ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 81
(a) A Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom who saw blood after they had already
sprinkled the blood of her Pesach, cannot eat the Pesach - because she still
needs to keep one more clean day (i.e. she is not yet definitely Tehorah).
(b) There is no proof from the fact that she is Peturah from Pesach Sheni,
that Ritzuy Tzitz applies even to Tum'as ha'Tehom of Zivah - because Rebbi
Yossi may hold that when a woman sees blood, she is only Temei'ah from then
on, and not retroactively.
(c) When Rebbi Yossi says in another Beraisa ... 've'Chein Shomeres Yom
ke'Neged Yom she'Shachtu ve'Zarku Aleha ba'Sheini she'Lah, ve'Achar Kach
Ra'asah, Harei Elu Metam'in Mishkav u'Moshav *Lemafrei'a* - he means
mi'de'Rabbanan (mi'd'Oraysa she is Temei'ah only from then on).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan asked Rebbi Oshaya, who said that a Zav who sees on his
seventh day, must begin counting seven clean days again - that that should
not be necessary, and that he does not even need to demolish the day on
which he saw.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan's original statement 'Lo Yistor *Ela* Yomo' makes no
sense - because: if he holds that a sighting works retroactively, then the
Zav ought to demolish all *seven* days (because the Torah writes "ve'Safar
Lo Shiv'as Yamim le'Taharaso"); whereas if he holds that it works from the
time that he sees Zivus, then he should *not even demolish one* day?
(c) After the Gemara concluded like we explained in a., Rebbi Oshaya replied
'Rebbi Yossi holds like you', which goes to prove that when Rebbi Yossi said
'Harei Eilu Mitam'in Lemafrei'a', he meant mi'de'Rabbanan, as we explained
(d) There is no proof that, according to Rebbi Yossi, who holds that a Zav
becomes Tamei (min ha'Torah) from the time that he sees, and not
retroactively, that Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa ('Lo Amru Tum'as ha'Tehom Ela
le'Mes Bilevad') comes to preclude a *Kohen* from Tum'as ha'Tehom of a
Sheretz (but by Tum'as Mes, the Tzitz *will* atone for him) - because he may
well be coming to preclude the *owner*, because he holds 'Ein Shochtin
ve'Zorkin Al Tum'as Sheretz'.
(a) It is possible to become a full Zavah, according to Rebbi Yossi (who
holds that subsequent sightings of a Zav do not connect with the previous
one) - if she saw blood for full three days consecutively; or if she saw
throughout the two periods of dusk (in which case the beginning of the
second and third days begin with Tum'ah, and she does not any clean period
(b) If a Zav (who did not have a sighting during Bein Hashemashos) counts
part of the night, it is considered like one day (assuming that 'Miktzas
ha'Yom ke'Kulo') - it is not necessary to begin counting in the daytime.
(a) Assuming that the Tzitz atones for Tum'as ha'Tehom even by a Kohen who
is bringing someone's *Pesach* or *Shalmei Nazir*, Rav Yosef asks whether it
will also atone for a Kohen who is bringing a Korban *Tamid*.
(b) If Rav Yosef were to hold 'Tum'ah *Hutrah* Hi be'Tzibur' - a Kohen who
was Tamei Tum'as ha'Tehom would certainly be permitted to bring the Tamid
(which is a Korban Tzibur), and there would be no Sha'aleh. Consequently,
since in spite of that, he *did* ask the Sha'aleh, he must hold 'Tum'ah
*Dechuyah* Hi be'Tzibur' and the Sha'aleh is whether, it is necessary to
search for a Kohen who is not Tamei to bring it, or not.
(c) The Gemara answers this Sha'leh with a Kal va'Chomer: if the Torah
permits Tum'as ha'Tehom by Nazir and Pesach (where known Tum'ah is *not*
permitted), how much more so by the Tamid, where it *is*.
(d) The Gemara refutes this Kal va'Chomer on the grounds that we cannot
learn a Kal va'Chomer from a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
(a) Rebbi Akiva was trying to derive from Etzem ki'Se'orah (which is *not*
Metamei a person be'Ohel) that a Nazir should need to shave off his hair if
he touches a Revi'is of blood (which *is*).
(b) Rebbi Eliezer corrected him because the Din of Etzem ki'Se'orah is a
'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', and one cannot learn a Kal va'Chomer from a
(c) Rava finally learns Tum'as ha'Tehom by a Kohen by the Korban Tamid with
a 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Mo'ado" "Mo'ado" from Pesach.
(a) The Gemara initially wants to learn from the Pasuk in Naso ...
1. ... (by Nazir) "ve'Chi Yamus Mes *Alav"* - 'bi'Mechuveres Alav' (when it
is clear to him, but not when the Tum'ah is unknown), according to Rebbi
Elazar; in other words, this is the source for the leniency of Tum'as
ha'Tehom by Nazir.
(b) Resh Lakish learns the same thing from "*be'Derech* Rechokah Lachem" -
that the Tum'ah must be like a road, about which everybody knows, but not if
it is unknown to the public.
2. ... (by Pesach) "be'Derech Rechokah *Lachem*", according to Rebbi
Yochanan - 'bi'Mechuveres Lachem' (that the Tum'ah nust be clear to you ...
as we explained by Nazir); a source for Tum'as ha'Tehom by the Pesach.
(c) According to Rebbi Elazar (who learns that for it not to be Tum'as
ha'Tehom, it must be 'Mechuveres Alav'), the Tum'ah should be clear to
*him*; according to Rebbi Yochanan (it must be 'Mechuveres Lachem'), at
least *two* people ought to know about it; and according to Resh Lakish (who
requires 'ke'Derech'), the Tum'ah should be public knowledge. So why does
the Beraisa say that at least *one* person needs to know about it,
conforming with none of these opinions?
(d) The Gemara concludes that Tum'as ha'Tehom is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai,
and the Pesukim that we quoted earlier, are merely an Asmachta.
(a) It makes no difference whether the Tum'as ha'Tehom was discovered
*after* the Zerikas ha'Dam, or whether they got to know about it even
*before* the blood was sprinkled - either way, the Tzitz atones for Tum'as
(b) This Sugya must have preceded Rav Yosef's Sha'leh on the previous Amud
regarding a Kohen by Tum'as ha'Tehom by the Tamid - because they must have
known that it is a Halachah before asking whether one can learn a Kal
va'Chomer from a Halachah or not (which is the gist of Rav Yosef's Sha'leh
(a) The Halachah of Tzitz Meratzeh Al Tum'as ha'Tehom is confined to Pesach
and Nazir (and Tamid) - but does not permit a Kohen to eat Terumah.
A corpse that is found hidden in straw, dust or pebbles is hidden from view,
and not subject to being seen by anyone (thereby conforming with the concept
of 'Tehom', which is invisible); whereas one that is found in water, a dark
spot or a cleft in the rock - is in fact visible to someone who takes the
trouble to look carefully, and is not therefore similar to 'Tehom'.
Consequently, it is not included in the Halachah of 'Tum'as ha'Tehom'.
(b) A Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah if he walked past a spot on the
street where a Mes is later discovered to have been buried ...
1. ... *along its length*, and also if it is ...
(c) The previous Halachah not apply (even to a Kohen who is walking empty-
handed) - if the corpse is lying in a grave, since the entire grave is then
Metamei be'Ohel (even if one were to remove the corpse from it, because the
Torah writes in Chukas "O va'Kaver").
2. ... broken up into pieces across its width - because it is possibe that
he side-tracked the corpse without actually walking over it, and 'Safek
Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor'.
(d) Nor will it apply to a Kohen who is carrying a heavy load or who is
riding a carriage - both of whom tend to sway from side to side, so that it
is unlikely that they did not pass over the corpse.
(a) If most of the Pesach becomes Tamei, it must be burned in front of the
Beis ha'Mikdash using wood designated for the Ma'arachah; whereas if it was
only the minority which became Tamei, it would be burned it in the owner's
private courtyard, using his own wood.
(b) Nosar has the same Din as the minority which became Tamei.
(c) The misers used to burn their Tamei Pesach in front of the Beis
Hamikdash (even though it was only a minority), in order to earn the right
to use wood from the Ma'arachah.
(d) The reason for burning the majority of the Pesach which became Tamei in
front of the Beis Hamikdash - is in order to shame those who allowed it to
happen, because it is a disgrace to allow Kodshim to become Tamei.