Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ki *Yipalei* Mimcha Davar" - that the Din of a Zaken Mamrei is confined to a Mufla she'be'Beis-Din (an expert Dayan), to preclude a Talmid.

(b) When the Tana, based on the Pasuk in Nachum "Mimcha Yatza Yo'etz ... ", explains ...

1. ... "Mimcha", 'Zeh Yo'etz', he means - that the Zaken Mamrei was arguing with the Beis-Din in matters concerning Ibur ha'Shanah and Kevi'us ha'Chodesh.
2. ... "Davar", 'Zeh Halachah' - that the Zaken Mamrei was arguing with the Beis-Din in matters concerning 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
3. ... "la'Mishpat", 'Zeh ha'Din' - that the Zaken Mamrei was arguing with the Beis-Din in matters that entailed learning a Din from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.

(c) The three areas of Halachah incorporated in ...

1. ... "Bein Dam le'Dam" are the blood of Nidus, childbirth and Zivus.
2. ... "Bein Din le'Din" - are Diynei Nefashos, Mamonos and Malkos.
3. ... "Bein Nega la'Naga" - are Nig'ei Adam, Batim and Begadim.
4. ... "Divrei" - are Charamim, Erchin and Hekdeshos.

(d) According to the Tana, "Rivos" refers to Hashka'as Sotah, Arifas Eglah Arufah and Taharas Metzora. Their connection with "Rivos" is - 1. that a Sotah must have been involved in an argument with her husband; 2. Eglah Arufah is brought for the death of a man who was murdered probably involving a quarrel between the murderer and the murdered man; 3. Tzara'as too, comes for Lashon ha'Ra, usually tied up with a dispute between two people.

(e) The three things incorporated in "bi'She'arecha" are - Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah. These are all Matnos Aniyim, by which the Torah writes in Re'ei "ve'Achlu bi'She'arecha ... ".

(a) The Tana learns from ...

1. ... "ve'Kamta" - that the Zaken Mamrei must leave for Yerushalayim from the location of Beis-Din in their town (where the Dayanim are obligated to sit whenever they judge.
2. ... "ve'Alisa" - that Yerushalayim is the highest point on Eretz Yisrael.
3. ... "El ha'Makom" - that the location of the Beis-Din plays a major role in their rulings.

(b) Yirmiyah ha'Navi says - that in time to come - they will ...

1. ... no longer praise Hashem for redeeming them from Egypt. Instead, they will ...
2. ... praise him for redeeming them from the land of the north (Bavel), and from the other lands to which they had been exiled.

(c) And the Tana learns from the Lashon there "Ki-im Chai Hashem Asher He'elah ... es Zera Beis Yisrael" - that Eretz Yisrael is the highest country in the world.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, a Zaken Mamrei is only Chayav for something that falls into the category of Zedono Kareis, ve'Shigegaso Chatas. Rebbi Yehudah says - something that is basically written in the Torah, but its explanation is from the Chachamim.

(b) Rebbi Shimon is the most stringent of them all. According to him, the Zaken Mamrei is Chayav - even for disputing one detail in a de'Rabbanan.

(c) Rebbi Meir derives his opinion from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ki Yipalei mi'Mecha *Davar*" from "ve'Ne'elam *Davar* me'Einei ha'Kahal" (Vayikra) - which is written in connection with the Oar He'elam Davar (the Korban Chatas of the community).

(d)

1. Rebbi Yehudah derives his opinion from the Pasuk "al-Pi ha'Torah Asher Yorucha" - since "ha'Torah" means 'Ikro min ha'Torah', and "Yorucha", 'Pirusho mi'Divrei Sofrim'.
2. Rebbi Shimon derives his opinion from the Pasuk "Asher Yagidu Lecha min ha'Makom ha'Hu" - implies whatever it is.

(a) Rav Huna bar Chinena asked Rava to explain to him - the Beraisa (quoted earlier on the Amud), according to Rebbi Meir's opinion.

(b) Rava reacted to his request - by asking Rav Papa to go into the matter.

(c) To explain 'Zeh Yo'etz', Rav Papa cited the Mishnah in Iduyos 'Hein (Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Papayas) He'idu she'Me'abrim es ha'Shanah Kol Adar, she'Hayu Omrim (the Chachamim) ad Purim'. This involves something that is 'Zedono Kareis ve'Shigegaso Chatas' - inasmuch as if they fix Rosh Chodesh Nisan a month earlier than it should be, then the people will eat Chametz one month later (when it is really Pesach), whereas they fix it a month later, then they will eat Chametz the month before.

(d) And to explain "Davar", 'Zeh Halachah', he cited the Machlokes (with regard to the tenth of the eleven days between Nidus and Nidus) between Rebbi Yochanan ('Asiri ki'Teshi'i') and Resh Lakish ('Asiri ke'Achad-Asar'). The aspect of this which is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' is - the eleven days between Nidus and Nidus.

(a) The difference between a Nidah and a Zavah (as regards seeing blood) is concerned is - that if the former sees blood, she is Tamei for seven days, unconditionally; whereas the latter must 'watch' the next day (she becomes Tahor should she not see, a Zavah Ketanah in the event that she does, and again on the third day, when she becomes Tamei to bring a Korban (a Zavah Gedolah), if she sees a third time.

(b) If a woman sees blood on ...

1. ... the ninth day - it is like seeing blood on any of the previous days (regarding watching on the tenth and the eleventh).
2. ... the eleventh day - she is not required to watch, seeing as, in the event that she sees on the following day, she will be a Nidah (and not a Zavah).

(c) A woman who sees blood on the tenth day cannot become a Zavah Gedolah, because the twelfth day no longer belongs to the days of Zivus. Nevertheless, should she see blood, her status changes to one of a Zavah Ketanah (who does not bring a Korban or Tovel in spring-water [see Rashash]).

(d) The Machlokes (according to one Lashon in the Sugya in Nidah) is - whether the tenth day requires 'watching' (like one who sees on the ninth day [to at least become a Zavah Ketanah]), or not (like one who sees on the eleventh [since she cannot become a Zavah Gedolah]).

(e) The Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish (as well as that between the Zaken Mamrei and the Beis-Din) involves Kareis and a Chatas - in the event that the woman subsequently sees blood on the eleventh day, and she is subject to Kareis or a Chatas, should she have relations with her husband.

6)

(a) "Mishpat", 'Zeh ha'Din' (regarding a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', as we explained above). Rava quoting Rav Yitzchak, learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Heinah" "Heinah" and "Zimah" "Zimah (with which the Zaken Mamrei disagreed) - that Bito me'Anusaso receives Sereifah.

(b) And the bone of contention between him and the Beis-Din with regard to "Dam le'Dam" (vis-a-vis Dam Nidah), revolves around the Machlokes between Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbanan, who argue whether green (or yellow) blood is Tamei (Akavya) or not (the Rabbanan).

(c) Whereas with regard to Dam Leidah, it revolves around the Machlokes between Rav and Levi. When Rav says 'Ma'ayan Echad Hu' - he means that the Tamei blood that a woman who gave birth to a girl sees during the first two weeks and the blood that she subsequently sees (during the days of Taharah) emanate from the same source (only the Torah declared it Tamei, in one case, and Tahor, in the other.

(d) According to Levi however, the two bloods are from two different sources. The ramifications of their Machlokes will be in a case - where the woman continues to see blood after the termination of the two-week period, which will be Tahor according to Rav, but Tamei according to Levi. And the reverse will be true in a case where she continues to see blood after the sixty-six days of Taharah. (Consequently, the Zaken Mamrei's ruling will lead to Kareis, either at the beginning or at the end.

(a) The Torah writes in Tazri'a with regard to the three sightings of Zivus "ve'Ishah Ki Yazuv Zov Damah Yamim Rabim". We learn from the word "Damah" - that a woman is Tamei only if the blood comes naturally, and not as the result of the baby.

(b) In this context, the third Dam revolves around a Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua in another Mishnah in Nidah. According to Rebbi Eliezer, we do not ascribe the blood to the birth, if there was a break of twenty-four hours (whenever they occur). Rebbi Yehoshua - requires twenty-four hours that begin at nightfall and end twenty-four hours later (like Shabbos).

(c) Seeing blood is - not the sole criterion for the Din of 'Shafsah' (the break), because the pain stopping is a second criterion.

(a) We established 'Bein Din le'Din' by Diynei Mamon, Nefashos and Malkos. With regard to Diynei Mamon, they argue over the Machlokes between Shmuel and Rebbi Avahu. Shmuel holds 'Shenayim she'Danu, Dineihem Din'. Rebbi Avahu - disqualifies the ruling of two Dayanim altogether.

(b) This Machlokes will involve Kareis and Chatas - in a case where two Dayanim did indeed, extract money from Reuven to pay Shimon. According to Shmuel, if Shimon subsequently betroths a woman with it, she is Mekudeshes, whereas according to Rebbi Avahu, it is Gezel, and as we learned in a Mishnah in Kidushin, 'ha'Mekadesh be'Gezel Einah Mekudeshes. Consequently, if first Levi and then Yehudah betroth her, one of them will be Chayav Kareis Mah Nafshach (either according to Shmuel or according to Rebi Avahu respectively).

(c) And with regard to Diynei Nefashos, they argue over the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan. Rebbi holds 'Niskaven La'harog es Zeh ve'Harag es Zeh', the murderer is Chayav to pay, whereas according to the Rabbanan, he is Chayav Miysah (and Patur from paying), as we learned in 'ha'Nisrafin'.

(d) This Machlokes involves Kareis and Chatas in the same way as the previous case - if the heirs seized the money from the murderer and then used it to betroth a woman.

10)

(a) "Bein Nega la'Naga" comes to include the three kinds of Nega'im. The Machlokes between the Zaken Mamrei and Beis-Din by 'Nig'ei Adam is that of Rebbi Yehoshua and the Rabbanan. A Baheres requires two white hairs in the middle of it - which must grow there (or turn white) after the appearance of the Baheres in order to be a Si'man Tumah.

(b) The Rabbanan maintain that a Safek is Tamei. Rebbi Yehoshua says 'Keiheh', which (means that it became paler, and which) Rava interprets as 'Keiheh ve'Tahor' (just like it would be if it occurred during the days that the Nega was locked up).

(c) This Machlokes might involve Kareis or Chatas - if the Safek subsequently entered the Beis Hamikdash or ate Kodshim, where he would be Chayav according to the Rabbanan, but not according to Rebbi Yehoshua.

(a) With regard to Nig'ei Batim, they argue over the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan in the Mishnah in Nega'im (which we already discussed in ben Sorer u'Moreh). Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon requires the Shiur of two Gerisin by one, on two bricks of two walls in the corner, where the two walls meet. The Rabbanan (who do not agree with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's D'rashah of "Kir" "Kiros"), consider the house Tamei even if the bricks are not in the corner.

(b) This Machlokes might involve Kareis or Chatas - if someone entered a Bayis ha'Menuga where the stricken bricks were on two sides of the house, and not in the corner, and then entered the Beis Hamikdash or ate Kodshim, according to the Rabbanan.

(a) And regarding 'Nig'ei Begadim', they argue over the Machlokes between Rebbi Nasan ben Avtulmus and the Rabbanan. Rebbi Nasan ben Avtulmus learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Karachas ve'Gabachas" (Nig'ei Begadim) from "Karachas ve'Gabachas" (Nig'ei Adam) - that in the event that the Nega spreads to the entire garment, it is Tahor.

(b) According to the Rabbanan - the Beged is Tamei.

(c) This Machlokes too, would lead to Kareis or Chatas - if the Nega spread to the entire garment, and someone either took the garment into the Beis- Hamikdash or touched it and went there himself, according to the Rabbanan, but not according to Rebbi Nasan ben Avtulmus.