Previous daf

1)

(a) A Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom who saw blood after they had already sprinkled the blood of her Pesach, cannot eat the Pesach - because she still needs to keep one more clean day (i.e. she is not yet definitely Tehorah).

(b) There is no proof from the fact that she is Peturah from Pesach Sheni, that Ritzuy Tzitz applies even to Tum'as ha'Tehom of Zivah - because Rebbi Yossi may hold that when a woman sees blood, she is only Temei'ah from then on, and not retroactively.

(c) When Rebbi Yossi says in another Beraisa ... 've'Chein Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom she'Shachtu ve'Zarku Aleha ba'Sheini she'Lah, ve'Achar Kach Ra'asah, Harei Elu Metam'in Mishkav u'Moshav *Lemafrei'a* - he means mi'de'Rabbanan (mi'd'Oraysa she is Temei'ah only from then on).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan asked Rebbi Oshaya, who said that a Zav who sees on his seventh day, must begin counting seven clean days again - that that should not be necessary, and that he does not even need to demolish the day on which he saw.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan's original statement 'Lo Yistor *Ela* Yomo' makes no sense - because: if he holds that a sighting works retroactively, then the Zav ought to demolish all *seven* days (because the Torah writes "ve'Safar Lo Shiv'as Yamim le'Taharaso"); whereas if he holds that it works from the time that he sees Zivus, then he should *not even demolish one* day?

(c) After the Gemara concluded like we explained in a., Rebbi Oshaya replied 'Rebbi Yossi holds like you', which goes to prove that when Rebbi Yossi said 'Harei Eilu Mitam'in Lemafrei'a', he meant mi'de'Rabbanan, as we explained in 1d.

(d) There is no proof that, according to Rebbi Yossi, who holds that a Zav becomes Tamei (min ha'Torah) from the time that he sees, and not retroactively, that Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa ('Lo Amru Tum'as ha'Tehom Ela le'Mes Bilevad') comes to preclude a *Kohen* from Tum'as ha'Tehom of a Sheretz (but by Tum'as Mes, the Tzitz *will* atone for him) - because he may well be coming to preclude the *owner*, because he holds 'Ein Shochtin ve'Zorkin Al Tum'as Sheretz'.

(a) It is possible to become a full Zavah, according to Rebbi Yossi (who holds that subsequent sightings of a Zav do not connect with the previous one) - if she saw blood for full three days consecutively; or if she saw throughout the two periods of dusk (in which case the beginning of the second and third days begin with Tum'ah, and she does not any clean period at all).

(b) If a Zav (who did not have a sighting during Bein Hashemashos) counts part of the night, it is considered like one day (assuming that 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo') - it is not necessary to begin counting in the daytime.

(a) Assuming that the Tzitz atones for Tum'as ha'Tehom even by a Kohen who is bringing someone's *Pesach* or *Shalmei Nazir*, Rav Yosef asks whether it will also atone for a Kohen who is bringing a Korban *Tamid*.

(b) If Rav Yosef were to hold 'Tum'ah *Hutrah* Hi be'Tzibur' - a Kohen who was Tamei Tum'as ha'Tehom would certainly be permitted to bring the Tamid (which is a Korban Tzibur), and there would be no Sha'aleh. Consequently, since in spite of that, he *did* ask the Sha'aleh, he must hold 'Tum'ah *Dechuyah* Hi be'Tzibur' and the Sha'aleh is whether, it is necessary to search for a Kohen who is not Tamei to bring it, or not.

(c) The Gemara answers this Sha'leh with a Kal va'Chomer: if the Torah permits Tum'as ha'Tehom by Nazir and Pesach (where known Tum'ah is *not* permitted), how much more so by the Tamid, where it *is*.

(d) The Gemara refutes this Kal va'Chomer on the grounds that we cannot learn a Kal va'Chomer from a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

5)

(a) Rebbi Akiva was trying to derive from Etzem ki'Se'orah (which is *not* Metamei a person be'Ohel) that a Nazir should need to shave off his hair if he touches a Revi'is of blood (which *is*).

(b) Rebbi Eliezer corrected him because the Din of Etzem ki'Se'orah is a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', and one cannot learn a Kal va'Chomer from a Halachah.

(c) Rava finally learns Tum'as ha'Tehom by a Kohen by the Korban Tamid with a 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Mo'ado" "Mo'ado" from Pesach.

(a) The Gemara initially wants to learn from the Pasuk in Naso ...

1. ... (by Nazir) "ve'Chi Yamus Mes *Alav"* - 'bi'Mechuveres Alav' (when it is clear to him, but not when the Tum'ah is unknown), according to Rebbi Elazar; in other words, this is the source for the leniency of Tum'as ha'Tehom by Nazir.
2. ... (by Pesach) "be'Derech Rechokah *Lachem*", according to Rebbi Yochanan - 'bi'Mechuveres Lachem' (that the Tum'ah nust be clear to you ... as we explained by Nazir); a source for Tum'as ha'Tehom by the Pesach.

(b) Resh Lakish learns the same thing from "*be'Derech* Rechokah Lachem" - that the Tum'ah must be like a road, about which everybody knows, but not if it is unknown to the public.

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar (who learns that for it not to be Tum'as ha'Tehom, it must be 'Mechuveres Alav'), the Tum'ah should be clear to *him*; according to Rebbi Yochanan (it must be 'Mechuveres Lachem'), at least *two* people ought to know about it; and according to Resh Lakish (who requires 'ke'Derech'), the Tum'ah should be public knowledge. So why does the Beraisa say that at least *one* person needs to know about it, conforming with none of these opinions?

(d) The Gemara concludes that Tum'as ha'Tehom is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, and the Pesukim that we quoted earlier, are merely an Asmachta.

(a) It makes no difference whether the Tum'as ha'Tehom was discovered *after* the Zerikas ha'Dam, or whether they got to know about it even *before* the blood was sprinkled - either way, the Tzitz atones for Tum'as ha'Tehom.

(b) This Sugya must have preceded Rav Yosef's Sha'leh on the previous Amud regarding a Kohen by Tum'as ha'Tehom by the Tamid - because they must have known that it is a Halachah before asking whether one can learn a Kal va'Chomer from a Halachah or not (which is the gist of Rav Yosef's Sha'leh in 4a.).

(a) The Halachah of Tzitz Meratzeh Al Tum'as ha'Tehom is confined to Pesach and Nazir (and Tamid) - but does not permit a Kohen to eat Terumah.

(b) A Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah if he walked past a spot on the street where a Mes is later discovered to have been buried ...

1. ... *along its length*, and also if it is ...
2. ... broken up into pieces across its width - because it is possibe that he side-tracked the corpse without actually walking over it, and 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor'.

(c) The previous Halachah not apply (even to a Kohen who is walking empty- handed) - if the corpse is lying in a grave, since the entire grave is then Metamei be'Ohel (even if one were to remove the corpse from it, because the Torah writes in Chukas "O va'Kaver").

(d) Nor will it apply to a Kohen who is carrying a heavy load or who is riding a carriage - both of whom tend to sway from side to side, so that it is unlikely that they did not pass over the corpse.

10)

(a) If most of the Pesach becomes Tamei, it must be burned in front of the Beis ha'Mikdash using wood designated for the Ma'arachah; whereas if it was only the minority which became Tamei, it would be burned it in the owner's private courtyard, using his own wood.

(b) Nosar has the same Din as the minority which became Tamei.

(c) The misers used to burn their Tamei Pesach in front of the Beis Hamikdash (even though it was only a minority), in order to earn the right to use wood from the Ma'arachah.

(d) The reason for burning the majority of the Pesach which became Tamei in front of the Beis Hamikdash - is in order to shame those who allowed it to happen, because it is a disgrace to allow Kodshim to become Tamei.