ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 43
(a) Tum'as Heset is another name for Tum'as Masa, though it also refers
sometimes to moving something indirectly, like on a see-sew.
(b) If a Tahor person carries a Zav or the Mishkav and Moshav of a Zav, he
becomes Tamei, even if he carried them via a stick which he held under his
Whereas, if the Zav carried the Tahor person in this way, the latter would
remain Tahor, because 'Tum'as Beis ha'S'tarim' of a Zav is not Metamei.
(c) We learn this from the Pasuk "ve'Chol Asher Yiga Bo ha'Zav, ve'Yadav"
etc., which is not needed for touching, since we already know from another
Pasuk that a Zav is Metamei through touching; Consequently, we use it , 'Im
Eino Inyan' to teach us that a Zav is Metamei the Tahor person whom he
carries only if he carries him openly - like his hands, not via a 'Beis
Since the Torah uses the word "Yiga", we learn that 'Tum'as Beis
ha'S'tarim' is not Tamei through touching, even if one touches a Zav.
(a) Shmuel learns from "Shichvas Zera" that Keri is only Metamei if it
physically affects his entire body.
(b) The Beraisa is not speaking when he only dreams the thoughts, but when
he actually dreamt that he had Tashmish with a woman, in which case it is
inevitable that his entire body should not be affected.
(c) According to the first version in Shmuel, as long as he is affected by
the Zera, even if it is only when it first moved from its source, it is
Metamei; whereas according to the second version, the Zera is not gauged by
the time it first moves, but by the time that it leaves the body; it is
then that it must shoot like an arrow (which is equivalent to affecting his
entire body as it comes out).
(a) If a Ba'al Keri becomes Tamei as soon as he urinates (through a drop
which did not leave his body like an arrow), does that not prove that the
Zera does not need to leave the body like an arrow, but that it is
sufficient for it to have affected his body when it first moved from its
(b) The Gemara rejects this proof however, on the grounds that at the time
when he urinates, most of the Zera had already shot out like an arrow (and
at the time, his body was indeed affected). So since this remaining drop is
part of the Zera that was Metamei, it is Metamei, as well.
(c) In the third version, Shmuel learns from "Ki Yihye Becha Ish Asher Lo
Yihye Tahor Mikreh" that even by just seeing Keri, one becomes Tamei,
whether he is affected by it or not.
(a) If a non-Jew had thoughts before converting, according to the first
version of Shmuel, perhaps we will also say that, since, at the time when
he was affected when the Zera first moved, he was a gentile, he will remain
Tahor, and we will not contend with the Zera when it came out (after his
Or maybe we will say that Shmuel only made his statement le'Chumra (to
teach us that, even though the Zera emerged without force, he is
nevertheless Tamei), but not le'Kula, like in this case.
(b) Perhaps Shmuel said his Din only by Keri, which one cannot hold back
(that is why he contends with the time that it first moved. But with regard
to urine, which one can hold back, Shmuel may agree that we do not contend
with the moment that it first moves, only with the moment that it leaves
the body. Consequently, a Zavah who had the urge to urinate, and Toveled
without having done so, will be Tehorah; or maybe, we will not
differentiate between Zera and urine, so that the same Sha'aleh will
pertain equally to urine.
(c) The urine of a Zavah is d'Oraysa, and perhaps that is why we might
assume her to be Temei'ah in the previous Sha'aleh; whereas the urine of a
gentile is Tamei only mi'de'Rabbanan. So it could be that if a gentile held
back her urine before converting, she will remain Tehorah, since by a
Tuma'h de'Rabbanan, they were not so stringent, to declare her Temei'ah as
soon as the urine moves.
(a) Shmuel learns that the Zov must cover the mouth of the Amah in order to
be Metamei, from the Pasuk "O Hechtim Besaro mi'Zovo".
(b) According to the Rabbanan, the Zov has no Shiur. They learn from this
Pasuk that it has to be wet in order to be Metamei.
(c) Rebbi Yishmael learns that the Zov must be wet from "Rar Besaro".
(a) The Rabbanan learn from the three 'words': "be'Zovo", "Rar Besaro", and
"es Zovo" that a Zav is obligated to bring a Korban after three sightings.
And from "O Hechtim Besaro *mi'Zovo*" they learn that he is already a Zav
regarding all other Dinim after seeing just two times.
(b) The Rabbanan learn from "Ish Ki Yihye Zav mi'Besaro" that he is only
Tamei if the Zov flows by itself, but not because of an O'nes.
And from "Zovo Tamei, they (as well as Rebbi Yishmael) learn that the drop
of Zivus itself is also Tamei (and Metamei).
(a) We learn that the Shiur of Keri that is Metamei through touching is the
volume of a lentil, from "O Ish " written by Sheretz.
When the Mishnah gives the Shiur Tum'ah of a Sheretz as even less than a
lentil-volume, it is referring to a whole limb, which does not require a
Shiur, because the significance of the limb gives it the importance of a
lentil-volume. And the proof for this is that, if even a little of the limb
were missing, it would not be Metamei.
(b) A Sheretz is more stringent than Shichvas Zera, inasmuch as it is
Metamei, irrespective of the size or age of the Sheretz; whereas the Keri
of a Gadol is Metamei, but that of a Katan, is not.
(c) To explain that a Sheretz is stricter, because there is no distinction
drawn between the Sheratzim - e.g. a mouse is Metamei, whatever kind of
mouse it is, whereas with Shichvas Zera the Torah distinguishes between the
Zera of a Jew (which is Metamei) and that of a gentile (which is not),
would be incorrect. Why is that?
Because a distinction *is* drawn by the Sheratzim, too. How?
The Sheratzim of the land are Tamei, whilst the sea-Sheratzim are Tahor.
(d) The Gemara understands that when the Beraisa writes 'she'ha'Shichvas
Zera Metamei be'Chol Shehu, Mah she'Ein Kein be'Sheretz', it is obviously
striking a contrast between the touching of Zera and that of a Sheretz. So
we see, that Shichvas Zera does not have a Shiur, in contrast to Rav
The Gemara answers that we are not contrasting touching and touching, but
Sheretz, which never has the Shiur of a Mashehu, and Shichvas Zera, which
sometimes does - when it comes to making the person who has an emission,
(a) Some Tena'im hold that once we learn something from a certain source,
we learn, not only the Limud that the Torah sets out to teach us, but also
other things connected to the main Limud ('Don Mi'nah. u'Minah'). Hence,
when the Torah writes "O Ish Asher Yiga be'Sheretz" etc., from which we
learn that just like Sheretz is Metamei by touching, so too is Shichvas
Zera, we carry this further and say that just as only a lentil-volume
Sheretz is Metamei, so too is Shichvas Zera Metamei only when there is a
Other Tena'im however, hold that 'Don Minah, ve'Ukei be'Asrah' (Learn what
you need to from the Limud, but no more).
Consequently, we will learn from the 'Hekesh' of Zera to Sheretz, what we
need to - that Zera is Metamei through touching, but we do not extend this
to the the Shiur of touching. That, we will preferably learn from the
initial Din of a Ba'al Keri who sees Zera, and who is Tame even when he
sees no more than a Mashehu.
(b) If the Beraisa is speaking about the Pasuk "O Ish, Asher Teitzei Mimenu
Shichvas Zera" etc., then we are not learning Keri from anywhere else, but
Keri from Keri, in which case, the question of 'Don Mi'nah u'Minah' or'Don
minah ve'Ukei be'Asra' is not applicable. In fact, here we can only apply
'Don Minah u'Minah', and everyone will agree with that.