ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 16
PESACHIM 16 - has been dedicated by Mr. Eli Rosengarten in memory of his
parents, Sarah bas Menashe and Avrohom Dovid bas Rav Chaim Yitzchak Ozer.
(a) 'Safek Mashkin Litamei, Tamei; Letamei Acherim, Tahor, Divrei Rebbi Meir
(ve'Rebbi Elazar)' - means that if there is a Safek whether liquid
*received* Tum'ah or not (e.g. if a Tamei person stretched out his foot, and
it is not certain whether he touched the liquid or not), then we assume that
he *did* touch it and declare it Tamei (because, according to Rebbi Meir,
liquid is subject to Tum'ah mi'd'Oraysa, and 'Sefeika d'Oraysa le'Chumra');
but if it is a question as to whether the liquid *transmitted* Tum'ah to
something else, then we assume that it did *not* (because, in his opinion,
liquid is Metamei other things only mi'de'Rabbanan, and 'Sefeika de'Rabbanan
(b) 'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, la'Kol Tamei' - liquid is Metamei everything, food
and even vessels, and even when it is a Safek (because he holds that liquid
is Metamei everything min ha'Torah).
(c) Rebbi Yehudah Darshens "me'Asher Yishaseh be'Chol K'li Yitma" 'Yitma -
Yetamei' (makes others Tamei), and since the Pasuk places it next to the
word 'K'li', he learns that liquid is Metamei even vessels. Rebbi Meir does
not Darshen 'Yitma - Yetamei'.
(d) Rebbi Yossi disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah regarding vessels. In his
opinion, it is only *food* that receives Tum'ah from liquid mi'd'Oraysa, but
(a) 'Mashkeh Bei Mitbachaya Dachan' refers to the water and the blood in the
Shechitah-house in the Azarah. If liquids were subject to Tum'ah
mi'd'Oraysa, then how could Chazal remove it? And if they can, it means that
the Tum'ah of liquids is entirely mi'de'Rabbanan.
(b) According to Shmuel, 'Dachan' means Tahor as far as transmitting Tum'ah
to others is concerned, but the liquid itself *is* subject to Tum'ah (thus
conforming with the opinion of Rebbi Meir, whose opinion Rebbi Elazar
(c) the Gemara rejects the contention that Rebbi Elazar only holds like
Rebbi Meir in one of the two points discussed by Rebbi Meir - because of the
Tana's statement 've'Chein Amar Rebbi Elazar *ki'Devarav*' (which is plural,
implying that he holds like *both* statements of Rebbi Meir, and not just
*one* of them). Moreover, the Tana said '*ve'Chen*', which also implies that
he follows his opinion completely.
(d) The Gemara remains with a Kashya on Rav.
(a) "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga *be'Chol* Tamei, Lo Ye'achel" - implies that any
Tum'ah (even liquid) that the meat of Kodshim touches may not be eaten. This
leaves us with a Kashya on Shmuel, who maintains that Mashkei Bei Mitbachaya
can receive Tum'ah, but cannot transmit it?
(b) The suggestion that liquids are comparable to a Revi'i be'Tum'ah not
acceptable - because a Revi'i is not called 'Tamei' (only 'Pasul', as we
learnt above), whereas Mashkei Bei Mitbachaya is called 'Tamei'. (This
Kashya too, remains unanswered.)
(c) Rav interprets the Pasuk "ve'Chol Mashkeh Asher Yishaseh be'Chol K'li
*Yitma*" with regard to Hechsher Lekabel Tum'ah (i.e. that water is Machshir
food Lekabel Tum'ah, whether it is drawn or whether it is still in its
source), but not to Tum'ah itself.
(d) Both Pesukim regarding Hechsher (by drawn water and by water that
remains in its source) are necessary, the latter because the water has not
yet been given significance by being drawn (as the former was), whereas, by
being removed from its source, the former lost its status (which the latter
(a) "Ach Mayan u'Bor Yihye Tahor" - implies that water that is detached is
subject to Tum'ah, a Kashya on Rav, who explains Rebbi Yossi ben Yo'ezer to
say that it is not?
(b) According to Rav, what the Pasuk means is that anything that enters a
fountain or a gathered pit of water becomes Tahor, but not if it enters
(a) Rav will explain the above Pasuk by most liquids, whereas Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Chanina (who declared that liquid found in the slaughterhouse in the
Azarah is not only Tahor, but is not Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah either), is
referring to the blood of Kodshim.
(b) Blood of Kodshim is different than other liquids in this regard -
because of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, who quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that
blood of Kodshim is not Machshir mi'd'Oraysa. This he learns from the Pasuk
in Re'ei "Al ha'Aretz Tishpechena ka'Mayim"- only blood that can be poured
out (i.e. discarded) like water, is Machshir like water, but not blood that
is needed for sprinkling.
(a) Dam ha'Tamtzis is part of the blood that spills from the animal that is
not Dam ha'Nafesh (life-blood).
(b) "Ki ha'Dam Hu ba'Nefesh Yechaper" - teaches us that only life-blood is
used for sprinkling, but not Dam ha'Tamtzis. Yet Dam ha'Tamtzis is also
included in Mashkeh Bei Mitbachaya, and is not Machshir (even though it is
spilt like water)?
(c) We learn from "Ki ha'Dam Hu ba'Nefesh Yechaper" - that only Dam
ha'Nefesh is called blood (in this context), but not Dam ha'Tamtzis.
Consequently, explains Rebbi Zeira, Dam ha'Tamtzis is not even Machshir by
Chulin, so why should it be Machshir by Kodshim?
(d) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Dam Chalalim Yishteh" - that the Torah
considers blood a beverage (in this context), which is why it is Machshir
like the other six beverages.
(a) 'be'Meizid Lo Hurtzah' - means that the Kohanim, are not permitted to
eat the parts that are normally eaten. It cannot mean that the owner is
obligated to bring another Korban - because min ha'Torah, the Tzitz atones
for this too. It is only a Rabbinical decree that renders it Pasul in spite
of the Tzitz, and the Rabbanan do not have the right to disqualify a Korban,
and to then ask the owner to bring what is really 'Chulin la'Azarah'.
(b) From the Beraisa which says that the Tzitz atones for the blood of a
Korban that was sprinkled be'Tum'ah, as well as from the Beraisa quoted in
the previous question, we see that there *is* Tum'ah by the blood of Kodshim
- not like Rav in Rav Yosef ben Yo'ezer?
(c) Rav establishes both Beraisos by Tum'ah de'Rabbanan (see Tosfos DH
'mi'de'Rabbanan'), and neither Tana holds like Rav Yosef ben Yo'ezer.
(d) The Beraisa says that the Tzitz atones for the blood, the flesh or the
Chelev that became Tamei, be'Shogeg, be'Mezid, be'Ones or be'Ratzon,
irrespective of whether it was a Korban Yachid or a Korban Tzibur. Note:
Here the Beraisa makes no distinction between be'Shogeg and 'be'Mezid',
whereas earlier on, we said 'be'Mezid Lo Hurtzah'? One be'Mezid refers to
the sprinkling, and the other, to the actual Tum'ah, and Amora'im (later in
'Keitzad Tzolin') will argue as to which is which.
(a) When the Beraisa says that the Tzitz atones for the flesh of a Korban
that *became Tamei* - it means that the Korban is Kasher, and the blood may
subsequently be sprinkled, even according to Rebbi Yehoshua, who says that
if the flesh was *taken outside the Azarah*, or if it got lost, the Korban
is invalid and the blood can no longer be sprinkled.
(b) Meizid and Ratzon mean the same thing, only the former is the opposite
of Shogeg, and the latter, of Ones.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodshim" - that the
Tzitz atones for the sin of having brought Kodshim which were Tamei.
(b) It cannot be referring to the sin of bringing them ...
1. ... when they are *Pigul* (rendered invalid by means of the thought to
eat them in the wrong place) - because the Torah has already said in that
regard "Lo Yeratzeh" (there is no atonement).
(c) Tum'ah becomes permitted by a communal Korban, which is not the case by
Pigul and Nosar?
2. ... when they are *Nosar* (rendered invalid by means of the thought to
eat them in the wrong time) - because the Torah has already said "Lo
Yechashev" (they are considered as if they had not been sacrificed).
3. Nosar cannot be understood literally, because "Lo Yeratzeh" is written in
connection with a wrong *thought*, and not a wrong *action*; and besides,
why should the Torah write about Nosar "Lo Yeratzeh", when the part of the
animal that was eaten before the time expired remains perfectly valid?
(d) Who said that the Beraisa is referring to the Tamei *blood* of an
*animal*, perhaps it is speaking about the Tamei *fistful of flour* from a
*flour-offering*, which renders the Minchah Kasher, just like the blood
does to the Korban. However, unlike the blood, it is subject to Tum'ah.
(a) Chagai found it necessary to examine the Kohanim regarding the laws of
Kodshim - due to the fact that having not studied them during the seventy
years of exile, they were unacquainted with them.
So we answer that the Beraisa (and Chagai) is talking about Mashkeh Bei
*Mid*bechaya (wine and oil that were brought on the Mizbei'ach), whereas
Rav, who says that, according to Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer, there is no Tum'ah
at all, is restricted to Mashkeh Bei *Mit*bachaya i.e. the blood of the
(b) The wine and oil that Chagai referred to are those of flour-offerings.
(c) The Kohanim answered that the oil or the food, which was a Revi'i, was
Tahor. Now this a mistake, says Rav, because there *is* a Revi'i ba'Kodesh.
(d) We cannot simply answer that the author of this Beraisa too, disagrees
with Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer - because the Beraisa is based on a Pasuk, and
how can Rebbi Yosef ben Yo'ezer argue with a Pasuk?