1)

(a)We refute the assumption that, if Shamai is stringent and requires only one bone from either the Shedrah or from the Gulgoles, the Rabanan will require only a quarter Kav of bones from the two combined - on the grounds that it is only Shamai who takes a stringent line in this issue, but the Rabanan, who reject the stringency of one bone, also reject that of a quarter Kav of bones.

(b)Neither can we assume that the Rabanan, who did not express in any way that they are Machmir (like Shamai did), must give the Shi'ur as a half a Kav (and not a quarter) - because it may well be that they only disagree with Shamai's Chumra of one bone, but they concede the next stage of his Chumra to require a Nazir who touches a Revi'is of bones from a Shedrah and Gulgoles to shave.

2)

(a)According to some of the Zekenim ha'Rishonim cited by Rebbi Eliezer, only half a Kav of bones and half a Log of blood (from a Mes) render all Tamei, but not a quarter. The four cases that 'all' incorporates are eating Kodshim and Terumah - requiring a Nazir to shave and eating the Korban Pesach.

(b)The others Zekenim say - all cases will be Tamei already for a quarter of a Kav of bones and a quarter of a Kav of blood.

(c)The first group of Zekenim disagree with the Mishnah in Ohalos, the second group, with our Mishnah.

1. The first group disagree with the Mishnah in Ohalos - where the Tana requires only a quarter Kav of bones and a quarter Log of blood to render Tamei for Kodshim and Terumah.

2. The second group disagree with our Mishnah - which requires at least half a Kav of bones and half a Log of blood for a Nazir to have to shave.

(d)According to Beis-Din shel Achareihem - Rova Atzamos and Revi'is Dam render Tamei for Kodshim and Terumah, but not for Nazir and Oseh Pesach (until there is a Chatzi-Kav and a Chatzi-Revi'is).

3)

(a)Beis Din Shel Achareihem are a Hachra'ah Shelishis - a third opinion which compromises between the first two opinions (According to others, it is the opinion of Talmidim who argue with their Rebbe'im).

(b)The Halachah might be like the Machri'a - when the original disputants indicated that there was room for compromise, and the third opinion abided by the indication.

(c)Despite the fact that this is not the case here, and following the principle 'Ein Hachra'ah k'Da'as Shelishis', Rebbi nevertheless inserted the opinion of the Beis-Din Shel Achareihem in the Mishnah here and in Ohalos - because, as Rebbi Yakov bar Idi explained, their opinion is based on the words of Chagai, Zecharyah and Malachi.

4)

(a)Our Mishnah twice says 'Al Eilu ha'Nazir Megale'ach'. The first of these is to preclude a bone the size of a barley; the second, to preclude Even ha'Sechuchis - (a stone-fence which has stones jutting out from it, underneath one of which a Mes is lying).

(b)If a Nazir walks under one of the stones and he does not know whether that was the stone with the Mes underneath it, - he does not need to shave.

(c)The fact that both of these cases are already precluded one of them in our Mishnah, the other, in a Mishnah later - since the Tana'im tend to make a general statement and then go on to explain it.

5)

(a)The problem with our Mishnah, which gives the Shi'ur of bones as half a Kav is - that if the bones are the size of a barley, why is the Nazir not Chayav for each bone?

(b)Despite the fact that a Nazir is not obligated to shave for Tum'as Ohel on a bone the size of a barley, whereas for the Shi'ur of half a Kav he is, there is a problem - inasmuch as it will soon become clear that the Chidush of the Reisha is (not that he is Patur for being Ma'ahil on it, but) that he is Chayav for touching or moving it.

(c)To answer the initial Kashya (explaining why the Tana needs to insert the case of Chatzi Kav Atzamos) - we establish the Mishnah by bones that were ground to dust (in which case a bone the size of a barley is not Metamei).

6)

(a)Our Mishnah also states the case 'v'Al Eiver min ha'Mes v'Al Eiver min ha'Chai she'Yesh Aleihen Basar ka'Ra'uy'. The Din will differ if there is less than the correct amount of flesh on the bone - in that it is not Metamei b'Ohel.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan infers from the Reisha 'al Eiver min ha'Mes v'Al Eiver min ha'Chai she'Yesh Aleihen Basar ka'Ra'uy' - that if the bone does not contain the required amount of flesh, the Nazir does not shave even if he touches or moves it.

(c)Reish Lakish extrapolates that he does, from the Seifa - since the Tana does not include him among the cases where the Nazir does not shave.

(d)Rebbi Yochanan counters Reish Lakish's proof - by presenting the principle that whatever can be inferred from the Reisha, will not be repeated in the Seifa.

7)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, even though the Tana includes half a Kav of bones in the Reisha (from which we can extrapolate that a Nazir does not shave for a quarter of a Kav), the Tana nevertheless repeats it in the Seifa - to confine the exclusion of a quarter Kav of bones to Tum'as Ohel, implying that it is Metamei by means of touching and moving.

(b)And the Tana informs us in the Seifa that a Nazir does not shave for a quarter Log of blood (even though we can infer it from the Reisha, which gives the Shi'ur as half a Log) - to teach us that even through touching and carrying, a Nazir does not shave (to preclude from the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, who says that he does).

8)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah cannot be speaking when the bone is the size of a barley-grain - because then why would Rebbi Yochanan exempt a Nazir from shaving after touching or moving it?

(b)If on the other hand, the Tana is speaking when it is less than the size of a barley-grain, Reish Lakish's reason is - due to a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv', as we shall soon see.

(c)The Tana learns from the Pasuk in Chukas (in connection with Tum'as Ohel) ...

1. ... "v'Chol Asher Yiga al-Pnei ha'Sadeh" - Tum'as Ohel (because "al-Pnei" implies that one did not actually touch the Mes, but was only Ma'ahil over it).

2. ... "ba'Chalal" - that a limb that is cut from a living person that contains sufficient flesh for it to heal and re-grow is Metamei like a Mes.

3. ... "ba'Chalal-Cherev" - that 'Cherev, Harei Hu k'Chalal' (any metal vessel that touches a sword has the Din of the Mes that it touched - see Rosh).

(d)The ramifications of the latter Derashah are - that the metal vessel becomes an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah to render whoever touches it or who is under the same Ohel as it, Tamei for seven days.

9)

(a)The Tana learns from "O b'Mes", 'Zeh Eiver ha'Nechlal Min ha'Mes' - (a limb that is cut from a corpse [to teach us that not only a complete corpse is Metamei]).

(b)From "O b'Etzem Adam O b'Kaver", the Tana learns 'Zeh Rova Atzamos'; from "O b'Kaver", 'Zeh Kever Sasum' ...

1. ... a closed grave that has a Tefach space between the corpse and the roof of the grave, but no opening at the side to serve as an outlet for the Tum'ah). The status of a Kever Sasum is ...

2. ... that the entire grave is considered as if it is full of Tum'ah, and someone who is Ma'ahil over any part of the grave becomes Tamei.

(c)The Tana also rules 'Tum'ah Boka'as v'Olah', which means - that when there is no space of a Tefach between the Mes and the roof of the grave, the Tum'ah of the Mes goes directly upwards without filling the entire grave with Tum'ah. Consequently, someone who is Ma'ahil over the grave but not the Mes will remain Tahor.

(d)The Tana cites this principle here (despite the fact that we do not learn it from the Pasuk under discussion) - in order to complete the Halachah.