Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, it is easy to understand why the piece of Chatas which is Tahor does not become Bateil - because it is logical to say that the Rabbanan would decree when faced with the combination of factors 1. that it is an Isur d'Oraysa and 2. that is Darko Limanos 3. when the loss to the owner is only minimal.

(b) The problem according to Resh Lakish is - since, in his opinion, the reason that it is Bateil in the Reisha is because melted Isur is not Chashuv, then why should the fact that the piece is Tahor make any difference?

(a) Rav Shisha Brei de'Rav Idi explains that, according to Resh Lakish, the Reisha speaks by Tum'as Mashkin (that the piece of Chatas became Tamei through liquid that touched a vessel which renders it Tamei mi'de'Rabbanan), which is Bateil - because of a combination of the fact that Tum'as Mashkin is mi'de'Rabbanan, and because it is 'Ein Darko Limanos'.

(b) The reason that the piece is not Bateil in the Seifa is - due to the fact that, since all the pieces are Tahor (Min be'Mino), and, in addition, it is a question of Kodshim to a Zar (which is an Isur d'Oraysa), this Tana holds 'Min be'Mino, Eino Bateil' by a d'Oraysa (like Rebbi Yehudah holds even by de'Rabbanans).

(c) If the Reisha was speaking about Tum'as Sheretz (rather than Tum'as Mashkin) - the piece would not become Bateil.

(d) The Tana in the Seifa preferred not to remain with a piece of *Tamei* Chatas meat that fell into Tahor pieces, but when the piece became Tamei through a Sheretz (to remain with Tum'ah and Taharah, like in the Reisha), but to speak about Chulin and Kodshim, because Tehoros that fell into Tehoros is a bigger Chidush (as we explained above.

(a) To explain the Reisha and the Seifa of the Beraisa according to Resh Lakish, Rabah establishes the Beraisa by meat of Kodshim that did not melt, and the former is Bateil because it is only a La'av, whereas the latter is not, because it is a case of Kareis. The Reisha is only a La'av - "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei" (Tzav - which teaches us the prohibition of eating Kodshim meat that became Tamei); whereas the Seifa is Kareis "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Basar ... " (also in Tzav - which teaches us that someone who eats Kodshim when *he* is Tamei, is Chayav Kareis) This is in accordance with Rashi's first explanation.

(b) The problem with this answer is from Rabah's very own words later in ha'Ishah Basra - where he distinctly states that there is no reason to make a distinction between an Isur La'av and an Isur Kareis, seeing as both are Isurim d'Oraysa.

(c) Rav Ashi ascribes the piece not becoming Bateil in the Seifa, to the fact that it is a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin'. That is ridiculous however - because 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin', by definition, means that the object will become permitted to the same person to whom it was forbidden (not that it is permitted to someone else, as Rav Ashi understands); and, in this case, it remains permitted to the Kohanim and forbidden to Yisre'eilim.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that, if two piles of wheat, one of Chulin and one of Terumah fell into two boxes, one containing Chulin and the other, Terumah, and we don't know which pile fell into which box - that both boxes remain as they were, because we assume that the Terumah fell into the Terumah and the Chulin into the Chulin.

(b) Resh Lakish maintains that the Chulin box remains Chulin and is permitted to Yisre'eilim - only if there *is a majority* of Chulin against the pile that fell into it.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan permits it - even if there is *not*.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan said earlier that Terumah nowadays is d'Oraysa. In that case - how can we possibly assume that the Terumah fell into the Terumah and the Chulin into the Chulin (an assumption that is normally restricted to Isurim de'Rabbanan)?

5)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan answers that the author of this Beraisa is the Rabbanan, whereas his previous statement is according to Rebbi Yossi - who says that the second Yerushah (when Yisrael re-possessed Eretz Yisrael after Galus Bavel) was permanent, and did not fall away when Titus exiled them to Rome.

(b) The Seder Olam Darshens from the Pasuk "Asher Yarshu Avosecha vi'Yerishtah" - 'Yerushah Rishonah u'Sh'ni'ah Yesh Lahen (i.e. that the first Yerushah became Bateil and required a second one when they returned from Bavel), Sh'lishis Ein Lahen'.

(c) He made his initial statement (permitting the wife of an Androginus to eat Chazeh ve'Shok as well as Terumah) according to the opinion of Rebbi Yossi - because Rebbi Yossi is the Tana in our Mishnah who holds that an Androginus is a Vaday Zachar who feeds his wife Terumah.

(d) He knows that the opinion cited in the Seder Olam is that of Rebbi Yossi - because, as he himself testified, the author of Seider Olam is Rebbi Yossi.

(a) The Mishnah in Mikva'os says that a Mikvah of forty Sa'ah to which one added a Sa'ah of fruit juice (or of drawn water), and then took one Sa'ah away - remains Kasher.

(b) If one reversed the process, taking away a Sa'ah first and then adding the Sa'ah - the Mikvah would be Pasul.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that, assuming that one keeps on doing this, it is only permitted up to a majority. Bearing in mind that Rebbi Yochanan just said that, in the case of the boxes, where it is only a Din de'Rabbanan, no majority is needed, we think that the two statements clash - because initially, we understand him to mean that the majority of the Mikvah must remain (i.e. at least twenty one Sa'ah of Kasher water).

(d) What he really meant however - was that it is only permitted as long as one does not remove a majority of Kasher water (i.e. that twenty Sa'ah remain).

(a) Resh Lakish, who forbids the wife of an Androginus to eat Chazeh ve'Shok, will amend the Mishnah, which states 'Androginus Nosei' - to read ' ... Im Nasa, Nasuy'.

(b) We try to prove from the Lashon 'Aval Lo Nisa' - that, just as there, the Tana means Bedieved, so too, does he mean Bedieved in the Reisha (as we just explained).

(c) In fact, there is no proof from there, because there is no reason why the Reisha should not mean Lechatchilah (as it implies - leaving us with a Kashya on Resh Lakish), despite the fact that the Seifa is Bedieved.

(d) If, as we conclude, 'Nosei' means Lechatchilah, because the Tana Kama considers him a Vaday Zachar, his opinion will differ from that of Rebbi Eliezer, who says 'Androginus Chayavin Alav S'kilah ke'Zachar' - inasmuch as the Tana Kama considers him a Zachar, but nevertheless obligates someone who commits adultery with him even from his Makom Nakvus; whereas Rebbi Eliezer says 'ke'Zachar', implying but not from his Makom Nakvus.