(a)What did Rabah suggest to Rav Huna that we might learn from the Pasuk in Metzora " ... asher Teitzei Mimenu Shichvas Zera"?
(b)What alternative D'rashah might we learn from there?
(c)Rav Huna rejected the She'eilah outright, based on the Shi'ur that is required to render the person Tamei. What is the Shi'ur?
(d)What did he extrapolate from there?
1)
(a)Rabah suggested to Rav Huna that we might learn from the Pasuk in Metzora " ... asher Teitzei Mimenu Shichvas Zera" - that someone who inserts a splinter of wood into the Amah and subsequently finds Zera on it, will remain Tahor (because the Zera did not emerge from the Amah by itself).
(b)Alternatively, we might learn from there - that Shichvas-Zera is only Metamei once it has emerged from the body.
(c)Rav Huna rejected the She'eilah outright, based on the Shi'ur that is required to render the person Tamei - sufficient to fill the tip of the Amah ...
(d)... which the amount on the tip of a splinter will obviously not reach.
2)
(a)What did Rabah extrapolate from the fact that Keri requires a Shi'ur, as opposed to Nidus for example, which does not?
(b)This prompted him to query the D'rashah from the Hekesh of Zera to Zivus (in the Pasuk there "Zos Toras ha'Zav va'asher Teitzei Mimenu Shichvas-Zera"). Which Hekesh?
(c)What is then the problem with Rabah's D'rashah?
(d)What did Rav Huna reply? What do we actually learn from the Hekesh?
2)
(a)Rabah extrapolated from the fact that Keri requires a Shi'ur, as opposed to Nidus for example, which does not - that a Ba'al-Keri is not Tamei because he sighted Keri (because if he was, then, like a Nidah, he would not require a Shi'ur).
(b)This prompted him to query the D'rashah from the Hekesh of Zera to Zivus (in the Pasuk there "Zos Toras ha'Zav va'asher Teitzei Mimenu Shichvas-Zera"), from which we learn that seeing Keri (like seeing Zivus) detracts from the seven clean days required by a Zav before he can become Tahor ...
(c)... implying that a Ba'al-Keri is Tamei because of the sighting (like a Zav) and not because he touched Zera.
(d)To which Rav Huna replied that we actually learn from the Hekesh (not that Keri itself breaks the sequence, but) - that the Keri sighted by a Zav is bound to contain a few drops of Zivus.
3)
(a)Rabah queried Rav Huna further from a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa Darshen from the Pasuk there (directly connected to the previous Hekesh) "Letam'ah Bah"?
(b)How does this pose a Kashya on Rav Huna?
(c)What did Rav Huna's reply?
3)
(a)Rabah queried Rav Huna further from another a Beraisa, which (following the Hekesh that we just discussed) Darshens from the Pasuk there "Letam'ah bah" - that just as Keri itself only renders Tamei for one day, so too, does it only negate the day (during the seven clean days) on which it is seen (and not all seven days, like Zivus does) ...
(b)... a Kashya on Rav Huna - who maintains that even a sighting of Keri breaks the seven days because it contains Zivus; so why should it not negate all seven days?
(c)Rav Huna replied however - that it is a 'Gezeiras-ha'Kasuv' that a drop of Zivus that is mixed in a majority of Keri (unlike Zivus on its own) only negates one day.
4)
(a)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina asked Rebbi Elazar whether, based on the Pasuk there "ve'Ishah ki Yazuv Zov Damah", dry blood is Metamei or not. Why might it be Metamei, in spite of the implication of the Pasuk?
(b)Rebbi Elazar tried to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa say about the blood of a Nidah and the flesh of a Meis?
(c)On what grounds did Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina ...
1. ... reject that proof? What is the basic difference between what he meant to ask and the Beraisa?
2. ... establish the Beraisa like that?
4)
(a)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina asked Rebbi Elazar whether, based on the Pasuk there "ve'Ishah ki Yazuv Zov Damah", dry blood is Metamei, in spite of the implication that only blood that flows is - if the Pasuk is speaking about a common case (but does for its implication).
(b)Rebbi Elazar tried to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which rules that both the blood of a Nidah and the flesh of a Meis are Metamei - even when they are dry.
(c)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina ...
1. ... rejected this proof however - because he meant to ask about a clot of blood that emerged dry from the womb, whereas the Beraisa is speaking about blood that was initially wet but that dried afterwards, which he ...
2. ... understood - on the basis of 'Basar Meis' which obviously died only after the person died.
5)
(a)Rebbi Elazar replied that, in that case, we can resolves the She'eilah from our Mishnah. From which ruling in our Mishnah can we learn that dry blood is considered Nidus?
(b)We ask why the same should then not apply even if it does not melt. What does Rabah reply?
5)
(a)Rebbi Elazar replied that, in that case, we can resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah - where the Tana rules that a woman who miscarries a form of a scab (or crust of a wound) ... is Tamei, provided it subsequently melts in water (a proof that dry blood is considered Nidus).
(b)When we ask why the same shouldthen not apply even if it does not melt, Rabah replies - that the fact that it does not melt proves that it is an independent entity (and not blood).
22b----------------------------------------22b
6)
(a)We support the previous statement with a Beraisa that describes how Rebbi Tzadok took a She'eilah (concerning a woman who gave birth to a sort of scab) that he was asked in Tiv'in to Yavneh. Who cited this episode?
(b)To whom did the Chachamim in Yavneh present it?
(c)What did the doctors reply...
1. ... in this case?
2. ... in a similar case of a woman who miscarried something that resembled red hairs?
(d)Resh Lakish requires the water in which one places the above to be specifically warm. Why is that? What sort of scenario would have resulted if she places it in cold water?
6)
(a)We support the previous statement with a Beraisa that describes how Rebbi Tzadok brought a She'eilah (concerning a woman who gave birth to a sort of scab) that he was asked in Tiv'in to Yavneh. The person who cited this episode was - Rebbi Tzadok's son, Rebbi Elazar.
(b)The Chachamim in Yavneh presented it to - the doctors ...
(c)... who replied...
1. ... in this case - that if it did not melt in water, the scab came from a wound inside the woman's stomach, and ...
2. ... in a similar case of a woman who miscarried something that resembled red hairs - that it came from a wart in her stomach.
(d)Resh Lakish requires the water in which one places the above to be warm - because should she place it in cold water and it does not melt, we will claim that had she placed in warm water, it would have melted (and rule that she is Tamei mi'Safek).
7)
(a)The Beraisa that we cite in support of Resh Lakish adds the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. How does he suggest one examines the scab?
(b)How does Ravina explain the difference between the two opinions? Why does the Tana Kama disagree with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?
(c)What does the Mishnah in the seventh Perek require placing in water for twenty-four hours?
(d)What leads us to suggest that maybe in our case, less than that will suffice?
(e)What is the outcome of this She'eilah?
7)
(a)The Beraisa that we cite in support of Resh Lakish adds the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who suggests that one examines the scab - by rubbing it with spit.
(b)Ravina explains - that the Tana Kama disagrees with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, because in his opinion, the blood must melt by itself, and that the necessity to induce it to do so itself proves that it a piece of flesh (and not blood).
(c)The Mishnah in the seventh Perek requires placing in water for twenty-four hours - a Sheretz or a piece of Neveilah that has gone hard (because if it once again become soft, it will continue to be Metamei.
(d)We suggest that maybe in our case, less will suffice - because congealed blood is considerably softer than a hardened rodent or piece of Neveilah.
(e)The outcome of this She'eilah is - 'Teiku' (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos).
8)
(a)Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah rules that a woman who miscarries something that resembles an animal a beast or a bird, is Tamei Leidah. Which Gezeirah-Shavah in Bereishis does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel cite as the basis of Rebbi Meir's ruling?
(b)What problem do we have with that from the Pasuk in Bereishis "Vayivra Elokim es ha'Taninim ha'Gedolim"?
(c)On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that we learn "Yetzirah" from "Yetzirah", but not "B'ri'ah from "Yetzirah"? What did Tana b'rei Rebbi Yishmael say about 'Shiyvah' and 'Bi'ah' (in connection with Tzara'as Batim)?
(d)How can we query Rav Yehudah even without Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael?
8)
(a)Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah rules that a woman who miscarries something that resembles an animal a beast or a bird, is Tamei Leidah. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel cites the basis for this ruling - the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (in Bereishis) "va'Yitzer" (by Beheimah) "va'Yitzer (by Adam).
(b)The problem with this from the Pasuk there "va'Yivra Elokim es ha'Taninim ha'Gedolim" - is why we do then learn a similar Gezeirah-Shavah ('B'ri'ah' from 'Yetzirah') with regard to the large sea creatures (incorporating all fish [yet which Rebbi Meir does not include in his ruling]).
(c)We refute the suggestion that we learn 'Yetzirah' from 'Yetzirah', (but not 'B'ri'ah' from 'Yetzirah') from Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who says 'Zu hi Shiyvah, Zu hi Bi'ah' (in connection with Tzara'as Batim [which means that we learn a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from words that are similar in meaning (even if they are not identical]).
(d)In fact, we can query Rav Yehudah without Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael - since we can learn Taninim from Adam by means of the Gezeirah-Shavah 'B'ri'ah' 'B'ri'ah'.
9)
(a)What do we gain from the suggestion that 'B'ri'ah' by Adam comes for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', and 'Yetzirah' is to render it Mufneh (superfluous)?
(b)On what grounds do we refute this suggestion?
(c)We therefore conclude that 'Yetzirah' is Mufneh both by Adam and by animals ... (where it is superfluous, since the Torah has already written "Vaya'as Elokim es Chayas ha'Aretz"), whereas 'B'ri'ah' is only Mufneh by Adam (where it is superfluous, but not by Taninim (where it is not). We query this however, from the Pasuk "va'Ya'as Hash-m es Chayas ha'Aretz" (the Pasuk that renders 'Yetzirah' Mufneh by animals). What does the Pasuk insert there that challenges our conclusion (bringing back a Kashya on Rav Yehudah)?
(d)And we answer that "Remes" does not in fact, incorporate Taninim. Why not?
9)
(a)The suggestion that 'B'ri'ah' by Adam comes for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', and 'Yetzirah' is to render it Mufneh (superfluous) - will explain why Rebbi Meir confines his D'rashah to animals ... , by which the Torah writes 'Yetzirah' (and precludes Taninim).
(b)We refute this suggestion however - by countering that there is nothing to indicate not learning the opposite (that 'Yetzirah' by Adam comes for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', and 'B'ri'ah' to render it Mufneh) in which case Rebbi Meir would have included Taninim and precluded animals ... .
(c)We therefore conclude that 'Yetzirah' is Mufneh both by Adam and by animals ... (where it is superfluous, since the Torah has already written "Vaya'as Elokim es Chaise ha'Aretz"), whereas 'B'ri'ah' is only Mufneh by Adam, but not by Taninim (where it is not). We query this however - in that the same Pasuk that renders 'Yetzirah' Mufneh by animals ("va'Ya'as Elokim ... ") inserts "ve'es Kol Remes ha'Adamah", and "Remes" incorporates Taninim, challenging our conclusion.
(d)And we answer that "Remes" does not in fact, incorporate Taninim - since Taninim are sea creatures, and the Torah specifically writes there "Remes ha'Adamah".
10)
(a)To explain our answer, we now categorize 'Gezeirah-Shavah'. What does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel say about a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is ...
1. ... not Mufneh at all?
2. ... Mufneh on both sides?
(b)The Rabbanan hold that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufneh on only one side is 'Lemeidin u'Mashivin'. What does Rebbi Yishmael say?
(c)According to Rebbi Yishmael, what is the difference between 'Mufneh mi'Tzad Echad' and 'Mufneh mi'Shenei Tzedadin'?
(d)How does that finally explain Rebbi Meir (according to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's interpretation)?
10)
(a)To explain our answer, we now categorize 'Gezeirah-Shavah'. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' which is ...
1. ... not Mufneh at all - 'Ein Lemeidin'.
2. ... Mufneh on both sides - 'Lemeidin ve'Ein Mashivin'.
(b)The Rabbanan hold that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufneh on only one side is 'Lemeidin u'Mashivin'; whereas Rebbi Yishmael holds 'Lemeidin ve'Ein Mashivin' (like one that is Mufneh on both sides).
(c)According to Rebbi Yishmael, the difference between 'Mufneh mi'Tzad Echad' and 'Mufneh mi'Shenei Tzedadin' - is manifest in a case where there is a choice, such as the one currently under discussion (where one can learn either Beheimah ... or Taninim from Adam, or both) - in which case we opt to learn the one which is Mufneh on both sides, and not the one that is Mufneh on only one side ...
(d)... which finally explains why Rebbi Meir - learns Beheimah from Adam, regarding Tum'as Leidah, but not Taninim.
