(a)The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Kelim rules that if a cow drank Mei Chatas, its flesh is Tamei. Does this ruling apply to the cow whilst it is still alive, or only after it has been Shechted?
(b)Rebbi Yehudah says that the water is Batel in the cow's stomach (and is therefore not Metamei the cow). Why did the Rabanan not decree Tum'ah on the water in this case?
(c)How does this appear to resolve our She'eilah - as to whether Rebbi Yehudah retracted completely (from his opinion that liquid is Metamei mid'Oraysa), or whether he only retracted from the fact that it is Metamei vessels, but not from the fact that it is Metamei food)?
(a)The ruling that if a cow drank Mei Chatas, its flesh is Tamei, applies only after it has been Shechted, because no live animal is subject to Tum'ah.
(b)The Rabanan did not decree Tum'ah on the water in the cow's stomach - because it is unusual, and Chazal did not tend to issue decrees in unusual cases.
(c)If Rebbi Yehudah had retracted only from the fact that liquid is Metamei vessels, but still maintained that it is Metamei food, then why is the liquid Batel in the cow's stomach? Why is it not Metamei the flesh Tum'as Ochlin?
(a)The Gemara tries to answer that what Rebbi Yehudah means is that the water is Batel only as regards Tum'ah Chamurah, but not Tum'ah Kalah. What is Tum'ah Chamurah, and what is Tum'ah Kalah?
(b)What problem does the Gemara have with this answer?
(c)The Mishnah goes entirely like Rebbi Yehudah, answers the Gemara, and there are a few words missing. How does the Mishnah now read?
(d)Rav Ashi maintains that this is not necessary. He answers the originally Kashya very simply. How?
(a)Tum'ah Chamurah means that it is Metamei even people and vessels; Tum'ah Kalah means that it is Metamei only food.
(b)If Rebbi Yehudah means to say that the water is Batel only as regards Tum'ah Chamurah (but not Tum'ah Kalah) - then when the Tana Kama says 'Besarah Tamei', he too must be speaking about Tum'ah Chamurah. If that is so, why did he say only 'Besarah Tamei'? Why did he not include the people and the vessels, too?
(c)The Mishnah, which goes entirely like Rebbi Yehudah, now reads 'Parah she'Shasesah Mei Chatas, Besarah Tamei. Bameh Devarim Amurim, Tum'ah Kalah, Aval Tum'ah Chamurah, Lo, she'Rebbi Yehudah Omer' ...
(d)According to Rav Ashi, Rebbi Yehudah did not retract from the fact that liquid is Metamei food. The reason that he renders the water in the cow's stomach, Batel is because it lost its identity - since the Torah writes "v'Chol Mashkeh Asher Yishaseh", and this liquid is no longer drinkable.
(a)Rebbi Yosi (quoted above at the beginning of 16a) Darshens the Pasuk like his Rebbi, Rebbi Akiva. How does Rebbi Akiva interpret "v'Chol Kli Cheres Asher Yipol Mehem ... Yitma" (Shemini), and what does he learn from there?
(b)How do we know that the loaf in the Pasuk is a Sheni, and not that we consider the vessel as if it was full of the Sheretz, so that everything inside it becomes a Rishon?
(a)Rebbi Akiva explains the Pasuk "v'Chol Kli Cheres Asher Yipol Mehem ... Yitma" to mean that if a Sheretz is dangled inside an earthenware vessel, the air and the vessel become a Rishon l'Tum'ah, so that a loaf of bread (for example) that is inside it (to which the Pasuk is referring) becomes a Sheni. This we learn from the word "Yitma", which Rebbi Akiva Darshens to read "Yetamei" i.e. that it transmits Tum'ah to others to make them a Shelishi.
(b)If we were to consider the vessel as if it was full of the Sheretz, so that everything inside it becomes a Rishon - then that would have to apply to vessels, too. Since however, it is only food that receives Tum'ah inside an earthenware vessels, and not vessels, it must be from the vessel (which is already a Rishon, that the food receives its Tum'ah).
(a)Rebbi Yosi explains the Pasuk there "v'Chol Mashkeh Asher Yishaseh b'Chol Kli Yitma" in the same way. What does the liquid render Tamei, and how does Rav Papa prove that it cannot be liquid?
(b)From where do we learn that something cannot transmit Tum'ah to the same kind as itself (e.g. liquid to liquid)?
(c)How does Ravina prove Rav Papa right from "Yitma" "Yitma"?
(a)Rebbi Yosi explains the Pasuk "v'Chol Mashkeh Asher Yishaseh b'Chol Kli Yitma" like Rebbi Akiva - namely, "Yetamei" , meaning that it too, is Metamei food. It cannot be liquid that it renders Tamei, because we do not find Tum'ah rendering its own kind Tamei.
(b)We learn that something cannot transmit Tum'ah to the same kind as itself - from the reading of the word "Yitma", from which we Darshen it becomes Tamei, but it cannot make its own kind Tamei.
(c)The "Yitma" 'Yetamei' (the second recipient of Tum'ah) in the Reisha is definitely liquid. Consequently, if the "Yitma" 'Yetamei' in the Seifa would also be liquid, then why did the Torah not combine its two statements into one, to mention "Yitma" only once, instead of twice.
(a)We know that it is not vessels which the liquid renders Tamei, from a Kal va'Chomer from vessels, which are not Metamei vessels, how much more so liquid, which became Tamei through vessels. From where do we know that vessels are not Metamei vessels?
(b)Perhaps it is only liquid which received Tum'ah from vessels that cannot be Metamei vessels, but liquid which received Tum'ah from a Sheretz can?
(a)We know that vessels are not Metamei vessels from the Pasuk "Kol Asher b'Socho ... mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel", from which we Darshen 'food can receive Tum'ah from the air of an earthenware vessel, but not vessels'.
(b)We only know that liquid which received Tum'ah from a Sheretz (which is not written in the Torah) is Metamei from a Kal va'Chomer from liquid that received Tum'ah from vessels (which is). Consequently, due to the principle of 'Dayo Lavo min ha'Din Liheyos k'Nadun', it cannot be more stringent than its source - so if the latter cannot render vessels Tamei, neither can the former.
(a)Rebbi Akiva learns from the first "Yitma" (mentioned regarding food) that food is Metamei liquid. How do we know that it is a liquid that food is Metamei and not vessels?
(b)Since, by virtue of a lack of any alternative explanation, we are forced to learn from "Yitma" that food is Metamei liquid, why does the Gemara need to give the reason of 'Mishum d'Alulin Lekabel Tum'ah'?
(c)If the reason that food is Metamei liquid is not due to the stringency of food, then what is?
(a)It cannot be vessels which receive Tum'ah from food - because we have a Kal va'Chomer from liquid: If liquid, which is Metamei food, yet it is not Metamei vessels, food, which is not Metamei food, is certainly not Metamei vessels.
(b)The Gemara needs to give the reason that food is Metamei liquid (rather than vessels) 'Mishum d'Alulin Lekabel Tum'ah' (and is not content with the Kal va'Chomer from liquid - as a reason why food should not be Metamei vessels), because, on the other hand, we cannot learn food from liquid, since food is more stringent than liquid, inasmuch as it is Metamei liquid (which liquid is not). Maybe for that reason, it is also Metamei vessels.
(c)The reason that food is Metamei liquid may well be due to liquid's susceptibility to Tum'ah - i.e. without needing to become Muchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah.
(a)We have already learnt earlier that "Yitma" teaches us that something cannot render something of the same kind, Tamei. What do we learn from the Pasuk in Shemini "v'Chi Yutan Mayim Al Zera ... Tamei Hu"?
(b)Why do we need two Pesukim to teach us the same thing?
(c)Why could we not learn one from the other?
(a)From "v'Chi Yutan Mayim Al Zera ... Tamei Hu"- we also learn that something cannot render something of the same kind, Tamei ("Tamei Hu" - v'Eino Oseh Keyotze Bo, Tamei').
(b)We need one (the above-mentioned) Pasuk for liquid that became Tamei through a Sheretz, and the other ("Yitma") for liquid that became Tamei through a vessel.
(c)We could not have known the leniency by liquid that became Tamei through a Sheretz from liquid that became Tamei through a vessel - because it is more stringent than it; as for liquid that became Tamei through vessels, we could well have learnt it from liquid that became Tamei through a Sheretz. However, it does not matter, because 'sometimes the Torah will write something, even though it could have been derived from a Kal va'Chomer'.
(a)What does Rebbi Yosi learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel"?
(b)How does he learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mechusar Kipurim, that a Revi'i ba'Kodesh is Pasul ?
(c)How might we apply here the principle of 'Dayo Lavo Min ha'Din Liheyos ka'Nadun', and why do we not say it?
(d)What would he hold if he were to hold like Rebbi Akiva, that there is a Shelishi l'Tum'ah by Chulin?
(a)Rebbi Yosi learns from the Pasuk "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel" - that there is a Shelishi l'Tum'ah by Kodesh; because the "Tamei" mentioned in the Pasuk includes a Sheni.
(b)If a Mechusar Kipurim (the night after he Toveled, and before he was due to bring his Korban), who is permitted to eat Terumah, is Pasul to eat Kodesh, then a Shelishi, who is Pasul to eat Terumah, will certainly make a Revi'i by Kodesh.
(c)We might have applied the principle of 'Dayo Lavo Min ha'Din Liheyos ka'Nadun' - and said that just as a Mechusar Kipurim (the source of the Kal va'Chomer) is a Shelishi, so too can the Shelishi make a Shelishi, but not a Revi'i. However, we do not need a Kal va'Chomer to teach us a Shelishi, and wherever saying 'Dayo' destroys the Kal va'Chomer, we don't say 'Dayo'.
(d)If Rebbi Yosi held like Rebbi Akiva, that there is a Shelishi l'Tum'ah by Chulin - then he ought to have talked of a Revi'i by Terumah and a Chamishi by Kodesh.
(a)In which point does Rebbi Yosi argue with Rebbi Akiva?
(a)Rebbi Yosi does not hold that a Sheni makes a Shelishi in Chulin, because he does not Darshen "Yitma" 'Yetamei'.