(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 13



(a) The Tana did not find it necessary to state 'Lo Yochal ha'Tahor Im ha'Temei'ah', because, so prevalent was Taharah in Yisrael, that no Tahor person would dream of eating together with a woman who was Temei'ah (even his own wife). That is why the Tana wrote 'Lo Yochal ha'Zav Im ha'Zavah' (a distinct possibility, since they are both Tamei anyway). because, as unlikely as it was for a Zav to have relations with a Zavah, it is not

(b) There is nothing wrong with a Zav who is a Parush being in the company of a Zav who is an Am ha'Aretz, or even with eating the Tamei food that he gives him. So why should anyone issue a prohibition, because he may come to do either of these things?

(c) Why should we be concerned that, perhaps the Zav who is an Am ha'Aretz will feed the Zav who is a Parush food that is not Ma'asered properly, since most Amei-ha'Aretz do Ma'aser properly (so such a decree would be a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah)?

(d) Rava therefore explains Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's reason to be that the Zav Am ha'Aretz may prevail upon the Parush to come and eat by him even when he is Tahor, and he will then feed him Tamei food.

(a) The chicken and the cheese are not human, and will not protest if one comes to eat one together with other. So how can we derive from the fact that eating them together is prohibited, that a Zav and a Zavah who are both fully-dressed, are also forbidden to sleep together, since there, the Zavah will have the common-sense to protest, should the Zav attempt to sin with her.

(b) The Gemara rejects the proof from the two guests, the one eating meat, the other cheese. The reason there is not because the other guest will protest, but because Shmuel established the Beraisa in a case where the two guest are unacquainted, and are therefore unlikely to eat from each other's food. But if they were acquaintances, then it would be forbidden to eat at the same table in spite of the likelihood of the second guest's ability to protest.

(c) This is not a reason however, to forbid a Zav and a Zavah to sleep together fully-clothed, because granted, the Zav and the Zavah like the two guests, possess the ability to protest, yet they have the added advantage of having made a 'Shinuy' (a sign which will remind them not to sin) - inasmuch as they are fully-clothed (whereas the two guests in the hotel do not have that advantage - Perhaps if they too, arranged a 'Shinuy' such as eating on different tablecloths, they too, would be permitted to eat together).

(d) Rav Yosef ultimately resolves our Sha'aleh from the Pasuk in Yechezkel, which compares a woman who is a Nidah (or a Zavah) to the wife of another man. Just as it is forbidden to sleep with a married woman, even when they are both fully-clothed (since the Torah forbids even *Yichud* with a married woman), so too, is it forbidden with one's own wife who is a Nidah or a Zavah.

(a) According to Rav Pedas, "Ish Ish el Kol She'er Besaro Lo Sikrevu Legalos Ervah" teaches us that with regard to incest, the Torah only forbids actual relations - incorporating even one's own wife who is a Nidah.

(b) Rav Pedas hold that physical contact (besides the actual act itself) is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan. Consequently, sleeping together fully clothed, will be a Gezeira li'Gezeira, which the Rabbanan do not normally prohibit. But according to Rav Yosef, physical contact by incest is Asur mi'd'Oraysa. sleeping together fully-clothed therefore, is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) Ula himself said that all physical contact with forbidden women is prohibited, (mi'de'Rabbanan) just as one tells a Nazir to go round the vineyard (rather than through it) in order that he should not even be tempted to sin. This seems to contradict his behaviour, inasmuch as kissing his sisters was concerned.

(a) The grief-stricken woman took her husband's Tefilin, and went round the Batei-Medrash, in order to establish why it was that a man who had learnt so much Torah, should die so young, considering that the Torah writes in Devarim "Ki Hu Chayecha ve'Orech Yamecha"!

(b) The Talmidei-Chachamim were unable to answer her.

(c) Eliyahu ha'Navi explained to her that the calamity occurred because they had slept together in the same bed (without even ensuring that their bodies did not touch), not whilst she was an actual Zavah, but during her seven clean days.
By 'Baruch ha'Makom she'Hargo' Eliyahu meant: 'Blessed be Hashem who did favour a Talmid-Chacham - since the Torah writes in Vayikra "ve'El Ishah be'Nidas Tum'asah Lo Sikrav". Until she has immersed in a Mikveh and become Tehorah, all physical contact is forbidden.
In Eretz Yisrael they said that she was wearing long undergarments, so that their bodies did not actually touch.




(a) On the day that the Chachamim went to visit Chananya ben Chizkiyah ben Gurion in his attic, they issued eighteen decrees.

(b) The Gemara wants to know whether 'Eilu Tenan' - the Halachos that have yet to be mentioned, are included in the decrees (but not the two above-mentioned Halachos ('Lo Yefaleh es Keilav, ve Yikra le'Or ha'Ner'); or whether '*ve*'Eilu Tenan', referring to the two above-mentioned Halachos, which means that they too, are included.

(c) The Gemara quotes a Beraisa, which specifically writes '*ve*'Eilu etc.', and goes on to list 'Ein Polin ... ve'Ein Korin, le'Or ha'Ner'.

(a) Megilas Ta'anis was the only book (or more accurately, scroll) apart from Tenach, to be written - since it was forbidden to transcribe any section of 'Torah she'be'Al Peh'. It contained a list of all the days on which minor miracles and minor acts of salvation had occurred, and on which Chazal had therefore prohibited fasting - the only two 'days' which remain with us are Chanukah and Purim.

(b) It was not the Tzaros of which Chananya and his associates were fond, but the miracles that were associated with their salvation, in order to thank and praise Hashem. Therefore they recorded them and called the book 'Megilas Ta'anis'.

(c) Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel did not write another Megilas Ta'anis either because ...

1. ... so many miracles occur daily that life would turn into one long stream of minor Yamim-Tovim;
2. ... just like the fool remains oblivious to things that happen to him, so too, were they unaware of many of the miracles that occurred.
(a) The third reason for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel not writing such a book is because 'Ein Basar ha'Mes Margish be'Izmal', which the Gemara at first took to mean, that just like a corpse is oblivious to pain, so too, had they become oblivious to all the miracles that occurred daily.

(b) However, the Pasuk writes "Ach Besaro Yich'av Alav", meaning that a corpse *does* feel pain - 'the bite of a worm hurts like a needle being jabbed into a live body'.

(c) Therefore the Gemara amends Rabban Shimon's statement to mean, that in the same way as, when a surgeon cuts away dead flesh from a live person's body, he does not feel the pain, so too, they had become insensitive to all the Tzaros that occurred daily. (And if they were insensitive to the pain, there was no point in decreeing a Yom-Tov).

(a) They added the title 'Zachur Oso ha'Ish le'Tov' to Chananya's name, because were it not for his efforts, they would have put the book of Yechezkel into Genizah (due to the apparent disparities with Torah-law, that they found there).

(b) It is because the Kohanim were permitted to eat the Korbanos, which were not Shechted, but killed through Melikah (a way of killing which, by Chulin, would render the animal a Neveilah), that Yechezkel found it necessary to specify the Kohanim in connection with the prohibition of the Kohanim may not eat Neveilah, to teach us that this concession is confined to Korbanos, and does not extend to Chulin.

(a) The only possible way to become Tamei d'Oraysa, through eating Tamei food, is by eating the Neveilah of a Tahor bird - and this is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv.

(b) Someone who eats a food which is a Rishon or a Sheini le'Tum'ah, or who drinks a Tamei beverage, becomes Tamei if he eats half a P'ras (the equivalent of two egg-volumes). It renders the person who eats it Pasul (which means that he does not transmit the Tum'ah any further). He becomes Tahor as soon as he Tovels in a Mikvah, and does not need to wait for nightfall, even if he is a Kohen, who wants to eat Terumah.

(c) Someone whose head and most of him enters a tub of drawn water becomes Tamei - only after he has Toveled in a Mikveh (because people were saying that it is the bath which purifies, not the Mikveh). Otherwise, taking a bath, does not render a person Tamei.

(d) The decree of Tum'ah on Sifrei Kodesh means that all Sifrei Kodesh - i.e. those comprising Tenach, are automatically Tamei, and render Terumah Tamei through contact.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,