FOR WHAT IS NESHICHAH A CONNECTION? (Yerushalmi Chalah Perek 3 Halachah 5 Daf 20b)
åàí ìàå îáéà ã' øåáòéï åîùéê.
(Beraisa): (If one added a Rova of Se'or to a dough, and he has Parnasah elsewhere to separate on it...) And if not, he brings four Reva'im and is Mashich.
[ãó ìã òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] øáé éåðä áùí ø' æòéøà æàú àåîøú øåáò ùàåø ùðèáì áî÷åîå èåáì ã' øåáòéí áî÷åí àçø.
Inference (R. Yonah citing R. Ze'ira): This teaches that a Rova of Se'or that became Tevel in its place, it is Tovel four Reva'im (joins to obligate them in Chalah) elsewhere.
[ãó ëà òîåã à] äãà àîøä ùäðùåê úåøä.
Inference: Nashuch is [connected] mid'Oraisa. (If not, this is like separating from Patur on Chayav!)
à"ø àéîé àéúôìâåï øáé éåçðï åøùá"ì. øáé éåçðï àîø äðùåê úåøä. øùá"ì àîø àéï äðùåê úåøä.
(R. Imi): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argued about this. R. Yochanan said, Nashuch is mid'Oraisa. Reish Lakish said, Nashuch is not mid'Oraisa.
øáé çééà áø áà îçìéó ùîåòúà.
R. Chiya bar Ba switches the opinions (R. Yochanan holds that it is not mid'Oraisa, and Reish Lakish holds that it is mid'Oraisa.)
áòåï ÷åîé øáé éåñé àú îä ùîòú îï ø' éåçðï
Question (to R. Yosi): What did you hear from R. Yochanan [about Nashuch]?
àîø ìåï àðà ìà ùîòéú ëìåí àìà ðôøù îéìéäåï ãøáðéï îï îìéäåï ãúîï
R. Yosi: I did not hear anything, but we can explain the words of Rabanan (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish, here), from their words there;
úðéðï äîëðéñ çìåú ò"î ìäôøéù åðùëå á"ù àåîøéí çéáåø áèáåì éåí åá"ä àåîøéí àéðå çéáåø
(Mishnah): One who gathers Chalos with intent to separate them, and they were Noshech, Beis Shamai says, this is connection for a Tevul Yom (if he touched one, all became Tamei), and Beis Hillel say, it is not a connection... (and they agree about all other Tum'os, whether light or severe).
àøùá"ì îîä ãúðéðï àéðå çéáåø äãà àîøä ùàéï çééáéí òìéå îùåí (èîà àåëì èäåø) [ö"ì èäåø ùàëì èîà - àåø ùîç äìëåú áéëåøéí æ:éà]
(Reish Lakish): From what we learned (Beis Hillel say,) it is not a connection [mid'Oraisa], this teaches that one is not liable for it for a Tahor eating Tamei. (It is only like a Shelishi l'Tum'ah, which is forbidden only mid'Rabanan - OHR SOMAYACH.)
à"ì ø' éåçðï ùðééà äéà áèáåì éåí [ãó ìä òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] ãëúéá áéä èäåø åèîà èäåø ìçåìéï îáòåã éåí åìúøåîä îùúçùê.
(R. Yochanan): Tevul Yom is different, for he is called Tahor and Tamei ("v'Tamei Ad Ha'arev v'Taher" - v'Taher applies even during the day). He is Tahor for Chulin [even] during the day, and for Terumah at night (but during the day, he is Tamei for Terumah).
äåé [ö"ì áä - äâø"à] øáé éåçðï ãå àîø ãáø ùàéðå çéáåø áèáåì éåí úåøä äåà.
Inference (R. Yochanan): Something that is not connected for a Tevul Yom, it is [connected] mid'Oraisa [for other Tum'os].
ãå àîø ùäðùåê úåøä. åø"ù áï ì÷éù ãå àîø àéðå úåøä ãäåà àîø àéï äðùåê úåøä.
Conclusion: [R. Yochanan] says that Nashuch is mid'Oraisa. Reish Lakish, who said 'this is not mid'Oraisa', he holds that Nashuch is not mid'Oraisa.
åäúðéðï åàí ìàå îáéà àøáòú øåáòéï åîùéê.
Question (against Reish Lakish - Beraisa): And if not, he brings four Reva'im and is Mashich.
àîø øá äåùòéä úôúø ùáà (îòéñú) [ö"ì îçîú - äâø"à] äðùåê.
Answer #1 (R. Hoshayah): The case is, the Se'or [is obligated] only due to Nashuch. (Since the Chiyuv is mid'Rabanan, we can rely on Nashuch to separate the Chalah.)
[ãó ëà òîåã á] øáé æòéøä áòé (àå - äâø"à îåç÷å) îä ôìéâéï øáé éåçðï åøáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù áðùåê îàéìéå àáì àí äùéëå áéãå ëì òîà îåãéé ùäðùåê úåøä.
Answer #2 (R. Ze'ira): What do R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about? It is when it became Nashuch by itself, but if he was Mashich it with his hands, all agree that Nashuch is mid'Oraisa. (We explained this like GRA.)
àôéìå úéîø äùéëå áéãå äéà äîçìå÷ú [ãó ìä òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] ðàîø øáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù ëãòúéä
Answer #3: Even if you will say that they argue [even] about one who was Mashich it with his hands, Reish Lakish holds like he taught elsewhere;
ãàîø øáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù áùí çæ÷éä èáì áèì áøåá.
(Reish Lakish citing Chizkiyah): Tevel is Batel in a majority. (The Se'or is obligated mid'Rabanan, we can rely on Nashuch to separate the Chalah.)
ø' éåñé áé øáé ðäåøàé àîø èáì áèì áøåá.
(R. Yosi bei R. Nehurai): Tevel is Batel in a majority.
àîø øáé éåçðï àéï äèáì áèì áøåá.
(R. Yochanan): Tevel is not Batel in a majority. (Since one can make it Terumah on another place, it is as if it one can separate it. Bitul applies only when one can separate the Isur.)