ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bechoros 22
(a) When the Mishnah in Ohalos, in connection with a Nefel (a stillborn
baby), it discusses ‘Pesichas ha’Kever’, the Tana means – that if the woman
has already sat on the birth-stool, and her vagina opened to give birth, but
the Nefel did not emerge and they moved her to another room, the first room
is Tamei as if the Nefel had been born.
(b) But that is only if the head of the Nefel is round like a Pikah, which
Rav Huna defines as – a ball of wool.
(c) Chiya bar Rav asked Rav Huna whether he was referring to that of the
warp (the Shesi) or of the woof (the Eirev) – which is larger.
(d) In reply, Rav Huna cited a Beraisa, where Rebbi Meir says ‘Pikah shel
Shesi’ - and Rebbi Yehudah, ‘shel Eirev’.
(a) In the same Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer b’Rebbi Tzadok states ‘mi’she’Yir’u
Tefifiyos’. He argues with the Tana Kama – inasmuch as in his opinion,
Pesichas ha’Kever does not require the head of the Nefel to create the
required size opening.
(b) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel ... quoting the B’nei Eretz
Yisrael, what Rebbi Eliezer b’Rebbi Tzadok means is – that if the birth has
reached the stage where the ring-like formations at the mouth of the vagina
are visible, it is Metamei in any event, and this is reminiscent of a mule
(which crouches more prominently than other animals), urinating.
(c) Rav Huna heard that there were two ‘Pikos’, one of the Shesi and one of
the Eirev – but he was unable to explain it.
(d) To complicate matters, when Rav Dimi quoting Rebbi Yochanan arrived from
Eretz Yisrael, he added – the big Pikah of sack-makers, whose wool is much
thicker. Rebbi Yochanan, too was unable to explain it.
(a) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he solved the problem, quoting
Rebbi Yochanan, who interpreted the Pikah shel Shesi with regard to the Din
of Pesichas ha’Kever (like Rebbi Meir, as we discussed earlier), and the
Pikah shel Eirev with regard to the head of a stillborn animal – rendering
Tamei anyone who touches the Neveilah inside its mother womb, as long as the
head has reached the size of a Pikah shel Eirev.
(b) Otherwise, he will be Tahor (because of Tum’ah Belu’ah) like the Mishnah
in Chulin rules with regard to a shepherd who placed his hand inside the
womb of an animal, touching the dead fetus that is inside.
(c) The Pikah Gedolah shel Saka’in refers to a clod of earth from the Beis
ha’Peras or from Nochri lands, which is Metamei be’Ohel and causes Terumah
and Kodshim that touch it to be burned.
(d) And it was used – to seal sacks made of bulrushes and the tall tapered
lids of barrels made in Beis-Lechem.
(a) Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Yehudah Nesi’ah rules that someone who purchases
brine from an Am-ha’Aretz can render it Tahor – by performing Hashakah
(placing the vessel containing it in the Mikvah, until the water in the
Mikvah touches the brine.
(b) Hashakah will solve the problem, assuming that the majority is ...
1. ... water – because Hashakah is effective to purify water.
(c) In the latter case, we are not concerned about the bit of water that is
mixed in the fish-juice – because it is Bateil to it.
2. ... fish-juice – because fish-juice is not subject to Tum’ah in the first
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah confines this latter ruling to using the brine for
dipping one’s bread into. Someone who wishes to add the brine into a cooked
dish however, cannot rely on it – because when the water in the brine combin
es with the water in the pot, to form a majority and render the Tzir Tamei
(‘Matza Miyn es Miyno, ve’Niy’ur’).
(b) When Rav Dimi told this to Abaye, the latter objected – on the grounds
that this principle does not apply to Tum’ah.
(c) Rav Dimi cited a Mishnah in Terumos. In a case where a Sa’ah of Terumah
Temei’ah fell into a hundred Sa’ah of Tahor Chulin which had not been
Muchshar Lekabel Tum’ah, Rebbi Eliezer requires the removal of one Sa’ah,
which must be left to rot – because we assume that the Sa’ah that fell in is
the Sa’ah that he removed (since min ha’Torah, the Sa’ah is Bateil anyway).
(a) According to the Chachamim, it is not necessary to remove anything –
because the Sa’ah that fell into the hundred Sa’ah is Bateil.
(b) Nevertheless, they restrict the owner to one of four options. He can
either eat the mixture without adding any liquid, or roast it in the form of
Kelayos (roasted kernels); knead it with fruit-juice – or divide into
doughs (and knead it with water), each of less than a ‘k’Beitzah’ (which is
not subject to Tum’ah).
(c) Rebbi Eliezer - permits the same four options with the remaining hundred
Sa’ah as the Rabbanan with the hundred and one.
(a) The problem with the remaining hundred Sa’ah, according to Rebbi Eliezer
(who applies ‘she’Ani Omer’), and with the entire hundred and one Sa’ah,
according to the Rabbanan (who hold that the Sa’ah is Bateil) is – why they
cannot be kneaded with water in the regular manner?
(b) Ula solves the problem – by establishing a Gezeirah de’Rabbanan, who are
afraid that the owner may bring a Kav of Tamei Chulin dough in order to mix
it with a Kav and a bit of this dough (which we have pronounced Tahor but
which contains a bit of Tamei Terumah), but which will now combine with the
Tamei Chulin dough.
(c) Rav Dimi is trying to prove from here – that we apply the principle of
‘Matza Miyn es Miyno ve’Niy’ur’ by Tum’ah, too.
(d) Abaye refutes Rav Dimi’s proof however, by drawing a distinction between
this case – where it is *Tamei* Chulin which combines with the Tamei
Terumah, and ‘ha’Loke’ach Tzir me’Am ha’Aretz’, where Rebbi Yirmiyah wants
the *Tahor* water in the pot to combine with the Tamei water in the