Dedicate Daf 16b to:



כדלעת מני
Who
writes the opinion that a Metzora must be shaved
like a gourd?

ר"ע היא דדריש ריבויי ומיעוטי
Rabbi Akiva, who expounds "inclusion" and "exclusions".

 
So there's no contradiction, and the Braisa didn't leave out any cases, as it argues on Rabbi Yishmael.
 
The Gemara will now show the difference between the two:
 
 
דתניא
As
a different exposition of the verses
was taught
in a Braisa
:

והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את כל שערו ריבה
"And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair" -
An inclusion,

את ראשו ואת זקנו ואת גבות ע יניו מיעט
"His head and his beard and his eyebrows" - excludes.

ואת כל שערו יגלח חזר וריבה
"And all his hair he shall shave" -
another
inclusion.

ריבה ומיעט וריבה
This verse can be expounded through the rule of
"Inclusion, Exclusion, Inclusion":

ריבה הכל
The opening inclusion
includes everything
(All hair.)

מאי ריבה
What does
"he shall shave his hair"
include?

ריבה דכוליה גופיה
It includes the whole body
of the Metzora
.

ומאי מיעט
What does
"his head and his beard and his eyebrows"
exclude?

מיעט שיער שבתוך החוטם
It excludes
the Metzora's
nose-hair
(which is the only part of the body which isn't required to be shaved).

 
 
But either way, the Gemara disproved the assertion that the Braisa wasn't exhaustive, which implies that one may not use anything except for real dust.
 
But the Gemara continues to ask
 
 
מאי הוי עלה
What's the conclusion
regarding if ashes can be used for the Sotah?

ת"ש דאמר רב הונא בר אשי אמר רב
Rav Huna bar Ashi said in the name of Rav:

אין שם עפר מביא רקבובית ירק ומקדש
If there is no dust
available for the Sotah, the Kohen may
bring a rotten vegetable and sanctify it.

 
If one can use a rotten vegetable, all the more so ashes!
 
 
ולא היא
But
this teaching is not a correct conclusion,

רקבובית ירק הוא דהואי עפר אפר לא הואי עפר:
For
while
a rotten vegetable is dust, ashes
are
not
considered
dust.

 
 
 
כדי שיראה על המים
-
Enough dust must be placed in the water
that it may be seen on the surface.

תנו רבנן
The Sages taught
in a Braisa
:

שלשה צריכין שיראו
Three
items are required
to be visible:

עפר סוטה
1.
The dust of a Sotah
mixture
,

ואפר פרה
2.
The ashes of the Red Heifer,

ורוק יבמה
3.
And the spit of the Yevamah.

משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף דם צפור
They said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that the blood of the
Metzora
bird
must also be visible in the water
.

מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל
Why?

דכתיב וטבל אותם בדם הצפור וגו'
The verse says
"and dip them in the blood of the slain bird,
and in the running water
."

ותניא
A Braisa was taught
regarding this verse
:

בדם יכול בדם ולא במים
"In the blood" -
One
could
think that one should dip the Metzora's bundle
into the blood and not in the water,

ת"ל במים
So the verse adds
"in the water".

אי מים יכול במים ולא בדם
If
the verse would have just said
"in the water",
one
could
have thought that
that
one dips the Metzora's bundle
into the water and not into the blood
of the slaughtered bird
,

ת"ל בדם
So the verse
says "in the blood".

הא כיצד
How
to resolve the contradiction?

מביא מים שדם ציפור ניכר בהן
One
uses only
enough water that the blood of a bird
would still be
visible
in it
.

וכמה
How much
water
is that?

רביעית

ורבנן
And
what do the
Sages
do with this exposition?

ההוא לגופיה
The words "and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water" teach the simple Halacha -

דהכי קאמר רחמנא אטביל בדם ובמים
The Torah simply says to
dip
the bundle
into the blood and
into
the water.

ורבי ישמעאל
And
why doesn't
Rabbi Yishmael
expound the verse simply?

אם כן לכתוב רחמנא וטבל בהם
If
the Torah would have wanted to teach only that one must dip the bundle into the water and blood,
the verse
should have said
"and he should dip
the mixture
in
them
"

בדם ובמים למה לי
Why
does the verse write
"in the blood ... and
in
the water?"

לניכר
To teach that
they have to be recognizable.

ורבנן
And why don't
the sages
expound the verse the same way as Rabbi Yishmael?

 
As, unlike Rabbi Yishmael, they hold that the blood doesn't have to be recognizable.
 
 
אי כתב רחמנא וטבל בהם
If the Torah would have said "you shall dip ... in them"

הוה אמינא האי לחודיה והאי לחודיה
One
could have thought that
the Kohen may dip the Metzora's mixture
into each one
of the above as they stand
alone,

כתב רחמנא בדם ובמים לערבן
To teach that
"the blood and in the water" must be mixed,
the verse has to say
in them
.

ור' ישמעאל לערבן
And
where does
Rabbi Yishmael
derive that the blood and water must be
mixed?

קרא אחרינא כתיב ושחט את הצפור האחת וגו'
He derives it from the verse
"shall slaughter one bird
in an earthen vessel over running water
",

ורבנן
Why don't
the Sages
derive that the blood and water of the Metzora must be mixed from the above verse?

אי מההוא הוה אמינא לישחטיה סמוך למנא ונינקטינהו לוורידין ולקבליה לדם במנא אחרינא
If that verse would be the only source, one
could
have thought that the Kohen may
slaughter
the bird
next
to the vessel
with the water
, grasp the veins
so none of the blood will flow out
, and receive the blood in another vessel.

קמ"ל
So another verse teaches that the blood and water must be mixed
.

 
 
Opinion "and dip them in the blood of the slain bird,
and in the running water
"
"shall slaughter one bird
in an earthen vessel over running water
"
Rabbi Yishmael Both blood and water have to be recognizable. Both blood and water have to be mixed.
The Sages Both Blood and water have to be mixed The Kohen can't slaughter over the water, but collect the blood in a different container.
 
 
 
בעא מיניה ר' ירמיה מר' זירא
Rabbi Yirmiya asked Rabbi Zeira:

גדולה ומדחת את המים קטנה ונדחית מפני המים מהו
What
is the Halacha if the Metzora brings
a large bird which
drowns out
the
Reviyis of
water, or a small bird which gets
drowns out
by the
Reviyis of
water?

 
The Gemara that according to Rabbi Yishmael, the Metzora's bird must be slaughtered into a Reviyis of water, so that it will be recognizable.
 
Rabbi Yirmiya asked how could he be so certain that a Reviyis of water is the right amount? What if there is too much blood or too much water?
 
 
א"ל
Rabbi Zeira
answered
Rabbi Yirmiya
:

לאו אמינא לך לא תפיק נפשך לבר מהילכתא
Did I not tell you not to take yourself outside the
measurements determined by the Sages
?

בצפור דרור שיערו רבנן אין לך גדולה שמדחת את המים
The sages estimated that there is no close
A large bird
Dror bird which is so big that its
blood
will
drown out
the water,

ואין לך קטנה שנדחית מפני המים
And there is no
bird
so small that will be
drowned out
by the water.

 
 
 
ת"ר
A Braisa
was taught:

הקדים עפר למים פסול
If one placed the dust before the water,
the water is
unfit
for use by a Sotah
,

 
Because the verse says "He will place the water", implying that the water goes first.
 
 
ור' שמעון מכשיר
But Rabbi Shimon permits
the resultant water
.

מ"ט דרבי שמעון
What's the Rabbi Shimon's
reason?

דכתיב ולקחו לטמא מעפר שרפת החטאת
The verse says
"And for the impure they shall take from the dust of the burning of the close
The Red Heifer
Chatas ",

ותניא אמר ר"ש
And a Braisa taught
in the name of
Rabbi Shimon:

וכי עפר הוא והלא אפר הוא
Are the results of the burning
dust?
Aren't they
ash?

שינה הכתוב במשמעו לדון הימנו גזירה שוה
The verse changed the word
of the verse
to teach a Gezeira Shava :

נאמר כאן עפר ונאמר להלן עפר
It says
the word
"dust"
in the verse discussing the Red Heifer
, and it says
the word
dust
in the verse discussing the Sotah
,

מה להלן עפר על גבי מים אף כאן עפר על גבי מים
Just
as the Red Heifer's ashes
go on top of the water, so too
the Sotah's
dust goes on top of the water.

 
So Rabbi Shimon agrees that the water should go first, but...
 
 
ומה כאן הקדים עפר למים כשר אף להלן הקדים עפר למים כשר
And just
as if the Red Heifer's ashes
were placed before the water
the resultant mixture may be used
, so too if one placed the dust
of the Sotah
before the water
the resultant mixture may be used for the Sotah
.

 
But this itself requires proof:
 
 
והתם מנלן
And how do we know
that if the Red Heifer's ashes were placed before the water that the mixture may be used?

תרי קראי כתיבי
There are two verses written
regarding the Red Heifer
:

כתיב עליו אלמא אפר ברישא
One verse says
"On it", which implies that the
Red Heifer's
ashes first,

וכתיב מים חיים אל כלי אלמא מים ברישא
And
another verse writes
"and running water shall be put in a vessel", which implies that the water goes first.

הא כיצד
How
can this contradiction be resolved?

רצה זה נותן רצה זה נותן
If one wants, he
can
put
the water first, and if
one wants, he
can
put
the ashes first
.

 
 
 
ורבנן אל כלי דוקא
And the Sages
argue, and say that
"to the vessel"
teaches that the water must go first
,

 
The Sages hold that just as placing the dust into the Sotah mixture before the water invalidates the mixture, so too placing the ash before the water invalidates the Red Heifer mixture.
 
 
עליו לערבן
And the word
"On it"
teaches that the Sotah's mixture must be
mixed.

ואימא עליו דוקא
Why
did the Sages not interpret the word
"On it"
as being specific, and that the ashes must go first
,

אל כלי שתהא חיותן בכלי
While the words
"Into the vessel"
teach
that spring
must flow directly
into the vessel
(and not be drawn with another vessel)?

מה מצינו בכל מקום מכשיר למעלה
The general rule is that
the permitting substance must be
placed
on top
of the water
,

 
Both the Sotah's dust and the bird's blood administrated during the Metzora's purification must be placed before the water,
 
 
אף כאן מכשיר למעלה:
So too
the ashes of the Sotah
must be on the top.

 
 
 





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