1)

Seeing as the Din of a Nega in the location of a burn is exactly the same as one in the location of a burm why does the Torah present them separately?

1.

Rashi: To teach us that half a G'ris of one and half a G'ris of the other do not combine to make up the Shi'ur Tum'ah. 1

1

A species of large bean - which is the Shi'ur Tum'ah of a Nega.

2)

Hat are the implications of "be'Oro"?

1.

Sifra: It implies even where the Nega has nowhere to spread because it already covers the entire body 1 - even if both the Michvah and the Baheres cover the entire body, or if the Michvah does not but the Baheres does, or vice-versa. 2

1

In Pasuk18, in connection with Sh'chin (Refer to 13:18:1:1), the Sifra learned the same thing from the fact that the Torah inserted "be'Oro" after "bo"?

2

The Sifra learns this via a Gezeirah Shavah "be'Oro" "be'Oro" in Pasuk 18 from Sh'chin.

3)

Having written Michvas Eish", why does the Torah repeat the word "Michvah"?

1.

Sifra: To incorporate in Michvah where the burn came, not from fire, but from coal, hot ashes, boiling lime, Gafsis (calcium sulphate) or hot water that was heated by fire. .

4)

How will we reconcile the contradictory terms "Michyas ha'Michvah" and "Michvas Eish"?

1.

Sifra: By establishing the case where the burn is partially healed but not completely.

Sefer: Perek: Pasuk:

KIH Logo
D.A.F. Home Page
Sponsorships & Donations • Readers' Feedback • Mailing Lists • Talmud Archives • Ask the Kollel • Dafyomi Weblinks • Dafyomi Calendar • Other Yomi calendars