QUESTION: The Gemara (52a) quotes the Tosefta in Ohalos (4:2) in which Rebbi Yehudah says that "there are six things which Rebbi Akiva is Metamei and the Chachamim are Metaher." In its list of those things, however, the Mishnah records seven, and not six! The Gemara attempts to eliminate narrow the number of cases to six. The Gemara suggests that the Mishnah counts only sources of Tum'ah which require a Nazir to shave his hair if he becomes Tamei through the Tum'as Ohel of those items. One of the items subject to the dispute between Rebbi Akiva and the Chachamim is "Etzem k'Se'orah" (a bone the size of a barley grain) which is not Metamei b'Ohel, and thus that case is not included in the count.

The Gemara's suggestion that the Mishnah in Ohalos counts only sources of Tum'ah which require a Nazir to shave is difficult to understand. One of the cases included in the Mishnah's count is Tum'ah caused by a Revi'is Dam (a quarter-Log of blood) from two corpses, but the Mishnah earlier (49b) teaches that a Nazir must shave only for a Chatzi Log (half-Log) of Dam and not for a Revi'is. A Revi'is Dam does not render a Nazir Tamei and require him to shave (whether through Maga, Masa, or Tum'as Ohel). If the Mishnah in Ohalos does not count sources of Tum'ah which do not cause a Nazir to shave, the case of Revi'is Dam also should not be included in the count. The Mishnah should say that there are five cases, and not six.

(a) The ROSH and the MEFARESH explain that Rebbi Akiva is consistent with his own view in the Mishnah later (56b) where he says that a Nazir does shave when he becomes Tamei from a Revi'is Dam. This is also the intention of Tosfos here (52a, DH she'Ba). However, they ask that in the Mishnah there, Rebbi Akiva's source (that Tum'ah from a Revi'is Dam requires the Nazir to shave) is a Kal va'Chomer from "Etzem k'Se'orah." "Etzem k'Se'orah" is Metamei only through Maga (touching it) and Masa (carrying it), but not through Ohel. If the requirement for the Nazir to shave for becoming Tamei from Revi'is Dam is derived from the requirement to shave for "Etzem k'Se'orah," then just as "Etzem k'Se'orah" requires the Nazir to shave only when he touches or carries the bone (but not through Ohel), so, too, a Revi'is Dam should require him to shave only when it makes him Tamei through Maga or Masa, but not through Ohel ("Daiyo la'Vo Min ha'Din...").

The Rishonim answer that the Gemara here maintains that Rebbi Akiva's reason for requiring a Nazir to shave for Tum'ah from a Revi'is Dam is not actually based on the Kal va'Chomer he expresses but on a tradition (Kabalah) he received of a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai to that effect. He said the Kal va'Chomer only in order to persuade the Chachamim (who did not have this Kabalah) to agree with him.

(b) The RA'AVAD (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 3:3) presents an unique ruling. The Ra'avad writes that although a Revi'is of Dam does not require a Nazir to shave when he touches or carries it, it does require him to shave when he enters an Ohel which contains a Revi'is Dam. Revi'is Dam is Metamei a Nazir through Ohel but not through Maga or Masa. The Ra'avad's reason is that a Revi'is Dam is called "Nefesh Mes" (in that a Revi'is of Dam is considered Dam ha'Nefesh; see Tosfos to 38a, DH Al Kol). When the Torah commands the Nazir, "Al Nefesh Mes Lo Yavo" (Bamidbar 6:6), the Torah includes becoming Tamei with a Revi'is Dam in the Isur. The Isur of "Lo Yavo," however, refers only to Tum'as Ohel (as the Gemara states on 42b). Therefore, a Nazir shaves only for Tum'as Ohel of Revi'is Dam, and not for Maga and Masa of Revi'is Dam.

The Gemara here seems to be the source for the ruling of the Ra'avad. The Gemara says that the Mishnah in Ohalos counts all of the items that are Metamei a Nazir (and require him to shave) through Tum'as Ohel, and it includes Revi'is Dam in the list. The Mishnah here omits it because the Mishnah here lists only types of Tum'ah for which a Nazir must shave for all forms of becoming Tamei -- Maga, Masa, and Ohel.

The Mishnah later (54a) lists the Tum'os for which a Nazir does not shave. It mentions that he does not shave for the Tum'ah of Revi'is Dam, and it says that he does not shave for the Tum'as Ohel of Rova Atzamos. According to the Ra'avad, the Mishnah means that although Tum'as Ohel of Revi'is Dam requires the Nazir to shave, Tum'as Ohel of Rova Atzamos does not require him to shave.

OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Eduyos (1:7) in which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel disagree about the details of the Shi'ur of a Rova Kav of bones. Both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel require that two conditions be met in order for a Rova of bones to be Metamei b'Ohel. Beis Shamai states that a Rova of bones must be "Min ha'Atzamim" ("from the bones"), "from two or from three." Beis Hillel states that the Rova must be "Min ha'Geviyah" ("from the body"), and "from Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan," from most of the build of the person ("Rov Binyan") or from most of the bones of the person ("Rov Minyan"). Rebbi Yehoshua in a Beraisa comments that it is possible that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that the Rova must come from Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan.

What are these two conditions that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel mention in the Mishnah?

(a) TOSFOS and many other Rishonim explain that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel require only one condition and not two. When Beis Shamai says that the Rova comes "from the bones" he adds as an explanation of what he means that it suffices for the Rova to come from just two or three bones.

Similarly, Beis Hillel says that the Rova must come from the "Geviyah," from a representative part of the body, and he explains that this means either Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan. Beis Shamai is emphasizing that the minimum amount of a Rova is only two or three bones. Beis Hillel is emphasizing that if the bones are not from Rov Binyan, they must come from a large number of bones (i.e. "Geviyah" or "Rov Minyan," a representative part of the body) in order to be Metamei.

What, though, does Beis Hillel mean when he says that the Rova must be comprised of bones from "Rov Minyan"? Any bone in the Rova may be considered from Rov Minyan if another 124 bones of the body are added to it!

Tosfos (49b, DH v'Al) writes that the bones in the Rova must consist of at least one piece from at least 125 different bones (or at least one piece from each of the large bones which define the Binyan of the body). That is, the Rova must actually contain the Rov Minyan of bones by containing a piece from each of the 125 bones.

(When Rebbi Yehoshua says that according to Beis Hillel, a Rova from Rov Minyan is Metamei "when it comes from the fingers," he is not describing a requirement of the Rova of bones (since the Rova could come even from large bones that are broken into pieces, and it does not have to come from the fingers). Rather, he is simply giving a case in which there can be a Rov Minyan of bones without having Rov Binyan. Accordingly, the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua is not relevant to the laws of Rova but rather to the definition of Rov Minyan.)

(b) The RA'AVAD (in Eduyos) explains that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel each require two conditions for the Rova to be Metamei. The both agree about the first condition that the Rova must come from Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan, as the Gemara mentions. They argue, however, about the second condition. Beis Shamai maintains that the Rova may come "Min ha'Atzamim," from any bones as long as those bones contain a representation (a piece of each bone) from either Rov Minyan or Rov Binyan. Beis Hillel maintains that all of the bones in the Rova must be from the "Geviyah," from the main part of the body, which includes the bones from the Yerech (thigh) up until the shoulders. It does not include the bones of the Shok (lower leg) and below, or the bones of the arms and below (hands, fingers). Those bones are not part of the "Geviyah" and cannot join to make a Rova.

According to this explanation, what does the Gemara mean when it says that a Rova "from the fingers" can add up to a Rova from a Rov Minyan?

The Ra'avad explains the statement of the Gemara in an entirely different manner: The Gemara is explaining why Beis Hillel requires that the Rova be comprised of bones from the "Geviyah." The Gemara says that since fingers and toes are not vital parts of the body, they are not called "Etzem Adam" even when there is a Rova of them. The Gemara proves its assertion that they are not vital from the fact that "Ho'il v'Yeshnan Mefurakei Yadayim v'Raglayim" -- "since there are people who have had the hands and feet [and digits of the fingers] removed" and still live. (See also MEFARESH to 51a, DH Min ha'Ekev.)

(c) The RAMBAM in Eduyos and the RASH in Ohalos (2:1) explain that Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai argue about two points. Beis Hillel says that the Rova must come from a "Geviyah," which means from a single person. Beis Shamai says that it may come from "two or three" meaning two or three people (and not two or three bones).

The second point of dispute is that Beis Shamai says that the Rova may come from any single bone or group of bones. Beis Hillel argues and says that the Rova must come from at least two bones. The words "from Rov Binyan or from Rov Minyan" do not mean that the Rova must come from bones that are from Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan, but rather that the Rova that is Metamei is comprised of bones that do not comprise Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan in and of themselves. If they would comprise a Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan, they would be Metamei even if they were less than a Rova.

How does the Rambam understand the Gemara which implies that, first, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree about one condition, and, second, that the bones of the Rova actually come from bones of Rov Binyan, and, third, that Beis Shamai refers to two or three bones and not to two or three bodies?

The commentators explain that the Rambam does not rule like Rebbi Yehoshua, who explains the dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel differently. The Rambam (in Hilchos Tum'as Mes) writes that a Rova is Metamei when it is comprised of at least two different bones from a single person (as Beis Hillel says). (In PERUSH HA'MISHNAYOS, as printed in Mishnayos Ohalos 2:1, the Rambam alludes to an entirely different interpretation of "Rova Atzamos." However, in Kapach's edition of Perush ha'Mishnayos (Mahadura Basra), the Rambam explains the Mishnah there the same way he explains it in Eduyos.)