Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked what the Din will be if those who took the Parim ha'Nisrafin out of the Azarah took it back - whether their clothes are still Tamei, or perhaps not (because it is considered as if they had not left [see Tosfos DH 'O Dilma').

(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah, which renders Tahor those carriers who have not yet left the Azarah - which can only be because, if those who left become Tahor once they return, how much more so those who have not yet left.

(c) Ravina (or Rava) refutes this proof (as well as the current version of Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah), by quoting the Pasuk "va'Achar Yavo el ha'Machaneh" - which precludes any carrier who is still inside the Azarah from Kibus Begadim, whilst at the same time, it includes anyone who has already left.

(d) Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah must therefore concern a case - where after returning the Parim ha'Nisrafin ... , others standing outside held on to the animal with sticks (or ropes) to pull it back outside again. And the question is whether the bull, having left the Azarah, is Metamei, or not, since it is has now returned to the Azarah.

(a) The Beraisa rules that ...

1. ... the one who burns the Parah Adumah and the Parim ha'Nisrafin, those who take it out from the Azarah, and the one who takes out the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach - render them, together with the clothes that they are wearing, Tamei ...
2. ... but the Parah Adumah, the Parim ha'Nisrafin and the Sa'ir themselves - do not.

(b) According to Rebbi Meir, all three are Metamei food and drink. The Chachamim agree with regard to Parah and Parim, but not with regard to Sa'ir ...

(c) ... because it is alive, and live animals are not subject to Tum'ah Kalah.

(d) The Din of Metam'in Begadim is written explicitly by the Parah Adumah and by the Par of Yom Kipur, and we know it by Par Kohen Mashi'ach and Par ha'Eidah - from the word "Chatas", which is written by each one, and which is superfluous.

(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael Darshens the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with Hechsher Tum'ah) "Al Kol Zera Zeru'a .. ", which he restricts to things which will not be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah - by which he means Adam ve'Keilim (Tum'ah Kalah is Ochel u'Mashkeh).

(b) And he then learns from there that ...

1. ... Nivlas Of Tahor - which will be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah, does not require Hechsher Lekabel Tum'ah ...
2. ... and neither does Parah, Parim and Sa'ir, which would then be unique - inasmuch as they would be the only live animals to be Metamei.

(c) The Kashya this poses on the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir is - that if they learn like Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, then the Sa'ir ought to be Metamei Ochlin u'Mashkin too, whereas if they don't, then why do they agree with Rebbi Meir regarding Parah and Parim.

(d) So we amend Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael from 'Tz'richin Hechsher' to 'Tz'richin Hechsher Tum'ah mi'Makom Acher', meaning - that even though things that will be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah do not need 'Hechsher' (for Tum'ah Kalah), they do however, need to be fit to become Tamei (to preclude when they are alive), automatically precluding the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach from Tum'ah Kalah.

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked whether Parim and Se'irim ha'Hisrafin are Metamei food and drink (Tum'ah Kalah) whilst they are still inside the Azarah. Bearing in mind that they are not yet Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah, the She'eilah is - whether the fact that they still needed to be taken outside (to be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah) is considered 'Mechusar Ma'aseh' or not.

(b) He concluded - that 'Mechusar Yetzi'ah ki'Mechusar Ma'aseh Dami' (in which case food touched by the Parim inside the Azarah remains Tahor).

(c) In similar vein, Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asked Rebbi Chiya bar Aba whether a k'Zayis of Nivlas Of Tahor is Metamei. What makes this She'eilah similar to the previous one is - the fact that Nivlas Of Tahor is only Metamei Begadim once a person has eaten it and it is in his throat. Consequently, prior to that, it might be considered Mechusar Ma'aseh.

(d) This She'eilah is confined to the opinion of Rebbi Meir - who declares that a live Sa'ir is Metamei Ochlin u'Mashkin, but according to the Rabbanan, who require the Metamei to be Ra'uy Lekabel Tum'ah, a K'zayis of Nivlas Of Tahor is not Ra'uy (because Tum'as Ochlin requires a k'Beitzah).

(a) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal added that his She'eilah did not pertain to a case where the Nivlas Of Tahor was either lying on the floor or already in the mouth of the person eating it (which contained other Tahor food) - because neither can is 'Sofo' Letamei Tum'ah Chamurah', the former, because he might not place it in his mouth, and the latter, because it is already in place to be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah.

(b) The case is - when as he is holding the Nivlas Of Tahor in his hand, ready to place it in his mouth, it touches another piece of food.

(c) And his She'eilah is - whether 'Mechusar K'reivah ki'Mechusar Ma'aseh Dami, O Lo'.

(d) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba replied - 'Mechusar K'reivah La'av ki'Mechusar Ma'aseh Dami'.

6)

(a) When the Beraisa presents one of the thirteen things said in connection with Nivlas Of Tamei 'Tzerichah Machshavah ve'Einah Tzerichah Hechsher', it means - that in order to combine with less than a k'Beitzah of food to make up the Shi'ur, the owner must have the intention of eating it, though it does not require Hechsher (through contact with water or with a Sheretz).

(b) The Tana adds 'u'Metam'in Tum'as Ochlin - bi'k'Beitzah'.

(c) The Tana must be speaking when the person is holding the bird in his hand - because if it was lying on the floor, it would require Hechsher, and if it was in the owner's mouth, it would not require Machshavah.

(a) We try to prove from Seifa of this Beraisa - that according to Rebbi Meir, 'Mechusar K'reivah ki'Mechusar Ma'aseh Dami' (and the Nivlas Of Tahor requires a k'Beitzah and not a k'Zayis), a Kashya on Rebbi Chiya bar Aba.

(b) We query our attempt to establish the Seifa like the Rabbanan, on the grounds that the Reisha 'Tz'richah Machshavah ... ' is the opinion of Rebbi Meir (see Gilyon ha'Shas), in which case we assume that the Seifa is too.

(c) The Beraisa continues 'Shechitasah u'Melikasah Metaheres Tereifasah mi'Tum'asah', which as we already learned in 'Chatas ha'Of', is the opinion of Rebbi Meir. We answer both the previous query and the Kashya from the continuation 'Reisha ve'Seifa Rebbi Meir, u'Metzi'asa, Rabbanan?' - by countering that it does matter if the Reisha is learned by a different author than the Seifa, or the Metzi'asa by a different author than the Reisha and the Seifa.

(a) When Rav Hamnuna asked Rebbi Zeira whether Rishon le'Tum'ah and Sheini le'Tum'ah apply to Nivlas Of Tahor, he added - that he should refrain from sitting down until he has given him a reply.

(b) Rav Zeira replied that Rishon and Sheini le'Tum'ah only apply to something that is Metamei through touching - which he learns from Tum'as Sheretz (in Parshas Shemini), the Torah's source for the Din of Rishon and Sheini.

(a) The Mishnah in Taharos rules - that two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah which are joined by liquid - that is 'Tofe'ach' (enough to wet the hand that touches it sufficiently that it will in turn, make other things wet) combine to be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin.

(b) Rebbi Zeira ask Rebbi Avin bar Chiya (or Rebbi Avin bar Kahana) about food or drink that touched one of the half-k'Zeisim - whether food that touches one of the halves is subject to Rishon and Sheini le'Tum'ah.

(c) Rebbi Avin bar Chiya replied - that only food that can be Metamei a person can make a Rishon, to make a Sheini, but not one that can only render Tamei, food and drink.

(a) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk writes in connection with the Par Kohen ha'Mashi'ach "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh", and then compares the Par ha'Eidah to it, when it writes "Ka'asher Saraf es ha'Par ha'Rishon", the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... (written in connection with the latter) "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - that we need to add a second Machaneh to the location where they are burned.
2. ... (written in connection with the Terumas ha'Deshen) "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - that we need to add even a third Machaneh.

(b) This latter Pasuk is superfluous - because the Torah has already written "al Shefech ha'Deshen Yisaref".

(c) Bearing in mind that the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur also belong to the above category, another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh", implying 'outside the first Machaneh' (i.e. as soon as they leave Machaneh Shechinah) - that that is when those who are carrying them together with the clothes they are wearing become Tamei.

(a) The problem we now have with Rebbi Shimon is - since he does not declare those dealing with the animals Tamei until the animals have been burned, what does he learn from "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (by Yom Kipur)?

(b) We therefore establish Rebbi Shimon like Rebbi Eliezer in yet a third Beraisa, who learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah "Chutz la'Machaneh" (by Yom Kipur) and "Chutz la'Machaneh" (by the burning of the Parah Adumah). We learn ...

1. ... from the Par ve'Sa'ir of Yom Kipur - that the Parah Adumah must be burned outside the three camps.
2. ... from Parah Adumah - that the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur is burned on the east side of Yerushalayim ...

(c) ... which we know - from the fact that the Torah instructs the Kohen who burns it to sprinkle some of the ashes towards the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed.