(a)What 'Kal va'Chomer' does the Tana learn from Hash-m's statement to Moshe that if Miriam's father were cross with her, would he not lock her up for seven days?
(b)What is the basis of the 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(c)In that case, why did Hash-m not expel her from the Camp for fourteen days?
(d)On what basis does Rebbi Tarfon ignore 'Dayo'?
1)
(a)The Tana learns from Hash-m's statement to Moshe (in Beha'aloscha) that if Miriam's father were cross with her, would he not lock her up for seven days 'Kal va'Chomer' if the Shechinah is cross with her, she ought to be expelled from the Camp for fourteen days ...
(b)... based on the fact that, whereas each of his parents only provide a newborn baby with five attributes, Hash-m provides them with ten).
(c)The reason that Hash-m did not expel her from the camp for fourteen days is because of the principle of 'Dayo ... '.
(d)Nevertheless, Rebbi Tarfon ignores 'Dayo' in our case, because it would render the 'Kal va'Chomer' ineffective (seeing as Chatzi Nezek incorporating both the Reshus ha'Rabim and the Reshus ha'Nizak, is already written [unlike by Miriam, where even after 'Dayo', the 'Kal va'Chomer' remains intact, inasmuch as we learn from it the seven days of expulsion for the Shechinah which the Torah does not mention]). In other words, 'Dayo' is able to restrict the 'Kal va'Chomer', but not to negate it.
2)
(a)How do the Rabanan counter Rebbi Tarfon's argument? Is it not true that the 'Dayo' by Miriam only restricts the 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(b)How does Rebbi Tarfon explain "Tisager Shiv'as Yamim"?
(c)The Rabanan learn this from the second "Tisager" that the Torah writes there. What does Rebbi Tarfon say to that?
2)
(a)The Rabanan counter Rebbi Tarfon's argument by arguing that the 'Dayo' by Miriam also negates the 'Kal va'Chomer', because, in their opinion, "Tisager Shiv'as Yamim" already teaches us the seven days of expulsion for the Shechinah.
(b)According to Rebbi Tarfon, "Tisager Shiv'as Yamim" is needed -to teach us 'Dayo' (because without it, Miriam would have been expelled for fourteen days).
(c)The Rabanan learn this from the second "Tisager" that the Torah writes there. Rebbi Tarfon however counters that the Pasuk is needed to extend 'Dayo' beyond the case of Miriam. Otherwise, we would have confined it to Miriam, attributing it to the honor of Moshe, who specifically asked Hash-m to take pity on his sister, which is why Hash-m reduced the expulsion from fourteen days to seven.
3)
(a)Rav Papa queries Rebbi Tarfon from a Bersaisa which discusses the Keri (the first sighting) of a Zav. What is the practical difference between a Keri and Zov?
(b)What is the Halachic difference ...
1. ... (besides the number of days involved) between a Ba'al Keri, who renders Tamei whoever or whatever he touches, and a Zav?
2. ... between the spit of a person who is not a Zav and his Zera?
(c)How does the Tana learn from here that the Keri of a Zav renders Tamei b'Masa too?
(d)What does Rav Papa ask from this Beraisa on our current interpretation of Rebbi Tarfon?
3)
(a)Rav Papa queries Rebbi Tarfon from a Beraisa, which discusses the Keri (the first sighting) of a Zav. The practical difference between Keri and Zav is that whereas the former resembles the white of an egg that is fertile (i.e. it has retained its thickness), the latter resembles the white of an egg that has become partially liquified).
(b)The Halachic difference ...
1. ... (besides the number of days involved) between a Ba'al Keri, who renders Tamei whoever or whatever he touches, and a Zav is that the latter also renders them Tamei through Masa (carrying).
2. ... between the spit of a person who is not a Zav and his Zera is that whereas the former is Tahor, the latter is Tamei Maga.
(c)The Tana learns from here that the Keri of a Zav renders Tamei b'Masa too from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from his spit, which is Tahor by a Tahor person (as we just explained).
(d)Rav Papa asks from this Beraisa on our current interpretation of Rebbi Tarfon that we see from there that we reject 'Dayo' (to restrict the 'Kal va'Chomer' to Tum'as Maga, which is not written by the Keri of a Zav), even though, as we can see, the 'Kal va'Chomer' would remain intact anyway.
4)
(a)On what grounds ...
1. ... does Rav Papa reject the possibility that we do not really need the 'Kal va'Chomer' (for Tum'as Maga), because there seems to be no reason why a Zav who saw Keri should be any worse than a Tahor person who saw it? What does he learn from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Mikreh Laylah"?
2. ... do we object to Rav Papa's latter argument?
(b)Where does this leave us? Who is the author of the Beraisa?
(c)How have we now justified Dayo in this case?
4)
(a)The reason that ...
1. ... Rav Papa rejects the possibility that we do not really need the 'Kal va'Chomer' (for Tum'as Maga), because there seems to be no reason why a Zav who saw Keri should be any worse than a Tahor person who saw it, is based on the Pasuk "Mikreh Laylah", which implies that Keri only renders Tamei when it is caused by 'a night-time emission', but not by anything else (i.e. Ziyvus).
2. ... we reject Rav Papa's latter argument is based on the fact that the Pasuk does not say ' ... but not by anything else'.
(b)Consequently, the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Tarfon, who holds that we do not say 'Dayo' only when it negates the 'Kal va'Chomer' completely ...
(c)... which it does in this case since, the Keri of a Zav does not require a 'Kal va'Chomer for Maga, which we know from "Mikreh Laylah" (as we just explained).
5)
(a)We now discuss the identity of the author of the current Beraisa ('Keri b'Zov'). Rebbi Eliezer, in a Beraisa in Nazir, rules that the Zera of a Zov is Metamei by touching, but not by carrying. What reason does Rebbi Yehoshua give for rendering it Tamei by carrying, too?
(b)What problem do we now have with the Beraisa of 'Keri b'Zov'?
(c)So we establish the author as being the Tana of the Mishnah in Kelim. What does he say about the Zov of a Zav and his spit, his Zera and his urine? What else falls under the same category?
(d)And how do we know that this Tana does not follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua in the Beraisa in Nazir?
5)
(a)We now discuss the identity of the author of the current Beraisa ('Keri b'Zov'). Rebbi Eliezer, in a Beraisa in Nazir, says that the Zera of a Zav is Metamei by touching, but not by carrying. Rebbi Yehoshua renders it Tamei by carrying, too because it is impossible for the Keri of a Zav not to contain some drops of Ziyvus (but not intrinsically).
(b)The problem with the Beraisa of 'Keri b'Zov' is that it follows neither the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer nor that of Rebbi Yehoshua, neither of whom considers the Keri of a Zav, Tamei.
(c)So we establish the author as being the Tana of the Mishnah in Kelim, who says that the Zov of a Zav and his spit, his Zera and his urine and the blood of a Nidah are all Metamei b'Masa.
(d)This Tana cannot hold like Rebbi Yehoshua in the Beraisa in Nazir because if he did, he would have inserted the Zera of the Zov together with his Zov, rather than with his spit.
25b----------------------------------------25b
6)
(a)We now query Rebbi Tarfon from another Beraisa. What do a garment, a leather vessel and wooden vessel all have in common?
(b)To which of these is a Mapatz comparable? What is a Mapatz?
(c)How do we initially learn that a Mapatz is Metamei by a Mes from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from little earthenware jars?
(d)Why will a Zav not render a little earthenware jar Tamei ...
1. ... Mes?
2. ... Midras?
3. ... Heset (carrying or moving)?
6)
(a)What a garment, a leather vessel and wooden vessel all have in common is the fact that the Torah lists them all as being Metamei in the 'Ohel' of a Mes.
(b)A Mapatz (a mat) is comparable to none of these, which explains why we need to find a source for it.
(c)We initially learn that a Mapatz is Metamei by Ohel ha'Mes from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from little earthenware jars, which are not Metamei by a Zav, yet they are Metamei by a Mes; in which case, a Mapatz, which is Metamei by a Zav, should certainly be Metamei in an Ohel ha'Mes.
(d)A Zav will not render a little earthenware jar Tamei ...
1. ... Mes because the opening is too small to place one's finger inside (and earthenware jars can only receive Tum'ah from the inside).
2. ... Midras (since it is not fit to sit or lie on).
3. ... Heset (carrying or moving) since it does not become Tamei through touching.
7)
(a)How might 'Dayo' have applied here?
(b)What does Rav Acha mi'Difta therefore try to prove from this Tana?
(c)In reply, Ravina cites Rav Nachman bar Zecharyah, who already asked Abaye this Kashya. Ravina replied that the Tana does not really learn Mapatz b'Mes from little earthenware jars. From where does he learn it?
(d)And from where does the Tana now learn that Mapatz b'Sheretz is Tamei (for one day)?
7)
(a)'Dayo' might have applied here by restricting the 'Kal va'Chomer' to a one day Tum'ah (like Mapatz b'Zov, since Tum'as Mishkav only lasts for one day), and applying 'Dayo' to the seven-day Tum'ah of Tum'as Mes.
(b)Rav Acha mi'Difta tries to prove from this Tana that he does not hold of 'Dayo' even when the 'Kal va'Chomer' remains intact anyway.
(c)In reply, Ravina cites Rav Nachman bar Zecharyah, who already asked Abaye this Kashya. Ravina replied that the Tana learns Mapatz b'Mes (not from little earthenware jars but) from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Mapatz b'Sheretz, as we shall now see.
(d)The Tana learns that Mapatz b'Sheretz is Tamei (for one day) from the same 'Kal va'Chomer' as we used initially (from little earthenware jars, which are Tahor by a Zav but Tamei by a Sheretz ... ).
8)
(a)Why are little earthenware jars Tamei by a Sheretz, even though they are not Tamei by a Zav?
(b)What does the Tana then learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Beged v'Or" (by Mes) from "Beged v'Or" (by Sheretz)?
(c)What is the significance of the fact that the Pasuk in Emor ...
1. ... places "O Ish Asher Yiga b'Chol Sheretz" after "O Ish Asher Teitzei Mimenu Shichvas Zara"?
2. ... "v'ha'Noge'a b'Chol T'mei Nefesh" before "O Ish Asher Teitzei Mimenu Shichvas Zara"?
(d)What Pircha would we have on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' if it was not Mufneh from both sides?
8)
(a)Little earthenware jars are Tamei by a Sheretz, even though they are not Tamei by a Zav because a piece of Sheretz the size of a lentil (the Shi'ur of Tum'as Sheretz) can fit through their opening, whereas the little finger of a Zav cannot.
(b)The Tana then learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Beged v'Or" (by Mes) from "Beged v'Or" (by Sheretz) that Mapatz b'Mes too, is Tamei for one day.
(c)The significance of the fact that the Pasuk in Emor places ...
1. ... "O Ish Asher Yiga b'Chol Sheretz" after "O Ish Asher Teitzei Mimenu Shichvas Zera" is that seeing as we now know from the Hekesh to Shichvas Zera (where the Torah specifically writes "Beged v'Or"), that a garment and a leather vessel are Tamei through a Sheretz, it renders Mufneh (superfluous) "Beged v'Or" that is written by Sheretz.
2. ... "v'ha'Noge'a b'Chol T'mei Nefesh" before "O Ish Asher Teitzei Mimenu Shichvas Zera" is (based on the same argument that we just used with regard to Sheretz) that "Beged v'Or" written by Mes is Mufneh, leaving us with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufneh from both sides.
(d)If it was not Mufneh from both sides, we could ask that Sheretz has the Chumra over Mes, that it is Metamei with the small Shi'ur of a 'ke'Adashah' (a size of a lentil, as we just saw), as opposed to the 'k'Zayis' of a Mes.
9)
(a)What is the meaning of 'Don Minah ...
1. ... v'Ukeih b'Asra'?
2. ... u'Minah'?
(b)What is the problem with learning Mapatz b'Mes with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Mapatz b'Sheretz, according to those who hold 'Don Minah u'Minah'?
(c)How does Rava resolve this problem by quoting the Pasuk in Matos (following the battle with Midyan) "Ve'chibastem Bigdeichem ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i"?
9)
(a)'Don Minah ...
1. ... v'Ukeih b'Asra' means that when learning a. from b., with a Gezedirah-Shavah, we can learn out some of its aspects, without learning them all.
2. ... u'Minah' means that once we learn a. from b. with a Gezeirah-Shavah, we learn it regarding everything.
(b)The problem with learning Mapatz b'Mes with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Mapatz b'Sheretz, according to those who hold 'Don Minah u'Minah' is seeing as we are learning it from Mapatz b'Sheretz, whose Tum'ah lasts for only one day, from where will we know that Mapatz be b'Mes is Metamei for seven days (which in fact we know it does)?
(c)Rava resolves this problem by quoting the Pasuk in Matos (following the battle with Midyan) "Ve'chibastem Bigdeichem ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i" which teaches us that all Tum'os in connection with Mes last seven days.
10)
(a)On what grounds do we ...
1. ... suggest that Shen va'Regel ought to be liable in the Reshus ha'Rabim? What 'Kal va'Chomer might we have made from Keren?
2. ... reject the answer that "u'Bi'er bi'Sedei Acher" (confining Shen va'Regel to the Reshus ha'Nizak) rules this out?
(b)How do we finally rule it out from the Pasuk (in connection with Keren) "v'Chatzu Es Kaspo"?
10)
(a)We ...
1. ... suggest that Shen va'Regel ought to be liable in the Reshus ha'Rabim from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Keren; because if Keren, which is liable only Chatzi Nezek in the Reshus ha'Nizak, is liable in the Reshus ha'Rabim, then Shen va'Regel, which is Chayav full damages in the Reshus ha'Nizak, should certainly be liable in the Reshus ha'Rabim.
2. ... reject the answer that "u'Bi'er bi'Sdei Acher" (confining Shen va'Regel to the Reshus ha'Nizak) rules this out because we could restrict the Pasuk to Nezek Shalem, whereas we are asking from Chatzi Nezek.
(b)We finally rule it out from "v'Chatzu Es Kaspo" which implies 'Kaspo shel Zeh (Keren), v'Lo Kaspo shel Acher (Shen va'Regel)', precluding Shen va'Regel from Chatzi Nezek in the Reshus ha'Rabim.
