R yochanan explains that the term "o bemet" that the braita explains is reffering to an ever min Hamet that does not have enough flesh to regenerate is talking about a case where the bone is larger than a barley grain, and is teaching that etzem kise'orah is also metamei by carrying it. I have three questions about this:
1) I know that tosfos d"h ela asks that it should have just said etzem kise'orah in the braita since the halacha its teaching has nothing to do with the limb. He doesn't answer and I was wondering if any of the mefarshim offer an answer to this as this seems like a very strong question to me (even though tosfos says ketzas kashe).
2) This bothers me the most: What does Rabbi Yochanan learn from the words " o bechalal"? According to him, it is not teaching anything new as we know etzem kise'orah is metamei through carrying from "o bemet" so "o bechalal" is free. The braita says ever min hachai with not enough flesh but according to him, the case would be where it is larger than a barley grain so that is already included in "be'etzem"(according to reish lakish it Makes sense since one is ever min hachai and one is ever min hamet but i dont understand what r yochanan learns from it. Hope I worded it clearly enough).
3) The rosh asks how does reish lakish know that etzem kise'orah is metamei through carrying it. Cant we answer that according to him touching and carrying go hand in hand? Since by the limb cases, the pasuk only discusses touching but he holds that carrying them is also metamei, even without an explicit source. I assumed that they go together and we could say that so too by the bone, they go together and from "be'etzem" we learn out both touching and carrying according to him. Not sure about this one, just wanted to hear what the Rav thinks.
Thank you Rav for taking the time to answer my questions.
All the best
Elisha Yagudayev, Flushing
1)
a. Tosfos Rabeinu Tudrus (cited by the Mesivta edition in Bi'urei Tosfos, and by Arzei ha'Levanon) explains that there are two verses teaching us this. The first is in Bamidbar 19:16: "Anything which should touch... the corpse of the sword, O b'Mes, or the bone of the man." The second verse is Bamidbar 19:18: "And for he who touches a bone or corpse O b'Mes or the grave."
b. We find (end of Nazir 53b) that the first verse is used to teach that a limb from a live person which can regenerate is Metamei in the Ohel. Tosfos Rabeinu Tudrus writes that since, in the Derashah from 19:16, an "Ever" (limb) is mentioned, it is also mentioned in the Derashah from 19:18 at the top of 54a.
c. Therefore, the reason why the Derashah, beginning of 54a, did not mention a bone is that it followed the language of the Derashah on 53b which mentioned a limb.
2) To answer your second question:
I do not understand the question of what will Rebbi Yochanan learn from "O b'Chalal" -- because the Beraisa on 54a answers this question and tells us that it comes to include a limb from a live person, with not enough flesh to regenerate. You also cite this Beraisa, Elisha, but you imply that Rebbi Yochanan must disagree with the Beraisa (incidentally, this in itself is surprising that Rebbi Yochanan should disagree with a Beraisa, and it does not happen very often). You imply that Ever Min ha'Chai with not enough flesh would be included in the word "b'Etzem" because there would be more than a barley grain of bone. However, we can say that the Ever Min ha'Chai with not enough flesh is referring to a case where there is also no bone connected with it, so one requires the words "O b'Chalal" to prove that it is Tamei.
3) To answer your third question:
See Rambam, Hilchos Tum'as Meis 1:6, who says that whenever Masa is mention, it includes carrying the Tum'ah without touching it. According to this, just because one becomes Tamei by touching something does not necessarily mean that one becomes Tamei by carrying it, because in one respect Masa is a lighter Tum'ah than Maga since one becomes Tamei without actual contact. Therefore, even though Etzem k'Se'orah is Metamei through Maga, Masa might still be a lighter Tum'ah, so one needs a verse to teach Tum'ah of Masa since it is not necessarily derived from Maga.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom