1)
(a)What does Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, learn from the words "al-P'nei ha'Sadeh" (in the Pasuk in Chukas [in connection with Tum'as Meis] "ve'Chol asher Yiga al-P'nei ha'Sadeh")? What does this come to preclude?
(b)According to Rebbi Akiva, which two items do they come to include?
(c)From where does Rebbi Yishmael learn that Golel ve'Dofek are Metamei?
1)
(a)Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, learns from the words "al-P'nei ha'Sadeh" (in the Pasuk in Chukas [in connection with Tum'as Meis] "ve'Chol asher Yiga al-P'nei ha'Sadeh") that - Tum'ah Belu'ah is not Metamei.
(b)According to Rebbi Akiva on the other hand, they come to include - Golel ve'Dofek (the lid of a coffin and the board next to it), which are Tamei like the Meis himself.
(c)Rebbi Yishmael learns that Golel ve'Dofek are Metamei - from Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.
2)
(a)What does Rebbi Oshaya (according to Rebbi Akiva) learn from the Pasuk (Ibid.) "ha'Noge'a be'Meis be'Nefesh Adam"?
(b)What does Rebbi Yishmael learn from there? How does he interpret "be'Nefesh Adam"?
(c)Rebbi Akiva disagrees with that because of a statement that he makes in another Beraisa. What does he learn there from the Pasuk (in Emor) "ve'Al Kol Nafshos Meis Lo Yavo"?
(d)How does that explain why he disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael's previous D'rashah?
2)
(a)Rebbi Oshaya (according to Rebbi Akiva) learns from the Pasuk (Ibid.) "ha'Noge'a be'Meis be'Nefesh Adam" (withe reference to the soul that is inside a person, an Ubar) that - an Ubar is Tamei (min ha'Torah).
(b)Rebbi Yishmael learns from there that - a Revi'is of blood from one dead person is Metamei.
(c)Rebbi Akiva disagrees with that based of a statement that he makes in another Beraisa, where he learns from the Pasuk (in Emor) "ve'Al Kol Nafshos Meis Lo Yavo" that - even a Revi'is of blood from two Meisim is Metamei ...
(d)... in which case he no longer needs a Pasuk to teach us the Halachah of a Revi'is of blood that comes from one Meis.
72b----------------------------------------72b
3)
(a)What does our Mishnah say in a case where the fetus of an animal that is experiencing difficulties in giving birth, sticks out its foot, which the Shochet severs before Shechting its mother? What is the status of the Ubar?
(b)If he severs it only after the Shechitah of the mother, Rebbi Meir considers the mother Maga Neveilah. Why is that?
(c)What if the Ubar is found to be dead?
3)
(a)Our Mishnah rules that in a case where the fetus of an animal that is experiencing difficulties in giving birth, sticks out its foot, which the Shochet severs before Shechting its mother - the Ubar is Tahor.
(b)If he severs it only after the Shechitah of the mother, Rebbi Meir considers it Maga Neveilah - because it touched the severed foot, which just became Eiver min ha'Chai (which in turn, is Tamei like Neveilah).
(c)In the event that the Ubar is found to be dead - the foot is actually Neveilah (since the Shechitah of the mother did not effect it).
4)
(a)On what grounds do the Chachamim consider it only Maga T'reifah?
(b)What are the ramifications of Maga T'reifah?
(c)And they learn this from the Shechitah of a T'reifah, which renders the animal Tahor. On what basis does Rebbi Meir disagree with them?
4)
(a)The Chachamim consider it only Maga T'reifah - because the Shechitah helps to remove the Tum'ah from the foot, even though it is outside the womb.
(b)The ramifications of Maga T'reifah are that - it is only Metamei mi'de'Rabbanan.
(c)And they learn this from the Shechitah of a T'reifah, which renders the animal Tahor. Rebbi Meir disagrees with them - because whereas the Shechitah of a T'reifah affects itself, that of an Ubar entails being Matir a body that is not part of itself.
5)
(a)From where does the Tana try to learn that the Shechitah of a T'reifah ought not to render the animal Tahor?
(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Shemini "Kol ha'Noge'a bahem Yitma"? What does this come to include?
(c)What objection do we raise to the Tana's counter argument that one cannot learn a T'reifah from a Beheimah Teme'ah, because, unlike the latter, it did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher (a time that it was permitted)?
5)
(a)The Tana tries to learn that the Shechitah of a T'reifah ought not to render the animal Tahor - from a Beheimah Teme'ah, which remains Tamei even after being Shechted ...
(b)... as we learn from the Pasuk in Shemini "Kol ha'Noge'a bahem Yitma".
(c)We object to the Tana's counter argument that one cannot learn a T'reifah from a Beheimah Teme'ah, because, unlike the latter, it did not have a 'Sha'as ha'Kosher' (a time that it was permitted) - because that argument will not apply to an animal that was T'reifah from birth.
6)
(a)What distinction does the Tana finally draw between Beheimah Teme'ah and T'reifah regarding Tum'ah?
(b)And what will be the status of an eighth-month baby that has been Shechted?
6)
(a)The Tana finally draws a distinction between Beheimah Teme'ah and T'reifah in that - the latter, unlike the former, belongs to a species of animals where Shechitah even permits the animal to be eaten.
(b)The status of an eighth-month baby that has been Shechted however, is - Tamei, since none of its species (of miscarriages) may be eaten.
7)
(a)On what grounds do we query the Tana's ruling, rendering the Ubar Tamei due to its contact with the severed foot whilst they were still joined? Why do we suggest that it ought nevertheless to remain Tahor?
(b)And we suggest that Rebbi Meir follows his own reasoning in the Mishnah in Keilim, where he discusses a garment of three by three Tefachim that is Tamei Medras. What is the significance of the Shi'ur of three by three Tefachim?
(c)Rebbi Meir rules there that if the garment is torn in two, each half remains Tamei. Why is that?
7)
(a)We query the Tana's ruling, rendering the Ubar Tamei due to its contact with the severed foot whilst they were still joined, suggesting that it ought nevertheless to remain Tahor - because it is Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim.
(b)And we suggest that it is perhaps because Rebbi Meir follows his own reasoning in the Mishnah in Keilim, where he discusses a garment of three by three Tefachim - the minimum Shi'ur for Tum'as Medras, that is Tamei Medras.
(c)Rebbi Meir rules there that if the garment is torn in two, each half remains Tamei - because of their contact with each other when they were whole (since he holds that Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim is Tamei).
8)
(a)What does Rebbi Yossi say? What reason does he give for the garment remaining Tamei?
(b)What are we trying to prove from Rebbi Yossi?
(c)We refute this proof however, by citing a statement by Ula. What does Ula say about a piece of garment the size of three by three finger-breadths that is torn off from a large garment that is Tamei Medras?
(d)Why is that?
(e)How will this now help us re-establish our Mishnah?
8)
(a)Rebbi Yossi says that - it remains Tamei, because when a Zav trod on it with his bare feet, besides becoming Tamei Medras, it also became a Rishon le'Tum'ah (because of Maga Zav). Consequently, when the garment is torn in two, negating the former Tum'ah, the latter Tum'ah remains intact ...
(b)... a proof that - our Mishnah must go like Rebbi Meir, who holds that Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim is Tamei.
(c)We refute this proof however, by citing a statement by Ula, who rules that a piece of garment the size of three by three finger-breadths that is torn off from a large garment that is Tamei Medras - is Tamei Maga Medras ...
(d)... because it touches the main garment as it is being torn (even according to Rebbi Yossi) ...
(e)... in which case, the author of our Mishnah (including the Chachamim, who hold that the Ubar is Maga T'reifah) can even be Rebbi Yossi.
9)
(a)According to Ravina, the Kashya from Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim is not valid for a different reason. What distinction does he draw between a garment that is Tamei Medras, and the foot of an Ubar, in this regard?
(b)We suggest that the S'vara of Kol ha'Omed ... is confined to the opinion of Rebbi Meir in a Mishnah in Mikva'os. What does Rebbi Meir say there about Toveling a pot with an excessively long handle?
(c)How do we reconcile Ravina with the Rabanan there, who require the entire vessel to be Toveled?
(d)According to Ravina, who considers the foot of the Ubar to be severed? why does our Mishnah need to write 'Chatchah'?
9)
(a)According to Ravina, the Kashya from Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim is not valid due to the distinction between a garment that is Tamei Medras - which does not stand to be divided and which is therefore considered Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim (even according to Rebbi Yossi), and the foot of an Ubar - which does (Kol ha'Omed la'Chetoch ke'Chatuch Dami), and which is therefore Metamei the Ubar even whilst they are still joined.
(b)We suggest that the S'vara of Kol ha'Omed ... is confined to the opinion of Rebbi Meir in a Mishnah in Mikva'os who says there that - one only needs to Tovel a pot with an excessively long handle up to the point that it is needed (because of the S'vara of Kol ha'Omed Lachtoch ... ).
(c)However, we reconcile Ravina with the Rabbanan there, who require the entire vessel to be Toveled - by differentiating between vessels and food, by which they concede that Chiburei Ochlin ke'Mifr'si Dami (because food [as opposed to vessels], is soft, it is not really considered joined in the first place, and even they will agree with the S'vara of Kol ha'Omed (thereby explaining the Tum'ah in our Mishnah).
(d)According to Ravina, who considers the foot of the Ubar to be severed, our Mishnah nevertheless says 'Chatchah' - because of the Reisha, where the Ubar is Tahor only because the foot was severed before the Shechitah.