Today's daf is sponsored by Betsy Mehlman in memory of her father, Zvi Menachem Mendel ben Shlomo z"l, Harold Mondshein, on his 39th yahrzeit that was on the 11th of Adar.
Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Shael Bellows who passed away this week.
Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her sister Cindy Navah whose yahrzeit is today. "I can't believe it's been 18 years since your passing. I remember you learning Gemera with Abba zichrono livracha with just so much zest! Love you and miss you so much!"
Raba had said that one could be liable twice only if after becoming impure one went into a tent with a dead body as there are two negative prohibitions - one to not become impure and another not to go into a tent. But this goes against Raba's approach that if one is already impure, how can they be liable for another contraction of impurity, as here too, one was already impure before entering the tent! Rabbi Yochanan distinguishes between a house and a field. In the house, one was pure when they went in but became impure and also entered at the same time - therefore they are liable twice. But one who became impure in a field and then entered an enclosure would not be liable twice for the reason stated above. However, this answer is problematic and several questions are raised one after another, such as, when one enters the house, doesn't one's hand enter first or one's nose, etc. thereby having the impurity come first and not at the same time as most of the body entering. Eventually, Rav Papa answers that if one came in while inside an enclosure and then another person opened it (presumably with the nazir's instructions, consent or help) while they were inside the house with impurity, then the impurity and entering would happen at the same time. Mar bar Rav Ashi gives a different answer - that the nazir entered when the person was about to die but was not yet dead. Tanna Kama and Rebbi disagree about which verse teaches that a kohen gadol and nazir can be with someone until they actually die. Rabbi Yochanan thinks their debate is only about semantics - from where in the verses is it derived. But Reish Lakish holds that one holds actual death and the other holds it is forbidden even as they dying, but not yet dead. Rav Chisda says in the name of Rav that a regular kohen can become impure to his relatives but not if a limb was severed. This is derived from the word "to his father" - only if he is whole. The Gemara raises a question from two braitot that indicate that a son can become impure to relatives whose bodies are not whole. The resolution is that the braitot follow Rabbi Yehuda's opinion and Rav does not follow that opinion.
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free