Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa is no different than our Mishnah, which says 'Metamei ke'Sheretz', and which, according to Rabah, comes to preclude, not Masa, but Even Mesama, so we will make the same inference in the Beraisa.

(b) The Gemara thinks at first, that the Heset referred to in the Beraisa, is Masa.

(c) The Beraisa is not proof for Rebbi Elazar, since the expression 'Nochri ve'Nochris Hen ve'Lo Hesetan', anyway needs to be amended: how can the Beraisa say a non-Jew is *not* Metamei be'Masa', when Chazal have decreed that gentiles are like Zavin - implying Tum'as Masa as well (otherwise why did they say 'like Zavin'? Why not like 'Temei'ei Mes')? In that case, we will anyway have to change the Beraisa, allowing us to explain the Beraisa either like Rebbi Elazar, or like Rabah.

(d) Both Rabah and Rebbi Elazar agree that the Reisha reads 'Nochri ve'Nochris, Hen, ve'Hesetan ve'Even Mesama Shelahen.' And they argue in the Seifa - whether the Tana Kama says Avodah Zarah, 'Hi ve'Hesetah, ve'Lo Even Mesama She'lah' to which Rebbi Akiva adds 'Even Mesama' (Raba); or whether the Tana Kama says 'Hi, ve'Lo Hesetah' and Rebbi Akiva adds just 'Heset'.

(a) According to the above interpretation - which maintains that Heset is synonymous with Masa, why does the Beraisa use the word 'Hen'? Is the rest of the statement not obvious? If the gentile and the Avodah Zarah themselves would be Tahor, how could their Heset possibly be Tamei?

(b)

1. Tum'as Masa - is when someone carries the Tum'ah.
2. Whereas Heset - is when the Tum'ah carries others.

(c)

1. 'Hen' now means Tum'as Masa, and
2. 'Hesetan', Tum'as Heset.

(a) According to Rav Ashi, both Tana'im will agree that 'Hen' (by Avodah Zarah) means - that there *is* Tum'ah Masa, 've'Lo Hesetan' - but not Tum'as Heset.

(b) Both Tana'im will agree that ...

1. ... Nochri ve'Nochris are subject to both Tum'as Masa and Tum'as Heset.
2. ... Meshamshei Avodah Zarah, on the other hand, are not subject to either.

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar, the Tana Kama says 'Avodah Zarah u'Meshamsheha, Lo Hen ve'Lo Hesetan'; and according to Rebbi Akiva, 'Avodah Zarah, Hi ve'Lo Hesetah'.
Note: Even Mesama has the same Din as Heset, both of which are learned from Nidah.

(d) The case of Meisit, by Avodah Zarah is when the Avodah Zarah (like by the case of a Zav), weighs down on one end of a see-saw, and the Tahor object on the other side, comes up.

(a) According to the Toras Kohanim, the Pasuk in Shemini "u'Kli Cheres Asher Yiga Bo ha'Zav" is not talking about becoming Tamei from touching the *outside* of the vessel, but rather about its *inside*. We do not however, need a Pasuk to inform us that an earthenware vessel becomes Tamei via its inside, because we know this already. It must therefore be coming to tell us that there is a way of touching it on the outside, which is considered as if he had touched the whole vessel, inside and all - and that is Heset.

(b) A *person* who carries a Zav becomes Tamei through Masa ha'Zav, but vessels or food.

(c) Tum'as Masa applies to vessels or to foods in the form of Tum'as Mishkav or Moshav, by any object which is designated for sitting or leaning on?

(d) When the Beraisa says that Tum'as Heset is confined to a Zav, it includes anything that is similar to a Zav, such as Avodah Zarah, which the Torah compares to a Zav. Consequently, the Beraisa which precludes everything but a a Zav from Tum'as Heset, it means a Zav and Avodah Zarah.

5)

(a) According to the ...

1. ... first version of the Sha'aleh, Rav Chama bar Guri'ah's Sha'aleh only pertains to a case where an untrained person is unable to fix the piece that has come apart - and we are uncertain whether the piece is considered attached or not. But a piece which an untrained person is able to fix, is definitely considered as if it was joined to the body of the Avodah Zarah - in which case, it would be Metamei.
2. ... second version, if an untrained person was unable to fix the piece that has come apart, then the piece is *definitely considered broken*, and will not be Metamei. The Sha'aleh is if the untrained person is able to fix it: Do we say that, since even an untrained person could fix it, it is as if it was already fixed, or perhaps as long as it is not fixed, it is considered broken, and is not Metamei.

(b) According to Chazal, the Pasuk in Shoftim "va'Yasimu Lahem Ba'al B'ris l'Elohim" speaks about the tiny Avodah Zarah of Ekron - the size of a fly; and the Navi describes how the people would take it out from their pockets, kiss it and embrace it. From where it is evident that an Avodah Zarah does not lose its attraction due to its minute size. Consequently, there is no reason for a small Avodah Zarah - even if it measures less than a Kezayis - to be any less prohibited than a large one.

(c) The Gemara thinks that an Avodah Zarah of less than a Kezayis should be Metamei, provided it is more than a Ke'adashah (a lentil-volume) - like a Sheretz.

(d) The Gemara's concludes from the Pasuk "va'Yashlech es Afaro El *Kever* B'nei ha'Am". The Navi compares Avodah Zarah to a grave (which contains a corpse) - to teach us that in the same way as less than a Kezayis of a corpse is not Metamei, so too is less than a Kezayis of Avodah Zarah not Metamei, either.

(a) According to the Rabbanan, we learn from the Torah's comparison of Avodah Zarah to ...

1. ... Sheretz - that it is *not* Metamei be'Masa;
2. ... Tum'as Nidah - that it is *not* Metamei le'Evarim;
3. ... Tum'as Mes - that an Avodah Zarah which is only the size of a Ke'adashah is *not* Metamei.

(b) They could have learned from ...

1. ... Sheretz - that if it *is* the size of a Ke'adashah it is Metamei;
2. ... Nidah - that it *is* Metamei be'Masa;
3. ... Mes - that it *is* Metamei le'Evarim.

(c) The reason that they Darshened le'Kula rather than le'Chumra, is because, in reality, the Tum'ah of Avodah Zarah is only mi'de'Rabbanan - all the Derashos are no more than an Asmachta - (even "Shaketz Teshaktzenu", which appears to be a genuine source, is not, because 'Shaketz' does really not mean a Sheretz).

(a) From the Pasuk "Derech Oni'ah be'Lev Yam", we learn that ships, like the Sea, are not subject to Tum'ah - otherwise, what is the Pasuk telling us?

(b) No! the Pasuk does not preclude river-craft, as the Gemara explains later - since rivers are no more subject to Tum'ah than the Sea.

(c) The Derashah from Sak, which we have already quoted often, is that all wooden vessels which cannot be carried full, as well as empty - like a sack can - are not subject to Tum'ah.

(d) If we learn our Derashah from "Derech Oni'ah be'Lev Yam", then it makes no difference whether the boat is made of wood or of earthenware, nor will the size make any difference. But if we learn it from the Pasuk of Sak, then it will not include a boat made of earthenware (which is not compared to Sak). Likewise, if the boat is only a small one, and can be carried - such as a river-boat, it will also not be included in the Derashah; whereas if it is derived from the Pasuk of "Derech Oni'ah" ..., then its shape and size will make no difference.

(a) Rav derives from Chananya that, even if one transports the boat down to the water by means of oxen (i.e. it is really too heavy to carry by hand), it is nevertheless considered similar to sack (since it can be transported full, as well as empty), and is therefore subject to Tum'ah.

(b) Rav taught that one should never absent oneself from the Beis ha'Medrash, even for one hour. For many years, the reason that a river-boat is Tamei (according to those who follow that opinion) remained a mystery (even though they knew that to be the Din; until along came Rebbi Chanina ben Akavya and revealed it.

(c) Rebbi Yonasan learnt from "Zos ha'Torah, Adam Ki Yamus ba'Ohel" - that even someone on his death-bed, is obligated to study Torah.

(d) Resh Lakish learns from this Pasuk that the words of Torah will only last with someone who kills himself over them - in other words, who deprives himself in this world (as we explained at the end of Berachos), in order to study Torah.