(a)How do we reconcile Rebbi Chiya and Rav Ketina with each other and with Rav Huna, who learns 'min ha'Lul ve'Lifenim, Tamei, min ha'Lul ve'Lachutz, Tamei mi'Safek'?
(b)According to Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Yehudah, Rebbi Chiya and Rav Ketina can only be speaking in a case of 'min ha'Lul ve'Lifenim'. Why is that?
(c)Why do we initially think that Rebbi Chiya disagrees with them?
(d)How do we in fact, reconcile them with his opinion?
1)
(a)We reconcile Rebbi Chiya and Rav Ketina with each other and with Rav Huna, who learns 'min ha'Lul ve'Lifenim, Tamei, min ha'Lul ve'Lachutz, Tamei mi'Safek' - by establishing the former by min ha'Lul ve'Lifenim, and the latter, by min ha'Lul ve'Lachutz' (and they do not argue).
(b)According to Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Yehudah, Rebbi Chiya and Rav Ketina can only be speaking in a case of 'min ha'Lul ve'Lifenim' - becausein their opinion, 'min ha'Lul ve'Lachutz' is not even Tamei mi'Safek.
(c)Initially, we think that Rebbi Chiya disagrees with them - since they hold Tamei mi'Safek, whereas he holds Tamei Vaday.
(d)We reconcile them with his opinion however - by establishing the Rebbi Chiya where the blood was found on the floor of the (inside of the) P'rozdor which has a Chazakah that it came from the Cheder, whereas they are speaking about a case where it was found on the roof.
2)
(a)If, as we maintain, Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Yehudah go after the Chazakah (where the blood is found on the outside of the P'rozdor, as we explained), what are the two sides of the Safek in the latter case (where the blood is found on the roof of the inside of the P'rozdor)? On what grounds ought it to be ...
1. ... Tahor?
2. ... Tamei?
2)
(a)In spite of the fact that Rami bar Shmuel and Rav Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Yehudah go after the Chazakah (where the blood is found on the outside of the P'rozdor, as we explained), in the latter case (where the blood is found on the roof of the inside of the P'rozdor) they are in a dilemma. It ought to be ...
1. ... Tahor on the one hand - because had the blood come from the Cheder, it should have been found on the floor of the P'rozdor, and not on the ceiling, whereas ...
2. ... on the other, it ought to be Tamei - because if it came from the Aliyah, it ought to have been found on the roof of the outer section of the P'rozdor (and not of the inner one).
3)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan lists three cases where the Rabbanan follow the majority and give it a Din Vaday. One of them is the current case. To which of the cases in our Mishnah is he referring?
(b)With which of the above opinions does he concur?
3)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan lists three cases where the Rabbanan follow the majority and give it a Din Vaday. One of them is the current case. He is referring to the Seifa 'Nimtza bi'Perozdor S'feiko Tamei' ...
(b)... and he concurs with Rebbi Chiya (who rules 'Chayavin alav al Bi'as Mikdash ... ').
4)
(a)The second case, based on a Mishnah in the next Perek, is that of Shilya. What is a Shilya?
(b)The Mishnah there says 'Shilya ba'Bayis, ha'Bayis Tamei'. What are the ramifications of this statement? What is the case?
(c)What is the basis for this ruling?
(d)On what grounds does Rebbi Shimon disagree?
4)
(a)The second case, based on a Mishnah in in the next Perek, is that of Shilya - a placenta.
(b)The Mishnah there says 'Shilya ba'Bayis, ha'Bayis Tamei'. The Tana is referring to a case - where a woman gives birth to a placenta with no visible V'lad, and the statement implies that one even burns any T'rumah that is in the house.
(c)The basis for this ruling is - the fact that the majority of Shilyos are accompanied by a V'lad (see also Tosfos DH 'Shilya').
(d)Rebbi Shimon disagrees - because seeing that no V'lad is visible, we assume that it must have melted and turned into blood, which is Bateil be'Rov.
5)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan's third case is based on a Beraisa. What does the Tana there say about a woman who gives birth to a detached hand or foot?
(b)What are the ramifications of this ruling?
(c)What might we otherwise have thought?
(d)Why do we not say that?
5)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan's third case is based on a Beraisa, which rules that a woman who gives birth to a detached hand or foot - is Tamei Leidah ...
(b)... and is subject to the days of Tum'ah and the days of Taharah.
(c)We might otherwise have thought - that the hand or the foot were perhaps attached to a shapeless body (which would not be considered a birth).
(d)We do not however, say that - because in the majority of cases, a hand or foot is attached to a regular body.
6)
(a)We cite a Beraisa which discusses a town with nine butcher-shops that sell Basar Shechutah and one that sells Neveilah. The Beraisa rules that someone who purchased a piece of meat from one of the butcheries and cannot remember from which one he purchased it, 'S'feiko Asur'. Why is that?
(b)In which case does the Tana permit him to eat it?
(c)Why does Rebbi Yochanan not include this case in his list?
6)
(a)We cite a Beraisa which discusses a town with nine butcher-shops that sell Basar Shechutah and one that sells Neveilah. The Beraisa rules that someone who purchased a piece of meat from one of the butcheries and cannot remember from which one he purchased it, 'S'feiko Asur' - because it is Kavu'a (in a fixed location) and whatever is Kavu'a is considered half-half (and not a majority).
(b)The Tana permits to him to eat it however - if he found the piece of meat in another location, in which case we apply the principle 'Kol de'Parish, me'Ruba Parish' (once it has separated from its original location, it is considered as if it separated from the majority).
(c)Rebbi Yochanan does not include this case in his list - because he only lists cases of Tum'ah, not Isur.
7)
(a)We ask the same question from a Beraisa regarding someone who is not sure whether, out of a pile of nine frogs and one Sheretz, he touched a frog (which is Tahor) or the Sheretz. What does the Beraisa rule there if this happened in ...
1. ... a R'shus ha'Yachid?
2. ... a R'shus ha'Rabim?
(b)And what does he rule if the creature that he touched was separated from the others when he touched it?
(c)So why does Rebbi Yochanan not include this case in his list?
7)
(a)We ask the same question from a Beraisa regarding someone who is not sure whether, out of a pile of nine frogs and one Sheretz, he touched a frog (which is Tahor) or the Sheretz. The Beraisa rules there that if it happened in ...
1. ... a R'shus ha'Yachid - he is Tamei
2. ... a Reshus ha'Rabim - he is Tahor.
(b)And if the creature that he touched was separated from the others when he touched it - based on the principle 'Kol de'Parish me'Ruba Parish, he rules that he is Tahor, even in a R'shus ha'Yachid.
(c)Rebbi Yochanan does not include this in his list - because he only lists cases of Tum'as Ishah, not other Tum'os.
8)
(a)And we query Rebbi Yochanan further from the case of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who discusses a woman who has a miscarriage whilst crossing a river. What does he rule there (with regard to bringing a Korban and eating it)?
(b)Seeing as this is indeed a case of Tum'as Ishah, why did Rebbi Yochanan not include it in his list?
(c)When Ravin arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael, he cited a Beraisa concerning a woman who erred regarding the date on which she gave birth, and from which Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina queried Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. What did we initially think Ravin meant when he declared that he failed to understand why there was a problem from there? What Kashya would that then pose on Rebbi Yochanan?
(d)What do we answer? What did Ravin really mean?
8)
(a)And we query Rebbi Yochanan further from the case of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who rules that a woman who has a miscarriage whilst crossing a river - brings a Korban which may even be eaten by the Kohanim, because we go after the majority (as if it was Vaday V'lad).
(b)Despite the fact that this is indeed a case of Tum'as Ishah, Rebbi Yochanan declines to include it in his list - because he only lists Mishnayos or Beraisos, not statements of Amora'im.
(c)When Ravin arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael, he cited a Beraisa concerning a woman who erred regarding the date on which she gave birth, and from which Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina queried Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. We initially thought that when Ravin failed to understand why there was a problem from there, he meant - that it actually supported Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan, who would then have a fourth example of where Rov is considered Vaday).
(d)We answer that what Ravin really meant was - that there is no Kashya on Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi from that Beraisa, but that there is no proof either.
18b----------------------------------------18b
9)
(a)What do we suggest Rebbi Yochanan's three cases are coming to preclude? Under which circumstances might a Rov not be considered Vaday (to burn Terumah on account of it)?
(b)On what grounds do we refute this suggestion?
(c)This refutation is based on a Mishnah in Taharos, which discusses a child playing beside a large dough, who is holding a piece of dough in his hand. What is the problem there?
(d)Why then, does Rebbi Meir declare the large dough Tahor?
9)
(a)We suggest that Rebbi Yochanan's three cases are coming to preclude - a majority which overrides a Chazakah (in which case we will say 'Ein Sorfin alav es ha'Terumah').
(b)We refute this suggestion however, due to the fact - that Rebbi Yochanan has already taught us that ...
(c)... with regard to the Mishnah in Taharos, which discusses a child playing beside a large dough, who is holding a piece of dough in his hand. The problem there is the Chazakah that most children play with Sheratzim, rendering him (and subsequently the dough, too) Tamei.
(d)Rebbi Meir declares the large dough Tahor - because the Miy'ut (minority) of children who do not play with Sheratzim combines with the Chezkas Taharah of the dough, to override the majority.
10)
(a)Why do the Chachamim then declare the large dough Tamei?
(b)According to Resh Lakish, this Chazakah is strong enough to burn T'rumah on account of it. Which Chazakah?
(c)What does Rebbi Yochanan say?
10)
(a)The Chachamim declare the large dough Tamei - because when there is a majority, we do not contend with the minority, leaving the Rov to override the Miy'ut.
(b)According to Resh Lakish, this Chazakah - (with reference to the Rov), is strong enough to burn T'rumah on account of it.
(c)Rebbi Yochanan holds - that it is not.
11)
(a)We therefore conclude that Rebbi Yochanan comes to preclude the Rov of Rebbi Yehudah. In the Mishnah in the following Perek, which discusses a woman who miscarries a piece of flesh, where the Tana Kama renders her Tamei only if it is accompanied by blood. Why is she Tamei?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
(c)What is the basis of their Machlokes?
11)
(a)We therefore conclude that Rebbi Yochanan comes to preclude the Rov of Rebbi Yehudah. In the Mishnah in the following Perek, which discusses a woman who miscarries a piece of flesh, the Tana Kama renders her Tamei only if it is accompanied by blood, in which case she is Tamei - because of Nidus, but not because of Yoledes.
(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah - she is Tamei (Nidus) whether there is blood or not ...
(c)... because he considers the piece of flesh to be blood, whereas according to the Chachamim, it is flesh.
12)
(a)How does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel qualify Rebbi Yehudah's ruling? Under which circumstances will Rebbi Yehudah concede that she is Tahor?
(b)How does Rebbi Yochanan counter this? In which case will Rebbi Yehudah then argue with the Tana Kama?
12)
(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel qualifies Rebbi Yehudah's ruling - by confining it to where the piece of flesh tallies with one of the four appearances of Tamei blood (but maintains that Rebbi Yehudah will concede that she is Tahor if it is green/yellow, white, or any of the other colors).
(b)Rebbi Yochanan counters - that if the flesh resembles one of the four colors of Tamei blood, then even the Rabbanan will agree that she is Tamei; and they only argue in a case where she does not know what color the piece of flesh was (and where it is no longer available to check).
13)
(a)What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan?
(b)What is the Rabbanan's reason?
(c)What does Rebbi Yochanan now come to teach us by confining his initial statement to three cases?
13)
(a)The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan is - whether we go after Rov Chatichos (which resemble the four colors of Tamei blood [Rebbi Yehudah]) or not ...
(b)... (the Rabbanan) - who do not agree that such a Rov exists.
(c)By confining his initial statement to three cases, Rebbi Yochanan teaches us - that according to Rebbi Yehudah, although the piece of flesh that does not tally with one of the four colors of Tamei blood is Tamei, one does not burn T'rumah on account of it.
