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) Rav Shmuel bar Bisna asked Abaye whether Poletes is Tamei because it is considered a sighting or because she touched Zera. When we present the ramifications of the She'eilah as 'Listor', we mean - that if it is a sighting, then it demolishes one of the seven clean days of Zivus, but not if it is merely because she touched it.
(b) There are two additional ramifications; one of them, regarding the Shi'ur, the other, whether it is Metamei inside, as well as outside, or not. The second ramification is clear (as we explained a little earlier), and by 'Shi'ur' - we mean that if it is considered a sighting, then a Mashehu is Metamei, whereas if it is because of touching, it requires the size of a mustard-seed or of a lentil (as we will learn later in the Perek).
(c) The problem with the She'eilah, even assuming that Rav Shmuel bar Bisna was not aware of the Beraisa which cites this as a Machlokes Tana'im between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon is that logically speaking - it ought to be considered touching (seeing as the Zera is not her own, only what was deposited there by her husband).
(a) We answer that he was indeed aware of the Beraisa - and the She'eilah was asked not according to the Rabbanan (who learn from "Yih'yeh" that is has the Din of a sighting), but according to Rebbi Shimon, who holds with regard to Letamei bi'Fenim ke'va'Chutz, 'Dayah ke'Bo'alah'.
(b) The She'eilah concerns 'Listor' and 'Letamei be'Chol-Shehu', which apply to the Bo'el (despite the fact that he is not Metamei bi'Fenim ke'ba'Chutz) ...
(c) ... and the She'eilah concerning the Poletes is - whether Rebbi Shimon learns from the comparison to the Bo'el that Poletes has a Din of touching across the board (in which case it will not demolish the seven clean of Zivus, and not be Metamei with a Kol-Shehu (like the S'vara that we cited earlier); or whether he compares her to the Bo'el completely, in which case it will be Soser and be subject to a Shi'ur of Kol-Shehu.
(d) Alternatively, Rav Shmuel bar Bisna was not aware of the Beraisa when he asked the She'eilah, and the reason that Rav Shmuel bar Bisna thought that the Poletes might have the Din of a sighting, despite the logic to the contrary is - because he took his cue from Sinai, where the Torah warned the men to refrain from Tashmish (in case the woman would subsequently exude the Zera [though no such similar warning was issued regarding not touching a Sheretz]), thereby indicating that Poletes has the Din of a sighting.
(a) On the other hand, he says, maybe we cannot learn from Sinai - which was a Chidush, which is evident from Zavin and Metzora'in, which are Halachically more stringent than Ba'alei-Keri, yet the Torah did not forbid their participation at Matan-Torah.
(b) Abaye replied that it has a Din of a sighting - and that is what Rabah and Rav Yosef replied, when the She'eilah was put to them.
(c) When Rav Shmuel bar Bisna remarked to Abaye that everyone seemed to 'spit in the same way', the latter replied - that Rebbi Shimon only gave Poletes the Din of touching (like the Bo'el) with regard to Metamei bi'Fenim ke'ba'Chutz, but as far as the other two She'eilos is concerned, she has the Din of a sighting (seeing as this will be the case anyway, even if we compare Poletes to the Bo'el completely).
(a) The Beraisa rules that Nidah, Zavah, Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom and Poletes - are all Metamei bi'Fenim ke'va'Chutz.
(b) The Tana is referring to - the first sighting of a Zavah (since after that she is Tamei anyway), and we are talking about being Tamei for one day (on account of this sighting only).
(c) The problem with the Tana's insertion of a Yoledes in the list is - that depending upon whether she gave birth in the days of Nidus or of Zivus, she is in any event, either one or the other.
(d) And we solve the problem - by establishing the Beraisa where the sighting occurred as she went down to Tovel at the end of her two week period of Tum'ah (as we will now explain).
(a) The previous answer is based on a statement of Rebbi Zeira Amar Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav, who ruled that a Yoledes Nekeivah who went to Tovel after fourteen days of Tum'ah, and who felt blood move into the Beis ha'Chitzon ...
1. ... before the Tevilah - is Tamei (for having touched Tum'ah, even after she Toveled) for the rest of the day.
2. ... after the Tevilah - is Tahor (because it is Dam Tohar).
(b) Rebbi Zeira holds - like Beis Hillel, who requires Tevilah as well as days, for the days of Taharah to take effect.
(c) We query Rebbi Zeira's first ruling however, on the basis of Tum'ah Belu'ah - (Tum'ah that is inside the body) which is generally Tahor.
(d) Nor can one compare this case to that of our Mishnah, which rules 'Kol ha'Nashim Metam'os be'Veis ha'Chitzon - since there the Tana is talking about a woman who is intrinsically Tamei (which, we learn from "bi'Vesarah", applies even to Beis ha'Setarim), whereas here we are talking about becoming Tamei through touching or carrying (to which "bi'Vesarah" does not pertain).
(a) In reply, Rebbi Zeira instructed Rebbi Yirmiyah to go and ask Rebbi Avin - to whom he had told the answer.
(b) Rebbi Avin explained that the Chachamim gave this the Din of Nivlas Of Tahor - which is Metamei the person who eats it together with the clothes that he is wearing, and in our case too.
(c) We object to Rebbi Avin's comparison to Nivlas Of Tahor however - inasmuch as a Nivlas Of Tahor is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, which is restricted to that case, and that case only; whereas a Yoledes will be Metamei anyway as soon as the blood emerges, so why should the Chachamim declare the blood Tamei, when it is still Tum'ah Belu'ah.
(d) And we answer - that here too, the although the blood moved to the Beis ha'Chitzon before Tevilah, it only renders her Tamei after it emerges, even after Tevilah (when it is no longer Tum'ah Belu'ah [because it touched her skin]).
(e) Nevertheless, we require a Beraisa to teach us this - because we would otherwise have thought that just as the Tevilah helps to render the blood inside Tahor, so too, will it help for the blood that has moved to the Beis ha'Chitzon too.
(a) We have solved the problem of Tum'ah Belu'ah, but are now left with the original problem of Yoledes ('I bi'Yemei Nidah, Nidah; I bi'Yemei Zivah, Zivah') - because Rebbi Zeira, who established the case where the blood was still in the Beis ha'Chitzon, has just been disproved.
(b) We therefore solve that problem - by establishing it by establishing Rebbi Zeira by a dry birth (in which case the Yoledes is neither a Nidah nor a Zavah).
(c) Now that Rebbi Zeira is talking about a dry birth, the problem with his ruling 'Metamei bi'Fenim ke'ba'Chutz' is - how 'Metamei bi'Fenim' is applicable.
(d) And we answer by citing Rav Oshaya - who considers a V'lad who moved his head into the Beis ha'Chitzon to have the Din of a born baby.
(a) Rav Oshaya issues this statement to explain the Mishnah in Chulin which renders Tamei for seven days, a midwife who stuck her hand into the womb of a woman whose baby had died before it was born (even though the mother is Tahor because of Tum'ah Belu'ah). The problem with the Mishnah is - if it is considered Tum'ah Belu'ah, why is the midwife Tamei?
(b) Rav Oshaya resolves it - by establishing it as a Gezeirah mi'de'Rabbanan, on account of where the baby sticks his head into the Beis ha'Chitzon, where he is considered born, mi'd'Oraysa.
(c) And we substantiate this Halachah with the story of a man who came before Rava and asked him whether one is permitted to perform the Milah on Shabbos. He subsequently ran after the man, because he realized that (bearing in mind that everybody knows that in a straightforward case of an eighth-day baby, the Milah overrides Shabbos). Consequently, he figured that there must be some additional details that the father had inadvertently withheld from him.
(d) Sure enough, when Rava questioned the man, he replied that he had heard the baby cry from inside the womb on Friday afternoon shortly before Shabbos (a sure sign that he had stuck his head into the Beis ha'Chitzon [otherwise he would not have been able to cry]).
(e) Rava retracted from his original ruling and forbade the Milah on Shabbos - because, like Rav Oshaya, he considered the baby sticking its head into the Beis ha'Chitzon to be a birth, and since it had occurred on Friday, a Milah on Shabbos would constitute a Milah she'Lo bi'Zemanah, which does not override Shabbos.
(a) We ask whether inside the womb of a woman has the status of Belu'ah or of Beis ha'Setarim. The ramifications of the She'eilah are - where another woman stuck a piece of Neveilah inside her womb, which will not be Metamei at all if it is Tum'ah Belu'ah (which is considered as if it was non-existent), but will be Metamei the woman be'Masa (by carrying) if it is Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim.
(b) According to Abaye, it has the Din of Belu'ah. He refuted Rava's proof to the contrary from the Beraisa that we cited earlier (in connection with a woman who had relations with a Ba'al-Keri) 'Ela Mipnei she'Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim hi, ve'Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim Lo Metam'ah, Ela she'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv hi' - by explaining the Tana to mean that really the woman would be Tahor because the womb is Tum'ah Belu'ah, but even if it was only Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim she would be Tahor through touching it (if not for the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv).
(a) We ask a similar She'eilah concerning the location of Nivlas Of Tahor - whether the throat is considered Belu'ah, and is therefore not Metamei at all (with regard to Nivlas Beheimah), or whether it is Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim, and is therefore Metamei be'Masa.
(b) We refer specifically to the k'Zayis Neveilah that his friend stuffed into his throat - because if he had done so himself, he would be Tamei on account of having touched it.
(c) Abaye and Rava - maintain the same opinions as they did regarding the previous She'eilah (Abaye considers it Tum'ah Belu'ah, and Rava, Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim).
(a) Abaye cites as his source the Beraisa which discusses the Pasuk in Emor "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochal Letam'ah bah". The Tana learns from "Lo Yochal" that the Din of 'Metam'ah Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah' is confined to the Neveilah of a Tahor bird - (where the only Tum'ah is that of eating), but does not extend to that of a Tahor animal, which is Metamei via touching as well.
(b) We ask why we do not learn the latter from the former via a 'Kal-va'Chomer' - inasmuch as if Nivlas Of Tahor is Metamei via eating, even though it is not Metamei via touching, how much more so a Nivlas Beheimah, which is.
(c) We do not, in fact, do so, because the Torah writes there "bah," to preclude any other case from the Din of Metamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah.
(d) Even though Nivlas Beheimah is not Metamei through eating, the Pasuk mentions "ve'ha'Ochel es Nivlasah" with regard to Nivlas Beheimah - to teach us that the Shi'ur for touching and carrying Neveilah is a k'Zayis (like the Shi'ur Isur for eating it).
(e) In any event, Abaye extrapolates from the Beraisa - that Nivlas Beheimah is not Metamei be'Veis ha'Beli'ah, even be'Masa, in which case it must be considered Tum'ah Belu'ah.
(a) Rava maintains that if someone is holding a Sheretz in the folds of one's skin (such as under one's armpit) - he is Tahor; a Neveilah - he is Tamei ...
(b) ... because a Sheretz is subject only to Tum'as Negi'ah (which is not applicable in a case of Beis ha'Setarim), whereas Neveilah is subject to Tum'as Masa as well - which is (as we just learned).
(a) Rava rules that someone who sticks his armpit in which he is holding a Sheretz into an earthenware oven - the oven becomes Tamei.
(b) The above ruling is not so obvious - because the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with the Tum'ah of an earthenware oven) writes "el Tocho" - which we Darshen to preclude 'Toch Tocho' (which we initially think refers to the current case.
(c) We learn from "Tocho" - if there is a K'li in an oven containing other articles, whose walls protrude above the walls of the oven, those articles remain Tahor.