Daf 82

1) If you shared a wall with an idol worshipping house that has an idol on it, and the wall falls down, you can't rebuild the wall in its place, but you must distance it four Amos. (However you can count the place of the original wall as part of that four Amos. However, if you only own half of the wall's space, you can only count your property.) [Tosfos says: even according to the opinion that you can give to the idolatry system, (as long as you don't take pleasure from them); that's only giving a tax, which only looks like you're trying to pass by the toll; but here, you look like you're building a wall for their house of worship. The Gemara in Avoda Zara asks: how can you do this if you're giving more space to the idol worshippers' house. See there how they answered.]

2) Regarding the broken bricks, wood, and dirt; the Rabanan say that they're Tamai like rodents, since the Torah has a Hekish between idols and rodents. R' Akiva says that they're Tamai like a NIda since they have a Hekish to NIda. [Tosfos brings the Yerushalmi that, according to the opinion that, when an idol falls apart by itself, it loses its status of an idol; the reason they're Tamai here is because we refer to a case where the non-Jew bows to every broken piece.]

Rabbah explains: everyone holds that it's Tamai when carried (even if you don't touch it) like a Nida. [Tosfos says: although the whole Tumah of idols is rabbinic, so you might think that we should be the most lenient to reconcile the two Hekeshim; but since the Pasuk says to distance the idols like a NIda, the Pasuk is telling us that we shouldn't have any leniencys with the Hekish to Nida.] They only argue by a Mesama stone, and being moved by the idol. The Rabanan say that this is the reason that they also had a Hekish to rodents, to say that it's Tahor by these Tumos. R' Akiva holds they're Tamai since they're completely compared to Nida, and the Hekish to rodents only tells us how the utensils that serve it are Tamai.

3) [Rashi explains "the Mesama stone": you have this big stone on pegs and you have the Zav (or Nida) on top of the stone, and utensils underneath the stone. It is Tamai as we learn from the Pasuk "anything underneath him is Tamai." However, Tosfos disagrees. First of all, why use a case of a stone more than a plank? Also, the Drashos in Toras Kohanim don't seem to explain this, since it's learned from "Merkav, riding upon." Also, if so, it should make Tamai any utensil that's underneath him, and we Paskin that this only applies to utensils fit to sit on.

Rather, Tosfos explains: we refer to a very heavy stone that, anyone, or thing, that's underneath the stone won't be able to feel the weight of the Zav because of the great weight of the stone. It's Tamai because it's like Merkav, riding upon. Therefore, you need it to be an object that's fit for sitting on. We also find another thing by a Mesama stone, that many Gemaras compare it to carrying, implying that it's not Merkav. That refers to a case where the Zav has a hand or foot under the stone, then it makes Tamai all objects on top of the stone since it's like the Zav is carrying them.]

4) R' Elazar explains the argument: everyone agrees that it's not Tamai by the Mesama stone or by moving, and they only argue about carrying. The Rabanan hold that we should make this rabbinical Hekish to be lenient, so we compare it to rodents that it's not Tamai when carried. R' Akiva says that we make the Hekish to Nida that it's Tamai by carrying, and the Hekish to rodents teaches us that it's not Tamai by a Mesama stone.

Daf 83

5) It's possible that an inanimate idol can make something Tamai by moving the other object, if the idol is put on a scale, and it's heavier than the other object, it lifts the other object. (However, if the other objects are heavier, then they're Tahor, since even if they would lift a Zav/Nida in this fashion, they're Tahor. [Rashi explains: only humans are Tamai for lifting them, not objects unless they're meant to sit on, which they'll be Tamai Medris.])

6) According to Rabbah according to the Rabanan, or according to R' Elazar even according to R' Akiva; the reason the Torah doesn't simply make a Hekish to Neveila which fulfils the prescribed Tumah completely (since it's Tamai when carried, but it's not Tamai by the Mesama stone or moving) is to teach us that one limb of an idol is not Tamai just like a limb (that fell off) a Nida is not Tamai, (which is not like a corpse, that limbs are Tamai). Although we have an inquiry later if the idol's limbs are Tamai; that was only inquired according to Rabbah according to R' Akiva (who says it's Tamai by a Mesama stone, so it needed to have a Hekish to Nida for that reason). [Tosfos explains the inquiry: perhaps they hold that you can't learn any leniency from Nida. Alternatively, even if we could learn this leniency, still, maybe we shouldn't compare an idol to Nida regarding this since the idol's limbs may be fixed by a craftsman, which is not true to a Nida's limbs.]

7) There's an inquiry whether limbs of an idol are Tamai. [Tosfos explains: it must be a case where they're removable pieces, but if it actually broke, then it's completely similar to a Nida and doesn't become Tamai.] The first version: the inquiry is only when a layman can't put together the pieces, but if a layman could put it together, then it's as if it's already been put together. The second version: the inquiry is only if a layman could put it together. Do we say it's as if it's put together, or, since now it's not together, it's not Tamai. However, if a layman can't put it together, then everyone holds it's not Tamai.

8) [Tosfos explains: this inquiry is only regarding the rabbinical Tumah of idols, but it's simple that they still have the Torah-prohibition from partaking pleasure from them. Although we have an argument in Mesechta Avoda Zara if they're forbidden to have pleasure if a layman can put it back together, but they both agree that, if a layman can't put it back together, you can partake pleasure from it; that only refers to and idol that consists of very small pieces, and when it's taken apart, it's like the case where it's shattered in many small pieces. However, here, we refer to a case where it's larger pieces. Therefore, even Shmuel, who permits there, agrees that it's forbidden to partake pleasure from it even if a layman can't put it back together.]

9) We have a Hekish from an idol to a corpse to teach us that an idol is Tamai when it's the size of a Kazayis, just like a corpse. [Tosfos explains: even if it's a complete idol, it's not Tamai if it's less than a Kazayis. Even though a complete corpse is Tamai if it's less than a Kazayis (if it's a tiny miscarried fetus), and even a complete limb from a corpse is Tamai if it's less than a Kazayis. So, we must say that when we say an idol less than a Kazayis is Tahor, it must be in a way that would be Tamai by a corpse. After all, you can't say that it only refers to a small piece of an idol that's less than a Kazayis, since such small pieces would be compared to being shattered and it wouldn't be Tamai anyhow, since a shattered piece of meat of a corpse less than a Kazayis wouldn't be Tamai.]

10) A boat is not susceptible to Tumah. The Tanna Kama says; because there is a Hekish between a sea and a boat. Therefore, a boat isn't susceptible to Tumah just like the sea isn't. Chanania b. Akavya says; since wooden utensils has a Hekish to sack, it needs to be like sack that you can move it when it's empty or when it's full, and the boat is too big to be carried when it's full. [Tosfos points out; although it carries people, that's only to help carrying the merchandise. However, if they needed that place for the merchandise, they would tell the person on that space to move "and let us do our work." However, if its main use is to transport people, then it's Tamai Medris even if it can't be moved empty or full.] The practical difference between the two is by an earthenware boat (which doesn't have a Hekish to sack) or a small boat that you can carry on land [Tosfos explains; but by a regular large boat, it's not enough that you can row it in the sea since it's mainly moving from the water.] In these cases, the Tanna Kama says they're still not susceptible to Tumah, and Chanania b. Akavya holds that it is.

Daf 84

11) According to Chanania b. Akavya, even if the utensil is moved by oxen (i.e., though humans can't move them full), it's considered as being moved full and is susceptible to Tumah [Tosfos says; even if it's so big that it holds the volume of forty Saah. However, Tosfos has an unanswered question: why is this only to Chanania b. Akavya? After all, the Rabanan only disagree by a boat since there is a special Drasha to say it's not susceptible, but, by other utensils, they would agree.] This we learn from the Halacha of wagons; if they have large holes in their floor and they only transport large stones, they're not susceptible to Tumah, but if the holes are small enough that pomegranates can't fall out, they're susceptible to Tumah (even though they can only be moved with oxen). If it's made for people to ride, then it's susceptible to Tumas Medris.

12) If you have a box that's openning is on top, it's susceptible to regular Tumah, but not for Medris, since anyone who sits on it will be told to get up so we can do our work of loading it. However, if its openning is on the side and you can load it while someone is sitting on top of it, it's susceptible to Tumas Medris since the people sitting on it won't be chased away when they need to load. If it's big enough that it holds a volume of forty Saah, it's not Tamai at all. [Tosfos explains: this is only by the case where it's open on top, but if it's open on the side, it's still susceptible since Medris is Tamai even if the box is very big.]

13) An earthenware utensil can't become Tamai Medris, since we have a Hekish between the Zav and the sitting utensil; just like he can become Tahor, so too the sitting utensil needs to be able to become Tahor. This excludes earthenware. Although you can make a mat Medris even though it can't become Tahor [Rashi; it's made out of wood. Tosfos disagrees since you can Toivel flat wooden utensils, like we say in Mesechta Sukka about Toiveling the legs of beds. Rather, it's made out of Gemmi grass]; we must say that it's difference since, even though it can't become Tahor, but other things that are its type (i.e., wood that also grows from the ground) can become Tahor. However, no earthenware can become Tahor, so it can't become Medris. [Tosfos points out: the reason that a lump of sourdough can become Tamai although you can't Toivel it in the Mikva, but its type can be Toiveled, since wood is its type since they both are grown from the ground.]

14) Rava learned this Halacha from the fact that the Torah says that all earthenware utensils that are covered and fastened well can't have Tumah; implying in any situation, even if you designate it for your Nida wife to sit on, (and it can't protect if its Tamai). [Tosfos is in doubt if you only need this if she already sat on it and would have made it Tamai, but it would protect if it was just designated. Or do we say; the very fact that it's designated for sitting makes it that it can't protect, even though its not fit to become Tamai from a corpse. Rashi holds that they're not Tamai if she moves it, and that's why it's not considered susceptible to Tumah from the outside. However, Tosfos brings Gemaras that say explicitly that it's Tamai if she moves it. However, even though earthenware can become Tamai if you move it from the outside, it's not considered as becoming Tamai from the outside (that shouldn't protect), but we consider it as if you touched the inside, as we consider moving the whole utensil as if you touched the whole utensil, so we even consider it as if she touched the inside.]

15) Someone can plant five different types of seed in a six-Tefachim squared plot, (one on each side of the field and one in the middle), and it's not a problem of Klayim of seed. [Tosfos explains: planting seeds (like grains and vegetables) together is a Torah prohibition. This is even according to R' Yoshia who holds you're not Chayiv until you plant a wheat kernal, barley kernal and grape seed in the same hole, (implying that there is no prohibition without the grape seed which is a tree); that's only to be Chayiv because of "Klayim of a vineyard." However, he agrees that it's prohibited because of "Klayim of seed" without the grape seed. This is not like Rashi who explains it's only rabbinically forbidden.] The reason that you may plant the five seeds in that plot; since the rabbis were sure that they don't absorb nutrition from each other [Tosfos; but we still need to learn the Heter from a Pasuk since the plants are somewhat mixed together.]

Daf 85

16) [Tosfos explains; we don't permit planting nine different types of seeds in that plot, and having four on each corner, four in the middle of each side, and one in the middle, (and each seed is three Tefachim away from the other); since that would look too mixed up. Alternatively, we don't want to give a case that you can only plant one seed for each type. Alternatively, we don't allow it since you need to be so careful by each seed to make sure that it's three Tefachim away from every seed that's next to it. This is not like our case where you only need to make sure the middle seed is three Tefachim away from the other seeds. This is why we only allow a plot that's six squared, and not one much smaller that has the diagonal of six, and plant four seeds in the four corners and one in the middle.]

17) [Tosfos points out: even though there must be a little less than three Tefachim between the middle one and the outer ones, since it's exactly six, and you need to subtract the area where the seed is, which will make it a tiny bit less than three; since we have the rule that all the measurements of Klayim need to be made a little wider (i.e., not exact), so even when subtracting the area that the seed is planted, you still have three Tefachim. Alternatively, the Halacha that you need to distance each seed three Tefachim from the other includes the place of the seed.]

18) This plot includes an extra Tefach of a border [Tosfos says: as we see that] R' Yehuda says that a Tefach separates between two vegetables, [so, we should assume that should also be the border between plots. Rashi explains the practical difference for this: that you can plant a different type in the next area. Even according to the opinion (later) that you can't have one plot go into another, even if it's a noticeably different plot, like if the plot comes into the other on an angle; that's only if they're both plots, but if one is a full fledge field (that's more distinct), it's not a problem. The Ri explains the practical difference: regarding buying and selling (that if you buy such a plot, the border is included).]

19) Rav says that we only allow such a plot when the surrounding area is empty, but it's forbidden if you want to plant next to it since it will look like the plants are being mixed together. [Tosfos explains: even if you didn't plant the corners of the plot, and it would be a three Tefachim separation to the plot diagonal to it even if you would plant that plot's corner]; since they decreed to forbid it since you may fill up by planting this plot's corner too. [Tosfos explains: this is even forbidden if you don't plant the corners of the outside plots too since you might also end up filling them up with seed.] We don't allow with the Heter of being the "head of of a row" i.e., that the plots have a distinctive pattern that you can tell the difference between them, since we don't say that by plots, [since they're small, it's not too distinct], (and it's only permitted by big fields). However, Shmuel argues and permits it with surrounding plots, since the Heter of being distinctive areas apply by plots too. [Tosfos explains; therefore, Shmuel would permit filling in the corners too.] That, which we're not worried that the plants would look mixed [Tosfos explains; since the leaves mix on top]; we must say that it refers to when you lean each row to the side [i.e, you push, and train, each row on the border to face away from the plants on the other border.]

20) If you have a trench separating them [Tosfos explains; which R' Shimon holds to be a good separation between two fields, so we can ponder if it works to separate two plots]; R' Sheishes says that the mixing of the plants above cancels out the trench in between (and it doesn't work). R' Assi holds that it doesn't cancel out the trench. Although you need two rows of gourds to separate between two rows of cucumbers and two rows of Egyptian beans, [Tosfos: the gourds are close enough related to both these plants that they're not Klayim to them, but only the outer ones are too distantly related and is considered Klayim], but a single row not; that's because those plants have extra big leaves and they get extra mixed, so they need extra separation.

21) R' Yochanan holds: if you take the middle five squared Tefachim of that plot, and plant one type of seed in a five Tefachim circle circumscribed in that square, and then plant four other types of seed in each of the four corners of that five Tefachim inner square, [Tosfos: but you can't plant the whole corner, rather, you need to distance the seeds three Tefachim from one corner to the next corner]. R' Yanai explains: you need to keep the space in between [Rashi; the Tefach borders; Tosfos: i.e., the extra half Tefach on both sides that rounds out the six Tefachim plot] not planted [Tosfos: so that you should have three Tefachim between the planting in the next plot. I.e., you have two half-of-Tefach left bare on both plots, plus two bare borders, a Tefach each, one for each plot.] R' Ashi allows filling the extra half Tefach with seed, but you need to plant it in a different direction than the middle seeds. I.e., if the middle seeds are planted in rows north to south, the outer seeds should be planted east to west.

Daf 86

22) If so, (that you can plant the five seeds in five Tefachim), the Halacha that a plot needs to be [Rashi: squared and not round. Tosfos: six Tefachim and not five Tefachim] is only to allow planting next to another area that it should have the Heter of being a distinguished pattern and noticeably separate. [Tosfos adds: at least to allow it if the other area is a true field if you don't allow one plot to be next to another plot.]

23) We learn the amount of time after relations that a woman can become Tamai if she releases semen from her body from the time the Jews needed to separate from their wives at the giving of the Torah at Sinai. (After this time, the semen spoils and loses its status.) Everyone holds that the reason for that separation was so that the women shouldn't be Tamai at the Torah giving if they release semen. [Tosfos explains: Although the Torah wasn't given yet and there is no Tumah; still, Hashem cared about something that would be Tamai after Matan Torah. Although they allowed other Tumos; Hashem only cared about Tumah that came through frivolous behavior. As we say by Takanas Ezra that you can only learn Torah just like it was given by Matan Torah, that was given with fear etc. Thus, all Tumos ar permitted to learn Torah except if he's Tamai because he emitted semen since it comes through frivolity.] R' Elazar b. Azarya holds that they only separated for two days, so she must not be Tamai if she release the semen on the third day. [Rashi and Tosfos say: therefore, if they had relations before sunset on the first day, even if she only waited two twelve-hour periods, she's Tahor if she releases semen after that. However, if they had relations on the beginning of the first night, they need to wait four twelve hour periods.] R' Yishmael b. R' Yossi says they were separated for three days, so she's Tahor on the fourth day. However, it doesn't matter when she had relations on the first day, she's Tahor on the fourth day. So, if they had relations at the beginning of the night, it's six twelve-hour periods. if they had relations before sunset, she only needs to wait four twelve-hour periods. R' Akiva says that Moshe went up the mountain early morning, got his instructions, and came down in the morning. Therefore, when he got the command to separate, it was in the morning and it was for two and a half days. So, he holds that it's only Tamai for five twelve-hour periods. However, it's not dependant on day or night time, but whenever she finished her last relations, she will be Tahor if she releases semen sixty hours later, even if it's during midday. The Chachumim say that you need a full six twelve-hour periods.

24) Although, it would seem that, Hashem didn't need to warn them in the morning about separating since Jews are holy and don't have relations during the day; still, He needed to warn them since it's permitted in a dark house, or a Talmid Chachum can darken the area with his Talis, and it would be permitted.

25) R' Chisda says that this is only when the semen is released from a woman, but if it's released from a man, it's Tamai for as long as it's moist. [Tosfos asks: since this is an explicit Mishna in Nida, why does R' Chisda need to tell us? Tosfos answers: if it was only for the Mishna, I've might have thought that it's only Tamai if it's moist within three days, so R' Chisda taught otherwise that it's Tamai when it's moist even after three days. R' Tam answers: the Mishna refers to a man who emitted semen, and R' Chisda refers to a man who had homosexual relations and released the other man's semen.]

26) There is an inquiry if the semen (of a Jew) is Tamai after three days in the belly of a non-Jew just like a Jew, for, perhaps, her body is not as hot (to kill the semen) like a Jew since she doesn't have the worry to do Mitzvos. Or, perhaps, since she eats rodents and bugs, it heats up her body well enough. Also, there's an inquiry whether an animal's body is the same as a human's and it gets ruined after three days, or do we say; since the animals don't have an outer chamber before the womb like humans do, the air circulates there better and it doesn't spoil as fast.

Daf 87

27) There is an argument whether Hashem prohibited going out of the T'chum during the Shabbos that was given at Marah (before the giving of the Torah), or not, and they travelled on Shabbos until the Torah was given. [Even according to the opinion that T'chumim is rabbinical (and it wasn't even given at Sinai), we can say that we weren't exact when saying it refers to T'chum, but we refer to carrying out items into the street. Was it prohibited then, or was it only prohibited by Matan Torah, and they travelled on Shabbos before that carrying all their stuff.]

Daf 89

28) You're Chayiv for carrying out enough wood that you can cook a Grogeros of a chicken egg with, and we don't say that it should have a much smaller Shiur since it could be made into 'teeth' for a key.

28) You're Chayiv for carrying out enough spices to spice up an egg. You can combine many types of spices as long as they're complimentary, like they're all sweet. This is similar to what we say that different forbidden spices "forbids and combine" if they're all coming to make it sweet. It doesn't matter if they have 'two or three names' but they're one type of food, or if they're from three types. However, they don't combine if they're not complimentary, i.e., some are sweet and some aren't. [Tosfos explains: although you could taste the various prohibitions with contradictory tastes, but it's not a good taste, and you can't forbid a stew if the prohibitions give a detrimental taste. Rashi explains they have 'two or three names'; that the food has different variables, like 'long peppers' and 'black peppers.' Tosfos disagrees. After all, in the Mishna's conclusion, R' Shimon says that you can't combine one type of food with two names or two types with one name, (which we need to explain that they're homonyms, like two types of 'Ohala', ones a plant and the other is a mineral). If the explanation is like Rashi, why would a homonym be an extra reason to forbid? Rather, the 'names' refers to types of prohibitions, like Klai Kerem and from a worshipped tree etc. This is also implied in the Yerushalmi. However, R' Shimon agrees that, if their two types of the same prohibition, i.e., Trumah, Trumas Maasar, Bikurim, Challah, which are all forms of Trumah, they do combine.]

29) [Tosfos explains; "forbids and combines" means that they forbid if they give taste together in the food, and combine to a Kazayis to get lashes. Even though different prohibitions don't combine to bring a Chatos, they combine to get lashes. In Mesechta Avoda Zara, Rava establishes the Mishna like R' Meir who holds that all prohibitions combine. Abaya says that it can be like the Rabanan, and they only hold that they don't combine if they're different foods, but not if they're the same type of food. Although the Gemara says that if you ate three prohibitions, you can't give him lashes since you don't know which of the prohibitions are the majority; that's only when they're mixed together and the others would be Batul. However, if you eat each one separately, and you know which prohibition each piece is, then they combine to give lashes. However, it's difficult since R' Shimon who argues say they don't combine, and R' Shimon doesn't hold that any prohibition needs to combine for lashes, since he holds you get lashes for the smallest amount. So, we need to define his 'combination' differently than the Tanna Kama's, and it's to combine the prohibited spices to forbid the stew they're mixed into. R' Tam explains it to be one expression, it combines to forbid the food. Alternatively, it forbids in a liquid mixture (i.e., when the tastes mixed) and they combine to a dry mixture (i.e., that pieces of prohibitions got mixed up).]

Daf 90

30) You're Chayiv if you carry out enough urine to cleanse a menstrual blood stain, but it needs to be forty days. [Tosfos says; you can't say that it's from a forty day old child, since the Gemara in Nida has an inquiry if it's from a child or from an adult. You can't say that it was left for forty days, since the Gemara in Nida says that it's left for three days. So to reconcile, we need to say that the text is "until forty days," i.e., it was left to ferment from three until forty days.]

31) If someone carries a peddler's basket with many types of food in it, you're Chayiv only one Chatos for all of them. [Tosfos explains; the Chiddush is, even if he only realizes that he carried one type of food and he brings a Chatos on that, it's atones all the other type of foods. Although we said that, if you carry fruit in a utensil, and you know about the fruit and bring a Korban, you may need to bring a Chatos separately on the utensil; it's more logical to differentiate between a utensil with what it's carrying and many types of food in a utensil. However, the Yerushalmi brings the Chiddush: I might think, according to R' Eliezer who says that you're Chayiv for a Tolda separately when you also do the Av, that you're Chayiv on each type of food too, so, we're taught otherwise. Tosfos explains: we should differentiate between each type like R' Yehoshua differentiates between different types of fats that were prepared differently in a separate dish. However, it's difficult why didn't the Yerushalmi say that this Chiddush is according to R' Yehoshua?]

32) If you carry out a Kosher grasshopper, if it's alive, you're Chayiv no matter how small it is (since a child can use it as a pet). if it's dead, then the Shuir is a Grogeres just like all other food. R' Yehuda says that you're even Chayiv for carrying out the smallest live non-Kosher grasshopper, since you can give it to a child as a pet. The Chachumim say that you can't give it to your child since it might die and he may eat it. However, R' Yehuda is not worried since he'll eulogize it, and not eat (his pet).

33) It's forbidden to eat a live grasshopper because of Bal Tishaktzu (you shall not do disgusting things). [Tosfos says: but you may eat it if it dies, and it doesn't need Shchita. Therefore, the Tanna Kama allows giving the Kosher grasshopper to the child and he's not worried that it would die and he'll eat it without Shchita. Also, he's allowed to chop off a piece, wash it, and eat it, since there is no prohibition to eat Eiver Min Hachai (a limb from a live grasshopper).]