ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 20
(a) How an animal of a Shelamim (which the Pasuk renders Tamei) became
Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah- is not a problem, since there is plenty of water
in Yerushalayim (where the Shelamim had to be eaten) to render the animal
Muchshar (and it could have become Muchshar, for example, whilst it was
being washed). The problem is regarding an animal of Kodshim in the Azarah,
as we shall now see.
The flesh of the Korban become Muchshar Lakabel Tum'ah through the water of
the river, via which the owner led the animal on its way to the Beis
Hamikdash to be Shechted. It was probably a Shelamim, which the owner was
trying to improve (by making it easier to skin) in this way.
(b) The flesh of the Korban could not have become Muchshar ...
1. ... through blood (either its own or of another Korban) - because of
Rebbi Yochanan, who said 'Dam she'Nishpach ka'Mayim, Machshir, ve'she'Eino
Nishpach ka'Mayim, Eino Machshir'.
(c) To say that the flesh became Muchshar through Chibas ha'Kodesh - would
be synonymous with saying that Chibas ha'Kodesh causes Kodshim to become not
only Pasul, but Tamei (to transmit Tum'ah to others - the Mishnah says
'ha'Basar *Tamei* and not just *Pasul*). And clearly, that is not how Resh
Lakish (who is uncertain whether Chibas ha'Kodesh renders Pasul or even
Tamei) interprets the Mishnah.
2. ... through the water with which it was washed - because of Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Chanina, who said 'Mashkeh Bei Mitbechaya ... Ein Machshirin'.
(d) Resh Lakish asked whether a Tzerid shel Menachos - the dry flour of
Menachos (the parts where there was no oil, and which is subject to Tum'ah
only because of Chibas ha'Kodesh) can even become a Rishon or a Sheni
le'Tum'ah, or whether it can only be Pasul, but no more.
(a) The Gemara thought that the Beraisa was was referring to liquid dung -
because we are speaking when he had just watered the animal, as we learnt
(b) Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa even by liquid dung. Liquid dung, he
says, is not called a Mashkeh - but a Mashkeh Saru'ach (a smelly liquid).
(a) If a Sheretz is Metamei liquid, which is Metamei a vessel, which in
turn, is Metamei food, which is Metamei liquid, we have here *four* Tum'os
which result from a Sheretz - so why does the Beraisa write *three*?
(b) It is the *first* 'liquid' that must be eliminated, and not the *second*
- because there is no Tana who holds that liquid renders vessels Tamei
except Rebbi Yehudah, who retracted.
(c) Leaving the first liquid intact would have anyway caused a problem -
because it is only food that received Tum'ah from a vessel which in turn,
received Tum'ah from a *Sheretz* that is Metamei liquid, but not from a
vessel which received Tum'ah from *liquid*.
(d) To manufacture Nezaisa (barley-beer) - they would bring first the
vessel, then the barley (the food) and then the water (the liquid).
(a) We think that bread in an oven in which there is a dead Sheretz becomes
a *Rishon* le'Tum'ah - because we consider the whole oven to be full of
Tum'ah, so that everything inside it becomes a Rishon.
(b) If this were so, it would mean that the oven has the Din of an Av
ha'Tum'ah, which is Metamei everything, even vessels. In that case, how
would we account for the Beraisa, which learns from the juxtaposition of
"mi'Kol ha'Ochel" to "Kol Asher be'Socho Yitma", that only *food* can
receive Tum'ah from the air of an earthenware vessel, but not *vessels*?
Consequently, we are forced to say that the air becomes a Rishon (and not an
Av), and the food inside it, a *Sheni*.
(a) Rebbi Yossi (in a Beraisa) *forbids* burning Terumah Teluyah together
with Temei'ah - because maybe Eliyahu will come and declare the Terumah
(b) the Tana of our Mishnah, in whose opinion Rebbi Yehoshua *permits* it -
is Rebbi Shimon, with whom Rebbi Yossi argues.
(c) What Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah is saying to Rebbi Meir, is - that even
Rebbi Shimon (with whom he disagrees), who is lenient, is only lenient by
*Teluyah* and Temei'ah, but not by *Tehorah* and Temei'ah.
1. Rebbi Meir even goes so far as to permit burning Terumah Temei'ah,
Teluyah and Tehorah all together on Erev Pesach.
2. Rebbi Yossi forbids burning any two of them together; according to him,
each one must be burnt separately.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer agrees that one may burn Terumah *Tehorah* together with
Teluyah - because, since there is no Chezkas Tum'ah, it does *not* appear as
if he is being Metamei Terumah with his hands. Whereas he forbids the
burning of Terumah *Temei'ah* together with Teluyah, because, since the
Teluyah has not been declared Tamei, it *does*appear as if he is being
Terumah with his hands.
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua permits burning even Terumah *Temei'ah* together with
Teluyah - because, in his opinion, the prohibition of being Metamei Terumah
is confined to a Vaday Tum'ah, not to a Safek.
(a) Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah quoting Rebbi Yehoshua, forbids burning
Terumah Tehorah together with Temei'ah - because it entails only a small
loss, unlike the Chulin wine which he is saving from becoming Medumeh, which
is considered a big loss.
(b) The Gemara proves this distinction by virtue of Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion
with regard to a barrel of *oil*, which, under the same circumstances as the
wine (which he just permitted to render Tamei), he forbids. Why is that?
Because oil can still be used for fuel, in which case the loss is only a
small one; whereas by the spilling wine, which is not fit for Ziluf
(sprinkling), as we shall soon see, the loss is a big one.
(c) 'Ziluf' means sprinkling with the aim of settling the dust - and the
reason that the use of fuel applies to oil more than Ziluf does to wine is
because we are talking about fresh wine, which may not be kept until it
becomes old, in case one comes to inadvertently use it; oil on the other
hand, can be kept in smelly vessels (which will discourage people from using
it in the interim) until it becomes fit to be used as fuel. One cannot
however, keep wine for Ziluf in smelly vessels, because Ziluf, unlike fuel,
requires a pleasant aroma.
(d) We know that Ziluf was considered important in those days - because
Shmuel quoted Rebbi Chiya as saying that someone who is willing to pay *one*
Sela for wine to *drink*, should be willing to pay *two* Sela for the same
wine for *Ziluf*.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi makes a compromise between Beis Shamai, who
forbid retaining a barrel of Terumah wine which became Tamei, and Beis
Hillel, who permit one to retain it to use for Ziluf. According to him, in
the field, it must be poured out immediately (and not taken home to make
Ziluf there, because we are afraid that, in the interim, he may drink it);
but in the house, he may use it for Ziluf whilst he is pouring it out.
Alternatively, new wine must be poured out immediately (as we learnt above);
whereas old wine, which is fit for Ziluf immediately, may be used for that
(b) Beis Hillel are *not* worried about Takalah (inadvertently using it if
one is permitted to keep it), whereas Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi *is*.
(c) The previous Sugya, which *is* worried about Takalah - holds like Rebbi
Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi.
(d) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi is not considered a Machri'a, because
neither Beis Shamai nor Beis Hillel gave any indication that they
acknowledge the distinction that Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi made, in which
case, he is not really compromising at all, but is merely a third opinion,
which is not necessarily Halachah.