ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 18
(a) The ruling that if a cow drank Mei Chatas, its flesh is Tamei, applies
only *after* it has been Shechted, because no live animal is subject to
(b) The Rabbanan did not decree Tum'ah on the water in the cow's stomach -
because it is unusual, and Chazal did not tend to issue decrees in unusual
(c) If Rebbi Yehudah had retracted only from the fact that liquid is Metamei
vessels, but still maintained that it is Metamei food, then why is the
liquid Batel in the cow's stomach? Why is it not Metamei the flesh Tum'as
(a) Tum'ah Chamurah means that it is Metamei even people and vessels; Tum'ah
Kalah means that it is Metamei only food.
(b) If Rebbi Yehudah means to say that the water is Batel only as regards
Tum'ah Chamurah (but not Tum'ah Kalah) - then when the Tana Kama says
'Besarah Tamei', he too must be speaking about Tum'ah Chamurah. If that is
so, why did he say only '*Besarah* Tamei'? Why did he not include the people
and the vessels, too?
(c) The Mishnah, which goes entirely like Rebbi Yehudah, now reads 'Parah
she'Shasesah Mei Chatas, Besarah Tamei. Bameh Devarim Amurim, Tum'ah Kalah,
Aval Tum'ah Chamurah, Lo, she'Rebbi Yehudah Omer' ...
(d) According to Rav Ashi, Rebbi Yehudah did not retract from the fact that
liquid is Metamei food. The reason that he renders the water in the cow's
stomach, Batel is because it lost its identity - since the Torah writes
"ve'Chol Mashkeh Asher Yishaseh", and this liquid is no longer drinkable.
(a) Rebbi Akiva explains the Pasuk "ve'Chol K'li Cheres Asher Yipol Mehem
... *Yitma*" to mean that if a Sheretz is dangled inside an earthenware
vessel, the air and the vessel become a Rishon le'Tum'ah, so that a loaf of
bread (for example) that is inside it (to which the Pasuk is referring)
becomes a Sheni. This we learn from the word "Yitma", which Rebbi Akiva
Darshens to read "Yetamei" i.e. that it transmits Tum'ah to others to make
them a Shelishi.
(b) If we were to consider the vessel as if it was full of the Sheretz, so
that everything inside it becomes a Rishon - then that would have to apply
to vessels, too. Since however, it is only food that receives Tum'ah inside
an earthenware vessels, and not vessels, it must be from *the vessel* (which
is already a Rishon, that the food receives its Tum'ah).
(a) Rebbi Yossi explains the Pasuk "ve'Chol Mashkeh Asher Yishaseh be'Chol
K'li *Yitma*" like Rebbi Akiva - namely, "Yetamei" , meaning that it too, is
Metamei food. It cannot be *liquid* that it renders Tamei, because we do not
find Tum'ah rendering its own kind Tamei.
(b) We learn that something cannot transmit Tum'ah to the same kind as
itself - from the reading of the word "Yitma", from which we Darshen *it*
becomes Tamei, but it cannot make its own kind Tamei.
(c) The "Yitma" 'Yetamei' (the second recipient of Tum'ah) in the Reisha is
definitely liquid. Consequently, if the "Yitma" 'Yetamei' in the Seifa would
also be liquid, then why did the Torah not combine its two statements into
one, to mention "Yitma" only once, instead of twice.
(a) We know that vessels are not Metamei vessels from the Pasuk "Kol Asher
be'Socho ... mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel", from which we Darshen '*food*
can receive Tum'ah from the air of an earthenware vessel, but not
(b) We only know that liquid which received Tum'ah from a Sheretz (which is
*not* written in the Torah) is Metamei from a Kal va'Chomer from liquid that
received Tum'ah from vessels (which *is*). Consequently, due to the
principle of 'Dayo Lavo min ha'Din Liheyos ke'Nadun', it cannot be more
stringent than its source - so if the latter cannot render vessels Tamei,
neither can the former.
(a) It cannot be *vessels* which receive Tum'ah from food - because we have
a Kal va'Chomer from liquid: If liquid, which *is* Metamei food, yet it is
not Metamei vessels, food, which is *not* Metamei food, is certainly not
(b) The Gemara needs to give the reason that food is Metamei *liquid*
(rather than *vessels*) 'Mishum de'Alulin Lekabel Tum'ah' (and is not
content with the Kal va'Chomer from liquid - as a reason why food should not
be Metamei vessels), because, on the other hand, we cannot learn food from
liquid, since food is more stringent than liquid, inasmuch as it is Metamei
liquid (which liquid is not). Maybe for that reason, it is also Metamei
(c) The reason that food is Metamei liquid may well be due to liquid's
susceptibility to Tum'ah - i.e. without needing to become Muchshar le'Kabel
(a) From "ve'Chi Yutan Mayim Al Zera ... *Tamei Hu*"- we also learn that
something cannot render something of the same kind, Tamei ("Tamei Hu" -
ve'Eino Oseh Keyotze Bo, Tamei').
(b) We need one (the above-mentioned) Pasuk for liquid that became Tamei
through a Sheretz, and the other ("Yitma") for liquid that became Tamei
through a vessel.
(c) We could not have known the leniency by liquid that became Tamei through
a Sheretz from liquid that became Tamei through a vessel - because it is
more stringent than it; as for liquid that became Tamei through vessels, we
could well have learnt it from liquid that became Tamei through a Sheretz.
However, it does not matter, because 'sometimes the Torah will write
something, even though it could have been derived from a Kal va'Chomer'.
(a) Rebbi Yossi learns from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei,
Lo Ye'achel" - that there is a Shelishi le'Tum'ah by Kodesh; because the
"Tamei" mentioned in the Pasuk includes a Sheni.
Rebbi Yossi does not hold that a Sheni makes a Shelishi in Chulin, because
he does not Darshen "Yitma" 'Yetamei'.
(b) If a Mechusar Kipurim (the night after he Toveled, and before he was due
to bring his Korban), who is permitted to eat Terumah, is Pasul to eat
Kodesh, then a Shelishi, who is Pasul to eat Terumah, will certainly make a
Revi'i by Kodesh.
(c) We might have applied the principle of 'Dayo Lavo Min ha'Din Liheyis
ka'Nadun' - and said that just as a Mechusar Kipurim (the source of the Kal
va'Chomer) is a Shelishi, so too can the Shelishi make a Shelishi, but not a
Revi'i. However, we do not need a Kal va'Chomer to teach us a Shelishi, and
wherever saying 'Dayo' destroys the Kal va'Chomer, we don't say 'Dayo'.
(d) If Rebbi Yossi held like Rebbi Akiva, that there is a Shelishi le'Tum'ah
by Chulin - then he ought to have talked of a *Revi'i* by Terumah and a
*Chamishi* by Kodesh.