Must they then return the first two corpses?

(c) What do some add to the text?

(a) According to others, seeing as the first two corpses were removed be'Heter, they are permitted to move the third one too.
Why is that?

(b) On what grounds is this second opinion so lenient?

(c) If they searched twenty Amos in one direction and did not find any more graves, Rav (or Rav Mesharshaya) is quoted as saying, they are not obligated to search in the other directions. Why not?

(d) What is the second version of Rav (or Rav Mesharshaya)'s Chidush?

(a) 'Kol Safek Nega'im bi'Techilah ad she'Lo Nizkak le'Tum'ah, Tahor'. What is the case?

(b) What is the reason for the lenient ruling?

(c) 'mi'she'Nizkak le'Tum'ah, S'feiko Tamei'.
What is the case?

(d) What is the reason for the stringent ruling?

(a) Why can the reason for going le'Kula in the first case in our Mishnah not be due to the fact that, in the Pasuk in Tazri'a "le'Taharo O le'Tam'o" the Torah begins with Taharah, like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav initially proposes?

(b) So Rav Yehudah Amar Rav must have been referring to Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling.
What will be the Din if the Baheres (one of the four possible marks of Tum'ah) ...

1. ... appeared first, and the two hairs turned white afterwards?
2. ... appeared after the two hairs had already turned white?

(c) If the order in which they occurred is a Safek, Rebbi Yehoshua said 'Kiyhah'.
Assuming that he means 'Kiyhah ve'Tamei', in which point will he be arguing with Tana Kama, who also holds that he is Tamei?

(d) How does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav then extrapolate from "le'Taharo O le'Tam'o" that Rebbi Yehoshua must have meant 'Kiyhah ve'Tahor'?

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah mean when he says that a Zav is examined in seven ways?

(b) What are the other three, besides food, drink, carrying and jumping?

(c) When will this examination not make any difference?

(d) Which two other things does the Tana list together with 'O'nes' as not making any difference?

(a) According to the Tana Kama, someone who strikes his friend who, after being assessed by Beis-Din that he will die, improves, then deteriorates and dies, is Chayav Misah. Rebbi Nechemyah says here the same as the Chachamim said in the previous case (of O'nes by a Zav at his third sighting).
What do they both say?

(b) Why did Rebbi insert the Mishnahs of 'ha'Motze Meis', 'Kol Safek Nega'im' and 'be'Shiv'ah Derachim Bodkin es ha'Zav' in this Perek?

(a) The Torah writes in Tazri'a "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah".
Both Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Elazar (or Rebbi Eliezer) agree that the Torah is comparing a Zav at some stage to a Zavah. Which leniency that applies to a Zav does not apply to a Zavah?

(b) What does Rebbi Nasan Darshen from ...

1. ... "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo?"
2. ... "la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah?"

(c) What does Rebbi Elazar (or Rebbi Eliezer) say? In which point does he argue with Rebbi Nasan?

Next daf