Mishnah 1
Hear the Mishnah

1)

(a)What does the Mishnah say about a Safek that arises with regard to Hilchos Nega'im?

(b)How many exceptions are there?

1)

(a)The Mishnah rules that if a Safek arises with regard to Hilchos Nega'im - we always go le'Kula ...

(b)... with only two exceptions.

2)

(a)One of the exceptions is a Safek whether the Baheres preceded the Se'or Lavan or vice-versa, (according to the Chachamim of R. Yehoshua that we just discussed). What is the other?

(b)What does the Kohen therefore rule?

(c)What would he rule if the lenient ruling applied in this case, too?

2)

(a)One of the exceptions is a Safek whether the Baheres preceded the Se'or Lavan or vice-versa (according to the Chachamim of R. Yehoshua that we just discussed)[see Tos. Yom-Tov]). The other is - if a Baheres the size of a G'ris which, after being quarantined for a week, is the size of a Sela, only the Kohen is not sure whether it is the same Nega or not ...

(b)... and he therefore - declares it a Muchlat.

(c)If the lenient ruling applied in the latter case, too - then the Kohen would declare it a Musgar for seven days.

Mishnah 2
Hear the Mishnah

3)

(a)What does the Mishnah say in a case where, after the Kohen immediately declared Tamei Muchlat two white hairs, they disappeared and returned?

(b)What if is was not two white hairs that returned in the same spot, but ...

1. ... a new Michyah?

2. ... Pisyon?

(c)And what if he had only declared it Tamei after ...

1. ... one or two weeks?

2. ... after having already declared it Tahor and it returned?

3)

(a)In a case where, after the Kohen immediately declared Tamei Muchlat two white hairs, they disappeared and returned, the Mishnah rules that - it is like it was (Tamei Muchlat [see Tos. Yom-Tov]), and so it does ...

(b)... if is was not two white hairs that returned in the same spot, but ...

1. ... a new Michyah or ...

2. ... Pisyon.

(c)And the same ruling will apply - if he had only declared it Tamei after ...

1. ... one or two weeks, or even ...

2. ... after having already declared it Tahor and it returned.

4)

(a)And what does the Tana say in the above cases, but where it was not two white hairs that he had declared Tamei, but a Michyah, and either the Michyah, two white hairs or Pisyon subsequently returned?

(b)He repeats the ruling in a case where the initial ruling had been issued on Pisyon. Why does he only refer to the Pisyon or two white hairs that subsequently returned, and not a Michyah?

4)

(a)And in the above cases, but where it was not two white hairs that he had declared Tamei, but a Michyah, and either the Michyah, two white hairs or Pisyon subsequently returned, the Tana repeats the same ruling again, as he does ...

(b)... in a case where the initial ruling had been issued on Pisyon. He only refers to the Pisyon or two white hairs that subsequently returned, but not to a Michyah - because if the Michyah diminishes from the Nega, which now measures less than a G'ris, it is Tahor (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

Mishnah 3
Hear the Mishnah

5)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses a Se'or Pekudah. What is a Se'or Pekudah?

(b)Akavya ben Mahalel declares it Tamei (see Tos. Yom-Tov). What do the Chachamim say?

(c)How do they learn this from the Pasuk "ve'Hi Hafchah Se'or Lavan"?

5)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses a Se'or Pekudah - two white hairs that a Baheres deposits on the skin before it disappears and then reappears.

(b)Akavya ben Mahalel declares it Tamei (see Tos. Yom-Tov). The Chachamim declare it Tahor ...

(c)... and they learn this from the Pasuk "ve'Hi Hafchah Se'or Lavan" - implying that it is the current Nega that grew the whits hairs, and not its predecessor.

6)

(a)What does R. Akiva comment in the current case (according to the current interpretation of Se'or Pekudah)?

(b)Like whom does he hold in principle?

(c)How does he therefore explain Se'or Pekudah?

(d)What did the Chachamim say to him?

(e)Like whom is the Halachah?

6)

(a)R. Akiva comments in the current case (according to the current interpretation of Se'or Pekudah) - that he concedes to the Chachamim that it is Tahor, even though ...

(b)... in principle, he holds like - Akavya ben Mahalalel.

(c)He therefore explains Se'or Pekudah to mean that - only half the ki'Geris of the Nega disappeared and reappeared (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

(d)The Chachamim said to him that - just as he conceded that they were right in the Reisha, so too, should he concede in the Seifa (since there is no difference whether the entire Nega disappeared or only half of it (Tos. Yom-Tov).

(e)The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.

Mishnah 4
Hear the Mishnah

7)

(a)What does the Mishnah say about Safek Nega'im ba'Techilah with regard to ...

1. ... one person?

2. ... two people?

(b)The example the Tana gives is of two people who come before the Kohen with a Nega, one the size of a G'ris, the other, the size of a Sela. Which is larger?

7)

(a)The Mishnah that Safek Nega'im ba'Techilah with regard to ...

1. ... one person - is Tahor, as it is with regard to

2. ... two people.

(b)The example the Tana gives is of two people who come before the Kohen with a Nega, one the size of a G'ris, the other, the size of a Sela - which is larger than a G'ris.

8)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im Pasoh Sifseh ba'Or ve'Timei ha'Kohen oso"?

(b)What would be the respective rulings of the two previous cases if, at the end of a week, both were the size of a Sela, assuming the Kohen knew which was which?

(c)What is the Halachah now that the Kohen has forgotten which is which?

(d)Why is that?

8)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im Pasoh Sifseh ba'Or ve'Timei ha'Kohen oso" that - the Kohen only initially declares Tamei a Nega that is Vaday, but not if it is a Safek.

(b)If, in the two previous cases, at the end of a week, both were the size of a Sela, and the Kohen knew which was which - the Kohen would declare the one which spread, a Muchlat, the one which did not, a Musgar.

(c)Now that the Kohen has forgotten which is which however - he declares them both Tahor ...

(d)... on account of the Pasuk that we just quoted (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

9)

(a)What does R. Akiva say? With which of the above cases does he disagree?

(b)Like whom is the Halachah?

9)

(a)R. Akiva - agrees with the Tana Kama by two people, but should the Safek occur by one person, he declares it Tamei.

(b)The Halachah is - like the Tana Kama.

Mishnah 5
Hear the Mishnah

10)

(a)What does the Mishnah say regarding mi'she'Nizkak le'Tum'ah?

(b)To demonstrate, the Tana cites a case where the same two people came before the Kohen. What happened ...

1. ... after seven days to bring it into the realm of Nizkak le'Tum'ah?

2. ... subsequently, to make it a Safek?

(c)What does he therefore rule?

10)

(a)The Mishnah rules that - mi'she'Nizkak le'Tum'ah, S'feiko Tamei.

(b)To demonstrate, the Tana cites a case where the same two people came before the Kohen. This time ...

1. ... after seven days - it grew to a Sela-plus, bringing it into the realm of'Nizkak le'Tum'ah', since now both had to be declared Muchlat.

2. ... to make it a Safek - both Nega'im subsequently went down to a Sela, and the Kohen forgot which is which.

(c)He therefore rules that - they are both Tamei Musgar (even though one of them ought to be a Muchlat).

11)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Tiharo ha'Kohen"?

(b)In the latter case, what would have to happen for the Kohen to declare them both Tahor?

11)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Tiharo ha'Kohen" that - the Kohen only declares a Nega Tahor if it is Vaday, but not in the case of a Safek.

(b)In the latter case, for the Kohen to declare them both Tahor - they would both have had to diminish to the size of a G'ris.

Hadran alach 'Kol Safek Nega'im'