Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Akiva's son Rebbi Yehoshua is known as Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah - because his father was bald (see also Tosfos in Bechoros).

(b) When Rebbi Yehoshua asked his father why the Mishnah reads 'Mar'os Nega'im Shenayim she'Hein Arba ... ', he meant that the Mishnah should have said - 'mi'Kerum Beitzah u'Lema'alah Tamei' (which is shorter than the current Lashon).

(c) Rebbi Akiva replied ...

1. ... to the above question, that the Tana learns the way he does - to teach us that the various appearances combine (though it is not yet clear what he meant by that).
2. ... when Rebbi Yehoshua pressed him further, why the Tana does not then say 'mi'Kerum Beitzah u'Lema'alah Tamei u'Mitztarfin Zeh im Zeh' - that a Kohen needs to be an expert in the various appearances of Tzara'as, otherwise he is not permitted to examine them.

(a) Initially, we extrapolate from the fact that Rebbi Yehoshua only mentioned 'mi'Kerum Beitzah u'Lema'alah, and not 'mi'Sid ha'Heichal u'Lema'alah' as well (to conform with the Tana of the Mishnah in Nega'im) - that both he and Rebbi Akiva maintain that Se'eis (white like the wool of a lamb) combines with everything (with Baheres because it is closest to it, and with white like the lime of the Heichal and like the membrane of an egg, because they are both its Toldos.

(b) According to the current interpretation (of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah and Rebbi Akiva), Baheres combines with white like lamb's wool - because it is the closest to it, but not with white like the membrane of an egg - because neither is it similar to it, nor is it its Toldah.

(c) We refute this interpretation of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah's query however - on the grounds that when he said 'Yomru mi'Kerum Beitzah u'Lema'alah Mitztarfin', perhaps he automatically meant to incorporate 'mi'Sid ha'Heichal u'Lema'alah' (only he didn't find it necessary to mention it).

(a) So we try to prove that Rebbi Akiva holds 'Zu Lema'alah mi'Zu' from an analogy given by Rebbi Chanina in a Beraisa - who in a Beraisa, draws a comparison between Rebbi Akiva opinion and four cups of milk - into which two, four eight and twelve (or sixteen) drops of blood respectively, fell.

(b) We take our cue that Rebbi Akiva holds 'Zu Le'ma'alah mi'Zu' from Rebbi Chanina's concluding words - 'she'Kulan Mar'os Loven Hein, Ela she'Zeh Lema'alah mi'Zeh ... '.

(c) We refute this proof too however - by confining the case to the type Tzara'as called 'Pasuch' (which the Torah presents in the location of a boil or a burn that healed), which is a mixture of white and red, which is similar to Rebbi Chanina's analogy (but has nothing to do with regular Tzara'as, which is pure white).

(d) We just concluded that Rebbi Akiva certainly holds 'Zu Lema'alah mi'Zu' (in which case, 'ke'Tzemer Lavan' will come after 'ka'Sheleg' with regard to combining). To reconcile this with Rebbi Akiva in the Seifa 'Adamdam she'ba'Zeh ve'she'ba'Zeh ... Ela shel Baheres Azah, ve'shel Sid Diyhah Mimenu' - we cite Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa, who amends this to read 'shel Tzemer Diyhah Mimenu'.

4)

(a) Abaye learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im Baheres Levanah Hi" - that no other appearance of Tzara'as is as white as a Baheres.

(b) The Beraisa interprets the Pasuk there (in connection with a Baheres) "u'Mar'ehah Amok min ha'Or" to mean - that a Baheres (in its whiteness) appears deeper than the surrounding skin, like the sun appears deeper than the shade.

(c) The Tana also proves from the Pasuk "Al Kol he'Harim ha'Ramim ve'Al Kol ha'Gevahos *ha'Nisa'os*" - that Se'eis is so-called because (not being as white as Baheres) it appears higher than Baheres.

(d) "Sapachas" means - secondary (a Toldah).

(a) Rebbi Zeira learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Levanah" (by Baheres) from "Levanah" (by Se'eis) - that just as a Baheres has a Toldah, so too, does a Se'eis (as we learned earlier).

(b) Another Beraisa learns the same thing from the placing of "Sapachas" - in between Se'eis and Baheres, which teaches us that each Av has a Toldah.

(a) Rav Bibi Amar Rav Asi explains 'white like clean wool' - to refer to the wool that is still attached to the lamb on the day it is born.

(b) What makes the wool so white on that day - is the fact that its mother licks it clean.

(c) Someone who wished to produce 'Milas' (a high-quality wool) from it - would pin a leather cloth over the wool, to ensure that it retains its clean state (though this does not appear to have any bearing on our Sugya).

(a) Like Rebbi Chanina drew an analogy to explain the order according to Rebbi Akiva, so too, does he draw an analogy to explain the order according to the Rabbanan. We refute the initial version ' ... Malko shel Zeh le'Ma'alah le'Malko shel Zeh, ve'Iparcheih shel Zeh Lema'alah me'Iparcheih shel Zeh' - on the grounds that this would be exactly what Rebbi Akiva said (that the two 'Avos' [of the Rabbanan] follow each other, and then the two 'Toldos').

(b) What Rebbi Chanina really said therefore, was - that each king precedes his Iparcheih (duke).

(c) Rav Ada bar Aba gives the analogy of 'Malka, Alkafta (a vassal king), Rufila (a general) and Resh Galusa. If ...

1. ... all four were to walk together - they would walk in this very order (though this is not our case).
2. ... they were divided into two groups - the Rufila would probably walk behind the Malka, and the Resh Galusa, behind the Alkafta.

(a) Rava gave the analogy (of the two sets of Av and Toldah) as Shavur Malka (king of Persia) and the Emperor of Rome. When Rav Papa asked him which of the two was the senior - he reacted with surprise that Rav Papa was not aware of the importance of the Emperor of Rome (as if he had spent his days secluded in the forest)!

(b) Rav Papa did not realize this - because Rava himself mentioned Shavur Malka before the Emperor of Rome ...

(c) ... because he was his subject and therefore afraid of saying something that might be considered a lack of respect (for which he Might well have been executed).

(d) Rava proves from the Pasuk "Va'tochal Kol Ar'a, u'Sedushineih Ve'sadkineih" - that Rome (which Rebbi Yochanan interprets as the subject of this Pasuk) will be the predominant kingdom in its time.

10)

(a) The Beraisa learns that, when the Pasuk obligates a Korban Oleh ve'Yored for Tum'ah, it ...

1. ... refers to Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kadashav - from the fact that the Azharah and the Onesh (be'Meizid), refer to Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.
2. ... does not refer to Terumah (which also carries with it an Azharah) - because (unlike Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav), it is not Chayav Misah or even Kareis (and a Korban generally comes to atone for a Shogeg of Misah or Kareis).

(b) We know that the Pasuk in Emor "be'Kodshim Lo Yochal" pertains to Terumah and not to regular Kodshim - because it concludes "u'Va ha'Shemesh ve'Taher" (whereas someone who is Tamei still has to wait until he has brought his Korbanos on the following day [assuming that this is necessary]).

(c) The fact that 'Shemi'as Kol' and 'Bituy Sefasayim' are Chayav Korban Oleh ve'Yored, even though they are not Chayav Misah creates the problem - that a Korban Oleh ve'Yored can come even for La'avin which are not subject to Misah or Kareis (in which case, back comes the question, why Tum'ah cannot be referring to Terumah [and not Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav]).

(d) As for the aforementioned principle (that a Korban generally atones for a Shogeg of Misah of Kareis) - perhaps that is confined to a Korban Chatas, exclusively.