(Mishnah): Flesh of a Mes...

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): "L'Chol Tum'aso" teaches that any Tum'ah that separates from a Mes is Metamei (whether it is wet or dry).

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): "Oh b'Etzem Adam" equates a man to a bone:

Just like a bone is Tamei, even though it is dry, also (flesh of) a man is Tamei, even though it is dry.

Question: What is the difference between these answers?

Answer: They argue about flesh that is so dry that it crumbles. (R. Yochanan is not Metamei anything dryer than bones. Reish Lakish does not distinguish.)

Question (against Reish Lakish - Beraisa): If flesh of a Mes crumbled, it is Tahor.

Answer: The case is, it was ground like flour. (It is not considered flesh.)

Question (Mishnah): Every part of a Mes is Tamei, except for the teeth, hair and fingernails. When they are connected, even these are Tamei. (Rashi - teeth should be like bones. We ask against both of them. Tosfos - we ask only against Reish Lakish. R. Yochanan's Hekesh teaches only about flesh.)

Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): A part of a Mes is Tamei only if it is like a bone, i.e. it was there from birth.

Objection: If so, hair and fingernails should be Teme'im. They were there from birth!

Correction (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): Rather, a part of a Mes is Tamei only if it is like a bone, i.e. it was there from birth and does not regenerate (if it is removed);

This excludes teeth, which were not there from birth. It excludes hair and fingernails. Even though they were there from birth, they regenerate.

Version #1 - Question: Skin regenerates, yet it is Tamei!

(Mishnah - R. Meir): Geludah (an animal without skin) is Kosher;

Chachamim say, it is Terefah.

Chachamim agree that skin regenerates. They say that Geludah is Terefah only because the animal will die due to wind before it regenerates.

(Mishnah): The following skins are (Tamei) like the flesh -- that of man...

Answer: Ula taught that mid'Oraisa, human skin is Tahor. Chachamim decreed that is Tamei, lest people make saddles from their parents' skin. (Ramban (Chulin) - perhaps they will make mats and keep them for the sake of eulogies. Later, one who does not know that they are from human skin might use them for saddles.)

Version #2 - Question: Skin does not regenerate, yet it is Tahor (mid'Oraisa)!

(Mishnah - Chachamim): Geludah is Terefah.

Even R. Meir agrees that skin does not regenerate. He is Machshir because he holds that the flesh under the skin becomes hard like skin!

(Ula): Mid'Oraisa, human skin is Tahor. Chachamim decreed that is Tamei, lest people make saddles from their parents' skin.

Answer: Ula refers to the Seifa;

(Seifa): If any skin was tanned or trampled enough for tanning, it is Tahor, except for human skin.

(Ula): Mid'Oraisa, tanned human skin is Tahor. Chachamim decreed that it is Tamei, lest people make mats from their parents' skin.

Question: Flesh regenerates, yet it is Tamei!

Answer (Mar bar Rav Ashi): When flesh grows back, the area remains scarred. (It is unlike hair and fingernails. They regenerate without leaving evidence that they were removed.)

(Mishnah): Zov (is Metamei).

Question: What is the source (that it is Tamei? Later (56a) we derive that this is only if it is moist.)

Answer (Beraisa): "Zovo Tamei" teaches that Zov is Tamei.

Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach this. It is Metamei others (the man it came from). All the more so it itself is Tamei!

Rejection: Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kipur) disproves this. It is Metamei the man who sends it, while it itself is Tahor!

Therefore, "Zovo Tamei" is needed to teach that Zov is Tamei.

Suggestion: Perhaps the verse teaches only about Tum'as Maga, but not Masa, just like a Sheretz has only Tum'as Maga!

Answer (Rav Bivi bar Abaye): There is no need to teach that Zov has Tum'as Maga. It is no less Tamei than semen. The verse is needed only for Masa.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is Metamei Begadim (people and their garments) through Masa, but it is Metamei only people through Maga, just like a Nevelah is not Metamei garments of one who touches it!

Rejection (Beraisa - Others): "Veha'Zav Es Zovo la'Zachar vela'Nekevah" equates Zov to the Zav:

Just like we do not distinguish Tum'os Maga and Masa of a Zav (both are Metamei Begadim), we do not distinguish these Tum'os of Zov.

Question: Since "veha'Zav Es Zovo" teaches that Zov is Metamei Begadim through Maga and Masa, why do we need "Zovo Tamei"?

Answer (Rav Yehudah of Diskarta): "Zovo Tamei" is needed to overturn the disproof from Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. It is Metamei, but it itself is Tahor.

Question: How could we think that Zov is Tahor? If it were Tahor, what would we learn from "veha'Zav Es Zovo"?

Answer: This teaches about the number of sightings:

"Veha'Zav" connotes one sighting. "Zovo" connotes a second sighting. After three sightings, Zachar and Nekevah are equated. (A Zav brings a Korban even if his third sighting was b'Ones, just like a Zavah brings a Korban even if (all) her sightings were b'Ones.)

Conclusion: "Zovo Tamei" is needed to teach that Zov is Metamei through Masa.

We learn from "veha'Zav Es Zovo" that just like we do not distinguish Tum'os Maga and Masa of a Zav (both are Metamei Begadim), we do not distinguish these Tum'os of Zov (even for Tum'as Maga).

(Mishnah): Spit (is Metamei).

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "v'Chi Yarok" teaches that (if a Zav spits at Ploni,) Ploni becomes Tamei even if the spit does not touch him! (This will be explained.)

Rejection: "Ba'Tahor" teaches that he becomes Tamei only if it reaches him.

Question: This teaches about spit. What is the source to include Kicho, Ni'o and Mei ha'Af (kinds of spit, mucus or phlegm of a Zav)?

Answer: "V'Chi Yarok" includes them.

Question: The Beraisa suggested that Ploni becomes Tamei even if the spit does not touch him. Why would we think so?

Answer: One might have thought to learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Rok-Rok" from Yevamah;

A Yevamah's spit need not touch the Yavam. One might have thought that here also, it need not touch him. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Question: Perhaps his spit has Tum'ah Maga, but not Tum'as Masa, just like a Sheretz!

Rejection (Reish Lakish, citing Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Ba'Tahor" -- when he spits on something that the Tahor is holding, this is Metamei the Tahor (i.e. due to Masa).

Suggestion: Perhaps it is Metamei Begadim through Masa, but it is Metamei people alone through Maga, just like a Nevelah!

Rejection (Reish Lakish, and Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Ba'Tahor" -- what is Tahor regarding another Tum'ah, is Tamei regarding spit of a Zav;

The other Tum'ah is Maga Nevelah. (One who touches a Nevelah is not Metamei Begadim.)

Question: Perhaps the other Tum'ah is Masa Sheretz! (It is totally Tahor. We would infer only that spit has Tum'as Masa, but not Tum'as Begadim!)

Answer: Had it said "ba'Adam," we would have know that there is Tum'as Masa. Rather, it says "ba'Tahor" to teach another law as well (Tum'as Begadim).

(Beraisa): Mei ha'Af is Tamei.

Question: What is (the case of) Mei ha'Af (mucus)?

Answer #1 (Rav): It comes out of the mouth. (It was sucked from the nasal passage);

It is Tamei because inevitably there are drops of spit inside.

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): It is Tamei even if it comes out of the nose.

He holds that it is a Mayan. The Torah is Metamei Mayanos (of a Zav, Nidah... ).

Question: According to Rav, the Tana should also teach that tears are Tamei (if he sucked them and spit them out. Rav holds that this is possible!)

(Rav): One who lets a Nochri paint his eyes endangers his sight.

(Levi): He endangers his life!

(R. Chiya bar Gurya): Rav does not say that he endangers his life, for even if the Nochri will poison the eyes, the victim can suck the poison through his mouth and spit it out.

Answer: Rav holds that even though one can suck the poison through his mouth, but he cannot suck tears.

Question (Beraisa): There are nine Mashkim of Zavim (and Zavos):

Sweat, pus and excrement are totally Tahor;

Tears, blood of a wound and milk have Tum'as Mashkim;

Any amount of spit, Zivah and urine are Avos ha'Tum'ah.

The Tana omits Mei ha'Af!

Granted, according to Rav, he omits it because the law is not uniform. If it comes out from the mouth it is Tamei, but if it comes out from the nose, it is Tahor;

However, according to R. Yochanan, he should have taught it! (It is always Tamei.)

Counter-question: Why did the Tana omit Kicho and Ni'o?

Answer: You must say that he taught spit, and this includes everything learned from the Ribuy ("v'Chi Yarok").

Answer: Likewise, Mei ha'Af is learned from the Ribuy!

We learn tears from "va'Tashkemo bi'Dema'os Shalish";

We learn blood of a wound from "v'Dam Chalalim Yishteh." It makes no difference (regarding Mayanos) whether or not the person died from the wound.

We learn milk from "va'Tiftach Es Nod he'Chalav va'Tashkeho."