On 67b, the Makshan asks Meisvei Baal Keri k'Maga Sheretz Mai Lav l'Machanosom. The Makshan's point is that Baal Keri is only sent from one Machaneh. How does the Makshan derive this from the Pesukim? This obviously is incompatible with Rebbi Shimon because Rebbi Shimon's Derashah requires Baal Keri to be in the same category as Zav. Does the Makshan believe Rebbi Yehudah may hold that Baal Keri is only sent from one Machanheh? Or does the Makshan think that even Zav is only sent from one Machaneh, and if so, who is this?
Thank you,
Mordechai Shichtman
Mordechai Shichtman, Cincinnati, United States
1) I want to say that the Makshan learnt from the posuk "veKal Zav"; which the Gemara explains to mean "LeRabos Baal Keri"; that since we say "LeRabos"; that it is learnt from a Ribui that we are including a Baal Keri, this suggests that it is not as strong as a Zav, since it is only a secondary "inclusion". Therefore, since a Zav is sent outside 2 Machanos, this means that a Baal Keri is less, and is only sent out of 1 Machaneh. All this is only according to the Makshan of course.
Behatzlachah Rabah
Dovid Bloom
Follow-up answer to question that R. Shimon's derashah requires Baal Keri to be same category as Zav:
It is true that the Gemara states "veItkish lai Baal Keri leZav". However Rashi DH veItkish writes that Zav and Baal Keri are compared in as much as they both require "Chasimas Pi HaAmah". For other purposes Baal Keri and Zav do not have to be equal. The Makshan learns that the Hekesh between Baal Keri and Zav does not go so far as saying that they are sent away from the same number of Machanos.
Dovid Bloom
Answer to question about Zav being sent from only one Machaneh:
The Makshan does not think that even Zav is only sent from one Machaneh. My proof is from the Bartenura on the very first Mishnah in Masechet Kelim, who learns that a Baal Keri is not Avot Hatumah from the fact that the Mishnah there does not include a Baal Keri as one of the Avot Hatumah. Bartenura adds that this is also apparent from the Mishnah Zavim 5:11, cited by our Gemara; that a Baal Keri is equivalent to someone who touched a sheretz; since a sheretz is not Av Hatumah, only Rishon. This shows that the Mishnah Zavim 5:11 cannot be referring to Zav, because Zav is one of the Avos Hatumah, mentioned in Kelim 1:3.
Dovid Bloom