ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
THE MIREL BAS YAKOV MORDECHAI KORNFELD
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) According to Beis Shamai - 'the To'eh' makes thirty-five Tevilos during the first three weeks, seven during the first week, and fourteen during each of the second and third weeks.
(b) That leaves fifty-nine days of Taharah (and Tevilos) for a Nekeivah ...
(c) ... making a total of ninety-four Tevilos - a problem with Beis Shamai, who requires ninety-five.
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah mi'Difti reconciles the above with Beis Shamai - by establishing that the Yoledes arrived from her trip during Bein-ha'Shemashos (dusk), adding one day to the three weeks (and one Tevilah) ...
(b) ... and not during the course of the next day - as we thought until now.
(c) He specifically mentions Bein ha'Shemashos, and not just night-time - in order to count that day as a day of Taharah (in case it belongs to the previous day).
(d) Despite the fact that Bein-ha'Shamashos is considered day, Rebbi Yirmiyah mi'Difti does not deduct one day at the end - because it is only considered daytime mi'Safek. So he leaves the days intact, just in case it is considered night.
(a) Bearing in mind that Beis Hillel exempts a Tevulas-Yom Aruch from Tevilah), the problem with the thirty-five Tevilos that he requires is - that it ought to have been twenty-eight (seeing as the Tevilos of the days of Taharah of a Yoledes from the third week and onwards are not necessary).
(b) And we attribute the extra seven - to the fifth week, where we suspect that each night may well be the last night of Nidus (following the seven sightings of the previous week).
(c) According to Beis Hillel, the Yoledes will actually be Chayav - twenty-nine Tevilos during the first three-week period, including the extra night Tevilah of the first week (like Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti explained according to Beis Shamai [and we will see shortly why we do not query the twenty-eight initial Tevilos listed by them]).
(a) According to what we learned a little earlier, Beis Hillel ought to have listed a considerable number of additional Tevilos to the total of thirty-five - that are required each night of the seventh and ninth weeks ... up to the eighty-day period of the days of Taharah (in case they are the last day of Nidus, like we just explained by the fifth week) ...
(b) ... and the reason that they omitted them is - because they only list the Tevilos that precede the Tashmish (but not those that follow it).
(c) The problem with the final ten week period is - that the eighty day Tevilah period ends in the middle of the ninth week (out of the ten), so why mention beyond that?
(d) The Tana however - opts to insert the entire ninth week (even though the eighty days conclude in the middle of the week), and since he inserts the ninth week of Tum'ah, he opts to insert the tenth week of Taharah too (as a matter of balance).
(a) The woman is obligated to Tovel at the end of each week of Taharah (except for the fourth) - because of the possibility that it is the end of the seven clean days of Zivus following the three (plus) sightings in the previous week (when she saw every day).
(b) This would not apply to the fourth week - because a woman cannot become a Zavah before she has been a Nidah (and she had not seen for the three weeks prior to that).
(c) Beis Hillel do not list them - because they only list the Tevilos that preceded Tashmish (as we already explained).
(d) Whereas Beis Shamai, who do list the Tevilos after Tashmish, nevertheless omit them - because they are only concerned with the Tevilos of Leidah (and not with those that are totally unconnected with it).
(a) To explain why the Yoledes does not Tovel by day during the first week (in case she was a Zavah, and each may be the last of the seven clean days), we cite Rebbi Akiva, - who holds that the seven clean days must have taken place in front of us (meaning that there is no Safek that she did count seven clean days [see Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman']).
(b) We ask why she should not then Tovel on the last day of the week, when she has counted seven days 'in front of us' - bearing in mind that she arrived the Bein ha'Shemashos before (counting Bein ha'Shemashos le'Chumra, as part of the previous day, as we explained earlier).
(c) And we answer - that the Tana is dealing with groups of weeks, and is not concerned with only one Tevilah in a week.
(d) We then ask why she should not Tovel the first day that she arrives (on the Bein-ha'Shemashos) - in case it was during the days of Zivus and she had her first sighting that day (rendering her a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom [see Tosfos DH 'Yoma Kama']).
(e) And we answer - that the Tana is not concerned with a Zavah Ketanah (who had only one sighting) only with a Zavah Gedolah (who had three).
(a) Besides the Machlokes whether 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah Mitzvah' between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel against Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, we learn two other things from the Beraisa, one from Rebbi Akiva, the other, like Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi
1. ... Akiva - requires counting in front of us (as we explained earlier), and Rebbi ...
2. ... Shimon - prohibits the Tevilah of a Zav on the seventh day.
(b) Our Mishnah rules that a woman who miscarries a Shilya on the fortieth day does not need to worry about a V'lad - because a V'lad is not formed until the forty-first day.
(c) If she miscarries a Shilya on the forty-first day - the Tana obligates her to sit for a Zachar, a Nekeivah and a Nidah.
(d) Rebbi Yishmael draws a distinction between a miscarriage on the forty-first day and one on the eighty-first day - in that the former sits for a Zachar and a Nidah (but not for a Nekeivah, which is only formed at the end of eighty days.
(e) According to the Chachamim however - both are formed on the forty-first day.
(a) The problem with the phrase 'le'Zachar, li'Nekeivah u'le'Nidah' mentioned by the Tana a number of times is - that seeing as she has to observe fourteen days of Tum'ah anyway, and has no days of Taharah, of what significance is 'le'Zachar'?
(b) We answer that it affects a woman who after miscarrying after the forty-first day, sees on the thirty-fourth day (of what would normally have been the days of Taharah) and again on the forty-first - since assuming that the Nefel was not a V'lad, and she was then a Nidah, the first sighting is that of a Nidah, and the second sighting ought to render her a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom (of Zivus). But now that she may have miscarried a Zachar, we must take into account that the first sighting took place in the days of Taharah, in which the second sighting renders her a Nidah.
(c) Her situation will become clarified on the forty-eighth day (if she does not have a sighting during that week), when 'Mah Nafshach' she enters the period of Nidus.
(d) The same problem affects the aspect of Safek Nekeivah - if she sees on the seventy-fourth day and again on the eighty-first, and she will become clarified only on the eighty-eighth.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa learns from the fact that the Torah presents the days of Tum'ah and of Taharah by a Zachar, and repeats them by a Nekeivah - that a Nekeivah is formed in the same number of days as the total of her Tum'ah and Taharah period (i.e. eighty-one days) just like a Zachar is formed in forty-one days, like the total number of his Tum'ah and Taharah days.
(b) The Rabanan counter - that we cannot learn the formation of a baby from its days of Tum'ah.
(c) The Rabbanan supported their opinion with an incident with Cleopatra, Queen of Alexandria, whose Sh'fachos (slave-girls) were once sentenced to death - and whom they mated with two men forty-one days before they were due to be killed. and whom they subsequently cut open (after the death-sentence had been carried out), to discover that one contained a male fetus, the other, a female one (a proof that a female is formed in forty-one days, just like a male).
(d) Initially, Rebbi Yishmael countered - that seeing as he proved his point from a Pasuk, how could they counter that with a proof from fools?
(a) Rebbi Yishmael cannot have been referring to his initial source (of the comparison between the days of Tum'ah and Taharah of a Nekeivah to those of a Zachar) - since they had already refuted it.
(b) He therefore derived it from "ve'Im Nekeivah Seiled" - which is redundant, suggesting that it comes to add an independent birth (i.e. formation) time for a Nekeivah.
(c) The proof that they brought from the 'Shotim' was sound, and there was no possibility that the Shifchah who was pregnant with the Nekeivah had become pregnant a month or two earlier - because they first administered an ointment that removed all traces of any previous Zera.
(d) Rebbi Yishmael countered that - with his theory that there are women who are immune to the affects of that ointment.
(a) In another Beraisa, it was Rebbi Yishmael who supported his opinion with an almost identical incident from Cleopatra, Queen of Greece and two of her Sh'fachos. Rebbi Yishmael attempted to prove his point from there - from the fact that when, after executing the first Shifchah forty-one days after her intimacy and then cutting her open, they discovered a male fetus, and a female fetus in the second Shifchah, whom they executed and cut open forty days later (after eighty-one days).
(b) Using exactly the same expression asas Rebbi Yishmael had used in the first Lashon 'Ein Mevi'in Re'ayah min ha'Shotim', the Rabbanan countered Rebbi Yishmael's ...
1. ... proof - with the argument that, for all we know, the second Shifchah only became pregnant forty days after the first one.
2. ... counter-argument 'that they placed a guard to ensure that the Shefachos should not have access to any other man from the time of the first Tashmish - by citing the principle 'Ein Apotropus la'Arayos' (there is no guard against intimacy [and besides, who says that they were not intimate with the guard himself]).
(c) According to Rebbi Yishmael they knew that, had they cut the second Shifchah open on the forty-first day (when they cut open her friend) that they would not have found the female fetus already formed - because the fetus that they found was the same size as that of the male fetus of forty-one days.
(a) The Chachamim in our Mishnah, who do not differentiate between a male fetus and a female one, seem to merely reiterate the opinion of the Tana Kama. Nevertheless, Rebbi inserted them in the Mishnah - in order to turn the Machlokes that preceded it into a S'tam, making it Halachah).
(b) The Halachah would not have been like the Tana Kama anyway, since it is a majority opinion - because Rebbi Yishmael has the support of P'sukim.
(c) Rebbi Simla'i describes a formed fetus inside its mother's womb, comparing it to a folded writing tablet. Its hands are placed on its temples, its armpits (or its elbows [see Tosfos DH 'Sh'nei Tzeda'av']) - on its knees...
(d) ... its heels are placed on its buttocks, and its head - between its knees.
(a) Rebbi Simla'i explains - that whereas its mouth - is closed, its navel is open ...
(b) ... in order to partake of the food and drink that its mother has eaten - as this is how it is sustained as long as it is inside its mother's womb.
(c) Once it enters the big, wide world, of necessity (in order to eat and drink) - its mouth opens and its navel closes.
(d) Miraculously, it does not need to defecate - because that might cause its mother's death.
(a) The lamp on its head (based on the Pasuk in Iyov "be'Hilo Niro alei Roshi" [see Agados Maharsha]) - enables it to see from one end of the world to the other.
(b) This is not surprising, since we find something like that in everyday life - in the world of dreams, where a person sleeps in one place and dreams of something that is happening somewhere else.
(c) We learn from the Pasuk in Iyov "Mi Yitneini ke'Yarchi Kedem, ki'Yemei Elokah Yishmereni" - that there is no other situation where one has it so good as a fetus in its mother's womb (which we know the Pasuk is referring to, because of the Pasuk "ke'Yarchei Kedem" as we just explained), and that is the only world that lasts merely months and not years).
(d) And we learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... in Mishlei "va'Yoreini va'Yomer li Yismoch Devarai Libecha u'Shemor Mitzvosai ve'Cheyei" - that the V'lad is taught the entire Torah during that period.
2. ... in Iyov "be'Sod Elokah alei Oholi" - that the previous Pasuk (which is in Mishlei) is not a statement by an angel, but refers to the fetus (as we already established this Pasuk in Iyov).
3. ... in Bereishis "la'Pesach Chatas Rovetz" - that the moment the fetus emerges from the womb, an angel slaps his mouth and causes him to forget all that he just learned.
4. ... in Yeshayah "Ki Li Tichra Kol Berech Tishava Kol Lashon" - that before he is born, he is made to swear the oath that we are about to discuss.
5. ... there "Ki Li Tichra Kol Berech" - that on the day of death, everyone has to bow before the will of Hash-m (see Agados Maharsha).
(a) They make the baby swear before he is born - that he will be a Tzadik and not a Rasha ...
(b) ... and that even if everyone tells him that he is a Tzadik - he must consider himself a Rasha (see Maharatz Chayos).
(c) They also tell him that Hash-m is Tahor, so are His servants - and so is his Neshamah.
(d) The final message they leave him to ponder over before he is born is - that if he looks after his Neshamah with Taharah, all will be well; but if he doesn't, Hash-m will take it away from him.
(a) Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael supports the previous statement - by comparing it to a Kohen who handed Terumah to an Am ha'Aretz, adding that all will be fine if he guards it from Tum'ah, but that if he doesn't, he will burn it in front of him.
(b) Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... in Tehilim "mi'Me'ei Imi Atah Gozi" - that they make the V'lad swear on the day that he is born.
2. ... in Yirmiyah "Gozi Nizr'cha ve'Hashlichi" - that "Gozi" (in the previous Pasuk) refers to a Shevu'ah (which he learns from the fact that it is juxtaposed to "Nizr'cha", which in turn, refers to the Neder of Nezirus, which is similar to a Shevu'ah).