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) The problem with our Mishnah, which declares a woman Tamei if blood is found on the tip of her big toe is - that it is not in the direct line of the M'kor, so why is she Tamei?
(b) Nor can we simply assume that her toe touched her bloodstained heel as she walked - because of the principle 'Lo Machzekinan Tum'ah mi'Makom le'Makom' (One cannot establish Tum'ah from one location to another).
(c) The source for this lies in a Beraisa, which discusses a woman who found a Kesem on the hem of her undershirt exactly below the M'kor, but who also has a wound. If the wound is ...
1. ... in her neck - the Tana considers her Tahor, because of the likelihood of her having moved her neck forward, allowing the blood to drip on to the hem of her undershirt. But if the wound is ...
2. ... on her shoulder - he declares her Tamei, because it is almost impossible for the blood to have reached the hem of the undershirt.
(d) The fact that we do not suspect that she moved the blood there with her hands is the source of the principle 'Lo Machzekinan Tum'ah ... '. And the reason that the blood on the tip of her big toe renders her Tamei is - because, in the course of her walking, it comes in line with the hem of her undershirt.
(a) Another Beraisa - declares Tamei a woman who finds blood on the back of her hand.
(b) Initially - we explain the Tana's stated reason 'she'Yadayim Askaniyos hein' to mean - that, since a person's hands are 'always busy', she must have touched the blood from the M'kor with one hand and then touched the back of the other hand with it (posing a Kashya on the principle under discussion.
(c) To reconcile the discrepancy - we explain that due to the principle, she probably touched the blood from the M'kor with the back of the hand with the blood on it (see Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman').
(a) Our Mishnah declares a woman Tamei, should she find blood on the inside of her calf, which de'bei Rebbi Yanai defines as from the 'Makom Chavak' and inwards - meaning from the location of the nerves that join the calf-bone and the thigh-bone and inwards (see also Aruch).
(b) They asked what the status of Makom Chavak itself will be. The Beraisa cited by Rav K'tina - gives it the Din of inside.
(c) The Beraisa cited by Rav Chiya b'rei de'Rav Ivya is even more explicit - combining the statement of Tana de'bei Rebbi Yanai with that of Rav Chiya b'rei de'Rav Ivya's Beraisa.
(a) We ask what the Din will be regarding a woman who finds a bloodstain in the shape of a bracelet ('ke'Shir'), a row of drops that are not joined ('ke'Shurah' [see Tosfos DH 'ke'Shurah'), a series of drops that touch each other ('Tipin Tipin') - or a stain that runs width-wise across her body (instead of lengthwise).
(b) We try to resolve the She'eilos from our Mishnah 'al Besarah, Safek Tamei, Safek Tahor - Tamei', which we suggest, comes to include these cases.
(c) We reject the proof, however - by establishing the Mishnah by 'de'Avid ki'Retzu'ah' - meaning an elongated stain (which is the regular shape of a Kesem).
(a) Rebbi Yanai instructed a woman who had found blood on the warp (that was arranged on the weaving-loom) - to walk to and fro, like she did whilst weaving (to determine whether the warp would indeed reach the area of the M'kor [as she did when weaving]).
(b) We query this from the Beraisa (that we cited in the first Perek) 'Ein Shonin be'Taharos' - which means that we never repeat an action to check in this way.
(c) And we answer - that the Beraisa is speaking le'Kula (in a case where, without the double check, the ruling would be 'Tamei'), whereas Rebbi Yanai is speaking le'Chumra (where she would otherwise have been declared Tahor (since the blood was neither on her body nor on her clothes).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the woman used the undershirt on any part of which she finds the Kesem to cover herself during the night, she is Tamei. Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa, informs us - that this is what he ruled in Rome, and that upon his return to Eretz Yisrael, the Chachamim in the south substantiated his ruling.
(b) Another Beraisa discusses a tall woman who wears the undershirt of a short one without first examining it, or vice-versa, and then discovers a Kesem. In a case where ...
1. ... the Kesem reaches the M'kor of the tall woman, they ruled that both women are Tamei (mi'Safek); whereas if ...
2. ... it doesn't - they ruled that only the short one is.
(c) In a case where Rachel examined her undershirt before lending it to Le'ah, who subsequently discovers a blood-stain on it, another Beraisa rules that ...
1. ... Rachel is Tahor, and that ...
2. ... Le'ah - 'can rely on it'.
(a) When Rav Sheishes explained that the Tana's ruling is confined to 'Diyna' (money-matters) he meant that - Le'ah is not obligated to pay for the garment to be laundered ...
(b) ... since she is entitled to reject Rachel's claim that she examined the garment (see Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman').
(c) .. but that Leah is in fact - Tamei ...
(d) ... since Beis-Din believe Rachel.
(a) We query the previous case from a Beraisa which discusses two women who are dealing with a dead bird which contains one Sela of blood. Had one of them been found to have a Kesem - we would have ruled that she is Tahor.
(b) In a case where they find one Sela of blood on each woman, the Tana rules - that both women are Tamei.
(c) Based on this Beraisa, we initially think that in the previous Beraisa, the Tana ought to have ruled - that (we cannot trust Rachel's Bedikah and) both women ought to be Tamei.
(d) So to explain the previous ruling, we ascribe the fact that the Tana declares both women Tamei - to the unaccountable extra Sela of blood (whilst in the previous case, we merely attribute the Kesem to the woman who did not make a Bedikah at all).
(a) In a case where a woman wearing three examined shirts, finds a Kesem on one of them, the Tana of yet another Beraisa rules, assuming that she ...
1. ... passed through a meat-market - that she is Tahor (even if the Kesem is on the bottom one).
2. ... did not pass through a meat market - that she is Tamei (even if it is on the top one).
(b) Our Mishnah rules - that we attribute the Kesem to whatever we can (to declare a woman Tahor).
(c) Our Mishnah therefore rules that if a woman Shechted an animal ... or a bird, who dealt with bloodstains, who sat besides people who did, or who killed a louse - are all Tahor.
(d) Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos gives the Shi'ur of blood in the latter case as 'up to a ke'G'ris shel Pul' (which is equivalent to thirty-six barley grains). He argues with the Tana Kama however - in that he ascribes the Kesem to a louse even if she is not aware that she killed one.
(a) What the Tana ...
1. ... means when he says 've'Tolin bi'Venah O be'Ba'alah' is - that if her son or her husband, who are sleeping in the same bed as her, have a wound, then she can ascribe any Kesem that she finds to them.
2. ... says that if a woman has a dry wound (with a crust) - we will nevertheless ascribe the Kesem to it as long as it is possible for the wound to have been opened and to have started bleeding.
(b) Rebbi Akiva - actually declared a woman Tahor in such a case.
(c) When he saw his Talmidim looking at him in amazement, he commented - that the Chachamim saw fit to be lenient in the realm of Kesamim ...
(d) ... and he learned it from the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Ishah ki Sih'yeh Zavah, Dam Yih'yeh Zovah mi'Besarah" - from which he extrapolated "Dam", 've'Lo Kesem'.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok rules, in a case where an cloth which is placed underneath the cushion and on which they find a Kesem which is ...
1. ... round-shaped - that the woman is Tahor.
2. ... elongated - that she is Tamei.
(b) The opening statement of our Mishnah merely bears out what we learned in a Beraisa, where Rebbi Meir ascribes a Kesem to a plaster (comprising red meat) and Rebbi - to the sap of a sycamore tree.
(c) Our Mishnah declares Tahor a woman who sat besides people dealing with Kesamim. If she is not sure whether she sat next to them or not - she will be Tamei.
(d) We cite a Beraisa which rules likewise. In a case where a woman ...
1. ... who passed through a meat market is not sure whether blood squirted on her or not - she is Tahor.
2. ... is not sure whether she passed through a meat market or not - she is Tamei.
(a) The Tana Kama, who ascribes a Kesem to a louse only if the woman knows that she actually killed one, is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (in a Beraisa). The Chachamim rule - that she is Tahor anyway.
(b) When Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that according to ...
1. ... him, there is no Ketz, he means - that no woman will then ever be Tahor, since there is no bed without drops of blood from a louse.
2. ... according to the Chachamim, there is no Sof, he means - that no woman will then ever be Tamei, since there is no bed without some drops of blood.
(c) And he prefers the opinion of Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos to both his own opinion and that of the Chachamim - since he at least gives the Shi'ur of a ke'G'ris shel Pul, which means that she will always be Tamei if there is more blood than that, and Tahor, if there is less (which is something of a compromise).
(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak gives the Shi'ur of a Turmus bean (which is considerably larger than a ke'G'ris shel Pul'), according to the Chachamim, and they suspect that she killed - a bug.
(a) We cite a Beraisa that describes a bug. The Tana states that ...
1. ... its width is the same as its length.
2. ... its taste resembles its smell.
(b) And Hash-m made a covenant with it - making its smell so pungent, that if one rolls it in one's hand, it will linger on the hand for some time afterwards.
(c) The statement that ...
1. ... its length is the same as its breadth - affects Kesamim (inasmuch as a Kesem that is square is Tahor even if it is more than the size of a G'ris).
2. ... its taste is the same as its smell - affects a Kohen eating Terumah (or anyone eating Chulin) who suddenly tastes the taste of a bug in his mouth (which he knows from its smell), and who is then obligated to spit it out immediately.
(d) Once the bug is in his mouth, the Kohen will know that its taste is the same as its smell - from the lingering smell on his hand (as we just explained).
(a) Rav Ashi rules that in a town which contains Chazerim - one does not need to worry about Kesamim that one finds, since they tend to eat Sheratzim, in the process of which they squirt blood everywhere.
(b) And when Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak states that Dukras can be compared to a town with Chazeirim, he means - that it contains many butcheries and trash-heaps, which between them breed Sheratzim.
(a) According to Rav Huna, when Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos rules 'ad ki'Geris', he means up to and excluding a ke'G'ris. Rav Chisda holds - up to and including a ke'G'ris.
(b) Initially, we establish the basis of their Machlokes - as to whether 'Ad ve'Lo ad bi'Chelal' (Rav Huna) or 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Che'lal' (Rav Chisda).
(a) We refute this explanation however, with the counter suggestion that Rav Huna holds both 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal' and 'Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Chelal'. The criterion that will then determine when we will apply the one, and when, the other is - 'Hacha Lechumra, ve'Hacha Lechumra'.
(b) Rav Chisda disagrees with that on the basis of a statement of Rebbi Avahu - who holds that with regard to Shi'urim, the Chachamim always go Lehachmir, with the sole exception of 'ke'G'ris shel Kesamim'.
(c) The second Lashon presents their Machlokes - independent of our Mishnah, whether a ke'G'ris itself is considered as more than a ke'G'ris or less.
(d) And the basis of their Machlokes however, remains whether we go Lechumra by Shi'ur ke'G'ris, like by all other Shi'urim, or whether we apply the opinion of Rebbi Avahu, who considers ke'G'ris shel Kesamim an exception (just like we learned in the first Lashon).
(a) We query Rav Chisda from a Beraisa which discusses a case of a Kesem comprising some drops of blood below the belt and some above it (see Tosfos 59a 'Hayu Bah'), where the Tana rules - 'ad ke'G'ris'.
(b) When we suggest 'Mai La'av ke'G'ris le'Matah', we mean - that if the Tachton is up to a ke'G'ris, we assume that it came fom the same place as the upper one to declare her Tahor ...
(c) ... from which we can extrapolate - that if not for the drops of the Elyon, the Tachton would be Tamei (a proof that a ke'G'ris has the Din of more than a G'ris (like Rav Huna).
(d) We answer 'ke'G'ris di'Lema'alah', meaning - that 'ad ki'G'ris' refers to the Elyon, meaning that we only rely on the Elyon as long as it is three or two ke'G'risin up to a G'ris. But it is only a G'ris, then we assume it to be the blood of a louse (like Rav Chisda), in which case, we cannot connect the Tachton to it, and the Tachton will render her Tamei.
(e) We rule - like Rav Chisda (see Seifer 'Eizeu Mekoman' DH 'Amar Rav Huna').