ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 25
BAVA KAMA 25 - sponsored by Hillel Yakov Kagan in honor of the day of his
wedding to Elisheva Tzipora (Lawrence), Sunday 30 Av 5761. We wish you much
Mazel and Berachah -- may you merit to build a Bayis Ne'eman b'Yisrael
(a) The Tana learns from Hashem's statement to Moshe (in Beha'aloscha) that
if Miriam's father were cross with her, would he not lock her up for seven
days - 'Kal va'Chomer' that if the Shechinah is cross with her, she ought to
be expelled from the Camp for fourteen days (because whereas each of his
parents only provide a newborn baby with five attributes, Hashem provides
them with ten).
(b) The reason that Hashem did not expel her from the camp for fourteen days
is - because of the principle of 'Dayo ... '.
(c) Nevertheless, Rebbi Tarfon ignores 'Dayo' in our case, because it would
render the 'Kal va'Chomer' ineffective (seeing as Chatzi Nezek incorporating
both the Reshus ha'Rabim and the Reshus ha'Nizak, is already written [unlike
by Miriam, where even after 'Dayo', the 'Kal va'Chomer' remains intact,
inasmuch as we learn from it the seven days of expulsion for the Shechinah -
which the Torah does not mention]). In other words, 'Dayo' is able to
restrict the 'Kal va'Chomer', but not to negate it.
(a) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Tarfon's argument - by arguing that the
'Dayo' by Miriam also negates the 'Kal va'Chomer', because, in their
opinion, "Tisager Shiv'as Yamim" already teaches us the seven days expulsion
for the Shechinah.
(b) According to Rebbi Tarfon, "Tisager Shiv'as Yamim" is needed -to teach
us 'Dayo' (because without it, Miriam would have been expelled for fourteen
(c) The Rabbanan learn this from the second "Tisager" that the Torah writes
there. Rebbi Tarfon however - uses that Pasuk to extend 'Dayo' beyond the
case of Miriam, to which we would otherwise have confined it, attributing it
to the honor of Moshe, who specifically asked Hashem to take pity on his
sister (se Hashem cut the expulsion from fourteen days to seven).
(a) The practical difference between Keri and Zav is - that whereas the
former resembles the white of an egg that is fertile (i.e. it has retained
its thickness), the latter resembles the white of an egg that has (it has
(b) The Halachic difference ...
1. ... (besides the number of days involved) between a Ba'al Keri, who
renders Tamei whoever or whatever he touches, and a Zav - is that the latter
also renders them Tamei through Masa (carrying).
(c) The Tana learns from here that the Keri of a Zav renders Tamei be'Masa
too - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from his spit, which is Tahor by a Tahor person
(as we just explained).
2. ... between the spit of a person who is not a Zav and his Zera - is that
the former is Tahor, the latter is Tamei Maga.
(d) Rav Papa asks from this Beraisa on our current interpretation of Rebbi
Tarfon - because we see from there that we reject 'Dayo' (to restrict the
'Kal va'Chomer' to Tum'as Maga, which is not written by the Keri of a Zav),
even though, as we can see, the 'Kal va'Chomer' would remain intact anyway.
1. Rav Papa rejects the possibility that we do not really need the 'Kal
va'Chomer' (for Tum'as Maga), because there seems to be no reason why a Zav
who saw Keri should be any worse than a Tahor person who saw it - on the
grounds that, due to the Pasuk "Mikreh Laylah", which implies that Keri only
renders Tamei when it is caused by 'a night-time emission', but not by
anything else (i.e. Ziyvus).
(b) Consequently - the author of this Beraisa is - Rebbi Tarfon, who holds
that we do not say 'Dayo' only when it negates the 'Kal va'Chomer'.
2. We object to Rav Papa's latter argument however - by pointing out that
the Pasuk does not say ' ... but not by anything else'.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer, in a Beraisa in Nazir, says that the Zera of a Zav is
Metamei by touching, but not by carrying. Rebbi Yehoshua renders it Tamei by
carrying, too - because it is impossible for the Keri of a Zav not to
contain some drops of Ziyvus (but not intrinsically).
(b) The problem with the Beraisa of 'Keri be'Zov' is - that it follows
neither the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer nor that of Rebbi Yehoshua.
(c) So we establish the author as being the Tana of the Mishnah in Keilim,
who says that the Zov of a Zav and his spit, his Zera and his urine - and
the blood of a Nidah are all Metamei be'Masa.
(d) This Tana cannot hold like Rebbi Yehoshua in the Beraisa in Nazir -
because if he did, he would have inserted the Zera of the Zov together with
his Zov, rather than with his spit.
(a) What a garment, a leather vessel and wooden vessel all have in common
is - the fact that the Torah lists them all as being Metamei in an Ohel
(b) A Mapatz (a mat) is comparable to none of these, which explains why we
need to find a source for it.
(c) We initially learn that a Mapatz is Metamei by Ohel ha'Meis from a 'Kal
va'Chomer' from little earthenware jars, which are not Metamei by a Zav, yet
they are Metamei by a Meis; in which case, a Mapatz, which is Metamei by a
Zav, should certainly be Metamei in an Ohel ha'Meis.
(d) A Zav will not render a little earthenware jar Tamei - because the
opening is too small to place one's finger inside (and earthenware jars can
only receive Tum'ah from the inside); neither is it subject to Tum'as Medras
(since it is not fit to sit or lie on) or Tum'as Heset (carrying or moving -
since it does not become Tamei through touching).
(a) 'Dayo' might have applied here - by restricting the 'Kal va'Chomer' to a
one day Tum'ah (like Mapatz be'Zov, since Tum'as Mishkav only lasts for one
day), and applying 'Dayo' to the seven-day Tum'ah of Tum'as Meis.
(b) Rav Acha mi'Difta tries to prove from this that this Tana does not hold
of 'Dayo' even when the 'Kal va'Chomer' remains intact anyway.
(c) In reply, Ravina cites Rav Nachman bar Zecharyah, who already asked
Abaye this Kashya. Ravina replied that the Tana does not really learn Mapatz
be'Meis from little earthenware jars - but from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from
Mapatz be'Sheretz, as we shall now see.
(d) The Tana learns that Mapatz be'Sheretz is Tamei (for one day) - from the
same 'Kal va'Chomer' as we used initially (from little earthenware jars
which are Tahor by a Zav but Tamei by a Sheretz ... ).
(a) Little earthenware jars are Tamei by a Sheretz, even though they are not
Tamei by a Zav - because a piece of Sheretz the size of a lentil ( the Shiur
of Tum'as Sheretz) can fit through their opening, whereas the little finger
of a Zav cannot.
(b) The Tana then learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Beged ve'Or" (by Meis)
from "Beged ve'Or" (by Sheretz) - that Mapatz be'Meis too, is Tamei for one
(c) The significance of the fact that ...
1. ... the Pasuk places "O Ish Asher Yiga be'Chol Sheretz" after "O Ish
Asher Teitzei Mimenu Shichvas Zera" is - that seeing as we now know from the
Hekesh to Shichvas Zera (where the Torah specifically writes "Beged ve'Or"),
that a garment and a leather vessel are Tamei through a Sheretz, it renders
"Beged ve'Or" written by Sheretz Mufneh (superfluous).
(d) Otherwise, we could ask that Sheretz has the Chumra over Meis, that it
is Metamei with the small Shiur of a 'ke'Adashah' (a size of a lentil, as we
just saw), as opposed to the 'k'Zayis' of a Meis.
2. ... "ve'ha'Noge'a be'Chol T'mei Nefesh" before "O Ish Asher Teitzei
Mimenu Shichvas Zera" is - (based on the same argument that we just used
with regard to Sheretz) that "Beged ve'Or" written by Meis is Mufneh,
leaving us with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufneh from both sides.
(a) 'Don Minah ve'Ukeih be'Asra' means - that when learning a. from b., we
can learn out some of its aspects, without learning them all?
(b) The problem with learning Mapatz be'Meis with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from
Mapatz be'Sheretz, according to those who hold 'Don Minah u'Minah' is -
seeing as we are learning it from Mapatz be'Sheretz, whose Tum'ah lasts for
only one day, from where will we know that Mapatz be be'Meis is Metamei for
seven days (which in fact we know it does)?
(c) Rava resolves this problem by quoting the Pasuk (following the battle
with Midyan) "Ve'chibastem Bigdeichem ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i" - which teaches us
that all Tum'os in connection with Meis last seven days.
(a) We ...
1. ... suggest that Shen va'Regel ought to be liable in the Reshus ha'Rabim
from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Keren; because if Keren, which is liable only
Chatzi Nezek in the Reshus ha'Nizak, yet it is liable in the Reshus
ha'Rabim, then Shen va'Regel, which is Chayav full damages in the Reshus
ha'Nizak, should certainly be liable in the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(b) We finally rule it out from "ve'Chatzu es Kaspo" - which implies 'Kaspo
shel Zeh (Keren), ve'Lo Kaspo shel Acher (Shen va'Regel)', precluding Shen
va'Regel from Chatzi Nezek in the Reshus ha'Rabim.
2. ... reject the answer that "u'Bi'er bi'S'dei Acher" (confining Shen
va'Regel to the Reshus ha'Nizak) rules this out - because we could restrict
the Pasuk to Nezek Shalem, whereas we are asking from Chatzi Nezek.