Most of this is pretty technical and will appeal only to people who are already learning Sotah. Still, there are more general comments here and there.
27b
Our mishnah lists chiddushim (novel lessons) introduced on the day R’ Elazar ben Azaryah took over from Rabban Gamliel in the beit midrash. It is not coincidental that R’ Yehoshua figures strongly in this mishnah – he was squelched at times by Rabban Gamliel, and one of those incidents was what led to R’ Elazar ben Azaryah taking over.
It’s interesting to see R’ Akiva involved in aggadata, non-legalistic gemara; at times (such as Sanhedrin 38b), sages rebuke him saying that he would be better off in legal analysis, saying כלך אצל נגעים ואהלות!
The use of לאמר on this page as “To repeat” is interesting. We have 3 other definitions for לאמר:
1) Tell this to others;
2) “Saying” (as in, “This was the message, saying…)
3) בדרך דרש, the gemara in Yoma 4b parses לאמר as לאו אמור, meaning, “Don’t repeat what you are told, unless you are told explicitly, ‘אמור Say it’.”
At the end of the mishnah, it appears that ירא אלקים is used to refer to fearing punishment rather than being in awe of Gd. [We’ll discuss this more, Gd-willing, on 31a when the gemara returns to the topic.]
28a
At the top of the page: The gemara suggests that the Sotah water will not affect a woman unless her husband is innocent of sin. Rashi takes this as a sin related to her Sotah process – his having lived with her after the סתירה. Ramban, though, is broader, taking it as any sin of sexual impropriety.
29a-b
The attempts at a קל וחומר logical argument are quite difficult here, from the perspective of logic. We compare food, which is a שני or שלישי or touched by a טבול יום and is therefore, itself, disqualified from use, with a person who is a טבול יום or מחוסר כפרה and there he disqualifies items he touches. The two are not really comparable. Further, in the argument on 29b to deduce from מחוסר כפרה to שלישי food, the fact that a מחוסר כפרה cannot eat from a קרבן is not because of טומאה, but rather it is from his ritual ineligibility due to the fact that he has not brought his קרבן!
30a
It appears that they never answer R’ Yochanan’s question in this discussion.
Note that in the middle of the page our gemara plays an interesting switch, changing the way we define the numbers of ראשון, שני, שלישי. Instead of looking at them the normal way, as counting the distance from the original טמא entity, we now look at them by what they can generate – how many layers of טומאה can emanate from them.
30b
The word לא at the start of the third line should be לאו to be Aramaically consistent.
See Tosafot מר on whether the law of Techum Shabbat is biblical, and what might be the source פסוק.
On the last line, the word עוברים should be עוברין to be Aramaically consistent.
Showing posts with label Halachah: Tumah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Halachah: Tumah. Show all posts
Friday, June 20, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Daf: Nazir 54-57
Once again, most of the notes I have on this series are technical and really need to be read in front of a gemara. Of particular interest: The question of tumah for the graves at Me'arat haMachpelah (54a) and Rav Ada's harsh statement to Rav Huna regarding the way Rav Huna's wife, Chovah, shaved her children's heads.
54a
Reish Lakish indicates that pre-Sinai graves do not communicate tumat ohel, which leads to the question of why Rabbi Bena’ah marked the graves of our ancestors in Me’arat haMachpelah (Bava Batra 58a). Marking is only for graves that communicate tumat ohel! Tosafot and the Rosh explain why the ancestors buried in Me’arat haMachpelah have unique status.
Tosafot הגולל records a debate about what constitute גולל and דופק. It’s particularly interesting to note that the debate is only relevant if actual coffins are in use.
The mishnah’s language is tricky here, because it’s out of order: ימי ספרו refers to the end of tzaraat, the seven days after the metzora’s first shave. ימי גמרו actually refers to the middle phase, when he has been declared a מצורע מוחלט (full metzora) and is pre-purification. (And the first stage is ימי הסגרו, the period of quarantine before he is declared a full metzora.)
So the order for a metzora is this: ימי הסגרו, then ימי גמרו, then ימי ספרו.
54b
The Rosh explains the reason for a decree creating tumah for land outside Israel: It was a means of discouraging people from leaving Israel.
55a
Once we discuss a moving ohel, we must ask about the status of a boat. The Rosh mentions it.
The Rosh seems to have an edition that varies from ours, on the question of R’ Yosi b”r Yehudah.
55b
The 120-day case is fascinating. Rosh gives a thorough explanation; you’ll also see it spelled out on 60a. It reminds me of my rebbetzin’s law school hypotheticals; as the gemara says, it’s לחדודי, a complex case brought to sharpen the mind of the student.
56a
The word דין here simply means “logic”. Ditto for אין עונשין מן הדין and דנתי לפני חכמים.
57b
On the odd story of Rav Ada’s response to the whole-head buzz cuts of the children of Rav Huna and his wife Chovah: (And why would anyone name a child Chovah, anyway?! reminiscent of Machlon and Kilyon!)
We find two approaches, which seem to be based in a difference of edition – לדידך vs ודידך:
Pseudo-Rashi has לדידך and says that Rav Ada is saying, “According to you, Chovah shouldn’t cut her kids’ hair that way!”
Tosafos has ודידך and says that Rav Ada is saying, “Chovah shouldn’t cut your kids’ hair that way!”
54a
Reish Lakish indicates that pre-Sinai graves do not communicate tumat ohel, which leads to the question of why Rabbi Bena’ah marked the graves of our ancestors in Me’arat haMachpelah (Bava Batra 58a). Marking is only for graves that communicate tumat ohel! Tosafot and the Rosh explain why the ancestors buried in Me’arat haMachpelah have unique status.
Tosafot הגולל records a debate about what constitute גולל and דופק. It’s particularly interesting to note that the debate is only relevant if actual coffins are in use.
The mishnah’s language is tricky here, because it’s out of order: ימי ספרו refers to the end of tzaraat, the seven days after the metzora’s first shave. ימי גמרו actually refers to the middle phase, when he has been declared a מצורע מוחלט (full metzora) and is pre-purification. (And the first stage is ימי הסגרו, the period of quarantine before he is declared a full metzora.)
So the order for a metzora is this: ימי הסגרו, then ימי גמרו, then ימי ספרו.
54b
The Rosh explains the reason for a decree creating tumah for land outside Israel: It was a means of discouraging people from leaving Israel.
55a
Once we discuss a moving ohel, we must ask about the status of a boat. The Rosh mentions it.
The Rosh seems to have an edition that varies from ours, on the question of R’ Yosi b”r Yehudah.
55b
The 120-day case is fascinating. Rosh gives a thorough explanation; you’ll also see it spelled out on 60a. It reminds me of my rebbetzin’s law school hypotheticals; as the gemara says, it’s לחדודי, a complex case brought to sharpen the mind of the student.
56a
The word דין here simply means “logic”. Ditto for אין עונשין מן הדין and דנתי לפני חכמים.
57b
On the odd story of Rav Ada’s response to the whole-head buzz cuts of the children of Rav Huna and his wife Chovah: (And why would anyone name a child Chovah, anyway?! reminiscent of Machlon and Kilyon!)
We find two approaches, which seem to be based in a difference of edition – לדידך vs ודידך:
Pseudo-Rashi has לדידך and says that Rav Ada is saying, “According to you, Chovah shouldn’t cut her kids’ hair that way!”
Tosafos has ודידך and says that Rav Ada is saying, “Chovah shouldn’t cut your kids’ hair that way!”
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Daf: Nazir 50-53
As we get to the end of Nazir, most of my comments are technical. The casual reader may find the tooth note on 51a interesting, and the method issue of the 3rd-man-in מכריע on 53a.
50a
On the thick honey known as דבש הזיפים, see the Rosh’s interesting explanation, from a gemara in Sotah, that this may refer to a honey which was so thick that merchants would dilute it (זיוף) and people couldn’t tell the difference.
50b
The מפורד text is odd, when referring to something that had been in many tiny pieces – and, sure enough, the Rosh has מפורר, crumby, which seems to fit better.
51a
How could there be atzamos without gidin? See the Rosh.
The common denominator for hair, teeth and nails, as the Rosh brings from the gemara in Niddah, is that either they are not created at birth, or they regenerate.
The discussion of teeth and tumah is particularly interesting because of the debate about Rabbi Yochanan’s practice, recorded in the beginning of gemara Berachos, of consoling mourners by saying to them דין גרמא דעשיראה ביר, which seems to translate to “This is the bone of my tenth son,” for he had lost ten sons, and apparently showing them the bone. This practice is highly problematic, both in terms of spreading tumah and in terms of failing to bury the bone! Some suggest that it was a bone from the Seudas Havraah (הבראה/ביר), but others suggest it was a tooth; as indicated here, there would be no concern for tumah, and perhaps that would also mean there would be no concern for burial.
The Rosh explains our differentiation re: heels as being about calloused flesh on the bottom of the foot.
51b
Abayye prefaces a comment with נקיטינן here. Elsewhere, Rashi notes that this is a term for something Abayye considers to be practical halachah.
The Rosh labels the laws about graves discovered in fields as הלכה למשה מסיני.
52a
The gemara has the term שגידר regarding a spine which its vertebrae removed. The Rosh’s term שגירד seems to fit better.
52b
The Rosh (start of the page) notes that the law with אבר מן המת here automatically includes אבר מן החי.
53a
Here we say that we would not rely on a third view, from a later generation, to resolve (מכריע) a debate between two earlier views. Tosafos and the Rosh have different view of the problem. Tosafos (2nd half of בית דין) says the problem is not with using a later view in general, but rather the problem is that this “third view” is really a third view, with its own logic – it isn’t really a vote for either of the original views (see also Tosafos on this issue in Pesachim 21a). Rosh, on the other hand, seems to say we don’t accept the third view because it is of later origin.
53b
The gemara says that a sword which touches a corpse has the same tumah status as the corpse itself. The Rosh notes that this rule applies to all metal implements, even though the Torah’s term is חרב.
50a
On the thick honey known as דבש הזיפים, see the Rosh’s interesting explanation, from a gemara in Sotah, that this may refer to a honey which was so thick that merchants would dilute it (זיוף) and people couldn’t tell the difference.
50b
The מפורד text is odd, when referring to something that had been in many tiny pieces – and, sure enough, the Rosh has מפורר, crumby, which seems to fit better.
51a
How could there be atzamos without gidin? See the Rosh.
The common denominator for hair, teeth and nails, as the Rosh brings from the gemara in Niddah, is that either they are not created at birth, or they regenerate.
The discussion of teeth and tumah is particularly interesting because of the debate about Rabbi Yochanan’s practice, recorded in the beginning of gemara Berachos, of consoling mourners by saying to them דין גרמא דעשיראה ביר, which seems to translate to “This is the bone of my tenth son,” for he had lost ten sons, and apparently showing them the bone. This practice is highly problematic, both in terms of spreading tumah and in terms of failing to bury the bone! Some suggest that it was a bone from the Seudas Havraah (הבראה/ביר), but others suggest it was a tooth; as indicated here, there would be no concern for tumah, and perhaps that would also mean there would be no concern for burial.
The Rosh explains our differentiation re: heels as being about calloused flesh on the bottom of the foot.
51b
Abayye prefaces a comment with נקיטינן here. Elsewhere, Rashi notes that this is a term for something Abayye considers to be practical halachah.
The Rosh labels the laws about graves discovered in fields as הלכה למשה מסיני.
52a
The gemara has the term שגידר regarding a spine which its vertebrae removed. The Rosh’s term שגירד seems to fit better.
52b
The Rosh (start of the page) notes that the law with אבר מן המת here automatically includes אבר מן החי.
53a
Here we say that we would not rely on a third view, from a later generation, to resolve (מכריע) a debate between two earlier views. Tosafos and the Rosh have different view of the problem. Tosafos (2nd half of בית דין) says the problem is not with using a later view in general, but rather the problem is that this “third view” is really a third view, with its own logic – it isn’t really a vote for either of the original views (see also Tosafos on this issue in Pesachim 21a). Rosh, on the other hand, seems to say we don’t accept the third view because it is of later origin.
53b
The gemara says that a sword which touches a corpse has the same tumah status as the corpse itself. The Rosh notes that this rule applies to all metal implements, even though the Torah’s term is חרב.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
