1)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa that a woman who miscarries a Guf Atum is not Tamei Leidah. Rebbi defines 'Guf Atum' as - a body which is missing something without which a live person would die.

(b)Rebbi Zakai explains this as a baby with a leg missing as far as the bone above the knee-joint (inclusive), which we would normally define as a T'reifah.

(c)According to Rebbi Yanai, the leg is missing up to the genital area (inclusive); whereas Rebbi Yochanan says - as far as the navel.

2)

(a)Rebbi Zakai holds that a T'reifah can survive, Rebbi Yanai holds that he cannot. Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yochanan both agree - that he can.

(b)Their Machlokes is based on a statement of Rebbi Elazar, that an animal (or a person) whose leg has been severed right up to his thigh (to the extent that it is noticeable when he crouches) - is a Neveilah ...

(c)... a fact with which Rebbi Yanai concurs, but Rebbi Yochanan does not.

3)

(a)Rav Papa confines the above Machlokes to the bottom of the body, but as far as the top is concerned, there is no Machlokes about what 'Guf Atum' refers to, by which he means - if part of the skull is severed, the mother is definitely not Tamei Leidah.

(b)Rav Gidal Amar Rebbi Yochanan says - the same thing.

(c)He also says that a woman who miscarries a baby which is like Afk'sa de'Dikla is Tahor - with reference to a stillborn baby whose arms and legs all jut out from his shoulders (like the branches of a date-palm, which all grow from the same spot on the trunk).

4)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, a woman who miscarries a baby with his face slightly messed up ('Musmasim') is Tamei Leidah - Resh Lakish holds that she is not.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish from a Beraisa which declares a woman who miscarries a severed hand or a severed foot, Tamei, whom we might have thought is Tahor - by ascribing the defect to a Guf Atum (which no-one actually saw).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan now asks on Resh Lakish why, according to him, the Tana only mentions Guf Atum and not Panav Musmasim.

(d)Rav Papi therefore amends the Lashon of the Machlokes. Both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish both hold that by Panav Musmasim - the mother is in fact, Tamei Leidah.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish are now arguing over 'Panav Tuchos' (meaning that its face is completely smashed in) ...

(b)... where ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan holds - 'Imo Tehorah', and ...

2. ... Resh Lakish - 'Imo Teme'ah'.

(c)Resh Lakish did not query Rebbi Yochanan from the same Beraisa from which Rebbi Yochanan queried him in the original Lashon (seeing as the Tana mentions Guf Atum but not Panav Tuchos) - because he understood that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, Guf Atum is synonymous with Panav Tuchos (whereas it is not synonymous with Panav Musmasin).

6)

(a)When, after the B'nei Rebbi Chiya returned from examining their fields, their father asked them whether they had issued any rulings, they replied - that they had declared Tamei, a mother who had miscarried a baby with his face completely messed up.

(b)Rebbi Chiya subsequently instructed them - to retract their ruling.

(c)He conceded that maybe they had merely meant to go le'Chumra - in declaring the mother Tamei for two weeks (in case the stillborn baby was a girl), instead of the seven days of Nidus.

(d)He nevertheless objected - on the grounds that it was a Chumra that would lead to a Kula, since they would automatically follow the days of Tum'ah with thirty-three days of Taharah (in case it was a boy).

7)

(a)According to Rav, a woman who miscarries a baby with two backs and two spinal cords is not Tamei Leidah. Likewise, he says - in the equivalent case regarding an animal, it may not be eaten.

(b)Shmuel maintains - that the woman is Tamei Leidah, and the baby animal may be eaten.

(c)Their Machlokes is based on a statement of Rav Chanin bar Aba, who stated that the "Shesu'ah" listed by the Pasuk in Re'ei among the Tamei animals - has two backs and two spinal cords.

(d)Rav and Shmuel now argue over whether the Shesu'ah mentioned in the Torah is a live one (which exists [Shmuel]) - in which case that is what the Torah forbids, but as long as it is in its mother's womb, it is permitted; or one inside its mother's womb (since there is no such thing as a live Shesu'ah [Rav]) - which is what the Torah is referring to.

8)

(a)Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos in a Beraisa, states that an animal with two backs and two spinal cords - is disqualified from going on the Mizbe'ach (see Tosfos DH 'Rav Chanina').

(b)Rav Shimi bar Chiya queries Rav from there - since it implies that such an animal is able to live and is not even a T'reifah.

(c)The Kashya extends to Shmuel as well - since Shmuel concedes to Rav that, once a Shesu'ah is born, it cannot survive.

(d)And the reason that Rav Shimi bar Chiya then asked Rav and not Shmuel - was because Rav was his grandfather, who was learning with him at the time.

9)

(a)Rav replied to Rav Shimi bar Chiya that when Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos spoke about an animal with two backs ... - he was referring to one whose spinal cord was bent, conveying the impression that it had two spinal cords and two backs (but not to a Shesu'ah).

(b)Rav responded with the words 'Shimi At' - as a mark of fondness, in the manner that a grandfather speaks to his grandson.

(c)It cannot be due to ...

1. ... Rav's Midah of Tzeniyus always to look down (and he asked whether he was Shimi, because he did not see him) - since he never said this to anybody else other than Rav Shimi bar Chiya.

2. ... Rav Shimi's sharpness, which would sometimes place his superiors in a spot (as we find in Ta'anis) - because the Sugya in Ta'anis is referring to Rav Shimi bar Ashi, whereas the Rav Shimi in our Sugya is Rav Shimi bar Chiya.

10)

(a)We query Shmuel from another Beraisa, which discusses fetuses that are forbidden when they are born. The Tana includes in his list - a fourth-month (or less) small animal, and an eighth-month (or less) large one.

(b)And he expressly precludes from his list - an animal with two backs and two spinal cords.

(c)Initially, we interpret his statement 'Yatza Mi she'Yesh Lo Sh'nei Gabin ... ', with reference to an animal with two backs ... , to mean 'Yatza mi'Kelal Ubrin' (that it has left the realm of fetuses, since it is even forbidden whilst it is still inside its mother's womb (a Kashya on Shmuel).

11)

(a)The Gemara states that Rav answered according to his reasoning, despite the fact that we had no problem with Rav - because the Seifa 'Yatza ... ' appears to refer to the case of the Reisha ('ben Arba'ah le'Dakah'), which it goes on to permit (whilst the Reisha itself forbade it).

(b)And he resolves that problem - by adding 'ba'Meh Devarim Amurim, ke'she'Yatza la'Avir ha'Olam, Aval be'Me'ei Imo Shari', before concluding 'Yatza Mi she'Yesh lo Sh'nei Gabin ... ', which is forbidden even whilst it is in its mother's womb.

(c)Whereas Shmuel explains the Beraisa - by adding the Reisha (the Din of ben Arba'ah le'Dakah ... ') 'ba'Meh Devarim Amurim, be'she'Lo Kalu lo Chadashav, Aval Kalu lo Chadashav, Mutar', before concluding 'Yatza Mi she'Yesh lo Sh'nei Gabin ... ' which is forbidden even if it came out after nine months.

12)

(a)The Beraisa quoted by the Beraisa expert in front of Rav, learns from the Pasuk in Tazri'a -"Ishah ki Sazri'a ve'Yaldah Zachar ... u'va'Yom ha'Shemini Yimol ... " - that only a baby that can survive until the eighth day is Tamei Leidah - but not one with an deformed square or circular body or head.

(b)Rav told him to add to the list - a baby with two backs and two spinal cords

(c)When Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba wanted to rule like Shmuel regarding a stillborn baby with two backs and two spinal cords, Rav Huna raised the same objection as Rebbi Chiya did to his sons (on the previous Amud ['Chumra de'Asi li'Yedei Kula hu']), adding - that he ought to rule like Rav, since the Halachah is always like him in matters of Isur, both le'Chumra and le'Kula.

13)

(a)We know about the 'nine months of pregnancy' - in spite of which it is possible for a woman to give birth in seven months (or even in part of the seventh month).

(b)Rava asked - whether the same will apply with regard to a large animal (Beheimah Gasah).

(c)He refuted Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's ...

1. ... proof from the Beraisa that we learned on the previous Amud 'Heimenu u'Lematah, Asur', implying that it cannot give birth before nine months - by restricting that statement to the fifth-month baby of a small animal (Beheimah Dakah).

2. ... counter argument that whereas we do need a Tana to teach us that a seventh-month Gasah baby cannot survive, we do not need him to teach us that a third-month Dakah baby cannot - by countering that, on the contrary, we would have thought that every birth can take place two months before the required time (based on the fact that a ninth-month baby can be born in seventh).

14)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav discusses a woman who miscarries a baby that resembles Lilis - (the queen of the demons).

(b)He rules that - she is Tamei Leidah, since it is merely a baby with wings (see Tosfos DH 'ha'Mapeles').

(c)In the same Beraisa where Rebbi Yossi supports this statement, Chanina, Rebbi Yehoshua's nephew rules that a woman who miscarriesan image that resembles a snake - is Tamei Leidah, too.

(d)When Rebbi Yosef (or Rebbi Yossi -Rashash) brought Chanina's ruling to Raban Gamliel's notice, he ordered Rebbi Yehoshua to appear before him together with his nephew.

15)

(a)When Chanina's daughter-in-law came to ask Rebbi Yehoshua (on his way to Raban Gamliel) the very same She'eilah, he ruled that she was Tehorah.

(b)When, after reminding him that it was in his name that her father-in-law had ruled that she was Tamei, Rebbi Yehoshua asked her for the reason on which he had based his ruling, she replied - that it was because it has round eyes like a human-being.

(c)When Rebbi Yehoshua heard that - he recalled having issued the ruling, and sent to Raban Gamliel that Chanina had in fact, heard it from him.

(d)We learn from there - that a Posek should always give a reason together with his rulings, so that, should he later forget that he issued the ruling, it will help him recall that he did.

16)

(a)Our Mishnah declares a woman who miscarries ...

1. ... a skin full of water, blood or colored entities (or worms [Bartenura]) - Tahor (as far as Leidah is concerned).

2. ... a skin whose features are still tiny, like when the baby is first formed) - Tamei Leidah, with the Chumros of a Zachar and a Nekeivah; and the same applies to one who miscarries ...

3. ... a 'Sandal' (a flat piece of flesh) or a Shilya (a placenta) - because there is no Sandal and no Shilya without a V'lad.

(b)The problem with the Mishnah's ruling declaring a woman who miscarries a skin full colored entities (or worms), Tahor (from Tum'as Leidah) is - why we do not suspect that it is a V'lad.

(c)Abaye refutes the suggestion as improbable - because, as he says 'How much wine did the woman drink to cause the entire V'lad to have melted?

(d)

1. Rava refutes it on account of the word 'Malei' - because had it been a V'lad, some of it would have inevitably disintegrated.

2. Rav Ada bar Ahavah refutes it on account of the word 'Gevanim' (plural) - and had it been a V'lad, it would all have been the same color.

17)

(a)Aba Shaul was - an undertaker.

(b)He observed that the bones of dead people who in their lifetime used to drink their wine ...

1. ... undiluted - were burnt.

2. ... excessively diluted - were black (or dry, without marrow).

3. ... diluted as it should be (one part wine to three parts water) - regular.

(c)And he observed that the bones of dead people who in their lifetime used to ...

1. ... drink more than they ate - were burnt.

2. ... eat in excess of what they drank (see Tosfos DH 'Achilaso') - were black (or dry, without marrow)

3. ... eat a little more than they drank - were regular.

18)

(a)A Beraisa relates the unusual experiences of Aba Shaul (or Rebbi Yochanan [see Hagahos Rav Renshberg]), when he once entered the cavity of the thigh-bone of - Og Melech ha'Bashan (as he subsequently discovered) ...

(b)... which he entered in pursuit of a deer and which he chased for three Parsah (twelve Mil) ...

(c)... before giving up the chase, not even having arrived at the end of the bone (see Agados Maharsha).

19)

(a)On another occasion when (in the same capacity) the roof entrance of a burial cave on top of which he was standing split open under his feet - he found himself sunk into the eye of Avshalom (David Hamelech's rebel son) up to his nose.

(b)Not only was Aba Shaul not short - he was exceptionally tall (and it is obvious that this statement has spiritual connotations).

(c)Clearly, this Sugya too, cannot be taken literally either (see previous Maharsha). We then say that Rebbi Tarfon - who was exceptionally tall, too, reached only up to the shoulders of Aba Shaul, and the same applies to each subsequent Tzadik listed, vis-a-vis the one before him.

(d)Based on the following list of names of Gedolei Tana'im and Amora'im, Aba Shaul, Rebbi Tarfon, Rebbi Meir, Rebbi, Rebbi Chiya, Rav, Rav Yehudah, and Ada Dayla - each one was the Rebbe of the next, who succeeded his Rebbe as spiritual leader of his generation.

(e)P'rashtevina of Pumbedisa (see Tosfos DH 'P'rashtevina') was only half as tall as Ada Dayla, whilst everybody else in Pumbedisa reached only up to his loins.