Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah said 'ha'Motzei Meis ... Mushkav ke'Darko Notlo ve'es Tefusaso'. Rav Yehudah precludes from ...

1. ... 'ha'Motzei' - a corpse that was known to be buried there.
2. ... 'Meis' - someone who was slain.
3. ... 'Mushkav' - a corpse that was buried in a sitting position.
4. ... 'ke'Darko' - one whose head was placed between his knees.

(b) The reason for these exceptions is - because Jews do not bury their dead that way, so the corpse must be that of a Nochri (except the first one, which must be a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai').

(c) 'Tefusaso' constitutes some of the earth is which the corpse is buried (earth that is beneath the corpse, but not that at the side, which is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan as long as the corpse is there).

1. ... a corpse that is incomplete - is because it is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
2. ... two corpses that are buried side by side, one from north to south and the other, from south to north is - because Jews do not bury like that, so they must be the corpses of Nochrim (Rosh).

(a) The Tana also exempts all three corpses that one finds from both the Din of 'Notlo ve'es Tefusaso' and of 'Shechunas Kevaros', if one of them was known and the two were not - or if two of them were known and one was not.

(b) According to the Rashbam, this is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'; according to the Ri - it is because, seeing as the reason for 'Notlo ve'es Tefusaso' is due to the fact that the corpse was obviously only buried there temporarily, had they meant to leave them there permanently, then the other two would have been known, too (see also Rosh).

(c) When Rebbi Yeshevav wanted to make a Shechunas Kevaros out of the area where he discovered one unknown corpse, in addition to the two that were already known to be there, Rebbi Akiva told him - that all his efforts would be in vain, since the Din of Shechunas Kevaros applied only if the three corpses were either all known or all unknown.

(a) Rav Yehudah learns from the Pasuk (concerning Ya'akov's request from Yosef not to bury him in Egypt) "u'Nesasani mi'Mitzrayim" - that when one transports a Meis from one place to another, one takes some of the earth with him (Tefusaso).

(b) According to Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) - besides all the soft earth, the Tefusah also comprises the three Tefachim of virgin soil upon which the corpse is lying, because that is how far down his juices seep down into the ground (Tosfos quoting the Yerushalmi).

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok in a Beraisa, one takes the Kismin and the K'sasos. The Kismin are the shards that remain from the marble coffin - the K'sasos are the clods of earth.

(d) He throws away those clods of earth that are definitely not from the Meis. Those that are ...

1. ... a Safek - he places in a discreet place (to prevent people who deal with Taharos from becoming Tamei).
2. ... definitely from the corpse - combines with Rov Binyan, Rov Minyan or Rova ha'Kav of bones (to be Metamei be'Ohel) or with Me'lo Tarvad Rekev.

(a) K'sasos cannot refer to spices that were placed in the coffin together with the Meis - because they would become 'Galgalin' to the dust rather than adding to it.

(b) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar (who gives the Shiur of Tefusah as the soft earth plus three Tefachim of virgin soil) - because the Tana does not require any virgin soil to be taken with the corpse at all.

(c) We resolve Rebbi Elazar with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok - by establishing him like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri (in another Beraisa) who, quoting ben Azai, substantiates his opinion.

6)

(a) Rava says that in the event of their having already discovered and moved two single corpses, when they discover a third one - they are forbidden to move it.

(b) Nor do they need to return the first two corpses.

(c) Some add to the text - 'u'Mashvi Lei Shechunas Kevaros' (obligating the twenty-Amah search in any case) Tosfos.

(a) According to others, seeing as the first two corpses were removed be'Heter, they are permitted to move the third one too - because the Din of Shechunas Kevaros was never said in connection with one corpse (Tosfos).

(b) This second opinion is so lenient - because, as Resh Lakish explained, they used any excuse to declare Eretz Yisrael Tahor (though this is really an integral part of the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', and not a de'Rabbanan).

(c) If they searched twenty Amos in one direction and did not find any more graves, Rav (or Rav Mesharshaya) is quoted as saying, they are not obligated to search in the other directions - for the same reason as Resh Lakish just gave in the previous answer ( ... any excuse to declare Eretz Yisrael Tahor).

(d) The second version of Rav (or Rav Mesharshaya)'s Chidush is - that if they searched twenty Amos in one direction and did not find any more graves, they do not need to dig downwards until they hit virgin soil or rocks (Tosfos).

(a) 'Kol Safek Nega'im bi'Techilah ad she'Lo Nizkak le'Tum'ah, Tahor' - speaks when two people appeared before a Kohen with a mark of Tzara'as, one the size of a 'Gris' (the minimum size of a Tamei Tzara'as), the other, the size of a Sela (which is larger than a G'ris). After one week, the mark of both men is the size of a Sela (in which case one of them grew and is a sign of Tum'ah, the other, remained as it was, and is a sign of Taharah; however, the Kohen cannot recall which is which. Both are Tahor.

(b) The reason for this leniency is - because each one has a Chezkas Taharah.

(c) 'mi'she'Nizkak le'Tum'ah, S'feiko Tamei' - speaks when one of the marks was the size of a Sela, the other, the size of a G'ris, and after seven days, both had grown to a Sela-plus, in which case, they are both Tamei. If at the end of the second week, both are the size of a Sela, and the Kohen cannot recall which is which, both of them remain Tamei.

(d) The reason for this is - because each of them has a Chezkas Tum'ah.

(a) The reason for going le'Kula in the first case in our Mishnah cannot be due to the fact that, in the Pasuk "le'Taharo O le'Tam'o" the Torah begins with Taharah, like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav initially proposes - because then, we should always rule 'Tahor', even when there is a Chezkas Tum'ah.

(b) So Rav Yehudah Amar Rav must have been referring to Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling. If the Baheres (one of the four possible marks of Tum'ah) ...

1. ... appeared first, and the two hairs turned white afterwards - he is Tamei.
2. ... appeared after the two hairs had already turned white - he is Tahor.

(c) If the order in which they occurred is a Safek, Rebbi Yehoshua said 'Kiyhah'. Assuming that he means 'Kiyhah ve'Tamei', he will be arguing with the Tana Kama, who also holds 'Tamei' - in that, according to the Tana Kama, he is Tamei mi'Safek, whereas Rebbi Yehoshua will hold that he is Tamei Vaday.

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav however extrapolates from "le'Taharo O le'Tam'o" that Rebbi Yehoshua must have meant 'Kiyhah ve'Tahor' - because the Torah begins with Taharah to teach us that if the Safek is not Tamei Vaday, then he is Tahor (but not Safek Tamei). Consequently, seeing as the Tana Kama rules Tamei, Rebbi Yehoshua must mean 'Kiyhah ve'Tahor'.

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says that a Zav is examined in seven ways, he means - that a Zav is only Tamei (Zivus) provided his emission is a natural one, and that he is not an O'nes in one of those seven ways.

(b) The other three, besides food, drink, carrying and jumping - are illness, seeing an act of intimacy (even by two animals, according to Rebbi Yehudah) and immoral thoughts.

(c) This examination will not make any difference - once he is already a Zav (through two sightings, who is Tamei but does not bring a Korban). In other words, when he sees the third time, he becomes obligated to bring a Korban even if he saw be'O'nes.

(d) The Tana also lists together with 'O'nes' - a Safek and the Shichvas Zera of a Zav (which will explained in the Sugya).

(a) According to the Tana Kama, someone who strikes his friend who, after being assessed by Beis-Din that he will die, improves, then deteriotates and dies, is Chayav Misah. Rebbi Nechemyah says here the same as the Chachamim said in the previous case (of O'nes by a Zav at his third sighting) - namely, that there is 'Raglayim le'Davar' (hard evidence) that in the one case, he is a Zav, and in the other, that he it was not the stroke that killed him, but some other weakness.

(b) Rebbi inserted the Mishnahs of 'ha'Motze Meis', 'Kol Safek Nega'im' and 'be'Shiv'ah Derachim Bodkin es ha'Zav' in this Perek - because of the Sevara 'Raglayim le'Davar', which they have in common with the previous Mishnah (regarding the Shechunas Kevaros, which in turn, was learned in connection with Tum'as Tehom, which is Tahor with regard to a Nazir and someone who is bringing his Korban Pesach).

(a) The Torah writes in Tazri'a "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah".
Both Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Elazar (or Rebbi Eliezer) agree that the Torah is comparing a Zav at some stage to a Zavah. The leniency that applies to a Zav but not to a Zavah is - that of O'nes, which does not prevent a woman from becoming Tamei.

(b) Rebbi Nasan Darshens from ...

1. ... "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo" - that both the first and the second sighting will not render the Zav Tamei if he saw be'O'nes.
2. ... "la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah" - that the third sighting (which is being compared to that of a woman) will.

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar (or Rebbi Eliezer) says - who Darshens "es" to include one extra sighting, the comparison to the Zivus of a woman will only apply to the fourth sighting (should he see again after he is a full-fledged Zav), and not to the third.