Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת סוטה דף ט"ז. We will start with the fifth line from the top of עמוד א'. The גמרא here is in the middle of discussing the דין of the עפר that you were supposed to put into the water that was supposed to be given to the סוטה to drink. As the תורה says, ומן העפר אשר יהיה בקרקע המשכן, that from the sand that will be in the floor of the משכן, יקח הכהן, the כהן should take, ונתן אל המים, he should put it into the water. So here the גמרא will ask a question: איבעיא להו, a question was asked in the ישיבה, אין שם עפר, if they didn't have any sand, מהו שיתן אפר, what is the דין, can they give ashes instead of sand? And the גמרא explains the question: אליבא דבית שמאי לא תיבעי לך, according to בית שמאי, I do not even have a question, דאמרי, because they say, לא מצינו אפר שקרוי עפר, we do not find that ashes should be called sand. כי תיבעי לך, when do I have the question? אליבא דבית הלל, according to בית הלל, דאמרי, that they say, מצינו אפר שקרוי עפר, we do find that ashes should be called sand. מאי, so what is the דין here? The מחלוקת between בית שמאי and בית הלל is concerning the מצוה of כיסוי הדם. When you שחט a bird or you שחט a חיה, the דין is that you must cover the blood with sand. As the פסוק says in ויקרא י"ז that ושפך את דמו, if you killed it, וכסהו בעפר, you should cover the blood with sand. And there's a מחלוקת between בית שמאי and בית הלל if you must use only sand, dust, as the תורה says בעפר, or you're also allowed to use ashes. And the מחלוקת is on דף פ"ח עמוד ב' in חולין, that בית שמאי says that you must use sand because we do not find that ashes should be considered sand. But בית הלל says that we do find that ashes are considered sand. As we find in במדבר י"ט, it says in the תורה, ולקחו לטמא מעפר שרפת החטאת, that if a person became טמא, you must make him טהור, make him clean through the פרה אדומה, through spraying at him at certain times the water mixed with the ashes of the פרה אדומה, of the red heifer. So the תורה says you should take for the טמא from the sand of the burnt חטאת, of the burnt פרה אדומה. When you burn the פרה אדומה, you do not get sand, you get ashes. And nevertheless, we see the תורה refers to ashes as עפר, as sand. So from here בית הלל sees that ashes are also called sand, and therefore they hold by כיסוי הדם that you're allowed to cover up the blood with ashes, not only with sand. And this is what the גמרא says concerning the דין of סוטה. By סוטה, it also says, as we mentioned before, that you should put sand from the floor of the משכן into the water that this woman is going to drink. So the גמרא שאלה is, can you use ashes instead of sand? And the גמרא explains: according to בית שמאי, who holds by כיסוי הדם that you cannot use ashes because ashes is not considered sand, so there is no question. Certainly by סוטה too, you cannot use ashes because the תורה says sand, and ashes are not considered sand. But according to בית הלל, who say concerning the מצוה of כיסוי הדם that you could use ashes because ashes is considered sand, the question is, what is the דין by סוטה? Do we say that אף על גב דאיקרי עפר, that even though ashes are called sand, but still by סוטה they shouldn't be good because הכא בקרקע המשכן כתיב, because by סוטה the תורה says clearly that you should take sand that will be in the floor of the משכן, and that comes to exclude ashes because ashes doesn't come from the floor. And therefore by סוטה ashes should not be good. או דילמא, or maybe, האי בקרקע המשכן, these words בקרקע המשכן, do not come to tell us that you cannot use ashes, but לכדאיסי בן יהודה ולכדאיסי בן מנחם הוא דאתא, maybe it comes to teach us another דין, like איסי בן יהודה had explained or like איסי בן מנחם had explained. Because we learned earlier in this עמוד that איסי בן יהודה explained that the reason the תורה says בקרקע המשכן is to include that you could also do the דין of סוטה with the sand and the water etc. also in שילה and נוב and גבעון and in the בית המקדש, that even though the דין of the תורה refers to the משכן, the פסוק comes to include also the משכן of שילה and נוב and גבעון and בית עולמים. According to איסי בן מנחם The words דקרקע משכן come to include something else. It comes to tell us that you do not have to take it actually from the floor, but you could bring it from the outside, put it down on the floor of the משכן or the בית המקדש, and you take it from there. So according to both of them, we have a special reason why the תורה added the words בקרקע המשכן. So maybe the words בקרקע המשכן does not come to tell us that ashes are no good, it must be from the floor, it must be sand, because the words בקרקע המשכן come to teach us another דין. But maybe ashes are good. And this is what the גמרא שאלה is. Do we say that ashes are no good by the סוטה because the תורה says that it has to be בקרקע המשכן from the floor of the משכן, which means specifically sand, or the words בקרקע המשכן come to teach us something else, and as far as ashes are concerned, we have no proof that ashes should not be good, and therefore maybe the דין is that ashes are good for the דין of סוטה? The גמרא says תא שמע, come here, I'll try to answer your question. דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל, רבי יוחנן said in the name of רבי ישמעאל, בשלשה מקומות, in three places in the תורה, הלכה עוקבת מקרא. The הלכה למשה מסיני, the הלכה that was given over orally to משה רבינו by השם, destroys, goes against what the תורה says, what the פסוק says. The word עוקבת comes from the word עקב, which means the sole, the heel. What it really means to say is that in three places the הלכה למשה מסיני, so to speak, steps on the פסוק of the תורה. That even though the תורה, it says one דין, comes הלכה למשה מסיני, השם told משה רבינו orally that it shouldn't be done the way the תורה says it, but it should be done differently. And he mentions which they are: התורה אמרה, the תורה said, בעפר, this is concerning כיסוי הדם. As he mentioned before, the תורה says וכיסהו בעפר, you should cover it with sand, but והלכה, the הלכה is, בכל דבר, that it doesn't have to be with sand, you could cover it with anything. Anything that could grow, any kind of thing that something could grow in it, you could use for כיסוי הדם. So here we see how the הלכה steps, so to speak, on the פסוק of the תורה. Another דין is התורה אמרה, the תורה says, בתער, it says by a נזיר that a נזיר should not cut his hair with a תער, with a razor. והלכה, but the הלכה is בכל דבר, that he's not allowed to cut his hair with anything, not with a scissor or any other tool that would shave his hair. So here too we see how the הלכה goes against the clear פסוק. The third place is התורה אמרה ספר, the תורה says concerning a גט, וכתב לה ספר כריתות, that the husband writes to his wife a ספר of cutting between them, a ספר of divorce, a book of divorce. But והלכה, the הלכה is בכל דבר, that you could use anything, any type of document could be used as a גט. So we see three places where the הלכה goes against the פסוק. Now, ואי איתא, if it is true that by the דין of סוטה you could use ashes, ליחשוב נמי האי, why didn't he also enumerate, mention this one? He could have said that there's a fourth place where the הלכה goes against the פסוק. Because the פסוק says ומן העפר אשר יהיה בקרקע המשכן יקח הכהן, that the כהן should take from the sand of the floor of the משכן, and the הלכה is that he doesn't have to take sand, he could take ashes. And since he doesn't mention it among those things that the הלכה goes against the פסוק, that is a proof that the הלכה does not go against the פסוק, and you must use sand and you cannot use ashes. The גמרא says it's no ראיה from there because האי תנא ושייר, maybe he mentions only a few, but he leaves over some. He didn't mean to say that these are the only places in the תורה where the הלכה steps, so to speak, on the פסוק, but he just mentions three of more, and really he leaves over some. So he left over this one, he didn't mention it, he omitted it, this one about the סוטה, that the הלכה says that you're allowed to use ashes even though the פסוק says you should use sand. But then the גמרא asks, ומאי שייר דהאי שייר, what else did he leave over, what else did he omit that he omitted this one? Because we constantly have a rule in the גמרא that whenever a תנא mentions a few things and he leaves over, omits something, he never omits one. If he does omit something, he probably omits more than one. And that's what the גמרא asks here. If you say he omitted this one, he must have omitted something else, because one he wouldn't leave out. So the גמרא שאלה is, what else did he leave out that we're able to say that he left this one out? And the גמרא answers, שייר מצורע, he left out מצורע. There is another one that he could have mentioned that the הלכה goes against the פסוק, and this is concerning a מצורע, and he didn't mention that either. So we could say that he didn't mean to say that only only those three are the ones, but there are two more which he didn't mention: the one of מצורע, and the one by us of סוטה. Now, what is the case of מצורע that we say the הלכה goes against the פסוק? דתניא, we learn in a ברייתא, והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את כל שערו, the תורה says in ויקרא יד, ט, and this is concerning the shaving of a מצורע. A person who is a מצורע, who has leprosy, and he has to go through the whole process of מצורע. The דין is that after he becomes clean of his צרעת, of his leprosy, he must cut his hair and bring two צפרים, two birds, called תגלחת ראשונה, the first stage of his cutting the hair. Then there is a דין that he waits for seven days, and he has to go through תגלחת שנייה, to through a second cutting of the hair, and brings other קרבנות. So we learn in a ברייתא concerning the second תגלחת, concerning the second cutting of the hair, so there the ברייתא quotes the פסוק, it says that והיה ביום השביעי, it'll be on the seventh day after he cut his hair the first time, יגלח את כל שערו, he should cut his whole hair. And the פסוק continues, את ראשו ואת זקנו ואת גבות עיניו, his head, his beard, and the eyebrows, and then the פסוק continues, ואת כל שערו יגלח, and all his hair he should shave. So the ברייתא is going to explain the פשט in the פסוק. One of the ways we דרשן פסוקים is called through a כלל ופרט וכלל, which means כלל means a rule, a general rule, a generalization; פרט means the details; and then וכלל again means the generalization, the general rule. And the meaning of this is that whenever the תורה says a דין and says that the דין applies in a certain case and gives a general word, a generalization of the case, then the תורה mentions certain details of that case, and then the תורה again generalizes of the case, that is considered a כלל ופרט וכלל. Now, what is the דין? The דין is as follows. If the תורה mentions the general rule and then mentions certain details, and that's all, doesn't go back to mention the general rule again, then we say that even though לכתחילה, in the beginning, the תורה mentioned the דין in the general case, nevertheless, since afterwards the תורה specified the details, the דין is only in the case of the details. If it's the other way, that the תורה mentions the דין in certain specific cases, then the תורה generalizes those cases, adds a general rule to the cases, so here we say just the opposite, that even though the תורה mentioned a few specific details, nevertheless, the דין applies in all cases that are included in the general rule, being that first the תורה gave the details, and then the תורה finished off by giving the rule. In a case where it's both, first the תורה gives the general rule, then the תורה goes into the details, and then the תורה goes back to the general rule, that is called a כלל ופרט וכלל. Here, the דין is that we make, so to speak, a compromise. We do not say that the תורה means that the דין should apply in the general rule in all cases, because if so, the תורה would not have written the פרט after the כלל. Since the תורה started off with the כלל, with the generalization, the תורה would not have written the פרט after the כלל, and as we said before, when the תורה writes the details after the rule, the general rule, that comes to minimize the general rule. So here, too, since there is a פרט after the כלל, so definitely the תורה comes to minimize from the כלל, that the דין does not apply in the general rule. On the other hand, we cannot say that the תורה comes to tell us that the דין applies only in the cases mentioned, in the specific cases mentioned in the פרט, because if so, the תורה wouldn't have written the כלל after the פרט. And as we mentioned before, when the תורה writes the general rule after the details, that comes to include more than the details, that comes to generalize it more, that the דין applies in all the general cases. So here, we can't say either of the two. So what do we do? We say that the תורה meant both. The תורה meant not only the cases of the details of the פרט, because there is a כלל afterwards. On the other hand, what it does mean is that it has to be such a case which is similar to the details. It is more than the details, it is more than those specific details, not only in the cases mentioned specifically in the תורה, but more cases that are included through the general rule. On the other hand, not everything that is included in the general rule is included in this דין, but only those things which are similar to the פרט, similar to the details. And that is called that we פסקן the דין כעין הפרט, that it has to be similar to the פרט, more than the details, but not everything, just those things which are similar to the details. And this is how the גמרא will דרשן here the פסוק concerning the מצורע. It says, והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את כל שערו, כלל, the תורה starts off by saying on the seventh day after he cut his hair the first time, seven days later on the seventh day, he should cut his whole hair. So the תורה generalizes by saying all his hair should be cut. That is a כלל. Then the תורה continues, את ראשו ואת זקנו ואת גבות עיניו, his head, his beard, and his eyebrows. So the תורה specifies certain places. That is a פרט. That that is a detail, the תורה goes into details. Then the תורה continues, ואת כל שערו יגלח, that all his hair he should cut, he should shave, חזר וכלל. So the תורה again brings a כלל, generalizes again. So what do we have here? We have a כלל ופרט וכלל. So what is the דין? אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט. So we have to rule the דין here that the things which are similar to the פרט, similar to the details, those are the things which are included. Not everything, in this case it would mean all the hair all over the body, on the other hand, not only the places mentioned, the head and the beard and the eyebrows, but it comes to include more than these three, but not really everything, just the places which are similar to these three. So we say like this: מה הפרט מפורש מקום כינוס שער ונראה, just like the details are clear that they refer to a place where you have a gathering of hair, a bunch of hair together, and נראה, it is seen, אף כל מקום כינוס שער ונראה. So we include that every place of the body that has a gathering of hair, a bunch of hair, and is seen, those hair you must cut off in the second תגלחת of the מצורע. מאי רבי? So what do we include with this לימוד? רבי שער הרגלים. We include the hair of the feet, which means the hair of the private area, that that should also be cut even though it's not mentioned specifically in the תורה. מאי מיעט? But what do we exclude? מיעט דבית השחי ודכולי גופיה. We come to exclude the hair of the underarm and of all the whole body, the hair that's on the hands or on the feet, that these are places that are not כינוס שער, are not a gathering of hair, not a bunch of hair, and it is not really seen. So it comes out that the way we learn the פסוק, by the second תגלחת, the second cutting, the second shaving of the מצורע, you don't cut all the hair of the body off, just the hair that is a bunch of hair and is seen. And nevertheless, והלכתא, the הלכה is, הלכה comes and, so to speak, steps on this דין and says that מגלח כדלעת, that he has to shave off his hair of his body like a vegetable, like a pumpkin, or like a squash, whatever it is, but a vegetable that is very smooth. In other words, the הלכה says that you must cut off all the hair, all parts of the body. So here is another place that the הלכה goes against the פשט in the פסוק. And where do we see טאקע that the דין is that you must cut off even by the second תגלחת, by the second cutting you must shave off all the hair? דתנן, because we learn in the משנה, בא לו להקיף את המצורע, when he comes to cut the hair of the מצורע, מעביר תער על כל בשרו, you take a razor on all of his body, on the whole body. This is concerning the first time he cuts his hair. קתני סיפא, and in the סיפא, in the second part of the משנה it says, וביום השביעי, on the seventh day, מגלחו תגלחת שניה, he cuts him again, he shaves a second time, כתגלחת ראשונה, the same way as he shaves the first time. So we see from here that even the second תגלחת you have to shave all the hair of the whole body. So we see that the הלכה goes against the פשט in the פסוק, because according to the פשט in the פסוק, through the כלל ופרט וכלל you shouldn't have to cut shave all the hair of the whole body on the second תגלחת. Nevertheless, the הלכה is that you do have to cut. And this is what the גמרא meant to answer: that really by a סוטה, too, the דין is that you're allowed to use ashes instead of sand. And the question we had, why doesn't רבי ישמעאל mention it amongst those things that the הלכה goes against the פסוק? So we answer because he omitted it, he skipped it. Then we ask, what else did he skip that we could say that he skipped this too? And we answer he skipped מצורע. And this is what it meant: that מצורע, he could have said that by the second תגלחת from the פסוק it seems that he has to shave only certain parts of the body, nevertheless the הלכה is that he has to shave the whole body, and he doesn't mention it amongst those things that הלכה goes against the פסוק. So he skipped that, so since he skipped that, he also skipped the דין of סוטה, that the תורה says that you have to use sand, and really you could use אפר, you could use ashes. Concerning the three things that רבי ישמעאל said that the הלכה goes against the פסוק, one of them was תער by a נזיר, that the תורה says a נזיר is not allowed to shave his hair with a razor, and the הלכה is that he's not allowed to shave his hair with anything, with a scissor, etc. So רש״י asks a קשיא, why is that considered that the הלכה goes against the פסוק? The הלכה is just adding to the פסוק. The פסוק says that you're not allowed to cut it with a razor, the הלכה adds that not only a razor, but also You're not allowed to use anything else. The other cases, the הלכה goes against what the תורה says. The תורה says that you're supposed to use one thing, the הלכה says you could use something else, which according to the way it seems from the תורה, you couldn't use. So the הלכה, so to speak, steps on the תורה. But in the case of נזיר, the הלכה admits to what the תורה says, that you're not allowed to use a razor. The הלכה just adds that not only a razor, but also nothing else. So how come that רבי ישמעאל could consider this one of the things that the הלכה goes against the תורה? And רש״י answers that this is considered going against the תורה, because according to the הלכה, if he would cut his hair with something else other than a razor, he would be חייב מלקות. He would get מלקות, the 39 lashes, because he would be עובר on the לאו, he would be going against what the תורה says, do not cut your hair. According to what the תורה says, to what the פסוק says, that you're not allowed to cut your hair with a razor, it seems that if you cut your hair with something else, you don't get מלקות. In a case where you're not supposed to get מלקות, you're not allowed to give מלקות. So it comes out that the הלכה is going against the

תורה. According to the תורה, if he cuts his hair with something else, he would not get מלקות, and not only would he not get, but automatically it would be אסור to give him מלקות. Comes the הלכה and says that he's not allowed to cut his hair with something else either, and if he does it, he gets מלקות. And therefore, this is considered that the הלכה is עוקבת את המקרא, steps, so to speak, on the פסוק, because it is going against the פסוק. On the other hand, רש״י quotes from ירושלמי in קידושין, where the ירושלמי also quotes in the name of רבי ישמעאל that there are three things that the הלכה goes against the פסוק, and there he does not mention the פסוק of נזיר concerning the תער, concerning the razor. But he mentions something else instead, and this is the מרצע. By a עבד who wants to stay more than six years by his master, the דין is that he's allowed to do that on condition that they make a hole in his ear with a מרצע, it says in the תורה. מרצע is a tool that they used to use to make holes in leather, etc. So the ירושלמי says that the פסוק says מרצע, that you have to use a מרצע, but the הלכה is that you don't have to use that, you could use other tools, too. And רש״י says that this גירסא, the way it's in ירושלמי, sounds better. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, רב נחמן בר יצחק said that כי קא חשיב הלכה עוקבת מקרא, the גמרא wanted to say that really the דין is that you're allowed to use ashes by the case of סוטה. The reason he doesn't mention it, because he omitted it. And what else did he omit? He

omitted the case of מצורע, that in the second cutting, the תגלחת שניה, he also has to shave his whole body even though from the תורה is משמע that he should only shave certain parts of the body. So רב נחמן בר יצחק said that this would not be considered one of those things, because he only mentions the things where the הלכה goes against the clear פסוק. But הא, but in this case of מצורע, עוקבת מדדרבנן היא. It's only going against the way the חכמים learned the פשט in the פסוק. The תורה doesn't say clearly that in the second cutting of the hair he must shave only certain areas, so we could consider it as if the הלכה goes against the פסוק. In the פסוק it just mentions a few places. It is the חכמים that learned out through the כלל ופרט וכלל that you only have to shave areas that are כינוס שיער, has a bunch of hair and you could see it, it is recognizable, but it is not clear in the תורה. So something like that would not be included in that same category of the הלכה going against the פסוק. And therefore what רב נחמן בר יצחק is trying to say, that we cannot say that he omitted the case of מצורע. Since that is not considered an omission, so we go back to the question, how can you say that he omitted the case of סוטה, because there is nothing else that he omitted with it. So since he didn't omit anything, so probably he didn't omit סוטה either. And since he didn't omit סוטה, the question is, so why didn't he mention סוטה? Obviously he holds that you are not allowed to use ashes. רב פפא אמר, רב פפא also said, כי קא חשיב הלכה עוקבת ועוקרת. Which things does he mention? Those cases where the הלכה steps on and goes against, so to speak, tears out what the פסוק says. הא, in the case of מצורע, עוקבת ומוספת היא. It טאקע steps on it, but it adds to it. The תורה says, as the חכמים דרשן with the כלל ופרט וכלל, that you only shave certain areas. Comes the הלכה and says you shave more than that. You shave what the פסוק says, plus you shave all other places, too. In a case like that we cannot consider it as if the הלכה goes against the פסוק. And therefore he does not mention the case of מצורע amongst those things where the הלכה goes against the פסוק. So we come back to the same point that since we cannot consider this as a place where the הלכה goes against the פסוק, so we cannot say that this was omitted from the cases of רבי ישמעאל, since this is not considered an omission, we're back to the question, how could you say he omitted the case of סוטה, because there is nothing else that he omitted? So therefore we must say that the reason he didn't mention the case of סוטה, because he holds that by a סוטה you must use sand and you cannot use ashes. רב אשי אמר, רב אשי says that לכתחילה you cannot say that he omitted the case of מצורע, because הא מתניתא מני? רבי ישמעאל היא. The ברייתא where it says that we have a כלל ופרט וכלל that tells us that in the תגלחת שניה, in the second shaving, you only shave certain areas, that goes according to רבי ישמעאל, דדריש כללי ופרטי, and he דרש'es the whole תורה in a כלל ופרט. We

find in different places in ש״ס that there are two ways of דרש'נינג פסוקים. Wherever the תורה mentions a general rule, then the תורה goes into the particulars, into the details, then the תורה repeats the general rule again, so there are two ways to approach that פסוק: you could approach it, as we said before, in the form of a כלל ופרט וכלל, and then the הלכה would be that it comes to include more than the details, but on the other hand, not everything that the general rule tells us, but it comes to include only those things which are similar to the details. Then there's another way of approaching it, and this is called a ריבוי ומיעוט וריבוי. When the תורה generalizes, the תורה is being מרבה, comes to include everything. Then when it mentions the פרטים, the details, it comes to be ממעט, it comes to exclude certain things. By mentioning specific things, it automatically comes to exclude certain things. Then when the תורה again generalizes, that comes to include again the different things. So we could דרש the פסוק not in the form of a כלל ופרט וכלל, but in the form of a ריבוי ומיעוט וריבוי, that first the תורה includes certain things, then the תורה comes to exclude, then the תורה comes to include again. And if we approach the פסוק in this way, we do not come to a conclusion that we only include those things which are similar to the details, but we include almost everything. We only exclude very few things which are very, very far from the details. And the גמרא in שבועות דף כ״ו explains that these two approaches are really a מחלוקת between רב נחוניא בן הקנה and נחום איש גמזו, two תנאים. According to רב נחוניא בן הקנה, we always דרש the תורה in a form of כלל ופרט, and according to נחום איש גמזו, we דרש the תורה through a ריבוי ומיעוט. And the גמרא says that רבי ישמעאל, he was a תלמיד of רב נחוניא בן הקנה, so he also always דרש'es the תורה with a כלל ופרט. But רבי עקיבא, he was a תלמיד of נחום איש גמזו, so he דרש'es the תורה with a ריבוי ומיעוט. And this is what the גמרא is saying here: that the ברייתא that we quoted before, where we דרש'ed the פסוק by the second תגלחת of the מצורע in the form of a כלל ופרט, and therefore we come to a conclusion that only certain areas do you have to shave, that ברייתא goes according to רבי ישמעאל. But the משנה where it says כדלעת, that you have to shave him off completely, מני? רבי עקיבא היא, that goes according to רבי עקיבא, דדריש ריבויי ומיעוטי, that he דרש'es the תורה through a ריבוי ומיעוט. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, the פסוק says by the מצורע, ״והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את כל שערו״, that in the seventh day he shall shave all his hair, ריבה, that comes to include everything, all hair, not like we said it before, that this is a כלל, but now we use the term that this is a ריבוי, this comes to include everything. Then the תורה says, ״את ראשו ואת זקנו ואת גבות עיניו״, his head, his beard, and his eyebrows, מיעט, that is an exclusion, that comes to exclude everything else. Then the תורה continues, ״ואת כל שערו יגלח״, that he should shave all his hair, חזר וריבה, the תורה comes to include again. So we say, ריבה ומיעט וריבה, that when the תורה includes and then excludes and then includes again, ריבה הכל, so it comes to include everything. So מאי ריבה? So what do we mean in this case, what does the תורה include? ריבה דכולי גופיה, it includes the whole body, all the hair of the whole body. ומאי מיעט? What does it exclude? מיעט שיער שבתוך החוטם, it comes to exclude the hair that's in the nose, that you don't have to shave off. So it seems here that there is a מחלוקת between רבי עקיבא and רבי ישמעאל whether the פשט in the פסוק is that you have to shave off only certain areas or you have to shave the whole body. So that's what the גמרא is saying now, that before, we asked why didn't רבי ישמעאל also mention, amongst the things that the הלכה goes against the פסוק, the case of מצורע? And the reason why we thought he should have mentioned it is because we have a כלל ופרט that says that he has to shave off only certain parts of his body. Then we have in a second place in a משנה where it says that he has to shave off the whole body. So we thought that these two things go together, it is just a הלכה against the פסוק. But now we're saying no, this is a מחלוקת. According to רבי ישמעאל, he טאקע only shaves certain areas of So רבי ישמעאל couldn't have mentioned this as one of the things that the הלכה goes against the תורה, because according to רבי ישמעאל, the הלכה remains that you only have to shave off certain areas. And according to רבי עקיבא לכתחילה it's not included, because the תורה means that you have to shave off the whole body. So we come back to the point that the דין of מצורע could not have been mentioned לכתחילה amongst those things that the הלכה goes against the פסוק. So it comes out that he didn't omit that. So we're back to the question, how could you say that he omitted the case of the סוטה? And therefore we must say that he didn't omit it, and he holds that the case of the סוטה the הלכה does not go against the תורה, because the הלכה is, like the פסוק says, that you only could use sand and not ashes. But so far we didn't פסק'ן the דין, we just showed that we cannot prove it from that ברייתא. We had the question whether you could use ashes or not, we wanted to prove it from the ברייתא, and we said that we cannot prove it from the ברייתא. But the question is not answered yet, because it was only a שקלא וטריא, only a discussion whether we could prove it from the ברייתא, and then we said we couldn't prove it from the ברייתא. But we have no proof what really the דין is. And that's what the גמרא is going to ask now. The גמרא says, מאי הוי עלה, what actually happened to that? What is the דין concerning the סוטה, can you use ashes instead of sand? The גמרא says, תא שמע, come here, I'll try to answer the question. דאמר רב הונא בר אשי אמר רב, רב הונא בר אשי said in the name of רב, אין שם עפר, if you have no sand, מביא רקבובית ירק ומקדש, you could bring rotten pieces of vegetables and you make it holy, in other words, you put it in the proper place, in the floor of the משכן, and you could use that instead of the sand. So from here we see that when the תורה says sand, it doesn't mean only sand, you could use other things too. So we assumed that you could also use ashes. Then the גמרא says, ולא היא, it is not so, you cannot prove it from there, because רקבובית ירק הוא דהוה עפר, maybe rotten pieces of vegetable is considered sand, but אפר לא הוה עפר, but ashes is not considered sand, and maybe ashes cannot be used instead of sand in the water of the סוטה. This is the way we have the גירסא in our גמרא. רש״י has a little bit a different גירסא in the last piece of the גמרא here, that when the גמרא wanted to answer the question by bringing in the statement of רב הונא בר אשי in the name of רב, so the way we have it is first they wanted a proof from there that you could use ashes, and then we say it's no proof because maybe only rotten pieces of vegetables is considered עפר, but not ashes. But רש״י didn't have the גירסא of the words ולא היא, that we have a question on the proof. According to רש״י, all this goes together, that in the beginning when we wanted to prove the דין from what רב הונא בר אשי said in the name of רב, it was to prove that ashes is not good to be used for the עפר of the סוטה. And the proof was as follows, that since רב הונא בר אשי said in the name of רב that if you don't have sand, you could use rotten pieces of vegetable, why didn't he also say that you could use ashes? So from there we see that only rotten pieces of vegetable is considered עפר, but ashes is not considered עפר, and therefore we cannot use ashes. Then the גמרא goes on to explain the פשט in the משנה. It said in the משנה that when you put this sand into the water, you have to put in enough כדי שיראה על המים, that it should be recognizable, it should be seen in the water. So the גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, we learned in a ברייתא, שלשה צריכים שיראו, there are three things that we must have that they should be recognizable, they should be seen. One of them is עפר סוטה, the sand that you put in the water of the סוטה. The other thing is the אפר פרה, the ashes of the פרה אדומה, of the red heifer, that when you put the ashes into water, when you sprinkle it on the person who is טמא מת, so you must put in enough that you should be able to recognize that there are ashes in the water, and also ורוק יבמה, the spit of the יבמה. The תורה says that if a person dies and leaves no children, so his wife has to be מיובם by his brother. If his brother does not want to be מיבם his wife, doesn't want to marry her, then he gives her חליצה. And the process of חליצה is that she takes off his shoe plus she spits on the floor in front of her יבם, in front of her brother-in-law. And the way the תורה expresses it in פרשת כי תצא, קפיטל כ״ה, פסוק ט׳, it says, ונגשה יבמתו אליו לעיני הזקנים, the יבמה should get close to him in the eyes of the זקנים, of the סנהדרין, of the בית דין, וחלצה נעלו מעל רגלו, she should take the shoe off his foot, וירקה בפניו, and she spit in front of him. And the גמרא דרשנ'ס that the words וירקה בפניו also apply to the words written before, לעיני הזקנים, in the eyes of the זקנים. In other words, that the זקנים should be able to see the spit that comes from her from her mouth in front of her יבם. So here, too, it must be in such a way that it should be seen. And the גמרא continues, משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו, in the name of רבי ישמעאל they said, אף דם צפור, also the blood of the bird. This refers to a מצורע, that the דין is that when he becomes clean from his צרעת, the תורה says in the beginning of פרשת מצורע, he's supposed to bring two צפרים, two birds. And the תורה says that ושחט את הצפור האחת אל כלי חרש על מים חיים, that one bird is supposed to be געשאכטן into a כלי חרש over מים חיים, over live water. So רבי ישמעאל says that when he שחט's the bird into the water, you must be able to tell that there's blood there. In other words, you only put in enough water that when the blood will come in later, you will be able to tell, you will be able to recognize that blood came into that water. And the גמרא continues, מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל, what is the reason of רבי ישמעאל? דכתיב, because it says in the פסוק, וטבל אותם בדם הצפור וגו׳. The פסוק says like this, that after he שחט'ed the bird into the כלי חרש with the water, the תורה says you should take the live bird, and you should also add an עץ ארז and a שני תולעת and a אזוב, and the תורה says like this, וטבל אותם, you should immerse them, ואת הצפור החיה, and also the live bird, בדם הצפור השחוטה, in the blood of the slaughtered bird, על המים החיים, on the live water. So he דרשנ'ס this פסוק as follows: The פסוק says, וטבל אותם בדם הצפור וגו׳, you should immerse them in the blood of the bird. דתניא, and we learned, בדם, since the תורה says you should immerse them in the blood, יכול, I would think, בדם ולא במים, you should immerse it only in the blood, not in water. תלמוד לומר, מים, but the תורה says water. The end of the פסוק is that you should immerse it in the blood, על המים החיים, on the water. For the תורה is telling us that you should immerse it in the water, too. אי מים, if the תורה says you should immerse it in water, יכול, במים ולא בדם, I would think you should only do it in water and not in the blood. תלמוד לומר, but the תורה tells us, בדם, it should be in the blood. הא כיצד? How is it possible? So the answer is, מביא מים שדם צפור ניכר בהן, he brings water that the blood of the bird is recognizable in it. And in that he would immerse. So you do both things. It is water, but on the other hand, it is also considered blood, because the blood is recognizable in the water. וכמה? How much water is it that we should be able to recognize the blood after it's put in? רביעית, it is a רביעית, a quarter of a לוג. If you have a quarter of a לוג, then whatever type of bird you're going to use, you'll always be able to tell that there is blood inside. Then the גמרא asks, ורבנן, what do the רבנן do? Since the רבנן did not mention the דם צפור of the מצורע as one of those things that have to be recognizable, so obviously the רבנן hold that you do not have to have this blood recognized in the water. What do they do with this פסוק? What do they do with the דרשה of רבי ישמעאל? It seems very obvious. The תורה says it should be immersed in the blood and in the water, so doesn't it seem to be telling us that you have to make sure that the blood is recognizable? What do the רבנן do with this פסוק? So he says, ההוא, that, לגופיה. This comes for itself. It comes to teach us דהכי קאמר רחמנא, this is what the תורה means, אטביל בדם ובמים, you should immerse it in the blood and the water. It doesn't mean that the blood should be recognizable, what he's telling us is that you have to have a mixture of the blood and the water, and in that mixture, you should immerse these different things the תורה mentions. Then the גמרא asks, ורבי ישמעאל, so it's a קשיא on רבי ישמעאל, how could רבי ישמעאל learn out from this פסוק that the blood must be recognizable in the water? Maybe the תורה is trying to tell us just that you should immerse it in the blood and the water as they are mixed? So רבי ישמעאל answers, אם כן, if it would be so, ליכתוב רחמנא וטבל בהם, let the תורה just write that you should immerse it in them. Since it said before that you have water, it also said before that you שחט the bird into the water, so the תורה should have said later on, you should immerse these different things in them, and we would ourselves understand that you immerse it in the blood and the water. בדם ובמים למה לי? Why does the תורה have to repeat that you should immerse it in the blood and in the water? So that comes to teach us לניכר, that it has to be recognizable, that the blood must be seen in the water. ורבנן, so now it's a question on the רבנן, how could the רבנן say that the פסוק just comes to tell us that you have to have blood and water? If so, the תורה should have just said בהם, why does the תורה have to repeat that you should immerse it in blood and in the water? But the רבנן answer, אי כתב רחמנא וטבל בהם, if the תורה would just have written that you should immerse it in them, הוה אמינא, I would think, האי לחודיה והאי לחודיה, this one is separate and this one is separate. We would know טאקע that you have to immerse it in blood and you have to immerse it in water, but we would think that you could do it separately. You have separately a כלי of the blood, separately a כלי of the water, and you immerse these different things in the blood and in the water. Therefore כתב רחמנא בדם ובמים, the תורה writes again the words blood and the word water to teach us לערבן that you have to mix it. But not to teach us that you have to recognize the blood in the water. So now the קשיא is, ורבי ישמעאל, it's a קשיא on רבי ישמעאל, how could רבי ישמעאל say that these words are extra and therefore he learns out from them that you have to recognize the blood in the water, maybe the פסוק just comes to tell us that we have to mix it? So he says לערבן קרא אחרינא כתיב, to tell us that you have to mix it there is another פסוק, we don't need this פסוק for that. The פסוק says before: ושחט את הצפור האחת וגומר, that you should שחט one bird it says into the כלי חרס on the מים חיים, so the תורה tells us clearly that you שחט the bird into the water. So we already know that the

water and the blood are mixed. So why does the תורה have to repeat and tell us that you should immerse it in the blood and the water? So obviously it comes to teach us that the blood should be recognizable in the water. Then the גמרא says, ורבנן, so according to the רבנן why do they say that we need the פסוק that you should immerse it in the blood and the water to teach us that it's mixed? Wouldn't we know that it's mixed from the פסוק before where it says that you should שחט the bird into the כלי over the water? So he says, the רבנן will answer: דאי מההוא, if we would only have that פסוק, הוה אמינא, I would think, לישחטיה סמוך למנא, and the תורה says that he should שחט the bird into the כלי חרס over the water, we wouldn't know that it means you should שחט it into the water, we would think it should be next to the כלי, next to the vessel. ונינקטינהו לורידין ונקבליה לדמא במנא אחרינא. It would be next to it, but as soon as he שחטs, he would have to hold on to the veins where it bleeds to make sure no blood comes out, and he should receive the blood in a different כלי, and not mix the blood and the water. קא משמע לן, therefore the פסוק has to tell us later on that you should immerse it in the blood and the water to teach us that they are mixed together. And

according to רבי ישמעאל obviously this would not have been a הוה אמינא, we never would have expected to learn פשט in the פסוק that you should שחט it next to the כלי. So when the פסוק says that you should שחט it into the כלי we understand already that it means into the water. So according to רבי ישמעאל, the words later on that you immerse it in blood and water is extra, so he uses it to teach us that the blood must be recognizable in the water. While while according to the רבנן we could have made a mistake that you שחט it next to the כלי, so therefore the פסוק later on comes to teach us that it should be mixed. And therefore they have no פסוק to tell us that the blood should be recognizable in the water. Then the גמרא continues: בעי מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא, רבי ירמיה asked in a בעיא question from רבי זירא: גדולה ומפסקת את המים, what happens if you have a big bird and it pushes away the water, which means that you do not see that it's water, there is so much blood that you can't even tell that it is water, because we said before that you have to have a רביעית of water, so when you have the blood in that water you could recognize that it's blood in the water. So he asked, what happens if it's a big bird and you can't even tell that it was water? או קטנה, if it's a very small bird, ונדחית מפני המים, and it's pushed away because of the water, you cannot tell that there is blood in the water, מאי, what is the דין there? אמר ליה, so רבי זירא said to רבי ירמיה:

לאו אמינא לך, didn't I tell you, לא תפיק נפשך לבר מהלכתא, do not take yourself beyond the הלכה. In other words, do not raise questions concerning certain שיעורים that the חכמים made. Because בציפור דרור שיערו רבנן, the רבנן were משער, estimated, when they said that you should have a רביעית of water, they estimated by a free bird. ואין לך גדולה שמפסקת את המים, and you don't have such a big one that would push away the water, ואין לך קטנה שנדחית מפני המים, and there is no such small one that would be pushed away because of the water. When the חכמים estimated a שיעור of a רביעית they saw that if you have a רביעית of water, no matter what the case would be, what kind of size the bird would have, still you would be able to tell that there is water there, and you would be able to tell that there is blood in the water. Then the גמרא continues: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, it goes back to the דין of סוטה. By סוטה we learned that first you put water into the כלי, then you put sand of the משכן into the water. What is if הקדים עפר למים, if he first put the sand in and then he put the water, פסול, it is פסול.

ורבי שמעון מכשיר, but רבי שמעון says it's כשר. מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון, what is the reason of רבי שמעון? דכתיב, because the פסוק says: ולקחו לטמא מעפר שרפת החטאת. This is concerning a person who is טמא. So the תורה says that in order to become טהור he must be sprayed with the water mixed with the ashes of the פרה אדומה. And the תורה uses the from the sand of the burnt חטאת, of the burnt פרה אדומה. תניא, and we learned אמר רבי שמעון, רבי שמעון said וכי עפר הוא? Is it sand? והלא אפר הוא, isn't it ashes? And he answers that שינה הכתוב במשמעו, the תורה specifically changed the meaning of the word, instead of using the word ashes, the תורה specially used the word sand ליתן הימנו גזירה שוה, in order to use this for a גזירה שוה. In order to teach us a דין in another place, and in the other place it uses the לשון עפר, so in order to be able to compare the two cases, the תורה specifically used by פרה אדומה the לשון עפר, so we should be able to make the גזירה שוה from the דין of פרה אדומה to the other place where it also says the לשון עפר. נאמר כאן עפר, by פרה אדומה it says עפר, ונאמר להלן, it says someplace else further on, this is by the case of סוטה, it also says עפר, so we learn out: מה להלן עפר על גבי מים, just like by the case of סוטה, first you have the water and you put the עפר, the sand, over the water, אף כאן, so here too by the case of פרה אדומה, עפר על גבי מים. You put the sand over the water. That is one way we use the גזירה שוה, to teach the דין of סוטה to the דין of פרה אדומה. And then we go back and we say ומה כאן הקדים עפר למים כשר, and just like by the case of פרה אדומה, if you didn't do the way the דין is, but you first put the sand in and then you put the water, it is כשר, אף להלן, also in the case of the סוטה, הקדים עפר למים כשר, if you first put the sand in and then you put the water in, it is also כשר. Then the גמרא asks: והתם מנלן? How do we know there itself? How do we know that in the case of the פרה אדומה, if you first put the sand, the ashes, in, then the water, it's כשר, so we could learn out from there to the case of סוטה? How do we know the דין is so in the case of פרה אדומה itself? And the גמרא answers:

תרי קראי כתיבי, we have two פסוקים which seem to contradict each other, and by answering the contradiction of these two פסוקים, we will come up with the הלכה that if you put in the עפר before the water, it is כשר. And this is the פסוק that we had mentioned before, where it says ולקחו לטמא מעפר שריפת החטאת. This is a פסוק in חקת י"ט, where the תורה says that for a טמא you should take from the sand of the burnt חטאת, and the תורה continues ונתן עליו מים חיים אל כלי, and you should put on it live water into the כלי. The גמרא says like this: כתיב עליו, first it says you should give on it water, אלמא אפר ברישא, that the ashes comes first, because the תורה first says you should take from the sand of the burnt חטאת and you should put over it מים חיים, so it seems like first comes the ashes, then comes the water. וכתיב, but then it continues to say מים חיים אל כלי, you should put live water into the כלי. אלמא here we see מים ברישא, water first, because since the תורה says water into the כלי, it seems to be saying there is nothing else in the כלי and you put water directly into the כלי. But if the ashes would come first, then you wouldn't be putting water into the כלי, you would be putting water over the ashes that are in the כלי. So since it says you should put the water in the כלי, it seems to be saying that first comes the water, then comes the ashes. So there's a contradiction between the beginning of the פסוק and the end of the פסוק. From the beginning of the פסוק it seems that you put the water over the ashes, from the end of the פסוק it seems that you put the water before the ashes. הא כיצד? So what do you do? So therefore he learns out that

רצה זה נותן, רצה זה נותן. If you want, you could first put the ashes, then the water. If you want, you first put the water, then the ashes. The תורה gives you a choice that you could choose to do what you want. So we see from here that by the case of the פרה אדומה, if you first put the ashes, then the water, it is also כשר. So רבי שמעון learns out from פרה אדומה also to the סוטה, that if you first put the sand and then you put the water, בדיעבד it is כשר. Then the גמרא continues: ורבנן, what will the רבנן do with this פסוק? The רבנן who said before that if you first put the sand by the סוטה and then you put the water, it is פסול, what do they do with the לימוד from פרה אדומה? Don't we see that by פרה אדומה, as רבי שמעון said, if you put the ashes first, it is כשר, so the same thing should apply to the סוטה? So the גמרא says that the רבנן argue in the case of פרה אדומה itself. They hold that by פרה אדומה also, if you put first the ashes and then you put the water, it is פסול. אי, רבי שמעון had a ראיה that it's כשר from the contradiction the two parts of the פסוק, so the רבנן answer the contradiction differently. They say when the תורה says אל כלי, that you should put the water into the כלי, דוקא, that is exactly. In other words, first goes the water into the כלי, then you must put the ashes in. אי, we had a קשיא, it says in the תורה עליו, that you put the water over it, which seems to be saying that first comes the ashes, then the water, that means לערבן that you have to mix it. There has to be first the water, then the ashes, but then after you put the ashes in, you have to mix it to make sure that the water and the ashes are mixed. And therefore, the תורה also says that you put the water over the ashes because it's as if you put the water over the ashes, because after the ashes go in, you mix the water so it's as if the water came later, but really the water comes first as the end of the פסוק says that the מים חיים go into the כלי, not into the ashes. And the גמרא

asks: ואימא, let us say just the opposite, that maybe עליו דווקא. Where it says that you put the water over the ashes, maybe that is דווקא, that is exactly. That's how it's supposed to be done. That first comes the ashes, then comes the water. איי, it says that you put the מים חיים into the כלי, which is משמע that the מים חיים doesn't go over the ashes, maybe that comes to tell us something else: שתהא חיותן בכלי, that their life should be in the כלי. In other words, when you draw the water from the well, the live water, you shouldn't draw it with another כלי and then put it into the כלי with the ashes, but it means that it should go directly from the well into the כלי with the ashes. In other words, since we have a contradiction between two parts of the פסוק, what forces the חכמים to say that the part of the פסוק where it says that the water comes first, that is the one that is exact, and the other one where it says that the water goes over the ashes, that is for a לימוד? Maybe it's just the opposite: the one that says that the water goes over the ashes, that is exact and the ashes comes first, and where it says that it has to be מים חיים into the כלי, that is for a לימוד to teach us that the water has to go directly from the well, from the spring, into the כלי? And the גמרא answers that מה מצינו בכל מקום מכשיר למעלה, that just like we find in other places that the מכשיר, the thing that gives it qualification, that goes on top, and this refers to for a סוטה, that by a סוטה, what makes the water into special water, that it should be considered מים המאררים? That is the sand that is put in. So we see that the sand goes on top, as the תורה says clearly that first you put water in, and then you put the sand into the water. Also, we find by דם צפור of מצורע, as we mentioned before, the blood of the bird of the מצורע, that is the object, that is the thing that turns the water into special water that you're able to spritz it when you're supposed to, so there too, the blood comes over the water. So just like we see in other cases that the מכשיר, the object that gives it qualification, that is put on top after the water is put in, אף כאן מכשיר למעלה. So here too by the case of פרה אדומה, the מכשיר here is the the ashes of the פרה אדומה, so that is supposed to go on top of the water. And therefore, when we have a contradiction in the פסוק, one part of the פסוק is משמע that the water comes first, then the מכשיר, the other part of the פסוק is משמע that the מכשיר comes first and then the water, and we don't know which of the two is exact and which one comes for a לימוד, so we say that probably the one that says that the water is first and the מכשיר comes on top, that is the one that's exact, and the other one is for the לימוד. And therefore, the חכמים learned that where it says מים חיים אל כלי, that the water comes first and then comes the ashes of the פרה אדומה, that is exact, and the word עליו that comes to teach us that you have to mix it later on.

Concerning what we mentioned before, that by the דם צפור, the blood of the bird from the מצורע, has to be ניכר, according to רבי ישמעאל, in the water, and the גמרא said how much water must you have then? You should have a רביעית of water, because in a רביעית of water you could still tell the blood. And it seems from the גמרא that if it would be more than a רביעית of water, you wouldn't be able to recognize the blood in the water. תוספות asks a קושיא that how can we say that in water more than a רביעית, you cannot recognize the blood? But didn't we learn in מסכת מקואות, in פרק ז משנה ה, and the גמרא brings it in many places: ג' לוגין מים שנפל לתוכן קורטוב יין, that if you have three לוג of water and a קורטוב, a small amount of wine, fell into those three לוגין of water, ומראיהן כמראה יין, and they have a color of wine, the water changed colors and looks like wine, and then that water fell into a מקוה, so the שאלה is: is the מקוה כשר or פסול? But we see from there that there is a possibility for wine to change the color of water. Certainly, this could happen by blood, because blood is much darker than wine. So we see from there that wine even could change the color of water, and you could tell that wine is in there. Certainly blood. So how come the גמרא says here that if you would have more than a רביעית of water, then you wouldn't be able to recognize that blood fell into this water? And תוספות answers that the גמרא doesn't mean to say that it wouldn't change the color of the water, it definitely would become red. What we mean here is that up to a רביעית of water, then you would still have ממשות of blood, you would still have the blood itself, not only the discoloration of the water. But in more than that, Even though the water would become red, but you wouldn't have a ממשות of blood. Also, concerning what רבי ישמעאל said that the reason the תורה changed the expression by the פרה אדומה, and didn't use the לשון אפר, which means ashes, but used the לשון עפר, which means sand. So רבי ישמעאל said the reason for that was in order for us to make a גזירה שוה between פרה אדומה and סוטה, so תוספות asks a קושיא that לכאורה this is not the reason why the תורה changed. The גמרא in חולין דף פ״ח עמוד ב׳ says that according to בית הלל, the reason the תורה changed the expression by the case of פרה אדומה was to teach us that we refer to ashes with the word עפר, which means sand. And the reason they changed it is to show that by כיסוי הדם, you don't have to use only sand, you could also use ashes. So the reason was not as רבי ישמעאל says, for us to make a גזירה שוה between פרה אדומה and סוטה, but to teach the דין of כיסוי הדם. And

תוספות answers that we could say that the reason the תורה changed was for both reasons. One thing was to show us that כיסוי הדם could be used with אפר, with ashes, and also to make the גזירה שוה between פרה אדומה and סוטה.