QUESTION: The Beraisa states that when a legion of soldiers (of a Nochri army) passes through an area and enters a house, the house becomes Tamei. This is because every legion carries with it a number of Karkaflin, skins of the heads of human corpses. The Beraisa adds that this is not unusual, as it was the practice of the Nochrim to place the Karkafel of Rebbi Yishmael on the heads of their kings. RASHI (DH Karkaflin) explains that the Nochrim used to bring Karkaflin with them to war, since they had the superstitious belief that the Karkaflin provided them protection during warfare.

The law of the Beraisa is difficult to understand for two reasons.

(a) The Beraisa assumes that the soldiers brought scalps into the houses they entered, thereby making the houses Tamei with Tum'as Ohel of a Mes. However, in the Gemara earlier (122a), Ula states that the skin of a dead person is Tahor mid'Oraisa. The Rabanan decreed it to be Tamei in order to ensure that a person would not make bedspreads out of the skin of a dead person (see Insights there). In the second version of Ula's statement, skin of a human corpse is Tamei mid'Oraisa, but only when it has not been processed for any usage. When it has been processed, it is Tahor mid'Oraisa. According to both versions of Ula's statement, why should the Karkaflin make a house Tamei with Tum'as Ohel of a Mes? According to the first version, the skin of a human corpse is always Tahor mid'Oraisa. According to the second version, the skins that were designated for superstitious purposes are like skins that have been processed, and are Tahor mid'Oraisa.

It does not seem reasonable to suggest that the Beraisa is teaching that the houses are Tamei only mid'Rabanan. Why would the Rabanan decree that the houses which the soldiers enter are Tamei, when no scalp is in sight? When one sees a scalp in the house, the house is Tamei only mid'Rabanan, and thus to say that the house becomes Tamei even when no scalp is found would be a "Gezeirah l'Gezeirah," which the Rabanan do not enact.

(b) The body of a dead Nochri is not Metamei b'Ohel. Even if the skin is considered like the flesh of a corpse, why does the Beraisa assume that the Karkaflin they carried were those of Jews and not those of Nochrim?

(a) The Acharonim suggest two answers to this question.

1. The HAGAHOS MAHARSHAM writes that it must be that these Karkaflin were not merely scalps, but rather entire skulls together with the skin. The skulls indeed make a house Tamei with Tum'as Mes mid'Oraisa.

This explanation, however, is problematic. The Beraisa itself says that we should not be surprised that armies carry such things with them, because we know that the Karkafel of Rebbi Yishmael was placed on the heads of their kings. The skin of Rebbi Yishmael was brutally flayed from his head by the Romans when they killed him. As the Midrash Asarah Harugei Malchus relates, when Rebbi Yishmael was about to be killed, the daughter of the Roman Emperor requested that he be spared because of his rare beauty. When her father refused, she asked if his face could be skinned and preserved; this request was granted. The mask became a state artifact of the Roman Empire. He was not beheaded, though, and thus if the legions carried with them entire skulls, the Beraisa has no proof from the fact that the kings placed the skin of Rebbi Yishmael's head upon their heads. If his skin is called a "Karkafel," it is not reasonable to say that the "Karkaflin" that the soldiers carried with them were skulls.

2. The TIFERES YAKOV asserts that the Beraisa understands that certainly there were skins in the houses, and not merely a doubt. Thus, even though the Tum'ah that they cause is mid'Rabanan, it is only one Gezeirah (and not a "Gezeirah l'Gezeirah") that makes the houses which they enter become Tamei. This is the intention of the Beraisa when it says that there is no legion "that does not have many Karkaflin." The Beraisa is emphasizing that it is certain that at least one Karkafel will have been brought into the house.

(a) The Tiferes Yakov answers the second question in the same way that he answers the first. When the Beraisa says that there is no legion that does not have "many Karkaflin," it means that the legion definitely carries the scalp of a Jew among its collection.

This answer, however, seems problematic. While it is understandable that the legions have "many Karkaflin" and thus we may assume that one certainly entered the house with the soldiers, why should we assume that the one that entered the house was certainly that of a Jew, such that the Rabanan would decree that the house is Tamei? We cannot assume that all of the scalps are those of Jews, and thus there is no basis for the Rabanan to decree that the house is Tamei! If they nevertheless made such a decree, then we are left with the original question -- that this decree is a "Gezeirah l'Gezeirah."

The Tiferes Yakov and Maharsham conclude that this Beraisa does not follow the Halachic opinion that the corpse of a Nochri is not Metamei b'Ohel. This Beraisa maintains that a Nochri's corpse (and skin) is Metamei b'Ohel. The Tiferes Yakov points out that this is the reason why the law of the Beraisa is not recorded by the RAMBAM. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: Rav maintains that when one flays enough of the skin to grip it ("Kedei Achizah"), all of the flayed skin is no longer considered a Yad for the flesh of the animal and is Tahor. RASHI (DH Tefach) explains that according to Rav, only the skin used to move the animal can be considered a Yad, but not the skin that is used to pull off of the rest of the hide. According to this reasoning, however, even when the hide has been skinned less than Kedei Achizah it should not be a Yad! Why does Rav say that it is not a Yad only when Kedei Achizah is skinned?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Tahor) explains that when less than Kedei Achizah is skinned, a person does move the animal by grabbing its hide. Once the hide has been skinned more than Kedei Achizah, one grabs the animal's exposed flesh directly in order to move it. The hide is no longer used to move the animal.

(b) Tosfos adds that until Kedei Achizah is skinned, it is difficult to remove the hide, and therefore the tanner often will move the animal by holding onto its hide. Once it has been skinned Kedei Achizah, the rest of the skin comes off easily and the tanner will not stop until he has finished skinning the animal.

(c) Tosfos quotes RABEINU YAKOV of Orleans who disagrees with Rashi and explains that when less than Kedei Achizah is skinned, the hide is a Shomer and not a Yad. After it is skinned more than Kedei Achizah, the hide no longer serves as a Shomer (since so much of the meat is exposed). (Z. Wainstein)

QUESTION: The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Kelim (28:8) that says that when a garment ("Talis") has become Tamei, one can make it Tahor by tearing most of it, rendering it unfit for its original purpose.

RASHI (DH Talis) points out that the garment becomes Tahor once most of it has been torn even though its remaining fragments are larger than three Etzba'os long and three Etzba'os wide. However, the Gemara earlier (72b) implies that when a garment that was Tamei with both Midras ha'Zav and Maga ha'Zav is torn to remove its Tum'ah, if fragments larger than three by three Etzba'os remain, those fragments remain Tamei! This seems to contradict the Mishnah in Kelim which says (according to Rashi) that the fragments themselves also become Tahor.

(a) RASHI explains that when a garment has two Tum'os, Midras and Maga, tearing the garment removes one of the two (the more severe Tum'ah). When a garment has only one type of Tum'ah, tearing it also removes one Tum'ah (making the garment entirely Tahor).

(b) TOSFOS (73a, end of DH b'She'as) argues that Rashi's suggestion is not logical. When the remaining fragments are larger than three by three Etzba'os, why should they be Tahor? They are large enough to become Tamei, and thus they should retain the original Tum'ah of the garment!

Tosfos explains that tearing a wearable garment makes it Tahor even when fragments larger than three by three Etzba'os remain, because the garment is no longer wearable. The Gemara earlier was discussing a piece of cloth, and not a garment, which was not wearable in the first place. When one tears a piece of cloth that is Tamei, its pieces remain Tamei as long they are three by three Etzba'os, since the cloth itself has not lost any significant degree of usefulness. (Rashi later (123b, DH Ad) proposes a similar logic.)

(c) Tosfos suggests further that when the Mishnah in Kelim, cited by the Gemara here, says that the Talis is Tahor when most of it is torn, it means that many tears were made across the length of the garment such that no fragments larger than three by three Etzba'os remain.

(d) The RAMBAN answers that when a person intentionally tears the garment, it removes all forms of Tum'ah from the garment, since he was Mevatel its status of a garment. If, however, the garment becomes torn by itself, it still is considered a garment (since no one actively was Mevatel it). Therefore, fragments larger than three by three Etzba'os remain Tamei. (Z. Wainstein)

QUESTION: Reish Lakish says that only a garment made of cloth becomes Tahor when one tears most of it, because it loses its usefulness and is no longer significant, even when it is repaired. A leather garment, however, does not become Tahor until the garment is torn entirely in half, because a leather garment is "strong" ("Chalim").

Rebbi Yirmeyah questions Reish Lakish from the Mishnah (123a). The Mishnah says that the skin of an animal no longer has the status of a Yad to convey Tum'ah once it is skinned more than Kedei Achizah. However, if leather is "strong" and retains its significance even after it is partially torn, then why is the skin Tahor when skinned more than Kedei Achizah? This is Rebbi Yirmeyah's question.

The question, however, is difficult to understand. The Mishnah is not discussing the issue of whether garment made of leather becomes Tahor when it is torn. The Mishnah is discussing the issue of whether a partially flayed skin is considered a Yad. How can Rebbi Yirmeyah compare the Taharah of a flayed skin to the Taharah of a torn garment?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH Ha and DH Or) explains that Rebbi Yirmeyah's question is as follows. If the pieces of a torn, leather garment are considered attached even when a majority of the garment is torn, then it is logical to assume that a hide that has been flayed more than Kedei Achizah is considered attached to the animal, and it should be a Yad.

The Gemara answers that the tanner obviously has no intention of returning the skin to the animal, while a person does intend to repair a torn garment of leather. (See also TOSFOS HA'ROSH DH Ha.) (Z. Wainstein)

QUESTION: Reish Lakish says that only a garment made of cloth becomes Tahor when one tears most of it, because it loses its usefulness and is no longer significant, even when it is repaired. A leather garment, however, does not become Tahor until the garment is torn entirely in half, because a leather garment is "strong" ("Chalim").

Rav Yosef questions Reish Lakish from the second part of the Mishnah (123a). The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri who says that the skin on the neck of the animal is not considered connected to the animal with regard to conveying Tum'ah. According to Reish Lakish, the hide is "strong" and it still should be considered connected!

RASHI (DH Ha Chalim) explains that when Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri says that the hide of the neck is not considered connected, he refers even to the part of the hide that still clings to the neck. Rashi later (DH Ela Amar Abaye) explains that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's reasoning is that since the hide eventually will fall off of the neck by itself, it is not considered a Shomer, and if Tum'ah touches it, it cannot transfer the Tum'ah to the animal.

Rashi seems to contradict what he writes on the Mishnah. Rashi earlier (123a, DH Or) explains that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri is saying that when one skins the animal from the hindquarters and upwards, and the hide is detached from the animal all the way to the neck, the detached hide below the neck no longer is considered a Yad for the flesh of the animal, because the neck is so easy to skin. Why does Rashi here (123b) explain the view of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri differently?

(a) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH writes that Rashi retracted his earlier explanation and gives a different explanation for the view of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri.

(b) Perhaps Rashi understands that the argument between Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri and the Chachamim in the Mishnah applies to both the part of the hide that is already detached, and the part that is attached.

It is clear from the Gemara here that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri is discussing the skin that is still attached to the neck. As the Tosfos ha'Rosh points out, if Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri is not discussing the skin that is still attached to the neck, then the Gemara's answer to the previous question would answer this question as well. However, it is clear from the Gemara earlier (beginning of 123b, "ha'Mafshit b'Sheratzim," and Rashi there, DH Lo Teima) that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri and the Chachamim are arguing about the part of the hide that is already detached. Accordingly, Rashi has no choice but to explain that they argue about both cases; they argue about hide that was already detached, and they argue about hide that is still attached to the neck. (M. KORNFELD)