1)
(a)What does our Mishnah say about a hole in an earthenware vessel that is large enough to let water ...
1. ... in?
2. ... out?
(b)The Tana also rules that any limb that has a nail, has a bone. What is he referring to?
(c)What are the ramifications of this ruling?
(d)What will be the Din if the bone in question is smaller than a k'Zayis (which is the Shi'ur for Tum'as Ohel)?
(e)Why is that?
1)
(a)Our Mishnah states that a hole in an earthenware vessel that is large enough to let water ...
1. ... in - will certainly let water out.
2. ... out - will not necessarily let water in.
(b)The Tana also rules that any limb that has a nail, has a bone - with reference to a hand from a human corpse that has an extra finger.
(c)The ramifications of this ruling are that - it will be Metamei be'Ohel, even though it does not contain a k'Zayis of flesh.
(d)And this Din applies - even if the bone in question is smaller than a k'Zayis (which is the Shi'ur for Tum'as Ohel) ...
(e)... because it is a complete limb, which is Chashuv.
2)
(a)What does the Tana say about a finger that has a bone? What are the ramifications of this statement?
(b)What does he then say about a finge that has a nail?
(c)Finally, the Mishnah rules that any K'li that is subject to Tum'as Medras is subject to Tum'as Meis. What do the two have in common?
(d)What does the Tana say about the reverse case?
2)
(a)The Tana rules that a finger that has a bone - does not necessarily have a nail, in which case (unless it contains a k'Zayis of flesh) it will be Metamei be'Maga and be'Masa, but not be'Ohel ...
(b)... but if it has a nail it definitely has a bone, and - will be Metamei be'Ohel.
(c)Finally, the Mishnah rules that any K'li that is subject to Tum'as Medras is subject to Tum'as Meis - both of which become an Av ha'Tum'ah ...
(d)... but not in the reverse case, where it is possible for a K'li to be subject to Tum'as Meis but not to Tum'as Medras (as we will see in the Sugya).
3)
(a)Based on the Pasuk (in Chukas, in connection with the Mei Chatas [of the Parah Adumah]) "Mayim Chayim el Keli", what distinction does Rav Asi draw between an earthenware vessel that has a hole large enough to let water out but not in, and one that also lets water in?
(b)What does 'to sanctify the Mei Chatas' mean?
(c)He draws no distinction however, between the two, regarding Gist'ra. What is Gist'ra?
(d)What does Rav Asi's last statement then mean?
3)
(a)Based on the Pasuk (in Chukas, in connection with the Mei Chatas [of the Parah Adumah]) "Mayim Chayim el Keli", Rav Asi rules that, whereas an earthenware vessel that has a hole large enough to let water out but not in is Kasher to sanctify the Mei Chatas - one that also lets water in is not.
(b)To sanctify the Mei Chatas means - to mix the water and the ashes of the Parah Adumah in it.
(c)He draws no distinction however, between the two, regarding Gist'ra - a piece of a broken earthenware K'li that is still usable ...
(d)... whjich he declares Tahor even if it only lets liquid out.
4)
(a)What size hole will render a complete earthenware vessel Tahor (provided the owner has not designated it for pomegranates)?
(b)What reason does Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Nachman now give to explain why a Gist'ra becomes Tahor with a hole that only lets liquid out (even though a complete vessel does not)?
4)
(a)A size hole that will render a complete earthenware vessel Tahor (provided the owner has not designated it for pomegranates) is - one that is the size of an olive.
(b)The reason Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Nachman now gives to explain why a Gist'ra becomes Tahor with a hole that only lets liquid out (even though a complete vessel does not) is - because (as opposed to a complete earthenware vessel, which, in the event that it springs such a small hole, the owner will continue to use by placing a broken piece of earthenware underneath it), nobody will fetch a piece of earthenware to place underneath the piece of earthenware with a hole (however small it is [he will simply throw it away]).
49b----------------------------------------49b
5)
(a)According to the Tana Kama, how does one check whether a pot that one knows lets water out, also lets water in, or not?
(b)What objection does Rebbi Yehudah raise to this method of testing?
(c)How does he therefore suggest one makes this test?
(d)Alternatively, Rebbi Yehudah suggests the fire-test. What is that?
5)
(a)According to the Tana Kama, one checks whether a pot that one knows lets water out, also lets water in, or not - by placing it inside a dish containing water to see whether water enters it through the hole in the base.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah objects to this test however - on the grounds that the pressure of the floor of the dish against the base of the pot will cause water to enter through the hole, which it might not otherwise do (creating an unlawful Kula) by rendering the pot Tahor (see Maharsha).
(c)He therefore suggests that - one places the pot in the dish upside-down before filling the latter with water until it covers the pot, and then examines it to see whether the water enters the hole or not.
(d)Alternatively, Rebbi Yehudah suggests the fire-test - placing the pot over a flame to see whether the water still leaks from the hole. If it doesn't, then the pot does not let liquid in.
6)
(a)On what grounds does Rebbi Yossi object to the fire-test?
(b)What does he suggest one does instead?
(c)How is it also possible to ascertain whether the vessel lets water in by observing it when it is letting water out?
(d)What is the basis of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah?
6)
(a)Rebbi Yossi objects to that however - because, he maintains, the fire will stop up even a relatively large hole (rendering the fire-test unreliable).
(b)He therefore suggests - making the same test, but placing the pot on ashes or on coal (instead of on fire).
(c)It is also possible to ascertain whether the vessel lets water in, by observing it when it is letting water out - by checking whether the drops emerge one after the other (in which case it will let water in too), or not.
(d)The basis of the Machokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah is - whether water that enters a vessel under pressure falls under the category of Koneis Mashkeh (letting water in [the Tana Kama]) or not (Rebbi Yehudah).
7)
(a)Rav Chisda establishes the ruling regarding a limb with a nail as we explained it in the Mishnah (with regard to an extra finger) like Rebbi. What does he add to that?
(b)How does Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan qualify the ruling? Under which circumstances will the extra finger be Metamei be'Ohel even though it does not posses a nail?
(c)Based on the ruling in our Mishnah (precluding certain vessels that are Metamei Meis from Tum'as Medras), what does the Beraisa preclude from the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with a Zav) "ve'ha'Yoshev al ha'K'li ... Yitma"?
(d)How does he learn this from the Pasuk there " ... asher Yeishev alav ha'Zav"?
7)
(a)Rav Chisda establishes the ruling regarding a limb with a nail as we explained it in the Mishnah (with regard to an extra finger) like Rebbi, adding - 'May Hash-m be with him'.
(b)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan qualifies the ruling - by confining it to where the extra finger is not in line with the other fingers, but If it is - it will be Metamei be'Ohel even though it does not posses a nail.
(c)Based on the ruling in our Mishnah (precluding certain vessels that are Metamei Meis from Tum'as Medras) the Beraisa precludes from the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with a Zav) "ve'ha'Yoshev al ha'K'li ... Yitma" - a Sa'ah and a Tarkav (three Kabin [or half a Sa'ah; large measuring vessels that one turned upside down to sit on]).
(d)And he learns this from the Pasuk there " ... asher Yeishev alav ha'Zav" - which implies that only vessels that are specifically made to sit on are subject to Tum'as Medras, but those that are not, merely become a Rishon le'Tum'ah through touching a Zav.
8)
(a)Our Mishnah renders anybody who is eligible to judge matters entailing the death-penalty, fit to judge money matters. What does the Tana say about the reverse?
(b)According to Rav Yehudah, what does the Seifa come to preclude?
8)
(a)Our Mishnah renders anybody who is eligible to judge matters entailing the death-penalty, fit to judge money matters, but in the reverse case - not all those who are eligible to judge money matters are eligible to judge matters involving the death-penalty.
(b)Rav Yehudah explains that this comes to preclude - a Mamzer, who is eligible to judge money matters (as we learn from the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim "Kulach Yafah Rayasi") but not matters that involve the death-penalty.
9)
(a)The Mishnah in Sanhedrin teaches us exactly the same Chidush ('ha'Kol Kesheirin la'Dun Dinei Mamonos ... '), and there, like here, Rav Yehudah comments 'la'Asuyei Mamzer'? Why do we need two Mishnahs to teach us the same thing? How do we amend one of the two statement of Rav Yehudah?
(b)Why do we need two Mishnahs to declare a Ger and a Mamzer Kasher to judge Dinei Mamonos? Why can we not learn ...
1. ... a Mamzer from a Ger?
2. ... a Ger from a Mamzer?
9)
(a)To reconcile our Mishnah with the Mishnah in Sanhedrin, which teaches us exactly the same Chidush ('ha'Kol Kesheirin la'Dun Dinei Mamonos ... '), and where, like here, Rav Yehudah comments 'la'Asuyei Mamzer' - we amend one of them to read (instewad of 'a Mamzer') 'a Ger', who is also Kasher to judge Dinei Mamonos but not Dinei Nefashos.
(b)We need two Mishnahs to declare a Ger and a Mamzer Kasher to judge Dinei Mamonos, because had the Tana taught us only ...
1. ... a Ger, we would have thought that he is Kasher - because he is fit to marry a Kasher bas Yisrael (whereas a Mamzer is not).
2. ... a Mamzer, we would have thought that he is Kasher - because he is descended from Jewish ancestors (whereas a Ger is not).