Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah queries Resh Lakish from a Mishnah in Keilim, which requires a Tamei oven to be broken into three parts, in order to become Tahor. Three, not two - to avoid having one piece which is a majority.

(b) The second requirement that is needed is - to scrape off all the cement (right down to the ground, which may also refer to the division into three [see Tiferes Yisrael]. See also Rashash DH 'Hasam de'Talkeih Metzalek').

(c) Rebbi Meir does not need the last two requirements - only that the oven should be less than four Tefachim high (which is the initial Shi'ur of an oven).

(d) The Kashya on Resh Lakish is - from Rebbi Meir, since a cemented oven stands firmly, in which case, according to him, it ought to remain Tamei.

(a) Rava counters Rebbi Yirmiyah's Kashya - like he did Rav Yosef's, that rather than ask on Resh Lakish from Rebbi Meir, he might just as well support him from the Rabbanan (who require the cement to be removed).

(b) Rava therefore amends the Machlokes - to how to build an oven Lechatchilah in a way that it is not subject to Tum'ah.

(c) They both agree however, that Bedieved, once it does become Tamei - it must be divided into three and the cement removed, right down to the ground.

(a) We ask on Rava's interpretation from another Mishnah in Keilim. The Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Meir, who gives the minimum size of a large oven (as regards Tum'ah), and the remains of a larger one, as four Tefachim. But they argue with him as regards a small one - which little girls use.

(b) They give the minimum size of a small oven as a Kol-Shehu (once it has been used ['mi'she'Tigamer Melachto']). Rebbi Yanai ascribe the Shi'ur of a Tefach to a 'Kol-Shehu'.

(c) The Shi'ur the Rabbanan ascribe to the remains of a small oven - is 'Rubo'.

(d) The Rabbanan in this Mishnah, who require remains of four Tefachim, appear to contradict what they said in the previous one - where they disagreed with Rebbi Meir, requiring an oven to be broken into three, implying that if it is divided into two, the larger section would remain Tamei, even if it is less than four Tefachim.

(a) We resolve the two Mishnahs, based on the way the oven is broken - by ascribing the Shi'ur of four Tefachim (but not less) to one that is spliced horizontally (since it is unsteady); and the of Rov, even it is less than four Tefachim, to where it is spliced vertically (where it stands firmly)

(b) We ask on the Din regarding a small oven 'Sheyarav be'Rubo', what one can do with the remains of an oven that is less than a Tefach. Abaye therefore interprets 'Sheyarav be'Rubo' - with regard to a large oven.

(c) How do we reconcile this with what we just said, that the Rabbanan to, give the Shi'ur of the remains of a large oven as four Tefachim - by establishing that by an oven of seven Tefachim, whereas the current statement pertains to an oven that is nine.

(d) The Rabbanan are forced to say that the remains of an oven of seven Tefachim is four Amos, and not three and a half plus - so that the Din of 'Shiyur' (remains) should not be more stringent than an oven Lechatchilah, whose minimum Shi'ur is four Tefachim.

(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Huna citing Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi rules that even if the minority of the Tamei garment which the owner tore is the size of a Ma'afores - it is Tahor.

(b) In this Lashon too, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue over the same garment if it is made of leather. But this time, Resh Lakish's reason for saying that it is still Tamei is - because leather is more valuable than material, whereas Rebbi Yochanan maintains that there is no difference.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan cites the Mishnah in Keilim, where the Chachamim concede to Rebbi Yehudah that if the piece of Tamei leather is less than five Tefachim, it is Tahor. According to Resh Lakish, he asks - it should be Tamei (even though a material garment under similar circumstances would not), because of its value.

(d) Resh Lakish answers - that the Mishnah speaks in a case where the owner intends to used the piece of leather for the folding chair of a Zav, for which the minimuim is five Tefachim by five Tefachim.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if a k'Zayis of Basar is attached to a piece of skin, and someone touches a strip of flesh or a hair that protrudes from the skin, he becomes Tamei. He is rendered Tabmei by ...

1. ... the strip of flesh - because he touched a k'Zayis of Tum'ah.
2. ... hair - because the hair is a Shomer.

(b) The latter renders him Tamei - only if it is protruding from a point in the skin which has the Basar at the back (as we already learned).

(c) If the piece of skin contains two half k'Zeisim of Basar, then, according to Rebbi Yishmael, he becomes Tamei Masa (if he carries) it but not Tamei Maga (if he touches it) - because it is not possible to touch both pieces of Basar simultaneously (with the same finger) and there is no Din of Tum'ah through touching twice.

(d) According to Rebbi Akiva - he is not Tamei either way, because the skin is Mevatel the Basar (as we already learned).

(e) Rebbi Akiva will concede however, that the two half-k'Zesim render a person Tamei - if he impales them on a splinter of wood and carries the wood.

(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan qualifies the first ruling in our Mishnah. The Tana will agree that the k'Zayis Basar that is attached to the skin is not Metamei - if the Basar was torn off by a person with a knife (as we learned earlier).

(b) Rav Nachman asked Ula incredulously whether Rebbi Yochanan even said this with regard to the amount of ...

1. ... a 'Tarta' - which is a quarter of a Kav (or enough to fill the bowl of scales).
2. ... a 'Nafya' - which is enough to fill a winnow or a sieve.

(c) Rav Nachman's responded - that if Rebbi Yochanan were to tell him that personally, he would not accept it.

(d) When Rav Oshaya repeated the above dialogue between Ula and Rav Nachman to Rebbi Ami, the latter (who misunderstood Ula's statement, as we shall see), retorted - that just because Rav Nachman was thwe son-in-law of the Resh Galusa, that does not entitle him to speak so disrespectfully about Rebbi Yochanan's rulings.

(a) On another occasion, Rav Oshaya heard Rebbi Ami citing Rebbi Yochanan on the Seifa - that Rebbi Yishmael does not consider two half-K'eisim Bateil by Paltaso Chayah, but by Paltaso Sakin, even he will agree that it is Bateil.

(b) After Rav Oshaya expressed surprise that Rebbi Ami cited Rebbi Yochanan on the Seifa (because then Rav Nachman would never have spoken the way he did [even if he had disagrees with it], Rebbi Ami (who had initially thought that that was how Rav Ashaya had cited him) - asked him whether he had really cited Rebbi Yochanan on the Reisha.

(c) When Rav Oshaya answered in the affirmative, he commented - that if Yehoshua bin Nun had told him that, he would not have accepted it (vindicating Rav Nachman).

(d) Yet when Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, as well as all 'the Nechusei Yama (the Talmidei-Chachamim who accompanied him)', he supported Ula's version. To answer Rav Nachman and Rav Oshaya's blatant Kashya, we cite a statement of Rabv Papa (on a different Sugya) - who established 'a k'Zayis Basar' as 'Merudad' which means that the k'Zayis is flat-shaped, and therefore long and wide, and poeple would not take the trouble to cut it off the skin.

9)

(a) bar Pada qualifies Rebbi Yishmael's ruling ' ... ve'Ein Metamei be'Maga' - confining it to where the Basar is on the other side of the skin from which the hair is protruding. But if the hair was to actually protrude from the Basar, then even Rebbi Yishmael would agree that he would be Tamei through Maga, as well as through Masa.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan maintains - that either way, he is not Tamei.

(c) We equate Rebbi Yochanan's opinion with another statement that he made, equating the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael with Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinas, who said in a Mishnah in Ohalos - that if two half-k'Zeisim of a Meis are placed in a room - they are not Metamei be'Ohel, because 'Ein Ma'ahil ve'Chozer u'Ma'ahil'.

(a) We extrapolate from Rebbi Yochanan's statement regarding Rebbi Yishmael - that Rebbi Akiva must hold like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Dosa.

(b) The problem with that is - that the Chachamim are Metamei (because they hold 'Ma'ahil ve'Chozer u'Ma'ahil'), whereas Rebbi Akiva is Metaher (because he holds 'Ein Noge'a ve'Chozer ve'Noge'a')?

(c) We answer the Kashya however, based on the Seifa of our Mishnah, which gives Rebbi Akiva's reason as - 'Mipnei she'ha'Or Mevatlan'. Otherwise, the two-k'Zeisim would combine.

(d) Consequently - Rebbi Akiva has to hold 'Noge'a ve'Chozer ve'Noge'a' (as we shall see shortly).

(a) Rav Ukva bar Chama queries bar Pada from a Beraisa. Rebbi Yishmael learns there from the Pasuk in Shemini ...

1. ... "be'Nivlasam" - 've'Lo be'Or she'Yesh Alav Sh'nei Chatza'ei Zeisim'.
2. ... "ve'ha'Nosei Yitma" - that even though it is not Metamei be'Maga, it is Metamei be'Masa.

(b) Whereas Rebbi Akiva learns from the Hekesh of "ve'ha'Nosei" to "ve'ha'Noge'a" - that whatever is not Metamei be'Maga is not Metamei be'Masa either (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Akiva').

(c) This poses a Kashya on bar Pada from Rebbi Akiva - who counters Rebbi Yishmael from the Hekesh "ve'ha'Nosei" to "ve'ha'Noge'a" (as we just explained). But does the latter not agree that Maga applies, to the side where the Basar is?

(d) To accommodate bar Pada, Rava therefore explain Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah to mean - that Masa only applies there where Maga applies in all circumstances (at the back as well as at the front).

(a) Based on Rava's previous interpretation of Rebbi Akiva, Rav Ivya Saba asked Rabah bar Rav Huna whether Rebbi Yishmael will, or will not, concede that a thigh-bone containing marrow is not Metamei be'Masa (see Tosfos DH 've'Hacha'). He might ...

1. ... *concede to Rebbi Akiva* that it is not - since unlike the previous case, it is not subject to Maga at all, even on one side.
2. ... *not* - because he might disagree with Rebbi Akiva's Hekesh altogether.

(b) When Rabah bar Rav Huna said in reply 'Urva Parach' - he was merely changing the subject, because he had no answer.

(c) Rava his son reminded his father that he had only words of praise for Rav Ivya Saba from Pumbedisa - because he thought that he did not bother to answer him because he did not hold him in high esteem (or that the answer was so simple that he ought to have known it himself).

(d) His father replied however - that the reason that he pushed him off was because he was tired after a long D'rashah, and precisely because it was a good question, he did not have an answer ready for him.

(a) Ula rules that if someone carries two half-k'Zeisim impaled on a long splinter of wood all day long - he will not become Tamei.

(b) He explains it, based on the fact that Torah writes the word "ve'ha'Nosei" without a 'Vav' - which we Darshen as 'Nisa', meaning that they are both carried together (that if one picks up one end, the other end comes with it).

(c) We ask on him from Rebbi Yishmael and from Rebbi Akiva (in the case where the two half-k'Zeisim were impaled on a long splinter of wood), both of whom rule in this very case 'Metam'in be'Masa ... '. So to accommodate Ula - Rav Papa establishes the cases by Merudad (as we explained earlier, though here it speaks) where the two halves are joined by a thin strip.

(a) In fact, Ula's ruling is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im. When the Tana Kama in the Beraisa says 'Echad ha'Noge'a ve'Echad ha'Meisit', he is referring to two half-k'Zeisim of B'sar ha'Meis, and he is coming to teach us that the person is Tamei even though the two half-k'Zeisim are not joined.

(b) We ask on Rebbi Eliezer, who says 'Af ha'Nosei' - that Nosei is also included in Meisit (which literally means that one moves it like pulling one end of a see-saw down, when it is on the other end).

(c) We therefore interpret Rebbi Eliezer's ruling to mean that both Nosei and Meisit are Tamei only if the two halves are joined (like Ula).

(d) And although he said 'Af ha'Nosei' - we amend it to 've'Hu de'Nisa' (which means 'provided it has a Shi'ur').