More Discussions for this daf
1. 6 Disputes 2. Why did Rebbi Shimon's teeth turn black? 3. Incident With a Box of Bones
DAF DISCUSSIONS - NAZIR 52

Daniel Fishman asked:

The gemara on the top of 52b tries to prove that the baraisa on 52a contains only 6 disputes between Rav Akiva and the Chachamim whether something is tamei or tahor in order to prove that a shidra=spinal column and a golgolet=skull may be mitamei by themselves not together.

Since the baraisa says "these are the 6 things that reb akiva is mitamei..." and it also lists shidra and golgelet if you would say they are mitamei by themselves then the baraisa would have 7 cases!

The gemara then rejects that with 4 diffrent explanations of why the baraisa really has 6 cases and one therefore can count the cases of shidra and golgelet seperately so that they are both mitamei individually.

Furthermore, the gemara even gives proof to the last explanation (the e bait eima-that the baraisa lists only the disputes that Reb akiva retracted from so we can prove baraisa has only 6 cases ) that rebbi said to bar kappara "do not teach the case of revies dam of 2 corpses that reb akiva retracted!

Since Reb akiva had it biyado-meaning he normally taught that it was mitamei and we have a pasuk that supports that as it says -vial kol nafshot meit lo yavo."

and also R shimon testified that reb akiva did not retract-

So we PROVED that the baraisa has 6 cases and therefore is a PROOF that shidra and golgelet is mitamei by themselves independently

so why does the gemara then bring another "TA SHMA" to figure out whether the shidra and golgelet are mitamei by themselves or only togethor

we have just proved that they are mitamei individually since then the minyan of cases in the baraisa would not make sense!?

To support my question ARTSCROLL even says by that Ta Shma qoute "Since the Gemara has succesfully rejected the proof from the Baraisa's enumeration of the disputes, the original question remains:Do a skull or spinal column contamite only togethor as a unit, or even independently?"

But the original question does NOT remain anymore that we need a proof becuase we just proved that a shidra +golgelet must be mitamei independently b/c then the number of cases in the baraisa would not make sense according to the 4 answers since there would only be 5 cases.

Daniel Fishman, Lawrence, America

The Kollel replies:

First you write that Artscroll supports your question, then you add 'but the original question does not remain anymore' (implying that your question is not valid). Strange?

You are mistaken when you write that a Shedrah and a Gulgoles are Metamei independently. All the Gemara does is refute the proof (in four different ways) that they must be Metamei together. It may well be, the Gemara is saying, that they are Metamei independently, because it is possible to say that the Tana is only listing the cases where a majority disagree with Rebbi Akiva. And so it adds that the Beraisa may be confined to limbs of a dead body, but not to a limb from a live one. At this point, there are three ways of explaining the Beraisa, one of them that a Shedrah and a Gulgolet are Metamei together, like we learned at first. Likewise, at the end of the Sugya, there are five possible ways of explaining the Beraisa (not four, like you assumed). And the She'eilah remains unresolved. Hence, the Sugya continues 'Ta Shema'.

I hope that this clarifies the issue for you. Please let me know if it doesn't.

Be'Virchas Kol Tuv.

Eliezer Chrysler

Daniel Fishman responded:

1.In response to 1st paragraph of the kollels response to my Q what i meant when i said "to support my question artscroll even says..the original question still remains do a skull and spinal column contaminate together or independently" - I meant it supports what im asking on since my question was that the Gemara just proved that shidra and golgelet are mitamei independently so why would the original question still remain.So in my understanding the original question does NOT remain and artscroll supports why i have a difficulty because in my understand the Gemara just proved they are mitamei independently yet artscroll says the original question still remains which supports why i have a kasha on the Gemara b/c if it was not for artscroll than i could just say Ta Shma is just trying to bring another proof even though we already proved they are mitamei independently.-I didn't think it was "strange" but i can understand why the kollel had a difficulty with what i wrote.

2. I understand what the Kollel is trying to say in answer to my question when you stated "the Gemara does is refute the proof (in four different ways) that they must be Metamei together."- The Kollel is saying that the gemara does not prove that a shidra and golgelet are mitamei independently but just refutes the proof that they are mitamei only togethor just like artscroll said.But i still don't understand the basis to this since we proved in the last i bait eima of the Gemara that the baraisa listed actually 7 cases just it stated these 6 cases R' akiva retracted since he did not retract his ruling that reviis of blood is mitamei and the Gemra brings a definitive proof to why that has to be so since Rebbe said to Bar Kappara "Do not teach the dispute about reviss of blood from 2 corpses among the cases of retraction because Reb Akivas teaching was constantly at hand (R' Akiva always taught reviss blood form 2 corpses is mitamei making it clear he did not retract) and furthermore the pasuk supports R' Akiva "val kol nafshot meit lo yavo". Not only this but the Gemara even confirms that R Akiva did not retract his ruling that reviss blood is mitamei from a Baraisa which is also a Tosefta in Oholos 4:2 that R Shimon testified that R' Akiva held all the days of his life that a reviss of blood from 2 corpses is mitamei. Knowing this the Baraisa lists in fact 7 disputes but its mention of "shisha divarim" - 6 disputes at the beginning of the Baraisa refers to the 6 disputes R' Akiva subsequently retracted to the exclusion of the case of reviss blood that is mitamei that Reb Akiva did not retract from. So now with out the case of reviss blood there should be 6 cases but in order to have the count of 6 cases shidra and golgelet MUST BE COUNTED SEPERATELY or else there will only be 5 cases these are

1)ever min hameit

2)ever min hachai

3)chatzi kav aztamot

4)eztem ksiora

5)SHIDRA VIGOLGELET.

But the baraisa said there are 6 cases so it must be that shidra is counted as 1 case and golgelet is counted as another.If so then this is a definitive proof that A SHIDRA IS MITAMEI INDEPENDENTLY AND A GOLGELET IS MITAMEI INDEPENDENTLY! So the original question does NOT remain like is said ?

Please answer. I just don't understand. Thank you for your time and effort.

The Kollel replies:

After citing a Beraisa that lists seven cases (including Shedrah & Gulgoles), the Gemara tries to prove that Shedrah & Gulgoles must be one case, not two (otherwise, there would be seven cases and not six).

The Gemara then refutes the proof in that the Tana is not concerned with cases where only a Yachid argues with Rebbi Akiva, so it omits Etzem k'Se'orah. This enables us to count Shedrah & Gulgoles as two cases. We only cite the refutation to counter the proof that Shedrah & Gulgoles must be one case, not because we are sure that the Tana does not list cases where only a Yachid argues with R. Akiva. Consequently, if he does not, then Shedrah & Gulgoles are two cases; whereas if he does, then they are one.

Then the Gemara suggests another possible way of refuting the original proof (that Shedrah & Gulgoles must be one case), by dropping Ever Min ha'Chai from the list (seeing as the Tana is only concerned with Ever Min ha'Mes). Once again, if this is correct, we can count Shedrah & Gulgoles as two cases; if not, then we will count them as one.

Do you now see the point? Each refutation leaves us with two possibilities, relieving us of having to say that Shedrah & Gulgoles are one case, but leaving us with the option of saying that they are two. The She'eilah however, remains open. Hence the final 'Ta Sh'ma'.

Be'Virchas Kol Tuv

Eliezer Chrysler

Daniel Fishman writes back:

I understand the point the Kollel is trying to tell me that the Gemara is not proving that shidra + golgelet is 2 separate cases but is just refuting the claim that they are 1 case as the kollel stated "Each refutation leaves us with two possibilities, relieving us of having to say that Shedrah & Gulgoles are one case, but leaving us with the option of saying that they are two. The She'eilah however, remains open. Hence the final "Ta Shma."

However, i dont see how the sheeilah remainds open because in the last "I BAIT EIMA" that the Gemara stated ki kitani kol heicha dihader bei liafukei revis dam dlo hadar bei"-That when the baraisa said these 6 cases that was referring to the 6 cases in which R' Akiva retracted but the case of revis dam R' Akiva did not retract so it is excluded from the list so therefore the cases of shidra and golgelet must be counted separately which teaches us that they are Mitamei independently.So the Kollel wants to say this is just a possibility that the baraisa when saying 6 cases excludes revis dam in which R' akiva did not retract and therefore the question still remains.But this should be a proof because the Gemara then proves that it must be that way that R' Akiva did not retract since Rebbe said to Bar Kappara "Do not teach the dispute about reviss of blood from 2 corpses among the cases of retraction because Reb Akivas teaching was constantly at hand (R' Akiva always taught reviss blood form 2 corpses is mitamei making it clear he did not retract) and the Gemara also brings down the pasuk that supports R' Akiva "val kol nafshot meit lo yavo". Not only this but the Gemara even confirms that R Akiva did not retract his ruling that reviss blood is mitamei from a Baraisa which is also a Tosefta in Oholos 4:2 that R Shimon testified that R' Akiva held all the days of his life that a reviss of blood from 2 corpses is mitamei. So if so that R' Akiva did not retract his shita of revis dam the baraisa then has 5 cases in which he did retract if you hold shidra+golgelet should be counted togethor and is 1 case But the Baraisa says "These 6 cases" so it must shidra+golgelet are 2 separate cases and are therefore mitamei independently and therefore the question does not remain.So according to this answer of "liafukei revis dam dlo hadar bei" we must hold shidra and golgelet is 2 separate cases and not just a possibility since you have to have 6 cases but if you count them together there are only 5.And it must be the exclusive case is revis of blood from the 6 since we have clear PROOF not possibilty that it is so from what Rebbe said to bar kappara, the pasuk and the baraisa or tosefta with R' Shimons testimony that R' Akiva did not retract his shita on dam these are all rayas to this answer so how does the question still remain??

The Kollel replies:

The original Beraisa included 'Revi'is Dam'. Like with the other answers, it is only in order to counter the proof that Shidrah and Gulgoles must be one that we suggest 'Kol Heicha de'Hadar bei, La'afukei Revi'is Dam'. That is not what the Tana originally said, nor is there any proof that it must be so. Consequently, there are still two ways of learning the Beraisa.

Even though we support this with Rebbi's statement to bar Kapara, and then with Rebbi Shimon, that only proves that Rebbi Akiva did not retract his statement. It does not show that the Beraisa does not include it. The last Iba'is Eima indeed asserts that the Beraisa does not include it, but that is not the opinion of the previous answers. In other words, according to the first suggestions of the Gemara the Beraisa includes 'Revi'is' Dam' in the list even though Rebbi Akiva did not retract from it.

In short, each and every refutation in the Sugya only comes to reject the original statement (that Shidrah and Gulgoles must be one). It does not prove conclusively that they are two.

Kol Tuv

Eliezer Chrysler