Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) INCLUSIONS AND EXCLUSIONS (cont.)

(a) Answer (Ameimar): Normally, Rebbi expounds generalities and specifics; redemption of a firstborn is different, as Tana d'vei R. Yishmael taught.

1. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): It says twice "Ba'Mayim", generalities, (regarding Simanim of Kosher fish) before the specifics - this teaches that we expound through the method of inclusion, exclusion, inclusion;
2. Chachamim put the specifics in the middle and expound by the method of generality, specific, generality.

(b) Question: Since Rebbi normally expounds according to generalities and specifics, surely he holds like R. Yishmael regarding oaths!
(c) Answer: Indeed, Rebbi taught R. Akiva's opinion regarding oaths even though he disagrees.

(a) (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "v'Ne'elam...v'Ne'elam" - this teaches that one brings a sacrifice only if he knew at the beginning and at the end, and forgot in between (when he transgressed);
(b) Rebbi says, "v'Ne'elam" connotes that he knew - "V'Hu Yada" also teaches this!

1. The extra "v'Ne'elam" obligates him, whether he forgot the Tum'ah or the Mikdash (or Kodshim) - this is like R. Yishmael.

(c) Question: Rebbi says that "v'Ne'elam" connotes that he knew - how is this implied?
(d) Answer #1 (Rava): Because it does not say 'It is hidden from him' (which would imply that he never knew).
(e) Objection #1 (Abaye): If so, regarding Sotah, it says "v'Ne'lam me'Einei Ishah" - will you say that he knew and forgot?!

1. "V'Nikah ha'Ish me'Avon and she will bear her sin" - the water only tests her if her husband acted properly (and forgetting that she became forbidden to him is a gross negligence).

(f) Objection #2 (Abaye): Regarding Torah, it says "v'Ne'elmah me'Einei Kol Chai" - will you say that it was once known?!

1. "Lo Yada Enosh Erkah" (no person knows its worth)!

(g) Answer #2 (Abaye): Rebbi considers having learned the laws of Tum'ah (Rashi - and having felt the rodent when it touched him, even though he did not reflect and realize that he is Tamei) as having once known. (Had he thought about the Tum'ah, he would have known to avoid transgressing.)
(h) Question (Rav Papa - Mishnah): If he never knew of the Tum'ah (and entered the Mikdash or ate Kodshim), and later was told that he was Tamei;

1. Surely, any adult once learned the laws of Tum'ah!

(i) Answer (Abaye): The case is, he was captured by Nochrim as a child (and never learned the laws of Tum'ah).

(a) (Mishnah): There are two primary forms of Yetzi'ah on Shabbos, there are four in all.
(b) (Mishnah (in tractate Shabbos)): There are two primary forms of Yetzi'ah and two secondary forms inside (Rashi - bringing something into a private domain; Tosfos - regarding a person standing in a private domain);

1. There are also two primary and two secondary Yetzi'os outside.

(c) Question: Why does our Tana only mention four of the eight?
(d) Answer #1: There, the focus of the tractate is the laws of Shabbos, the Tana also mentions the derivative Melachos;

1. Our tractate does not focus on the laws of Shabbos (it is merely brought in passing), the Tana only mentions the Av Melachos.

(e) Question: The Av Melachos are Yetzi'os - there are only two of them (yet our Mishnah mentions four)!

1. Suggestion: Perhaps the Mishnah mentions Avos one is liable for and those one is exempt for!
2. Rejection: Presumably, the Yetzi'os are similar to appearances of Tzara'as, i.e. one is liable for all of them.

(f) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): There, the focus of the tractate is Shabbos, the Tana mentions Yetzi'os one is liable for and also those one is exempt for;

1. Our tractate does not focus on the laws of Shabbos, the Tana only mentions Yetzi'os one is liable for.

(g) Question: There are only two Yetzi'os one is liable for (yet our Mishnah mentions four)!
(h) Answer: There are also two Hachnasos (bringing something into a private domain).
(i) Question: But the Tana says there are a total of four Yetzi'os!
(j) Answer #1 (Rav Ashi): Hachnasos are also called Yetzi'os.

1. Question: What is the source to say this?

2. Answer (Mishnah): One who is Motzi from one domain to another domain is liable.

i. This includes taking from a public domain to a private domain, and the Tana calls it Hotza'ah!

3. Question: Perhaps it only refers to taking from a private domain to a public domain!
4. Answer: If so, it should have said 'One who is Motzi from a private domain to a public domain';

i. Rather, it says 'from one domain to another domain' to teach both directions;
ii. Any uprooting of an object from its place is called Hotza'ah.

5. Support (Ravina - Mishnah): There are two primary forms of Yetzi'ah and two secondary forms inside, and two primary and two secondary Yetzi'os outside;

i. The Tana then details the Yetzi'os, and some are Hachnasos!

(k) Version #1 - Rashi - Answer #2 (Rava): The Tana (there) says that there are two domains of Shabbos, which lead to four prohibitions inside and four outside.
(l) Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer #2 (Rava): The Tana (there) says that (transferring between) domains of Shabbos entails two prohibitions for which one is liable (and four in all) inside and two prohibitions of liability and four in all outside.

(a) (Mishnah): There are two primary appearances of Tzara'as, there are four in all.
(b) (Mishnah (in tractate Nega'im)): There are two primary appearances of Tzara'as, there are four in all: Baheres is as bright as snow, its secondary appearance is k'Sid (like plaster of) the Heichal; Ses is like white wool, its secondary appearance is k'Karom (like the membrane of) an egg.
(c) (R. Chanina): This latter Mishnah is not like R. Akiva.

1. Version #1 (Rashi, Tosfos): R. Akiva says that different appearances (that join together to complete the area of plagued skin that is Metamei), one is (directly) whiter than another (i.e. without another of the four appearances in between).
2. If the Mishnah was R. Akiva, k'Sid would not join with any appearance!

i. It cannot join with Baheres, because Baheres is not directly whiter than it (Ses is in between);
ii. It cannot join with Ses, because our Mishnah says that it is not a secondary appearance of Ses! (Tosfos - to teach just this, that it does not join with Ses; R. Akiva himself holds that it joins to Ses even though it is second to Baheres; Rashi - R. Akiva holds that k'Sid is secondary to Ses).

3. (Other versions: Ba'al ha'Ma'or - our Mishnah holds that there are only three different shades of white, Ses is also k'Sid, but plagues of Ses and k'Sid have different textures; Ramban - R. Akiva holds that all the appearances are the same shade of white, they only vary in intensity; Gra - R. Chanina holds that R. Akiva says that Ses is whiter than k'Sid, unlike our Mishnah which puts k'Sid second to Baheres. We shall only explain according to Rashi and Tosfos.)
4. Question: If so, also k'Karom would not join with any appearance!

i. It cannot join with Ses, because Ses is not directly whiter than it (k'Sid is in between);
ii. It cannot join with k'Sid, because it is from a different primary appearance than k'Sid!

5. Rejection: No, "Vela'Ses vela'Sapachas" teaches that the secondary appearance of Ses joins with Ses, even though Ses is not directly whiter than it.

i. The question from k'Sid remains (if the Mishnah is R. Akiva, nothing joins with it); ii. We conclude that the Mishnah is not R. Akiva.