1)

(a)If after shaving for his Taharah, a Nazir is informed that he is Tamei Meis, he is obligated to demolish all of his Nezirus. When will he not need to do this?

(b)When, on the other hand, will he have to demolish his Nezirus even for Tum'as Tehom?

(c)If having touched a Sheretz, the Nazir goes to Tovel in a cave and after the Tevilah, he finds a k'Zayis of a Meis floating in the part of the Mikvah that was outside the cave (and is not sure whether, at the time when he Toveled, it was inside the cave or not) he is Tamei. Why is that?

(d)Why is the k'Zayis of Meis not considered Tum'as Tehom?

1)

(a)If after shaving for his Taharah, a Nazir is informed that he is Tamei Meis, he is obligated to demolish all of his Nezirus. He will not need to do this - if the Tum'ah concerned is Tum'as T'hom.

(b)On the other hand, he will have to demolish his Nezirus even for Tum'as T'hom - if he is informed about it before he shaved.

(c)If having touched a Sheretz, the Nazir goes to Tovel in a cave and after the Tevilah, he finds a k'Zayis of a Meis floating in the part of the Mikveh that was outside the cave (and is not sure whether, at the time when he Toveled, it was inside the cave or not) he is Tamei - due to the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, Tamei'.

(d)The k'Zayis of Meis is not considered Tum'as T'hom - because it was not completely covered.

2)

(a)What will be the Din if after shaving, the Nazir is informed that a bone was discovered buried in the ground of the cave, assuming that he previously Toveled ...

1. ... to cool down?

2. ... to Tovel for Tum'as Meis? Why the difference?

(b)Why does the Reisha of our Mishnah refer to someone who Toveled for Tum'as Sheretz, and the Seifa, when he Toveled to cool down?

(c)How does ...

1. ... Rebbi Elazar attempt to extrapolate Tum'as Tehom from the Pasuk in Naso "v'Chi Yamus Meis Alav be'Fesa Pis'om"?

2. ... Reish Lakish extrapolates it from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ish Ish Ki Yiheyeh Tamei la'Nefesh O b'Derech Rechokah"?

(d)In Pesachim, Rebbi Elazar and Reish Lakish do not argue, whereas in our Sugya they do. What is the basis of the Machlokes between the two Sugyos?

2)

(a)If after shaving, the Nazir is informed that a bone was discovered buried in the ground of the cave, assuming that he previously Toveled ...

1. ... to cool down - he will be Tahor, because it is a classical case of Tum'as T'hom.

2. ... to Tovel for Tum'as Meis - he will be Tamei, because Tum'as T'hom is only Tahor when the man has a Chezkas Taharah, but not when he has a Chezkas Tum'ah.

(b)The Reisha of our Mishnah refers to someone who Toveled for Tum'as Sheretz - to teach us that in spite of the fact that he probably checked for any Tum'ah before immersing, and there is good reason to assume that the k'Zayis Meis was not inside the cave, he is nevertheless Tamei (because of Safek Tum'ah); whereas the Seifa refers to someone who Toveled to cool down - to teach us that even though he probably did not check, he is nevertheless Tahor (because of Tum'as T'hom).

(c)

1. Rebbi Elazar attempts to extrapolate Tum'as T'hom from the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Chi Yamus Meis Alav be'Fesa Pis'om" - since "Alav" implies that he knew about it.

2. Resh Lakish extrapolates it from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ish Ish Ki Yih'yeh Tamei la'Nefesh O be'Derech Rechokah" - because he Darshens "be'Derech" 'ke'Derech', just like a path is revealed, so too must the Tum'ah be revealed (to preclude Tum'as T'hom, which is hidden).

(d)In Pesachim, Rebbi Elazar and Resh Lakish do not argue - because the Sugya there holds that we require one Pasuk for Pesach and one for Nazir (seeing as we cannot learn one from the other); whereas in our Sugya they do - because we hold that only one Pasuk is necessary (seeing as we can learn one from the other), and they are arguing over which of the two Pesukim is the source.

3)

(a)The Tana in a Beraisa defines Tum'as Tehom as Tum'ah that was unknown to anybody in the world. Why does that pose a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar (who learns from "Alav")?

(b)What does the Beraisa say about a Meis that is discovered buried lying across a narrow street with regard to a resident who is ...

1. ... a Kohen who wants to eat Terumah?

2. ... a Nazir or someone who is about to bring his Korban Pesach?

(c)What problem does this create with regard to both Rebbi Elazar and Reish Lakish?

(d)So what is the source for Tum'as Tehom (that will justify the two Beraisos)?

3)

(a)The Beraisa defines Tum'as T'hom as Tum'ah that was unknown to anybody in the world - posing a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar (who learns from "Alav"), which implies that it is only the Nazir who does not need to know about it, even if others do.

(b)The Beraisa says that, if a Meis is discovered buried lying across a narrow street, a resident who is ...

1. ... a Kohen and who wants to eat Terumah - is Tamei, and is forbidden to do so.

2. ... a Nazir or someone who is about to bring his Korban Pesach - is Tahor.

(c)This Beraisa creates a problem with regard to both Rebbi Elazar and Resh Lakish - because, if we learn Tum'as T'hom from a Pasuk, why should there be a difference between Terumah on the one hand, and a Nazir and a Korban Pesach, on the other?

(d)So the source for Tum'as T'hom - must be Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (according to any specifications that were handed over to Moshe with the Halachah).

4)

(a)Our Mishnah gives the criterion for the discovery as being the shaving. Why must the author be Rebbi Eliezer? What does he say?

(b)What is the criterion according to the Rabanan?

4)

(a)Our Mishnah gives the criterion for the Halachah of Tum'as T'hom as being the shaving. The author must be Rebbi Eliezer - who maintains that the shaving is crucial to the termination of the Nezirus (to permit him to drink wine).

(b)According to the Rabbanan - the criterion is the sprinkling of the blood of the relevant Korban.

5)

(a)What distinction does Rebbi Eliezer draw between a Nazir who became Tamei Meis during the Melos of his Nezirus and after the Melos?

(b)Will it make any difference whether it is ordinary Tum'ah or Tum'as Tehom?

(c)What She'eilah did Rami bar Chama ask with regard to someone who became Tamei Meis during the Melos but only found out about it after the Melos?

5)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer draws a distinction between a Nazir who became Tamei Meis during the M'los of his Nezirus - who demolishes thirty days, and after the M'los - where he demolishes seven days.

(b)It will make no difference - whether it is ordinary Tum'ah or Tum'as T'hom (seeing as he is speaking before the shaving according to Rebbi Eliezer).

(c)Rami bar Chama asked what the Din will be if someone became Tamei Meis during the M'los but only found out about it afterwards - whether we go after the time that he became Tamei (in which case he demolishes thirty days), or the time that he made the discovery (in which case he will only demolish seven).

63b----------------------------------------63b

6)

(a)Rava proves from our Mishnah 'Im Ad she'Lo Gilach, Bein-Kach u'Vein-Kach Soser', that the Tana must be speaking when he only discovered the Tum'ah after the Melos. How can Rava say 'I de'Isyada Lei be'Soch Melos, Tzericha Lemeimar'?, seeing as the Tana needs to teach us the case where Tum'as Tehom applies?

(b)What would the Din be according to the Rabanan, if the Nazir became Tamei after the Melos?

(c)On what grounds do we ...

1. ... initially refute Rava's proof from our Mishnah to resolve our She'eilah?

2. ... ultimately vindicate him?

6)

(a)Rava proves from our Mishnah 'Im Ad she'Lo Gilach, Bein-Kach u'Vein-Kach Soser' that the Tana must be speaking when he only discovered the Tum'ah after the M'los. He says 'I de'Isyada Lei be'Soch M'los, Tzericha Lemeimar'? (despite the fact that the Tana needs to teach us the case where Tum'as T'hom applies) - because he has already implied that in the Reisha, when he wrote 'Noda mi'she'Gilach' (but not before).

(b)According to the Rabbanan, even if the Nazir became Tamei after the M'los - he would still demolish all thirty days.

(c)We ...

1. ... initially refute Rava's proof from our Mishnah to resolve our She'eilah - on the grounds that the Tana does not say whether the Nazir demolishes seven days or all thirty.

2. ... ultimately vindicate him - on the grounds that the Tana said 'Bein-Kach u'Vein-Kach Soser' without stating that he is speaking specifically when the Tum'ah occurred after the M'los (which he should have done had there been a distinction between before and after [supporting Rava's proof that Rebbi Eliezer goes after the 'Yedi'ah' and not after the Tum'ah]).

7)

(a)We learned earlier that if one discovers a corpse buried across the street, any Kohen who previously passed that spot is Tamei and is forbidden to eat Terumah (though a Nazir and someone who was about to bring the Korban Pesach is Tahor, provided nobody knew about the corpse at the moment of passing). If however, the corpse did not take up the entire width of the street, (even) the Kohen is Tahor. Why is that? How can we be so lenient even by Terumah d'Oraisa?

(b)Under which circumstances does the Tana permit the Kohen to eat Terumah even if the corpse took up the entire width of the street?

(c)On what condition will this leniency not apply even to a Kohen who walks past that spot without carrying a load?

(d)If however, he is riding or carrying a load, then even if the corpse is not buried in a grave, the Kohen is forbidden to eat Terumah. Why is that?

7)

(a)We learned earlier that if one discovers a corpse buried across the street, that a Kohen who previously passed that spot is Tamei and is forbidden to eat Terumah (though a Nazir and someone who was about to bring the Korban Pesach is Tahor, provided nobody knew about the corpse at the moment of passing). If however, the corpse did not take up the entire width of the street, (even) the Kohen is Tahor - because, based on the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor', we assume that he passed at the side without being Ma'ahil over the body.

(b)The Tana permits the Kohen to eat Terumah even if the corpse took up the entire width of the street - if it was broken up in a way that made it possible for a person to pass between the pieces without being Ma'ahil.

(c)This leniency will not apply even to a Kohen who walks past that spot without carrying a load - if the corpse is buried in a grave (because the grave combines the bones).

(d)If however, he is riding or carrying a load, then even if the corpse is not buried in a grave, the Kohen is forbidden to eat Terumah - because then, one tends to stagger or sway slightly from side to side, reducing the possibility of having passed between the pieces without being Ma'ahil over the corpse.

8)

(a)Why is it that, if the corpse is buried (at ground level) in straw or in pebbles it is considered Tum'as Tehom, whereas if it is buried in water, in a dark corner or in a cave it is not?

(b)To which other areas of Tum'ah does Tum'as Tehom apply?

8)

(a)If the corpse is buried (at ground level) in straw or in pebbles it is considered Tum'as T'hom, whereas if it is buried in water, in a dark corner or in a cave it is not - because one of the conditions of Tum'as T'hom is that the corpse in its present location, is not visible to the human eye (even with a torch).

(b)Tum'as T'hom - does not extend to any form of Tum'ah other than Tum'as Meis.

9)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if a k'Zayis of Meis is floating on the water of a Reshus ha'Yachid, that, in the case of Safek Ohel (or Safek Negi'ah) we go le'Chumra. What will be the Din in the equivalent case regarding Safek Negi'ah if there is a Sheretz floating on the water, according to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa?

(b)He does not differentiate between whether the water in which the Sheretz is floating is in a vessel or whether it is in a pool on the ground. What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(c)According to Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avdimi and Ula, respectively, what does the Tana Kama learn from the Pasuk in Shemini "b'Chol ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz", from the word ...

1. ... "b'Chol"?

2. ... "ha'Aretz"?

(d)Based on the previous Derashah, what will be the Din regarding a Sheretz that someone has thrown and that is traveling through the air Now that we preclude a floating Sheretz from Safek Tum'ah (even in a Reshus ha'Yachid) from "al ha'Aretz", what will a Sheretz that someone has thrown and that is traveling through the air?

9)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if a k'Zayis of Meis is floating on the water of a Reshus ha'Yachid, that, in the case of Safek Ohel (or Safek Negi'ah) we go le'Chumra. In the equivalent case regarding Safek Negi'ah, if there is a Sheretz floating on the water, according to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa - the person is Tahor.

(b)He does not differentiate between whether the water in which the Sheretz is floating is in a vessel or whether it is in a pool on the ground. Rebbi Shimon says - that in vessels, he is Tamei, but in a pool of water on the ground he agrees with the Tana Kama, and renders him Tahor.

(c)According to Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avdimi and Ula, respectively, the Tana Kama learns from the Pasuk in Shemini "be'Chol ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz", from the word ...

1. ... "be'Chol" - that someone who touches a Sheretz becomes Tamei wherever it is.

2. ... "ha'Aretz" - that only Vaday touching renders him Tamei wherever it is, but a Safek only when it is on the ground (i.e. not moving, but not when it is floating on water).

(d)Based on the previous Derashah - we are not sure whether this incorporates a Sheretz that someone has thrown and that is traveling through the air or whether it only applies to a Sheretz in water.

10)

(a)And what does Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "Ach Ma'ayan u'Bor Yiheyeh Tahor?"

2. ... "Yitma?"

10)

(a)Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "Ach Ma'ayan u'Bor Yih'yeh Tahor" - that a Sheretz floating in water that (like a spring) is not in a vessel is Tahor.

2. ... "Yitma" - that if it is floating in water that is inside a vessel, it is Tamei.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF