(a)'Safek Mashkin Litamei, Tamei; Letamei Acherim, Tahor, Divrei Rebbi Meir (v'Rebbi Elazar)'. What does this mean, and what is the reason for it?
(b)'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, la'Kol Tamei'. What does this mean, and why does he say 'that?
(c)The source of their Machlokes lies in the word "Yitma". What is their Machlokes?
(d)Rebbi Yosi (and Rebbi Shimon) learns basically like Rebbi Yehudah. In what point does he disagree with him?
(a)'Safek Mashkin Litamei, Tamei; Letamei Acherim, Tahor, Divrei Rebbi Meir (ve'Rebbi Elazar)' - means that if there is a Safek whether liquid received Tum'ah or not (e.g. if a Tamei person stretched out his foot, and it is not certain whether he touched the liquid or not), then we assume that he did touch it and declare it Tamei (because, according to Rebbi Meir, liquid is subject to Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, and 'Sefeika d'Oraisa l'Chumra'); but if it is a question as to whether the liquid transmitted Tum'ah to something else, then we assume that it did not (because, in his opinion, liquid is Metamei other things only mid'Rabanan, and 'Sefeika d'Rabanan l'Kula').
(b)'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, la'Kol Tamei' - liquid is Metamei everything, food and even vessels, and even when it is a Safek (because he holds that liquid is Metamei everything min ha'Torah).
(c)Rebbi Yehudah Darshens "me'Asher Yishaseh b'Chol Kli Yitma" 'Yitma - Yetamei' (makes others Tamei), and since the Pasuk places it next to the word 'Kli', he learns that liquid is Metamei even vessels. Rebbi Meir does not Darshen 'Yitma - Yetamei'.
(d)Rebbi Yosi disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah regarding vessels. In his opinion, it is only food that receives Tum'ah from liquid mid'Oraisa, but not vessels.
(a)Rebbi Elazar cites Rebbi Yosi ben Yo'ezer, who testified that a certain type of locust called 'Eil Kamtza' is Kasher, and 'Mashkei Bei Mitbechaya Dachan'. Which liquids is he referring to, and how does this prove, according to Rav, that, in Rebbi Elazar's opinion, liquid is only subject to Tum'ah mid'Rabanan?
(b)According to Rav, Rebbi Yosi ben Yo'ezer means to say that the liquids are completely Tahor (leaving us with a contradiction in Rebbi Elazar here and Rebbi Elazar in the previous question). How does Shmuel answer this discrepancy?
(c)The Gemara attempts to answer the contradiction according to Rav by saying that when the Tana said 've'Chen Hayah Rebbi Elazar Omer ki'Devarav (shel Rebbi Meir)', he meant to say that he only holds like part of Rebbi Meir's statement (i.e. 'Letamei Acherim, Tahor'), but not with regard to the liquid being subject to Tum'ah. On what grounds is this answer rejected?
(d)Does the Gemara offer any other answers according to Rav?
(a)'Mashkeh Bei Mitbechaya Dachan' refers to the water and the blood in the Shechitah-house in the Azarah. If liquids were subject to Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, then how could Chazal remove it? And if they can, it means that the Tum'ah of liquids is entirely mid'Rabanan.
(b)According to Shmuel, 'Dachan' means Tahor as far as transmitting Tum'ah to others is concerned, but the liquid itself is subject to Tum'ah (thus conforming with the opinion of Rebbi Meir, whose opinion Rebbi Elazar supports.
(c)the Gemara rejects the contention that Rebbi Elazar only holds like Rebbi Meir in one of the two points discussed by Rebbi Meir - because of the Tana's statement 'v'Chen Amar Rebbi Elazar ki'Devarav' (which is plural, implying that he holds like both statements of Rebbi Meir, and not just one of them). Moreover, the Tana said 'v'Chen', which also implies that he follows his opinion completely.
(d)The Gemara remains with a Kashya on Rav.
(a)According to Shmuel (in Rebbi Elazar), even though liquids can receive Tum'ah min ha'Torah, they cannot transmit it min ha'Torah. What problem do we have with that from the Pasuk in Shemini "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel"?
(b)Why is the suggestion that liquids are comparable to a Revi'i b'Tum'ah not acceptable?
(c)How does Rav, who says that, according to Rebbi Elazar, liquids are not subject to Tum'ah at all, interpret the Pasuk in Tazri'a "v'Chol Mashkeh Asher Yishaseh b'Chol Kli Yitma"?
(d)In reality, we already know the Din of Hechsher Tum'ah from the first half of the Pasuk "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel", and we need two Pesukim for Hechsher, one for drawn water, and the other, for water that remains in its source. Why do we need both Pesukim? Why can we not learn one from the other?
(a)"veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel" - implies that any Tum'ah (even liquid) that the meat of Kodshim touches may not be eaten. This leaves us with a Kashya on Shmuel, who maintains that Mashkei Bei Mitbechaya can receive Tum'ah, but cannot transmit it.
(b)The suggestion that liquids are comparable to a Revi'i b'Tum'ah not acceptable - because a Revi'i is not called 'Tamei' (only 'Pasul', as we learnt above), whereas Mashkei Bei Mitbechaya is called 'Tamei'. (This Kashya too, remains unanswered.)
(c)Rav interprets the Pasuk "v'Chol Mashkeh Asher Yishaseh b'Chol Kli Yitma" with regard to Hechsher Lekabel Tum'ah (i.e. that water is Machshir food Lekabel Tum'ah, whether it is drawn or whether it is still in its source), but not to Tum'ah itself.
(d)Both Pesukim regarding Hechsher (by drawn water and by water that remains in its source) are necessary, the latter because the water has not yet been given significance by being drawn (as the former was), whereas, by being removed from its source, the former lost its status (which the latter did not).
(a)How is the Pasuk "Ach Mayan u'Bor Yihye Tahor" (Tazri'a) a Kashya on Rav?
(b)How will Rav resolve this difficulty?
(a)"Ach Mayan u'Bor Yihye Tahor" - implies that water that is detached is subject to Tum'ah, a Kashya on Rav, who explains Rebbi Yosi ben Yo'ezer to say that it is not.
(b)According to Rav, what the Pasuk means is that anything that enters a fountain or a gathered pit of water becomes Tahor, but not if it enters drawn water.
(a)Can we reconcile Rav, who just said that detached water, as well as water that is still joined to its original source, is Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah min ha'Torah, with Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, who declared that liquid found in the slaughterhouse in the Azarah is not only Tahor, but is not Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah either?
(b)Why should the blood of Kodshim be different than any other liquid in this regard (Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan)?
(a)Rav will explain the above Pasuk by most liquids, whereas Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina (who declared that liquid found in the slaughterhouse in the Azarah is not only Tahor, but is not Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah either), is referring to the blood of Kodshim.
(b)Blood of Kodshim is different than other liquids in this regard - because of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, who quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that blood of Kodshim is not Machshir mid'Oraisa. This he learns from the Pasuk in Re'eh "Al ha'Aretz Tishpechena ka'Mayim"- only blood that can be poured out (i.e. discarded) like water, is Machshir like water, but not blood that is needed for sprinkling.
(a)What is 'Dam ha'Tamtzis'?
(b)Dam ha'Tamtzis may be spilt like water, yet it is not Machshir. How do we learn this from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ki ha'Dam Hu ba'Nefesh Yechaper"?
(c)How does Rebbi Zeira answer this Kashya, using the Pasuk in Re'eh "Rak Chazak Levilti Achol ha'Dam, Ki ha'Dam Hu ha'Nefesh"?
(d)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Balak "v'Dam Chalalim Yishteh"?
(a)Dam ha'Tamtzis is part of the blood that spills from the animal that is not Dam ha'Nafesh (life-blood).
(b)"Ki ha'Dam Hu ba'Nefesh Yechaper" - teaches us that only life-blood is used for sprinkling, but not Dam ha'Tamtzis. Yet Dam ha'Tamtzis is also included in Mashkeh Bei Mitbechaya, and is not Machshir (even though it is spilt like water).
(c)We learn from "Ki ha'Dam Hu ba'Nefesh Yechaper" - that only Dam ha'Nefesh is called blood (in this context), but not Dam ha'Tamtzis. Consequently, explains Rebbi Zeira, Dam ha'Tamtzis is not even Machshir by Chulin, so why should it be Machshir by Kodshim?
(d)We learn from the Pasuk "v'Dam Chalalim Yishteh" - that the Torah considers blood a beverage (in this context), which is why it is Machshir like the other six beverages.
(a)If the Kohanim inadvertently sprinkled the Tamei blood of a Korban, the Korban is fully validated. What does the Beraisa mean when it says 'be'Meizid Lo Hurtzah'? Why can it not mean that the owner must bring another Korban?
(b)Another Beraisa says that the Tzitz atones for the blood of a Korban that was sprinkled b'Tum'ah. How do these two Beraisos pose a Kashya on Rav?
(c)How does Rav answer both Beraisos in one sweep?
(d)Is the atonement of the Tzitz confined to ...
1. ... when they sprinkled the Tamei blood by mistake, or does it extend even to when they did so deliberately?
2. ... blood, or does it also cover the flesh and the Chelev that became Tamei?
3. ... a Korban Yachid, or does it also cover a Korban Tzibur?
(a)'be'Meizid Lo Hurtzah' - means that the Kohanim, are not permitted to eat the parts that are normally eaten. It cannot mean that the owner is obligated to bring another Korban - because min ha'Torah, the Tzitz atones for this too. It is only a Rabbinical decree that renders it Pasul in spite of the Tzitz, and the Rabanan do not have the right to disqualify a Korban, and to then ask the owner to bring what is really 'Chulin la'Azarah'.
(b)From the Beraisa which says that the Tzitz atones for the blood of a Korban that was sprinkled b'Tum'ah, as well as from the Beraisa quoted in the previous question, we see that there is Tum'ah by the blood of Kodshim - not like Rav in Rav Yosef ben Yo'ezer.
(c)Rav establishes both Beraisos by Tum'ah d'Rabanan (see Tosfos DH 'mid'Rabanan'), and neither Tana holds like Rav Yosef ben Yo'ezer.
(d)The Beraisa says that the Tzitz atones for ...
1. ... the blood, the flesh or the Chelev that became Tamei ...
2. ... whether it occurred b'Shogeg and b'Mezid, b'Ones and b'Ratzon ...
3. .. irrespective of whether it was a Korban Yachid or a Korban Tzibur. Note that here the Beraisa makes no distinction between b'Shogeg and 'b'Mezid', whereas earlier on, we said 'b'Mezid Lo Hurtzah'. One b'Mezid refers to the sprinkling, and the other, to the actual Tum'ah, and Amora'im (later in 'Keitzad Tzolin') will argue as to which is which.
(a)When the Beraisa says that the Tzitz atones for the flesh of a Korban that became Tamei, does this mean that it may now be eaten? If not, what does it mean?
(b)The Beraisa says 'Bein b'Shogeg, Bein b'Meizid, Bein b'Ratzon, Bein b'Ones. What is the difference between Meizid and Ratzon?
(a)When the Beraisa says that the Tzitz atones for the flesh of a Korban that became Tamei - it means that the Korban is Kasher, and the blood may subsequently be sprinkled, even according to Rebbi Yehoshua, who says that if the flesh was taken outside the Azarah, or if it got lost, the Korban is invalid and the blood can no longer be sprinkled.
(b)Meizid and Ratzon mean the same thing, only the former is the opposite of Shogeg, and the latter, of Ones.
(a)"v'Nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodshim". This Pasuk in Tetzaveh is referring to the Tzitz. What do we learn from it?
(b)It is referring specifically to the sin of bringing Kodshim b'Tum'ah. Why can it not be referring to the sin of bringing them ...
1. ... when they are Pigul (i.e. a thought of 'Chutz li'Mekomo)?
2. ... when they are Nosar (a thought of 'Chutz li'Zemano')?
3. ... Why can 'Nosar' not be understood literally?
(c)What is the precedent for the Torah's leniency here of Tum'ah over the two previous Isurim?
(d)This Beraisa too, appears to pose a Kashya on Rav. How does Rav dispense with the Kashya - without having to say that the author cannot be Rav Yosef ben Yo'ezer Ish Tzereida?
(a)We learn from the Pasuk "v'Nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodshim" - that the Tzitz atones for the sin of having brought Kodshim which were Tamei.
(b)It cannot be referring to the sin of bringing them ...
1. ... when they are Pigul (rendered invalid by means of the thought to eat them in the wrong place) - because the Torah has already said in that regard "Lo Yeratzeh" (there is no atonement).
2. ... when they are Nosar (rendered invalid by means of the thought to eat them in the wrong time) - because the Torah has already said "Lo Yechashev" (they are considered as if they had not been sacrificed).
3. Nosar cannot be understood literally, because "Lo Yeratzeh" is written in connection with a wrong thought, and not a wrong action; and besides, why should the Torah write about Nosar "Lo Yeratzeh", when the part of the animal that was eaten before the time expired remains perfectly valid?!
(c)Tum'ah becomes permitted by a communal Korban, which is not the case by Pigul and Nosar.
(d)Who said that the Beraisa is referring to the Tamei blood of an animal, perhaps it is speaking about the Tamei fistful of flour from a flour-offering, which renders the Minchah Kasher, just like the blood does to the Korban. However, unlike the blood, it is subject to Tum'ah.
(a)Why did Chagai ha'Navi find it necessary to examine the Kohanim regarding the laws of Kodshim?
(b)He asked them whether, if a dead Sheretz touched bread, which then touched a stew of Kodshim, which in turn, touched wine, which touched oil (all of Kodshim), the oil is Tamei. What sort of wine and oil are we talking about?
(c)What did the Kohanim answer, and why does Rav discredit their answer?
(d)Rav appears to be contradicting himself, since he is now saying that Tum'ah is applicable by liquids of Kodshim, whereas earlier he clearly said that it is not. Why can we not simply answer that the author of this Beraisa too, disagrees with Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer?
(a)Chagai found it necessary to examine the Kohanim regarding the laws of Kodshim - due to the fact that having not studied them during the seventy years of exile, they were unacquainted with them.
(b)The wine and oil that Chagai referred to are those of flour-offerings.
(c)The Kohanim answered that the oil or the food, which was a Revi'i, was Tahor. Now this a mistake, says Rav, because there is a Revi'i ba'Kodesh.
(d)We cannot simply answer that the author of this Beraisa too, disagrees with Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer - because the Beraisa is based on a Pasuk, and how can Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer argue with a Pasuk?
(a)How do we reconcile Rav's two statements?
(a)So we answer that the Beraisa (and Chagai) is talking about Mashkeh Bei Midbechaya (wine and oil that were brought on the Mizbe'ach), whereas Rav, who says that, according to Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer, there is no Tum'ah at all, is restricted to Mashkeh Bei Mitbechaya i.e. the blood of the Korbanos.