QUESTION: The Gemara derives from the verse, "v'Chol ha'Noge'a b'Chol Asher Yiheyeh Sachtav Yitma" (Vayikra 15:10), that an object that becomes Tamei as a result of being above a Zav ("Elyono Shel Zav") is Metamei foods and liquids but is not Metamei people and utensils.

However, the verse itself concludes, "Yitma Ad ha'Arev" -- he is Tamei until the evening, which means that after he immerses in a Mikvah he becomes Tahor at nightfall. These words obviously refer to utensils and not to food, because food cannot be made Tahor through Tevilah in a Mikvah! How, then, can the Gemara say that the verse refers to Elyono Shel Zav which is Metamei only foods and liquids?

(a) TOSFOS (32b, DH Elyono) answers that the subject of the verse is the handle of a saddle, which is Tamei with Tum'as Merkav. The verse is teaching that anything -- even a utensil that touches a Merkav -- becomes Tamei until it is immersed in a Mikvah and nightfall arrives. The Gemara's intention is to say that the extra word "veha'Nosei" (or "Sachtav") in the verse teaches the Halachah of Elyono Shel Zav. The phrase "Yitma Ad ha'Erev" applies only to the simple meaning of the verse and not to its exegetical interpretation.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav 6:3) rules that although Elyono Shel Zav is Metamei foods and liquids, this Tum'ah is mid'Rabanan. The commentators explain that the Rambam understands the Gemara's derivation from the verse as an Asmachta b'Alma and not as a full-fledged Limud, because the verse obviously cannot be discussing Elyono Shel Zav which is Metamei only foods.

(c) The RA'AVAD rules that Elyono Shel Zav is Metamei utensils (other than earthenware). His ruling seems to contradict the Gemara here which clearly states that Elyono Shel Zav is not Metamei utensils. The Acharonim suggest that the RA'AVAD means that while an object is lying above a Zav it can be Metamei utensils. The Gemara is discussing an object that has been removed from above the Zav, at which point it is not Metamei utensils.

(d) The MALBIM (to Vayikra 15:10) suggests that the words of the Gemara, "Mai Nihu" (beginning of 33a), should be "Mai Mi'et." Accordingly, the Gemara means that the verse indeed refers to Merkav, which is Metamei utensils, and it excludes Elyono Shel Zav from being Metamei utensils. (The Malbim explains that this exclusion is inferred from the fact that Merkav is referred to as "Asher Yiheyeh (i.e. the Zav) Sachtav" and not "Asher Yiheyeh Al ha'Zav.")

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses whether we burn Terumah on account of Safek Tum'ah. The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Taharos (4:5) that teaches that in six cases we burn Terumah on account of a Safek. One of these is the case of Terumah that came into contact with the clothing of an Am ha'Aretz (who generally is not careful about becoming Tamei). Such Terumah must be burned because we suspect that the Am ha'Aretz is a Zav.

Does the Mishnah there imply that an Am ha'Aretz is always treated as though he is a Zav, or is it only with regard to certain Halachos of Tum'ah (such as the requirement to burn Terumah that is Tamei) that he is considered to be a Zav?

(a) RASHI in Chagigah (18b) says that an Am ha'Aretz indeed has the status of a Zav. This is supported by the Mishnah there (18b) which states that the clothing of an Am ha'Aretz is Metamei Midras for Perushin (people who eat Chulin b'Taharah). Rashi there (DH Midras) explains that the clothing of an Am ha'Aretz has the same status as an object on which a Zav sits, which is an Av ha'Tum'ah and is Metamei a person or utensil. When the Mishnah continues and says that the clothes of people who eat Chulin b'Taharah are able to be Metamei through Midras those who eat Terumah b'Taharah, Rashi there (DH l'Ochlei Terumah) explains that these laws are all Gezeiros of the Rabanan who decreed that one who handles lesser degrees of Kedushah (Chulin and not Terumah, or Terumah and not Kodesh) are not as careful to ensure that their wives do not sit on their clothes while they are in a state of Tum'as Nidah. (Rashi says that these are all "Ma'alos" that the Chachamim made in Taharos, decreeing that the higher the level of Taharos, the more one is careful to ensure that no Tum'ah occurs.)

(b) TOSFOS here (DH v'Teipuk) quotes RABEINU TAM who has a different opinion. Rabeinu Tam says that only the fluids that emanate from the body of an Am ha'Aretz are considered to have the status of fluids that come from a Zav, but not his Mishkav, Moshav, or Merkav.

How does Rabeinu Tam understand the Mishnah in Chagigah? He understands that just as the Mishnah says that the clothes of one who eats Chulin b'Taharah are considered to be Metamei Midras for one who eats Terumah (because of the suspicion that the clothes of one who eats Chulin b'Taharah are not guarded carefully and his wife who is a Nidah might have sat on them), when the Mishnah in Taharos says that the clothes of an Am ha'Aretz are considered to be Metamei through Midras it is because we suspect that the wife of the Am ha'Aretz sat on the clothes when she was a Nidah, and not because of an intrinsic Tum'ah that the Am ha'Aretz himself possesses.

(c) Tosfos quotes RABEINU MOSHE of Pontoise who says that an Am ha'Aretz is never given the status of a Zav for any type of Tum'ah. Rather, we merely suspect that he is Tamei due to the clothes that he is wearing, because we assume that his wife sat on them when she was a Nidah. The fluids that leave his body are Metamei only because they touched his lips upon leaving his body, and not because of the Halachah of Ma'ayanos ha'Zav, the fluids of which are all considered intrinsically Tamei. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Beraisa relates that a Tzeduki was speaking with the Kohen Gadol in the marketplace, and saliva from his mouth landed on the Kohen Gadol's garment. The Kohen immediately went to ask the Tzeduki's wife how she conducted herself with regard to Nidah in order to determine whether her husband was a Bo'el Nidah. RASHI (DH v'Horiku) explains that the Kohen Gadol was concerned that his garments became Tamei.

TOSFOS (DH Bo'el) and the RASH (Taharos 7:5) write that the Ma'ayanos (discharges from the body) of a Bo'el Nidah are Metamei b'Masa. Why, then, does Rashi say that the Kohen Gadol was concerned only for the Taharah of his garments? If the discharge of a Bo'el Nidah fell on his garments, then he became Tamei through Masa!

ANSWER: The Rishonim discuss at length whether the laws of Ma'ayanos ha'Zav apply to a Bo'el Nidah. (See the RASH and ROSH, beginning of Ohalos.) Although Tosfos and the Rash conclude that these laws do apply to a Bo'el Nidah, the RASHBATZ writes that the Ma'ayanos of a Bo'el Nidah are only a Rishon l'Tum'ah, since they touched the Bo'el Nidah, and not an Av ha'Tum'ah like the Ma'ayanos of a Zav. Since they are only a Rishon, they are Metamei only through Maga (contact) and not through Masa.

Perhaps Rashi also maintains that the Ma'ayanos of a Bo'el Nidah are only a Rishon l'Tum'ah. Accordingly, the saliva of the Tzeduki could be Metamei only the Kohen's clothes, but not the Kohen himself. (Although a normal Rishon l'Tum'ah cannot be Metamei clothes, the Rabanan decreed that liquids that are Tamei make clothes and utensils Tamei.) The Kohen Gadol therefore had no reason to be concerned that his body became Tamei through Masa. (ARUCH LA'NER)