prepared by Rabbi Pesach Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim

Kollel Iyun Hadaf

daf@dafyomi.co.il, www.dafyomi.co.il

Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld


Ask the Kollel
Ask the


(a) Objection (Abaye): If so, we should say that it should have said only Zav and Tamei la'Nefesh, but not Metzora. We would know that if a Zav is sent, and all the more so a Metzora! (We will explain why he is more stringent.)

1. This should teach that there is a time when a Metzora is sent from the Machaneh, but a Zav or Tamei Mes is not, i.e. Pesach brought b'Tum'ah!

2. Suggestion: Perhaps this is true!

3. Rejection (Mishnah): When Pesach is brought b'Tum'ah, the following may not eat it - a Zav, Zavah, Nidah, or Yoledes (see note 44 in Appendix). If one of them ate, he is exempt [from Kares].

(b) Defense of Answer #1 (Abaye): Really, we learn like R. Yochanan. It could have said just "Ish Ish Ki Yihyeh Tamei." "La'Nefesh" is extra [to exclude Zav and Metzora, for these Tum'os are more stringent. I.e. they are not permitted b'Tzibur, but Tum'as Mes is.]

(c) Suggestion: Perhaps "La'Nefesh" rather teaches that only a Tamei Mes brings Pesach Sheni, but other Temei'im do not [bring either Pesach]!

(d) Rejection (Beraisa) Question: We know that one who was Tamei Mes or b'Derech Rechokah (far from the Mikdash) brings Pesach Sheni. What is the source for a Zav or Metzora [or Bo'el (one who had relations with a) Nidah? Tosfos deletes this from the text.]

1. Answer: We learn from "Ish Ish."

2. Question: What do we learn from "la'Nefesh"?

3. Answer: This limits the above law, that an Ish is detained to Pesach Sheni but a Tzibur brings Pesach Rishon b'Tum'ah, to Tum'as Mes;

i. Other Temei'im may not offer it [even if they are the majority of the Tzibur].


(a) (Rav Chisda): If a Metzora entered where he is not allowed, he is exempt. "Badad Yeshev" teaches that he must dwell alone. "Mi'Chutz la'Machaneh Moshavo" is Menatek the Lav to an Aseh (Rashi - it gives a correction for the Lav, which exempts from lashes. Tosfos - it reveals that it is not a Lav, rather, it is only an Aseh.)

(b) Question (Beraisa #1): If a Metzora, Zav or Zavah entered where he is not allowed, he receives 40 lashes;

1. A Tamei Mes may enter Machaneh Levi. Even a Mes itself may be brought there!

2. "Va'Yikach Moshe Es Atzmos Yosef Imo" - with him in his place. (This verse precedes the organization onto Machanos, but surely it teaches that Moshe continued to guard Yosef's bones even after he lived in Machaneh Levi. If not, what would we learn from "Imo"?!)

(c) Answer: Tana'im argue about this:

1. (Beraisa #2 - R. Yehudah): "Badad Yeshev" - a Metzora dwells alone. "Yeshev" - other Teme'im may not be with him.

2. Suggestion: Perhaps a Zav and a Tamei Mes are expelled from the same Machanos!

3. Rejection: "V'Lo Yetam'u Es Machaneihem" - they are expelled from different camps.

4. R. Shimon says, we need not learn from there. It says "vi'Shalchu Min ha'Machaneh Kol Tzaru'a v'Chol Zav v'Chol Tamei la'Nefesh":

i. Question: It should have said only Tamei la'Nefesh. We would know that all the more so, a Zav must be sent!

ii. Answer: This teaches that they are expelled from different camps.

iii. Question: It should have said only [Tamei la'Nefesh and] Zav. We would know that all the more so, a Metzora must be expelled [at least as far as a Zav]!

iv. Answer: It says also Metzora to teach that he is sent to a third camp.

5. "Badad Yeshev" is Menatek the Lav to an Aseh. (Rav Chisda holds like R. Shimon. Beraisa #1 is like R. Yehudah, who has no source to be Menatek the Lav.)


(a) Question: [We said above that] Zav is more stringent than a Tamei Mes. Surely, this is because the Tum'ah emanates from his body. Rather, we should say that a Tamei Mes is more stringent, for his Taharah requires Haza'ah on days three and seven [with Mei Chatas]!

(b) Answer: "V'Chol Tamei [la'Nefesh]" includes one who touched a Sheretz. (His Tum'ah came from the outside, like a Tamei Mes. Also he must leave the camp.) Zav is more stringent than Tamei Sheretz. (Therefore, the Torah did not need to mention Zav.)

(c) Question: Surely, Zav is more stringent than a Tamei Sheretz because the Tum'ah emanates from his body. Rather, we should say that Tamei Sheretz is more stringent, for it is even b'Ones [whereas one does not become a Zav if something else caused his emissions]!


(d) Answer: Even b'Ones, he is Tamei [like a Ba'al Keri. See note 44 in Appendix for 67a]:

1. (Rav Huna): The first emission of a Zav is Metamei even if it was b'Ones.

(e) Question: [We said above that] Metzora is more stringent than Zav. Surely, this is because he must let his hair grow, tear his clothes, and is forbidden to have relations. Rather, we should say that Zav is more stringent, for he can make a Mishkav or Moshav (a Kli made to sit or lie on) an Av ha'Tum'ah), and he is Metamei Klei Cheres through moving them!

(f) Answer: Metzora is more stringent than a Ba'al Keri, which is included from "v'Chol Zav" [and is similar to a Zav. Therefore, we already knew that a Metzora must leave].

(g) Question: Surely, Metzora is more stringent than Ba'al Keri like we said (the same reasons why he is more stringent than a Zav (e).) Rather, we should say that a Ba'al Keri is more stringent, for any amount [of semen] is Metamei [but Tzara'as must be the size of a bean]!

(h) Answer: He holds like R. Noson:

1. (Beraisa - R. Noson): Zov is not Metamei unless there is Chatimas (enough to fill the opening of) ha'Ever;

2. Chachamim disagree.

3. A Ba'al Keri is equated to a Zav ("Zos Toras ha'Zav va'Asher Tetzei Mimenu Shichvas Zera," so R. Noson surely requires the same Shi'ur for semen).

(i) Question: What do we learn from "Kol Tzaru'a"?

(j) Answer: This is for parallel structure with "v'Chol Zav." It does not include anything. (We should say that it includes a Musgar, i.e. a quarantined Metzora! Sefas Emes - this opinion learns this from "Kol Yemei Asher ha'Nega Bo.")

(k) Question: How can R. Yehudah answer R. Shimon's objection [in Beraisa #2 above]?

(l) Answer: He expounds like R. Eliezer;

1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): "Vi'Shalchu... Kol Tzaru'a v'Chol Zav v'Chol Tamei la'Nefesh" - there is an Isur [Kares] for a Metzora or Zav to be in the Mikdash only when a Tamei Mes is forbidden [but not when Pesach is brought b'Tum'ah].

(m) (Beraisa): We include a Ba'al Keri from "v'Chol Zav."

(n) This supports [the first of the following two teachings of] R. Yochanan;

1. (R. Yochanan): (A Mishnah teaches that if a Kohen became a Ba'al Keri in the Mikdash he goes through tunnels to a Mikveh in the Mikdash.) The tunnels have no Kedushah;

2. A Ba'al Keri must leave two Machanos (Machaneh Shechinah and Machaneh Levi).

(o) Question (against the second teaching - Mishnah): A Ba'al Keri is like one who touched a Sheretz.

1. Suggestion: This refers to which Machanos he must leave (i.e. only one)!

(p) Answer: No, it refers to his Tum'ah. (He is Tamei Erev. I.e. he can immerse immediately and become totally Tahor at night. He need not wait seven days.)

(q) Objection: The Torah explicitly says that each of them is Tamei Erev! (The Mishnah need not teach this.)

1. Suggestion: We must say that the Mishnah teaches about which Machanos they must leave!

(r) Answer: No, it indeed refers to his Tum'ah. Just like touching a Sheretz b'Ones is Tamei, also a seminal emission b'Ones is Metamei.


Dafyomi Advancement Forum homepage
D.A.F. Homepage

Insights to
the Daf
 •  Background
to the Daf
 •  Review
 •  Review
 •  Halachah
 •  Tosfos
 •  English

 •  Review
 •  Hebrew
 •  Yosef
 •  Chidonim
on the Daf
 •  Galei
 •  Video/Audio