Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana has quoted three Pesukim to teach us that Terumah is permitted at nightfall: "Ad Asher Yithar", "u'Ba ha'Shemesh ve'Taher" and "ad Melos Yemei Taharah". Having written ...

1. ... "Lo Yochal ad Asher Yithar", it nevertheless needed to write "u'Ba ha'Shemesh ve'Taher" - because otherwise, we would not have known exactly when he becomes Tahor to eat Terumah.
2. ... "u'Ba ha'Shemesh ve'Taher", it nevertheless needs to write "ad Melos Yemei Taharah" - to teach us that even a bar Kaparah is permitted to eat Terumah as soon as night falls.
3. ... "ad Melos Yemei Taharah", it nevertheless needs to write "Ad Asher Yithar" - to teach us that nightfall must be preceded by Tevilah.

(b) On the previous Amud, we quoted Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who establishes the Pasuk "ad Asher Yithar" by a Zav who had two sightings and a Metzora who is a Musgar. The Tana who disagrees with him establishes the Pasuk - by a Zav who had three sightings (and a Metzora Muchlat), and the Torah is coming to restrict Kodshim, not Terumah.

(c) Despite the fact that, according to him, we have the Pasuk (forbidding Kodshim to be eaten) until after the Kaparah ...

1. ..."ve'Chiper Alehah, ve'Taheirah" (with regard to a Yoledes), we nevertheless need another Pasuk by Zav - because we would have otherwise restricted the Chumra to a Yoledes, because she has a particularly long spell of Tum'ah (regarding Terumah and Kodshim - forty days for a boy and eighty, for a girl).
2. ... "ad Asher Yithar" (with regard to a Zav), we need another Pasuk by Yoledes - because those same days of Tum'ah have the unique distinction of permitting her to her husband even though she sees blood, so we could not have learned the Chumra in question from Zav.

(a) We need the Pasuk (with regard to Terumah) ...

1. ... "ba'Mayim Yuva ve'Tamei ad ha'Erev" - to teach us that, not only is one forbidden to *eat* Terumah when one is Tamei, but that a vessel (which is only a Sheini le'Tum'ah) that touches it, renders it Tamei (a Sh'lishi - as does a T'vul Yom, who is a Sheini), and that this too, is forbidden.
2. ... ve'Taher - that a Sheini does not render Ma'aser a Sh'lishi.

(b) We know to establish the former Pasuk by Terumah, and the latter by Ma'aser and not vice-versa - because we take our cue from eating, where we have already seen that Terumah is more stringent than Ma'aser.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learns the Isur of touching Terumah be'Tum'ah from another source. He learns from "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga, v'El ha'Mikdash Los Savo" that - just as one is Chayav Kares for Bi'as Mikdash (mentioned in the second phrase), so too, does the first phrase speak in a case when one is Chayav Kares (i.e. for *eating* Terumah, where Kares is mentioned), and not by just *touching* Terumah, where Kares is not mentioned.

(b) We learn from ...

1. ... "be'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga, ve'el ha'Mikdash Lo Savo" - that Kodesh, just like Mikdash, must be speaking in a case where one is Chayav Misah (i.e. for *eating* it be'Tum'ah, by which the Torah writes in Emor "u'Meisu Bo Ki Yechalaluhu), whereas for touching, there is no Misah.
2. ... the fact that the Pasuk uses the Lashon "Lo Siga" - that whatever is forbidden to eat be'Tum'ah, is also forbidden to render Tamei by touching it.

(a) Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) establishes our Mishnah, which permits the wife of a Kohen who became a P'tzu'a Daka, to eat Terumah, as long as there has been no Bi'ah, like Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, who permit a woman who is betrothed to someone whose Bi'ah is Pasul. According to Rebbi Yochanan, even Rebbi Meir who normally forbids it will agree that here, she may continue to eat - on the grounds that, since she had already been eating when her husband became a P'tzu'a Daka, she may continue to do so?

(b) Rebbi Elazar discounts Rebbi Yochanan's proof - because, if that was the case, every bas Yisrael who married a Kohen should be permitted to continue to eat after her husband's death.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan refutes Rebbi Elazar's counter-proof - on the grounds that a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen is different than a woman who is married to a Kohen who became a P'tzu'a Daka, inasmuch as the Kinyan of the former dissipates with her husband's death.

(a) Someone whose Beitzim are holed or shriveled is considered a P'tzu'a Daka.

(b) We learned in our Mishnah that someone whose one Beitzah is crushed, is also considered a P'tzu'a Daka. Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah quoting the Chachamim in Kerem be'Yavneh says - that a man who has only one Beitzah is a S'ris Chamah (a natural eunuch) and is therefore Kasher.

(c) We ask on his statement (' ... Eino Ela S'ris Chamah, ve'Kasher') - how Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah can possibly call such a person a S'ris Chamah, when it is simply not true?

(d) We therefore amend it to read - 'Harei Hu *ki*'S'ris Chamah'.

6)

(a) When Shmuel heard about a certain man who had children, even though his Beitzim had been pierced by a thorn - he sent to Rav that he should go and check who the children's father really was.

(b) Rava deduced from the fact that the Torah speaks about "*P'tzu'a* Daka" and not "*ha'Patzu'a* Daka" - that a natural P'tzu'a Daka (through thunder, hail or from birth) is Kasher (because 'ha'P'tzu'a Daka' would imply that he was born like that).

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa learns the same thing from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from "Yavo" "Yavo" - from Mamzer, whose existence is the result of an action by human-beings, and not natural, at the Hand of Hashem.

(d) The Pesulim of cut, severed and crushed, apply to three cases, the Milah and the Beitzim are two of them - the third, is the sinews to which the Beitzim are attached.

(a) Rava assumes that, the reason that the Torah does not mention (how many) generations (are forbidden) in the case of P'tzu'a Daka must be - because he cannot have children (which in turn proves that it is his Milah which is crushed and not part of his head).

(b) The Torahs reason for not mentioning generations is in fact - because unlike the other P'sulei Kahal - only *he* is prohibited, but not *his children*.

(c) We know that P'tzu'a Daka refers to the Milah and not to the head - because it is juxtaposed next to K'rus Shafchah, which certainly does (as we shall now see).

(d) We know that K'rus Shafchah refers to the Milah ...

1. ... and not to the lips - because one *ejects* the spit from the mouth, it does not *flow* (as "Shafchah" implies) ...
2. ... or the nose - because it too, does not flow, but drips.

9)

(a) When Rebbi Chiya bar Aba wanted to validate someone whose Milah was holed diagonally, so that one end of the hole was above the crown and the other end, below it, Rebbi Asi told him - that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi invalidated any case where the hole traversed the entire Atarah (such as this one).

(b) When Ravina asked Rabah Tosfa'ah if 'as thin as a thread' (with regard to the flesh of the Atarah - that the Tana permits in our Mishnah) referred to *all the way* across all whether *most of the way* would suffice - he replied that most of the way was sufficient (see ha'Gahos ha'Gra).

(c) And when he added 'towards the top' - he meant that it must be the majority of the Atarah which has been cut off, with the strip of flesh at the top, together with the main part of the Milah to which it is connected that remains intact. But if it is the top section of the Atarah that has been cut away, and the strip of flesh that remains is the lower part (that is connected to the flesh at the tip of the Milah - with no part of the Atarah adjoining the main section of the Milah), he is not Kasher.

(a) Rav Huna validates someone whose Milah is cut like a pen - meaning that the sides are cut in the shape of the letter 'vee', but invalidates him if it is cut like a pipe - meaning that the inside has been hollowed out. The reason is - because whereas in the latter case, the air gets in and cools down the Zera, preventing it from shooting out, in the former case, this will not happen.

(b) Rav Chisda says that if it is cut ke'Kulmus (like a pen) it is Pasul - because then the Milah *does not touch the sides of the womb*, whereas ke'Marzev (like a pipe) it is Kasher - because it *does*.

(c) Rava agrees with Rav Huna. He refutes Rav Chisda's argument, using as an example, the tap of a barrel, according to the text ... 'ke'Marzev G'rid, ke'Kulmus Eino G'rid' - by pointing out that, like the tap of a barrel, even if the narrow part of the tap (which used to be thick at one end and thin at the other) did *not touch the sides* of the barrel as it was pushed through the hole into which it was placed, the wide end *did*.

(a) Ravina quoting Mar Zutra Amar Rav Papa validated both ke'Kulmus and ke'Marzev. His query to Mereimar, whether Mar Zutra was speaking below the Atarah or above, is strange - inasmuch as we have already learned that even if the top section of the Milah is severed completely, he is still Kasher.

Consequently, it is obvious that Mar Zutra was speaking to above the Atarah. (b) He only asked the She'eilah - in order to pick Mereimar's brains.

(c) When a case of Marzev occurred in Masa Machsaya - Mar bar Rav Ashi cut the outer walls of the Milah until it was shaped like a Kulmus, which he then declared Kasher (like Rav Huna).

(d) When Rav Bibi bar Abaye wanted to validate a man whose Zera- duct was stopped up so that the Zera was being emitted through the urine-duct - he declared him invalid, on the grounds that Zera not in its place will not germinate. And he asked Rav Bibi whether it was because he came from an unfortunate (see Tosfos) lineage (Eli ha'Kohen, who were all destined to die young) that he made 'unfortunate' statements.