Dedicate Daf 16a to:



שילה נוב וגבעון ובית עולמים
The Mishkan of
Shilo, Nov, and the Beis Hamikdash
in the Sotah.

 
 
איסי בן מנחם אומ אינו צריך
Issi ben Menachem said
that it is
unnecessary
for a verse to include the Beis Hamikdash ,

ומה בטומאה קלה לא חלק הכתוב
Since
If the Torah doesn't differentiate
between the Beis Hamikdash and the Mishkan when it comes to the laws of "regular impurity"
,

 
One may not enter either the Mishkan or the Beis Hamikdash impure, but the punishment is relatively light - Kares.
 
 
בטומאת אשת איש חמורה לא כ"ש
All the more so should there not be a difference between the Mishkan and Beis Hamikdash regarding
the "serious" impurity of a married woman.

 
Who's punishment is execution - which is harsher than Kares.
 
 
א"כ מה ת"ל בקרקע המשכן
If so, why does
the verse need to say
"in the ground of the Mishkan?"

שלא יביא מתוך קופתו
To prohibit dust brought in a box
from outside the Mishkan / Beis Hamikdash for use directly. Rather, one must place it on the ground of the Mishkan first.

 
He holds of the Braisa.
 
 
איבעיא להו
They ask:

אין שם עפר מהו שיתן אפר
May one
make the Sotah drink from
ashes there is no dust
available
?

אליבא דבית שמאי לא תיבעי לך דאמרי לא מצינו אפר שקרוי עפר
This is not a question according to
Beis Shammai ,
for they said that
ashes
are never
called dust,

 
The Torah mandates that one must cover the blood of fowl or wild animals which were slaughtered for food,
 
There is an argument between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel if one is allowed to use ashes for that. Beis Shammai forbids and Beis Hillel permits.
 
The argument depends on whether ashes are called dust.
 
 
כי תיבעי לך אליבא דבית הלל דאמרי מצינו אפר שקרוי עפר
But there is a question
according to Beis Hillel ,
who says
that ashes are called dust.

מאי
What
is the Halacha?

 
What is the question?
 
 
אע"ג דאיקרי עפר
Even though
ashes may
normally
be
called dust,

הכא בקרקע המשכן כתיב
Regarding the Sotah, the verse writes that
"in the ground of the Mishkan"

 
Which implies that only real dust may be used, and not ashes,
 
 
או דילמא האי בקרקע המשכן לכדאיסי בן יהודה ולכדאיסי בן מנחם הוא דאתי
Or perhaps
the phrase
"in the ground of the Mishkan" teaches the laws of and
(and not that ashes may not be used.)

 
The Gemara attempts to answer:
 
 
ת"ש
A
Braisa
was taught

דא"ר יוחנן משום ר' ישמעאל
Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:

בשלשה מקומות הלכה עוקבת מקרא
There are
three places the
Oral tradition
uproots the
literal interpretation of
the verse:

התורה אמרה בעפר והלכה בכל דבר
1.
The Torah said
to cover the blood
"With dust",
but
the Halacha is
that one may cover the blood
with anything,

התורה אמרה בתער והלכה בכל דבר
2.
The Torah says
to shave a Nazir
"With a razor",
but
the Halacha is that
one may shave a Metzora
with anything,

התורה אמרה ספר והלכה בכל דבר
3.
The Torah says
that a divorce must be written on
"a scroll",
but
the Halacha is
that a divorce document may be written
on anything.

ואם איתא ליחשוב נמי האי
And if
one may use ashes for the Sotah procedure,
why didn't
the Braisa include it in the list of cases where the Oral tradition overrides a verse?

 
The Gemara answers:
 
 
תנא ושייר
The author of the Braisa
left out
cases where the Oral Law overrides the verse
.

 
 
 
ומאי שייר
Which other cases did he not include?

 
The Gemara assumes that if a Braisa wouldn't say a list of laws but leave out a single example.
 
 
דהאי שייר שייר מצורע
He left out the following law
of the Metzora:

דתניא
For
the Braisa says:

 
The Gemara will now prove that despite the regular reading of the verses, the Metzora's purification procedure involves him shaving completely.
 
If this is true, than the can be refuted, as one can say that the Braisa chose three cases out of five (where the Oral Law overrides the written text).
 
The Metzora must undergo the following purification procedure:
 
1. The Kohen takes the two birds, the cedar wood and the hyssop. The Kohen slaughters the birds,
drips the blood of the birds into the water
and sprinkles the blood-water mixture onto the Metzora.
 
2. The Metzora is shaven and goes to a Mikvah. He may may now come back to civilization, but may not go into the Beis Hamikdash .
 
3. The Metzora waits seven days.
 
4. The Metzora is shaven again and must bring a sacrifice. He is now completely pure and may go into the Beis Hamikdash .
 
 
The following verses discuss the second shaving.
 
 
והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את כל שערו כלל
"And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair" - is a general
rule
,

את ראשו ואת זקנו ואת גבות עיניו פרט
"His head and his beard and his eyebrows" - is the detail,

ואת כל שערו יגלח חזר וכלל
And "Even all his hair he shall shave off" -
is another
general
rule
.

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט
And one of the thirteen methods which is the Torah is expounded is
"A general rule, followed by a specific rule, followed by a general rule".
The Halacha is that the general rule only applies when it is
similar to the detail,

מה פרט מפורש מקום כינוס שער ונראה
Just as the "details"
i.e. the head, beard and eyebrows
are
all
places of gathered hair and are visible,

אף כל מקום כינוס שער ונראה
So too
the hair which a Metzora shaves must be
gathered and visible.

מה רבי
What does
this "general rule"
add?

רבי שיער הרגלים
The hair of the "legs"
(pubic hair)
.

מאי מיעט
What do
the details
exclude?

מיעט דבית השחי ודכוליה גופיה
It
("His head and his beard and his eyebrows")
excludes the armpit hair
(which is invisible)
and that of the
rest of his
body
(which isn't gathered).

והלכתא מגלח כדלעת
But,
despite the above exposition,
the Halacha is
that a Metzora
must be shaven like a
(smooth)
gourd.

דתנן
For
the Mishna
says:

בא לו להקיף את המצורע מעביר תער על כל בשרו
When one shaves a Metzora
for the first shaving
, he passes a razor over all
the Metzora's
flesh.

וקתני סיפא וביום השביעי מגלחו תגלחת שניה כתגלחת ראשונה
And
the next Mishna
says that on the seventh day he shaves a second shaving like the first shaving.

 
So both the first and second shaving have to be complete, not like the regular reading of the verse.
 
The Gemara answers three answers:
 
 
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק
1.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says:

כי קא חשיב הלכה עוקבת מקרא
When does one count
cases of the
Oral Torah overriding the verses?

הא עוקבת מדרבנן היא
When the Oral Torah overrides an explicit verse. The Halacha of the Metzora
overrides a Rabbinic
exposition of the verse

רב פפא אמר
2.
Rav Papa said:

כי קא חשיב הלכה עוקבת ועוקרת
When does one count
cases of the
Oral Torah overriding
the verses? When the Oral Torah
uproots
the Halacha

הא עוקבת ומוספת היא
The Metzora's law, on the other hand,
adds
a stringency to the Halacha but doesn't uproot it.

 
But when the verse says "Use ground dust", using ash dust is actively going against the verse.
 
 
רב אשי אמר
3.
Rav Ashi said:

הא מתניתא מני
Who is
the author of the Braisa
?

 
Which teaches that there are only three cases where the Oral Torah contradicts the written Torah,
 
 
רבי ישמעאל היא דדריש כללי ופרטי
Rabbi Yishmael, who
expounds verses through the law of
"general
cases
" and "specific
cases
",






Translation copyright by the OpenGemara project. If you would like permission to use our data, please contact us

Dedicated in loving memory of Leah Rivka Bas Reb Dovid HaKohen A"H.
Last build: 2019-01-31T02:13:57Z