ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 71
CHULIN 71-72 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Zos ha'Beheimah Asher Tochelu; Shor, Seh Kevasim ... Ayal u'Tzvi
ve'Yachmur - that a Chayah is included in the Dinim of a Beheimah
(b) The Beraisa learns Chayah Teme'ah from Beheimah Teme'ah with regard to
the Isur of interbreeding and Chayah Tehorah from Beheimah Tehorah with
regard to the Simnei Shechitah - though this Hekesh also incorporates the
Isur of interbreeding and Tum'as Neveilos.
2. ... "Zos ha'Chayah Asher Tochelu mi'Kol ha'Beheimah Asher al ha'Aretz;
Kol Mafreses Parsah" - that a Beheimah is included in the Dinim of a Chayah.
(c) We know the Isur of interbreeding by a Chayah Tehorah - from the same
Hekesh of Chayah to Beheimah.
(d) The Tana does not insert it (as well as the previous two cases) -
because he wants to mention one (different) area of Halachah by each of the
(a) The problem with the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Korban
Olah ve'Yored for someone who touches Tum'ah) "O be'Nivlas Chayah Teme'ah *O
be'Nivlas Beheimah Teme'ah*" is - why based on the K'lal 'Beheimah bi'Chelal
Chayah', the Torah needs to insert the last four words.
(b) Rebbi - uses the extra words for a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.
(c) He learn via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Nefesh ki
Siga be'Chol Tamei ... O *bi'Veheimah Teme'ah*" - that a Tamei person is
only Chayav a Korban Olah ve'Yored if he subsequently eats Kodesh (or enters
(d) And finally, Rebbi Yishmael learns Beheimah Tehorah from Chayah Tehorah
regarding Yetzirah with reference to the Pasuk in Bereishis "Va'yitzer
Hashem Elokim min ha'Adamah Kol Chayas ha'Sadeh". The area of Halachah
affected by this Hekesh is - that of a woman who gives birth to the form of
an animal (as we shall now explain).
(e) The same will apply to a woman who gave birth to the form of a Beheimah
Teme'ah (only the Tana confines himself to one area of Halachah for each of
the four cases, as we explained).
(a) In the Mishnah in Nidah, Rebbi Meir rules that a woman who gives birth
to a form of Beheimah, Chayah (or Of), Tamei or Tahor, must sit for a male
or for a female, depending on what the form was - meaning seven days of
Tum'ah and thirty-three of Taharah in the case of the former, and fourteen
days of Tum'ah and sixty-six of Taharah in the case of the latter.
(b) If she doesn't know the gender of the 'baby' - she must sit fourteen
days of Tum'ah and twenty-six (what is left of the forty days of Tum'ah and
Taharah that a woman sits for a boy), of Taharah.
(c) According to the Chachamim - only a human shaped baby is considered a
baby regarding the Dinof Tum'ah and Taharah.
(a) The Rabanan of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili (in our Mishnah) will learn the
Pasuk "O be'Nivlas Beheimah Teme'ah" (from which Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak
learns 'Zeh Ubar she'bi'Teme'ah') - exclusively like Rebbi.
(b) It doesn't matter that in the words "Chayah Teme'ah" there, the word
"Teme'ah" is superfluous too - because the Torah is prepared to repeat a
Parshah for one Chidush, even though there is nothing to be learned from the
rest of the Parshah, as we wrote on the previous Amud (according to Rav
Nachman bar Yitzchak).
(a) Our Mishnah declares Tamei for seven days a midwife who touches a dead
fetus inside its mother's womb. The mother herself however - remains Tahor.
(b) Rabah maintains - that Taharah Belu'ah (an absorbed Tum'ah, like the
baby in our Mishnah [e.g. where someone swallowed a metal ring]), is not
subject to Tum'ah, just as Tum'ah Belu'ah is not Metamei.
(c) We try to learn Tum'ah Belu'ah from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Ochel mi'Nivlasah
Yechabes Begadav" - which renders the person Tahor with nightfall, even if
he ate the Neveilah only just a little earlier, in which case it is still in
(d) We refute this proof however, by suggesting that the Neveilah in his
stomach is Tahor because it is not fit for a Ger to eat (the criterion for
being called a food).
(a) The Kashya however, only applies according to bar Pada, but not
according to Rebbi Yochanan, who says - that Neveilah that is 'fit for a
Ger' at the time the animal dies - does not lose its status until it is no
longer fit for a dog to eat.
(b) bar Pada rules even in such a case - that it is no longer Metamei a
person (in its capacity of Tum'as Neveilos), even though he concedes to
Rebbi Yochanan that it is still Metamei food (in its capacity as Tum'as
Ochlin) as long as a dog will eat it.
(c) We answer that - in a case where someone swallowed whole a small piece
of Neveilah, it will still be considered fit for a Ger who is not aware that
someone had swallowed it.
(a) And we learn that Taharah Belu'ah is not subject to Tum'ah from a 'Kal
va'Chomer' from an earthenware vessel which has a sealed lid - which does
not prevent Tum'ah inside it from being Metamei, due to the principle
'Tum'ah Retzutzah Boka'as ve'Olah' (Tum'ah which fills a confined space, and
does not have a Tefach space, extends upwards as far as the sky.
(b) We now learn Taharah Belu'ah from there - with a 'Kal va'Chomer', from
the fact that the same earthenware vessel nevertheless saves Tahor vessels
from becoming Tamei. Consequently, if a person prevents Tum'ah Belu'ah from
being Metamei, he should certainly prevent Taharah Belu'ah from becoming
(c) We ask on this 'Kal va'Chomer' - from the fact that Adam have a Chumra
over K'lei Cheres in that he can receive Tum'ah from the outside, which they
cannot (in which case we cannot learn a Chumra from them.
(d) We refute the 'Pircha' however - on the grounds that since we are
learning a Din that pertains to the inside (and not the outside), the fact
remains that K'lei Cheres are the more Chamur, and the 'Kal-va'Chomer is
(a) The Pasuk regarding Tum'as Neveilah refers to eating it. We learn that
Tum'ah Belu'ah below (that is pushed into the body via the rectum using a
tube) is not Metamei either from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' - from above, where the
food does not digest (how much more so below, where it does).
(b) And we counter the 'Pircha' that the food in the stomach (below) only
digests what came in through the mouth (above) - by arguing that, when all's
said and done, the dood does digest below and not above.
(c) We learn Tum'ah Belu'ah by an animal from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Adam -
who is subject to Tum'ah even whilst he is alive, whereas an animal is not.
(d) We query this from the Din of Kibus Begadim by Tum'as Bayis ha'Menuga',
which means - that whereas the clothes that the person who enters it only
require 'washing' (i.e. Toveling in a Mikvah) after he has remained there
for a while (as we shall see shortly), the those worn by an animal who
enters there, require 'washing' immediately.
(a) We learn from the fact that the Torah writes 'Kibus Begadim' only with
regard to someone who eats in a Bayis ha'Menuga (and not with regard to
someone who just enters it) - that his clothes only require Tevilah after he
has waited the time it takes to eat ... , but not if he leaves before that.
(b) The 'Pircha' on the 'Kal-va'Chomer' of Beheimah from Adam - is that
since Beheimah has a Chumra (regarding Kibus Begadim), we cannot learn them
from Adam regarding a Kula.
(c) And we answer from a Mishnah in Mikva'os, which draws a distinction
between someone who enters a Bayis ha'Menuga with his clothes folded on his
shoulder and holding his shoes and rings in his hand - in which case they
are Tamei immediately, and someone who enters it wearing them - in which
case they are Tamei only after he has waited ('K'dei Achilas P'ras', as we
shall now see).
(a) The Tana describe the period of time that one must remain in the house
before they become Tamei. The Tana is talking about - eating a P'ras (four
egg-volumes) of wheat bread ...
(b) ... reclining (in a comfortable position) and together with condiments
(all of which curtail the time involved).
(c) This Mishnah proves - that in fact, bearing in mind that animals do not
generally wear clothes, whatever they do wear, is ornamental, and is
therefore no different that the clothes that the person carries on his
(a) Rava asks on Rabah from a Mishnah in Mikva'os, which rules that someone
1. ... swallowed a Tamei ring - may eat Terumah after Toveling and being
sprinkled with the Mei Parah on the third and seventh day.
(b) The Mishnah there also rules that someone who enters an Ohel ha'Meis
after swallowing a Tahor ring, and then, after Toveling and being sprinkled
on the third and seventh day, he vomits the ring, he remains Tahor - because
the ring did not become Tamei together with him.
2. ... after Toveling and being sprinkled with the Mei Parah on the third
and seventh day, vomitted out the ring - the ring which remained Tamei, is
Metamei him as it emerges from his throat.
(c) This poses a Kashya on Rabah - since the Reisha of the Mishnah teaches
us the Din of Tum'ah Belu'ah, and the Seifa, that of Taharah Belu'ah, so
what is he coming to teach us that we do not already know?
(a) And we answer that Rabah is speaking when he swallowed two rings, one
Tamei and one Tahor, and the Chidush is - the reason in the Mishnah in
Mikva'os is (not because of Tum'ah Belu'ah, but) because of Tum'as Beis
(b) ... because if it was, the Tamei ring would be Metamei the Tahor one,
seeing as they are both together in the same area (like two rings in a box).
(c) Even though the rings are made of metal, and based on the D'rashah
'Cherev, Harei Hu ke'Chalal', are an Av ha'Tum'ah, the Tamei ring is not
Metamei the person be'Masa when he walks with it - because Tum'as Masa only
applies to a source of Tum'ah, but not to a Toldah (even if it received its
Tum'ah from an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah).
(a) We query this explanation from the case of a midwife, in our Mishnah -
which is like two rings, seeing as both the Ubar and the midwife's hand are
together in the same area, yet the Ubar renders the midwife Tamei.
(b) Rava refuted Rabah's own answer (that an Ubar is different, since it
stands to come out) - on the grounds that the ring stands to come out too.
(a) Rava himself ultimately answers his final Kashya by citing the
Pumbedesa'i - (alias Rav Yosef) ... in the name of Shmuel.
(b) Who explained the Tum'ah in our Mishnah as - being Tum'ah de'Rabanan.
(c) When we explain that Shmuel was coming to preclude the notion that the
author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Akiva, we are referring to Rebbi Akiva
statement - that 'Ubar be'Me'ei Ishah Tamei'.
(d) The mother remains Tahor - because it is a case of Tum'as Beis
(a) The author of our Mishnah might also be - Rebbi Yishmael, who holds that
the Rabanan decreed Tum'ah in this case.
(b) The reason Rav Hoshaya gives for this is in case the Ubar sticks his
head out of the Perozdor (in which case it will Metamei whoever touches it
min ha'Torah), without the midwife realizing it.
(c) They did not extend decree to the mother herself - because she is aware
when that happens, and knows that she is Tamei.
(d) We cannot however, rely on the mother telling the midwife - because a
woman in labor has other things to think about.