Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask whether, if there is no dust, the Kohen is permitted to take ashes instead. That She'eilah is confined to the opinion of Beis Hillel, but will not be a She'eilah according to Beis Shamai - because, according to Beis Shamai, we do not find dust referred to as 'Eifer'.

(b) Beis Hillel regard 'Eifer' as dust - with regard to the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam (covering the blood of a Shechted bird or wild animal).

(c) Ashes might nevertheless not be eligible by Sotah - because the Torah specifically writes "be'Karka ha'Mishkan" (implying earth).

(d) Yet they might be eligible - because we use "be'Karka ha'Mishkan" for other things (like Isi ben Yehudah or Isi ben Menachem, whose opinions we discussed on the previous Amud).

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan citing Rebbi Yishmael, even though the Torah specifically writes that one must cover the blood of a Shechted bird or wild animal with dust, not shave a Nazir with a razor, and write a Get on parchment - the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai states that one may cover the blood with anything in which it is possible to plant, is prohibited from shaving with any implement and write a Get on anything that is detached.

(b) The Torah writes "be'Afar" by Kisuy ha'Dam, and "Ta'ar" by a Nazir. It indicates that a Get should be written on parchment - by writing "ba'Seifer".

(c) The prohibition of a Nazir shaving with a razor is not simply an addition (like the case of Metzora that will be cited later) - because we are speaking here about receiving Malkos, and someone who administers Malkos without full justification, transgresses two La'avin.

(a) Instead of the prohibition of a Nazir shaving with a razor - the Yerushalmi includes the Din of piercing the ear of an Eved Ivri who wants to work beyond the initial six-year period, where the Torah writes "ba'Martzei'a" (yet the Halachah permits any other sharp object).

(b) Rashi prefers the Yerushalmi's version - because shaving a Nazir, is not considered uprooting, but adding (like Rashi asked in the previous question [Tosfos Shantz], though one wonders whether it may not be because shaving a Nazir is a La'av, whereas all the others are Asei).

(a) We attempt to prove our She'eilah (whether ashes may replace dust or not) from Rebbi Yochanan's statement - because if they may, why does he not include them in his list of Halachos which uproot the Pasuk (bringing the total up to four)?

(b) We reject the proof - using the principle 'Tana ve'Shayer' (the Tana omits other cases too).

(c) We suggest that the Tana also omits the second shaving of a Metzora.

1. We learn from the 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal' "Ve'hayah ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i, Yegalach es Kol Se'aro (K'lal), es Rosho, es Zekano ve'es Gabos Einav" (P'rat) "ve'es Kol Se'aro Yegale'ach" (K'lal) - that, by his second shaving, a Metzora is obligated to shave off any gathering of hair that is naturally visible.
2. This ought to include - the hair of the Beis ha'Ervah.
3. And it ought to exclude - the hair under the armpit as well as all the hair that grows sparsely all over the body.

(d) In fact, the Halachah is - that the Metzora must shave every hair on his body (like a pumpkin).

(a) There is no proof from the Reisha of the Mishnah in Nega'im 'Ba Lo Lehakif es ha'Metzora Ma'avir Ta'ar Al Kol Besaro' - since that speaks in connection with the Metzora's first shaving, whereas we are speaking about the second shaving (on the seventh day).

(b) The proof - lies in the Seifa, which compares the second shaving to the first one.

(c) When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak differentiates between 'Halachah Okeves Mikra' and 'Halachah Okeves de'Rabbanan' he means that Rebbi Yochanan is only concerned with the Halachah uprooting specific Pesukim such as "Seifer", "Eifer", "Ta'ar" or "Martzei'a"; but not D'rashos such as 'K'lal u'Frat u'Ch'lal' (which he refers to as de'Rabbanan), as is the case of Metzora, which he considers more feasible.

(d) When Rav Papa says 'Ki ka'Chashiv, Halachah Okeves ve'Okeres, Ha Okeves u'Mosefes Hi' - he means that in the three cases referred to by Rebbi Yochanan, the Halachah uproots the Pasuk completely, whereas in the case of the Metzora, it merely comes to add to the Pasuk's requirements.

(a) Rav Ashi arrives at the same conclusion by establishing the Beraisa of 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal' like Rebbi Yishmael who, throughout the entire Torah, Darshens 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal' (in the manner that we described). And according to him, the Metzora will not be completely shaven. The author of the Mishnah in Nega'im (which holds that the Metzora must be shaven like a pumpkin, even the second time) - is Rebbi Akiva, who Darshens the Torah not in the format of a 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal', but of a 'Ribuy u'Mi'ut ve'Ribuy', which includes everything but for one thing (Again, we have no case to pair with Sotah).

(b) The one thing that the Mi'ut (" es Rosho, es Zekano ve'es Gabos Einav") comes to exclude according to Rebbi Akiva - is the hair inside the Metzora's nose.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael's tradition stems from Rebbi Nechunyah ben Hakaneh - and it was Nachum Ish Gamzu who taught Rebbi Akiva his tradition.

7)

(a) We ask 'Mai Havi Alah' - with regard to our She'eilah regarding the use of ashes instead of dust (even though we seem to have resolved it already. See Tosfos DH 'Mai Havi Alah').

(b) We resolve the She'eilah from Rav, who permits the use of rotting vegetables in place of dust (presumably because they originally grew from the earth) - but not ashes.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa adds two things that must be visible to the Mei Sotah. One of them is the ashes of the Parah Adumah in the water - the other is the spittle of the Yevamah before the eyes of the Beis-Din.

(b) When Rebbi Yishmael cites the Pasuk "ve'Taval Osam be'Dam ha'Tzipor ha'Shechutah" - he is referring to a fourth thing that must be visible; namely, the blood of the Shechted bird in the purification ceremony of the Metzora (in other words, there should not be too much water in the earthenware vessel into which he Shechts the bird).

(c) There must certainly be water in the vessel too - because the Torah writes "Al ha'Mayim ha'Chayim".

(d) Rebbi Yishmael gives the Shiur of water as a Revi'is ha'Lug - because that is the amount of water required for both the blood of the bird and the water to be visible.

(a) According to the Rabbanan, the Torah writes "ve'Taval Osam be'Dam ha'Tzipor ha'Shechutah" and "Al ha'Mayim ha'Chayim" - to teach us that both are required, irrespective of whether the blood is recognizable in the water or not.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael counters this with the argument that the Torah could then have written "ve'Taval Bahem ... ". The Chachamim disagree with him - because that would imply that one dips the things first into one, then into the other, without actually mixing them.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael learns the obligation to mix the water and the blood from the Pasuk "ve'Shachat es ha'Tzipor ha'Echas el K'li Cheres al Mayim Chayim" - which the Rabbanan would have explained to mean that the Kohen Shechts the bird over the bowl holding the blood vessels tight so that none of the blood flows into the water whilst they bring him another bowl for the blood to flow into.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira what the Din would be if the bird was so big that it the water was no longer visible once its blood dripped into it, or if it was so small that the blood was not visible in the water. Rebbi Zeira initially gave a sharp reply - reminding him that he had told him before not to query the Shiurim of Chazal, which are scrupulously accurate.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah was irrelevant - because when it comes to a Tzipor D'ror (the type of free-roaming bird that was eligible for this Mitzvah), Chazal assessed that there is no bird so large that its blood can render the Revi'is ha'Lug of water invisible, and none so small that its blood should be rendered invisible by the water.

(a) The Tana Kama invalidates the Mei Sotah, if the Kohen placed the dust into the cup before the water - because the Torah writes Ve'nasan el ha'Mayim".

(b) Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pesukim (in connection with the Parah Adumah) "ve'Nasan Alav ... " and "... Mayim Chayim el Keli" - that the Kohen had the choice of either placing the ashes into the vessel first, or of first pouring in the water.

(c) He now extrapolates from the fact that the Torah writes there "ve'Lakchu la'Tamei *me'Afar* S'reifas ha'Chatas", and not " ... *me'Eifer* S'reifas ha'Chatas" - that we Darshen a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' with "Afar" that is written by Sotah.

(d) We learn with regard to ...

1. ... Parah Adumah from Sotah - that the dust may be placed into the water that is already in the vessel.
2. ... Sotah from Parah Adumah - that Bedi'eved, if he placed the dust first, it remains Kasher.

(a) The Tana Kama learns from "Mayim Chayim el Keli" that the water had to be placed in the vessel first. They interpret the Pasuk "ve'Nasan *Alav* Mayim Chayim" to mean - that the Kohen then had to mix them together.

(b) Alternatively, he might have learned from "Alav" that the dust must be placed inside the vessel first, in which case he would have explained "Mayim Chayim el Keli" to mean - that the water must be drawn from the spring directly into this vessel, and not first drawn into another vessel and then transferred into this one.

(c) The Tana Kama declines to accept this interpretation - because he takes his cue from other cases where the Machshir is placed on top.

(d) We find this principle in two other cases: by Sotah and by Metzora. The Machshir ...

1. ... by Sotah is - the ashes
2. ... by Metzora is - the blood of the bird.