ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 5
(a) In the Beraisa that we cited earlier (which discusses the Machlokes
between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi in connection with He'elam Tum'ah), Rebbi said
''ve'Ne'elam", 'mi'Chelal she'Yada'. Initially, Rava bases this inference on
the fact - that the Torah should otherwise have written "ve'Hi Alumah".
(b) Abaye asks on Rava from the Pasuk ...
1. ... (in connection with a Sotah) "ve'Ne'elam me'Einei Iyshah" - that to
make the same inference there would clash with the Beraisa which Darshens
from the juxtaposition of "Ve'nikah ha'Ish me'Avon" to "ve'ha'Ishah ha'Hi
Tisa es Avonah" (in Naso) that if the man was initially aware of his wife's
conduct and remained silent, the Mei Sotah will not take effect.
(c) So Abaye explains Rebbi's interpretation of "ve'Ne'elmah" to mean - not
that he knew that he was Tamei, but that he must have been aware of the
Halachah of Tum'as Mikdash and that he touched the Tum'ah (without realizing
the implications [see Gilyon ha'Shas]).
2. ... (in connection with Torah) "ve'Ne'elmah me'Einei Kol Chai u'me'Of
ha'Shamayim Nistarah" - that to make the same inference there would clash
with the Pasuk (also in Iyov) "La Yada Enosh Erkah" (meaning that nobody can
fathom its ultimate value).
(d) Rav Papa asked Abaye from our Mishnah 'Ein Bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah
ve'Yesh Bah Yedi'ah be'Sof'.
How is it possible, he asked him, for a
person never to have had any inkling about Tum'ah, to which he answered -
that it is possible in a case of a Tinok she'Nishba (a small child who was
captured among the Nochrim, and who consequently never had a chance to learn
(a) Initially, we attribute the fact that the Mishnah in Shabbos refers to
'Yetzi'os Shabbos Shetayim she'Hein Arba bi'Fenim, u'Shetayim she'Hein Arba
ba'Chutz' (whilst our Mishnah only refers to one set of 'Shetayim she'Hein
Arba') to the fact that the major Sugya of Shabbos belongs in Maseches
Shabbos, so the Tana goes into more detail there. The problem with this
explanation is - that there are only two cases of Yetzi'os that are Chayav,
and not four.
(b) We cannot answer that some of the Yetzi'os are Chayav and some are Patur
(Aval Asur [mi'de'Rabbanan], which would conform with the Tana in Shabbos) -
because we assume that Shabbos follows the same pattern as Mar'os Nega'im,
where all four cases are Chayav (as we explained earlier).
(c) The objection we raise to Rav Papa's answer (to resolve the main
problem), that (following the same reasoning) our Mishnah only deals with
the Avos (but not with the Toldos) - is that here too, since the Tana is
speaking about 'Yetzi'os', there are only two Avos and not four (like we
asked a moment ago).
(d) Rav Ashi explains our answer (that two cases pertain to Hotza'ah, and
two to Hachnasah) despite the fact that the Tana specifically mentions
'Yetzi'os' - be extending 'Yeyzi'os' to cover Hotza'os, too.
(a) Rav Ashi proves his point from the Mishnah in K'lal Gadol 'ha'Motzi
me'Reshus li'Reshus' - clearly incorporating Hachnasah (otherwise, the Tana
ought to have said 'ha'Motzi me'Reshus ha'Yachid li'Reshus ha'Rabim').
(b) The Tana's justification for doing this is - that it categorizes all
cases of moving an object from one place to another as 'Hotza'ah'.
(c) Ravina proves Rav Ashi's answer from the Mishnah in Shabbos - because
the Tana there begins with the words 'Yetzi'os ha'Shabbos ... ', yet he goes
on to present cases of Hachnasah.
(d) Rava resolves the original problem by explaining that 'Reshuyos Katani',
by which he means - that the Tana is speaking, not so much about cases of
Hotza'ah (of which there are only two, as we explained), but about 'two
Reshuyos' (Reshus ha'Yachid and Reshus ha'Rabim), of which there are four
(a) The Mishnah in Nega'im lists the four sightings of Nega'im. Baheres andA
Se'eis are the two Avos, and 'Sapachas' - whilst 'Sapachas' refers to the
respective Toldah of each Av.
(b) 'Baheres' is a mark that is white like snow and 'Se'eis' one that is
like the white wool of a new-born lamb; the Toldah of ...
1. ... Baheres is - a mark that is white like the lime of the Heichal (see
(c) The Tana in Nega'im does not give the Toldah of Se'eis white like the
lime of the Heichal, which is the closest to it - because then what would
white like the membrane of an egg be the Toldah of (since it is three levels
of white away from Baheres [Rashi 6a DH 've'Ilu']).
2. ... Se'eis is - a mark that is white like the membrane of an egg.
(a) 'Se'eis' - means 'raised', and (based on the principle that the darker
something is the higher it appears) it is so-called because it is not as
bright as a Baheres.
(b) They rank in their order of whiteness - white like snow (a Baheres),
white like lamb's wool (a Se'eis), white like the lime of the Heichal (the
Toldah of Baheres) and white like the membrane of an egg (the Toldah of
(c) A mark that is less white than the membrane of an egg - which is called
a 'Bohak', is Tahor.
(d) The significance of the Av and its Toldah is - the fact that they
combine to make up a ki'Geris (the Shiur of Tum'ah). Consequently, a
Baheres together with a mark that is like the lime of the Heichal that touch
will combine to make up a ki'Geris, whereas a Baheres together with a mark
that is white like the membrane of an egg will not.
(a) Rava remarks that the author of 'Mar'os Ne'ga'im' cannot be Rebbi Akiva,
who says 'Zu Lema'alah mi'Zu' - which means that an appearance of Tzara'as
will only combine with one that is one level higher than itself (but not
(b) This would create a problem with an appearance that is like the lime of
the Heichal - because there is nothing that it could combine with, since it
can combine with neither white like lamb's wool (since it is not its
Toldah), nor with white like snow, since two levels of whiteness divide
(c) The same problem would not apply to a mark that resembles a membrane of
an egg (which is the Toldah of Se'eis, but is separated from it by two
levels of whiteness) - because, by placing Sapachas after Se'eis
("ve'la'Se'eis, ve'la'Sapachas, ve'la'Behares"), the Torah might be
indicating that the Sapachas of Se'eis combines with it, irrespective of how
many levels separate them (whereas the Baheres has no Sapachas).