1. ... regarding ha'Pore'ach min ha'Tamei? What is the case?
2. ... there where, after spreading to the entire body, a Michyah appears on one of the twenty-four Rashei Eivarim (that are not subject to Tum'ah)?
(b)What is the minimum required Shi'ur of the Michyah?
(c)From which Pasuk do we learn this ruling?
(d)How small will the Baheres have to become for the Kohen to declare it Tahor?
1)
(a)The Mishnah rules that ...
1. ... ha'Pore'ach min ha'Tamei - a Nega spreads to the entire body after having been declared Muchlat [see Tos. Yom-Tov]) is Tahor.
2. ... there where, after spreading to the entire body, a Michyah appears on one of the twenty-four Rashei Eivarim that - it is Tamei (even though they are not per se, subject to Tum'ah [see Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(b)The minimum required Shi'ur of the Michyah is - k'Adashah.
(c)We learn this ruling from the Pasuk - "u've'Yom Hera'os bo Basar Chai Yitma".
(d)For the Kohen to declare it Tahor - the Baheres will have to become smaller than a G'ris.
2)
(a)What do the following Nega'im have in common. 1. If the Se'or Lavan fell out; 2. If the Michyah became covered; 3. If the Nega remained the same for two weeks?
(b)What will be the Din if, after any of these cases, the Kohen has declared him Tahor, and the remaining Nega now spreads to the entire body?
(c)And what if, after that, one of the twenty-four Rashei Evarim appear on it?
(d)In fact, the Tana only declares him Tahor if it reverts to its original size. Why is it still Tamei, should it be slightly larger than it was originally?
2)
(a)The common factor in a case where 1. the Se'or Lavan fell out; 2. the Michyah became covered; 3. the Nega remained the same for two weeks, is that - the Kohen declares them Tahor.
(b)If, after any of these cases, the Kohen has declared him Tahor, and the remaining Nega now spreads to the entire body - he is Tamei (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)If, after that, one of the twenty-four Rashei Evarim appear on it - he is still Tamei.
(d)In fact, the Tana only declares him Tahor once the Nega is reduced to its original size. Should it be slightly larger than that - it is Tamei because of Pisyon.
Mishnah 2
3)
(a)What does the Tana say about a Baheres the size of a G'ris containing a Michyah, which spreads to the entire body, and the Michyah disappears ...
1. ... before or after the Baheres spread?
2. ... or two white hairs grew, before the Baheres spreads?
(b)If the two white hairs grow after the Baheres has spread, R. Yehoshua declares him Tamei (see Tos. Yom-Tov). What do the Chachamim say?
3)
(a)If a Baheres the size of a G'ris containing a Michyah, spreads to the entire body, whether the Michyah disappears ...
1. ... before (see Tos. Yom-Tov) or after the Baheres has spread ...
2. ... or two white hairs grow before the Baheres has spread - the Tana rules Tahor
(b)If the two white hairs grow after the Baheres has spread, R. Yehoshua declares him Tamei (see Tos. Yom-Tov), the Chachamim - Tahor.
Mishnah 3
4)
(a)What will be the Din if a Baheres the size of a G'ris containing two white hairs or that has spread, then spreads to the entire body?
(b)We just learned this with regard to Michyah. Why does the Tana see fit to repeat it?
(c)What if one of the Rashei Evarim subsequently appears on the Nega?
4)
(a)If a Baheres the size of a G'ris containing two white hairs (see Tos. Yom-Tov) or that has spread, then spreads to the entire body - the Kohen will declare him Tahor.
(b)We just learned this with regard to Michyah; the Tana sees fit to repeat it - to teach us that it applies to all the Simnei Tum'ah (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)If one of the Rashei Evarim subsequently appears on the Nega - it becomes Tamei once more (see Tos. Yom-Tov DH 've'Chulan ... ' & 'Harei Eilu').
5)
(a)Why does the Mishnah then need to add 'Parchah be'Miktzaso Tamei, be'Kulo Tahor'? Why might we have thought otherwise?
(b)What is an alternative reason for stating this ruling, aside from its connection with Parchah be'Kulo?
5)
(a)The Mishnah needs to add 'Parchah be'Miktzaso Tamei, be'Kulo Tahor' to teach us that - it must cover the entire body, and not just the majority (the principle Rubo ke'Kulo does not apply here [see also Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'be'Miktzaso Tamei' & 'Parchah be'Kulo Tahor']).
(b)Alternatively, the Tana states this ruling (aside from its connection with Parchah be'Kulo) - to teach us that Pisyon is Tamei even it is only a Kolshehu.
Mishnah 4
6)
(a)What does the Tana now say about all ...
1. ... P'richas Roshei Evarim that render a Tamei, Tahor?
2. ... Chaziras Rashei Evarim that render a Tahor, Tamei?
(b)What will the Kohen say if in the latter case, the covered piece of flesh becomes uncovered again?
(c)Up to how many times will this sequence continue?
6)
(a)The Tana nw says that all ...
1. ... P'richas Roshei Evarim that render a Tamei, Tahor - will also render him Tamei should it return.
2. ... Chaziras Rashei Evarim that render a Tahor, Tamei - will also render him Tahor, should it become covered.
(b)If, in the latter case, the covered piece of flesh becomes uncovered again - the Kohen will declare him Tamei once again ...
(c)... even up to a hundred times (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 5
7)
(a)On which part of the body will the Nega have to remain to prevent a Nega which spreads to the rest of the body from being declared Tahor? What is the criterion?
(b)Why does the Tana omit Roshei Eivarim from the list of exceptions?
7)
(a)To prevent a Nega which spreads to the rest of the body from being declared Tahor, the Nega will have to remain - on a part of the body that is itself subject to Tum'as Nega'im.
(b)The Tana omits Roshei Eivarim from the list of exceptions - because it is subject to Tum'as Nega'im in the form of Pisyon.
8)
(a)The list incorporates Rosh, Zakan, Sh'chin and Michvah. Which final item does it include?
(b)And what does the Tana say in a case where either the hair of one of the former two subsequently falls out, or the Sh'chin, Michvah or Kedach of one of the latter three form a crust?
(c)Why is that?
8)
(a)The list incorporates Rosh, Zakan, Sh'chin, Michvah - and Kedach ha'Mordim (see Perek 7, Mishnah 1).
(b)In a case where either the hair of one of the former two subsequently falls out, or the Sh'chin, Michvah or Kedach of one of the latter three form a crust - the Tana rules that he remains Tahor ...
(c)... because at the time of the spreading, all of the above five were not subject to Tum'ah.
9)
(a)What is the Din if the Nega spreads to the entire body except for the Shi'ur of half an Adashah next to the head or the beard, the Sh'chin, the Michvah or the Kedach?
(b)What does Tana now say where either the former two fall out, or the latter three form a crust?
(c)What will have to happen for the Kohen to declare him Tahor?
(d)What is the reason for this Chumra?
9)
(a)If the Nega spreads to the entire body except for the Shi'ur of half an Adashah next to the head or the beard, the Sh'chin, the Michvah or the Kedach - he is Tamei (because of the Michyah).
(b)If either the former two fall out, or the latter three form a crust - he remains Tamei ...
(c)... unless it subsequently spreads to the entire body.
(d)The reason for this Chumra is - since the initial spreading did not render him Tahor.
Mishnah 6
10)
(a)What will be the Din if a person has two Beharos, one Tamei and one Tahor, if the Nega spreads to the entire body, after having first spread from the ...
1. ... Tamei Nega to the Tahor one?
2. ... Tahor Nega to the Tamei one?
(b)And the same will apply to where the two Nega'im, each measuring half a G'ris, appear, one on his upper lip, the other, on his lower lip (see Tos. Yom-Tov). Why might we have thought otherwise?
(c)Which two similar cases does he present which have the same Din?
10)
(a)If a person has two Beharos, one Tamei and one Tahor, and the Nega spreads to the entire body, after having first spread from the ...
1. ... Tamei Nega to the Tahor one - he is Tahor, and the same will apply if it initially spread from the ...
2. ... Tahor Nega to the Tamei one (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)And the same will apply to where the two Nega'im, each measuring half a G'ris, appear, one on his upper lip, the other, on his lower lip (see Tos. Yom-Tov). We might otherwise have thought that - since they only combine when the mouth is tightly shut (see Tos. Anshei Shem), they are not considered one, and it is as if the Nega spread from the Tahor one to the entire body, and the Metzora is Tamei.
(c)And the same ruling will apply with regard to - one on one finger and one on the one next to it, and one on the upper eye-lid and one on the lower one.
11)
(a)What if the Nega ...
1. ... spreads to the entire body except for a Bohak? What is a Bohak?
2. ... that spread to the entire body now disappeared from one of the Roshei Evarim, leaving a Bohak?
(b)Seeing as the same will apply if this happens on another part of the body, why does the Tana mention specifically Roshei Evarim?
(c)Who is then the author of the Reisha?
(d)How will we reconcile the current ruling with the previous one, where the Bohak prevented the Kohen from declaring the P'richah, Tahor?
11)
(a)But if the Nega ...
1. ... spreads to the entire body except for a Bohak - (a Tahor plague which is less white than one of the four Mar'os), the Mishnah declares him Tamei.
2. ... that spread to the entire body now disappeared from one of the Roshei Evarim, leaving a Bohak - he is Tahor ...
(b)Despite the fact that the same will apply if this happens on another part of the body, the Tana mentions specifically Roshei Evarim - because of R. Meir in the Seifa, in whose opinion Roshei Evarim is different (as we will see shortly) ...
(c)... and the author of the Mishnah is the Rabbanan.
(d)To reconcile the current ruling with the previous one, where the Bohak prevented the Kohen from declaring the P'richah, Tahor - we will have to draws a distinction between one that is already there at the time of the P'richah (where Bohak prevents the Taharah) and one that appears afterwards (where it does not).
12)
(a)What does R. Meir say if a Nega which has spread to the entire body disappears from one of the Roshei Evarim leaving a Bohak that measures ...
1. ... a k'Adashah?
2. ... less than a k'Adashah?
(b)The Chachamim disagree (as we just learned), in the latter case. How about the former case?
12)
(a)If a Nega which has spread to the entire body disappears from one of the Roshei Evarim leaving a Bohak that measures ...
1. ... a k'Adashah - R. Meir declares him Tamei.
2. ... less than a k'Adashah - he declares him Tamei, too.
(b)The Chachamim disagree (as we just learned) - even in the former case.
Mishnah 7
13)
(a)What will the Kohen rule in the case of someone who comes to him with a Nega that covers him from head to foot?
(b)Under which circumstances will he subsequently declare him ...
1. ... a Muchlat, even though it did not diminish?
2. ... Tahor, even though it did not disappear?
(c)We already learned in the first Perek that if the two white hairs that subsequently grow on him turn black or short, he is Tahor. What if this happened to only one of them?
13)
(a)In the case of someone who comes to him with a Nega that covers him from head to foot - the Kohen will declare him a Musgar.
(b)He will subsequently declare him ...
1. ... a Muchlat - (even though it did not diminish) if two white hairs grow on it.
2. ... Tahor (even though it did not disappear) - if it remains the same for two weeks.
(c)We already learned in the first Perek that if the two white hairs that subsequently grow on him turned black or short, he is Tahor - and the same will apply if this happened to only one of them.
14)
(a)What does the Mishnah now say if a Sh'chin grows next to the two white hairs, surrounds them, or divides between them?
(b)What if it is a Michyas ha'Sh'chin, a Michvah, a Michyas ha'Michvah or a Bohak?
(c)And what will the Kohen rule if any of these happen to one of the two white hairs?
(d)Under which circumstances will the Kohen nevertheless declare any of the above Tamei?
14)
(a)The Mishnah now rules that if a Sh'chin grows next to the two white hairs, surrounds them, or divides between them - he is Tahor (see Tos. Yom-Tov), and the same will apply ...
(b)... if it is a Michyas ha'Sh'chin, a Michvah, a Michyas ha'Michvah or a Bohak, or ...
(c)... if any of these things happen to one of the two white hairs.
(d)The Kohen declare all of the above Tamei however - if two white hairs or a Michyah (see Tos. Yom-Tov) grow on the Nega.
15)
(a)What is the Din in a case where Rashei Evarim appear after the person who is covered by the Nega has been declared ...
1. ... Tahor?
2. ... a Musgar or a Muchlat?
(b)What happens if the Nega subsequently covers ...
1. ... part of the area of the Roshei Evarim that became visible?
2. ... the entire area (besides the rest of the body) in one go?
(c)In which case does the Tana then declare him Tahor?
15)
(a)In a case where Rashei Evarim appear after the person who is covered by the Nega has been declared ...
1. ... Tahor ...
2. ... a Musgar or a Muchlat - he is Tahor (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)If the Nega subsequently covers ...
1. ... part of the area of the Roshei Evarim that became visible - he is Tamei (because the Nega spread).
2. ... the entire area (besides the rest of the body) in one go - he is Tamei too (because it spread after becoming Tahor [see Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(c)The Tana declares him Tahor however - if it spread first to part of the Rashei Evarim, and then to rest of the Rashei Evarim (because it spread after becoming Tamei).
Mishnah 8
16)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses a Nega that spreads to the entire body after being Tahor or after being Tamei. What is the case of be'Kulo Parchah ke'Achas mi'Toch ha'Taharah?
(b)On what grounds is he Tamei?
16)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses a Nega that spreads to the entire body after being either Tahor or after being Tamei. The case of be'Kulo Parchah ke'Achas mi'Toch ha'Taharah is - where the Nega initially covered him from head to foot, and, after being declared Tahor following Hesger or Hechlet, Roshei Evarim appeared, following which, it spreads once more to the entire body.
(b)He is Tamei - because of Pisyon.
17)
(a)What is ...
1. ... Peri'ah?
2. ... Perimah?
(b)Which category of Metzora requires them and which does not (see Meleches Shlomo)?
(c)What distinction does the Tana draw between a Tahor mi'Toch Hesger and a Tahor mi'Toch Hechlet (see Mishnah Achronah)?
(d)Both cases are Metamei be'Bi'ah. What does that mean?
(b)Only a Metzora Muchlat requires them but not a Musgar (see Meleches Shlomo).
(c)The Tana obligates a Tahor mi'Toch Hechlet to bring birds two birds (for his Taharah ceremony) - but not a Tahor mi'Toch Hesger (see Mishnah Achronah).
(d)Both cases are Metamei be'Bi'ah - meaning that if they enter a house, whatever is in the house becomes Tamei (similar to Tum'as Ohel of a Meis, as will be discussed later).
Mishnah 9
18)
(a)The Tana now discusses a Nega from head to foot which contains a Michyah k'Adashah, which subsequently spreads to the entire body, before Rashei Evarim appear on it. What does R. Yishmael mean when he considers him as if Rashei Evarim had appeared on a Baheres Gedolah?
(b)How must the Mishnah be speaking?
(c)Why is he then Tahor?
(d)What does R. Elazar ben Azaryah say?
18)
(a)The Tana now discusses a Nega from head to foot which contains a Michyah k'Adashah, and which subsequently spreads to the entire body, before Rashei Evarim appear on it. R. Yishmael considers him as if Rashei Evarim had appeared on a Baheres Gedolah which means that - he is Tahor (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)The Mishnah must be speaking - where the Kohen had not yet declared the Nega Tamei before it spread to the entire body (see Tos. Yom-Tov) ...
(c)... and he is Tahor - because it is not necessarily on account of the P'richah that he declared him Tahor; perhaps it is because the Michyah diminished to less than a k'Adashah (which is a regular Siman Taharah).
(d)R. Elazar ben Azaryah - considers him as if Rashei Evarim had appeared on a Baheres Ketanah, in which case when it spread to the rest of the body, he was Tahor, and when Rashei Evarim now appear, he is Tamei (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 10
19)
(a)In which case will a Metzora Muchlat lose by going straight to the Kohen after the Nega disappears?
(b)What might subsequently happen that will make him regret his haste?
(c)On the other hand, what will the Metzora gain by going straight to the Kohen? What might have happened to make him pleased that he did not delay?
(d)What is the basis of these two opposite rulings?
19)
(a)A Metzora Muchlat will lose by going straight to the Kohen after the Nega disappears - in a case where after he showed it to the Kohen (who declared him Tahor), it spread to the entire body ...
(b)... in which case he is Tamei. Had it spread before he showed it to the Kohen, the latter would have declared him Tahor.
(c)On the other hand, the Metzora will gain by going straight to the Kohen - in a case where he has a Baheres with nothing inside it, because then, when it spreads before the Kohen has seen it, he will declare him Tahor, which he would not have done had it spread first.
(d)The basis of these two opposite rulings is the principle (that has dominated the Perek) - that if the Nega spreads from a status of Tum'ah, it becomes Tahor, whereas if it spreads from a status of Taharah, it becomes Tamei.
