ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sotah 29
SOTAH 26,27,29,30 - These Dafim have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham-Fauer in
honor of the first Yahrzeit (18 Teves 5761) of her father, Reb Mordechai ben Eliezer
Zvi (Weiner). May the merit of supporting and advancing the study of the Talmud be
(a) Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk "u'Vas Kohen Ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar" - that the
*Bi'ah* of any man (even without betrothal) who is unfit to marry a bas Kohen makes
her a Zonah and forbids her to eat Terumah and to marry a Kohen.
(b) Rebbi Akiva ultimately learns the Isur of a Sotah to her husband, the Bo'el, to a
Kohen and the Isur to eat Terumah from four Pesukim - the three "Nitma'ah" and the
one 'Vav' in "Ve'nitma'ah"?
(a) Rebbi Yishmael does not Darshan the 'Vav' in "Venit'ama'h", so he only has the
three Pesukim of "Nitma'ah" - from which he Darshens 'le'Ba'al', 'leBo'el' and
(b) In fact, he learns Kehunah from a 'Kal va'Chomer'. He prefers to learn Terumah
from a Pasuk and Kehunah from a 'Kal va'Chomer', rather then Kehunah from a Pasuk in
which case, the Sotah would be permited to eat Terumah - because it is logical to
establish the third D'rashah by Terumah, which like Ba'al and Bo'el, applies in the
lifetime of the husband, rather than by Kehunah, which only applies after his
(c) Rebbi Akiva on the other hand, requires four Pesukim. The reason that the Torah
needs four Pesukim, and will not suffice with three plus the 'Kal va'Chomer' (like
Rebbi Yishmael) may be because he disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael's S'vara (that the
third D'rashah must be similar to Ba'al and Bo'el). Alternatively, to answer the
Kashya, we might rely on the principle - 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal va'Chomer, Tarach
ve'Kasav Lah K'ra' (the Torah specifically included a Pasuk for Kehunah, despite the
fact that we would have known it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Terumah anyway).
(a) We can extrapolate from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel" - that if it is only a
Safek Tum'ah, then one may eat it (without becoming Tamei).
(b) Rav Gidal Amar Rav learns from this apparent contradiction - that when the Safek
is able to ask, it is Tamei in the Reshus ha'Yachid, whereas when it is not, it is
2. ... "ve'ha'Basar Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" - that if it is a Safek Tamei, then one
cannot eat it (without becoming Tamei).
(c) In view of ...
1. ... Rav Gidal's D'rashah, we nevertheless need to learn the Din of Da'as Lisha'el
from Sotah - to confine the Tum'ah in a ase of 'Ein Lah Da'as Lishaeil' to a Reshus
ha'Yachid, like by Sotah.
2. ... the source of Sotah, we nevertheless need Rav Gidal's D'rashah - to teach us
that Da'as Lisha'el is Tamei even if it is only the Safek that is able to ask,
whereas from Sotah we would have derived that both the Safek and the Tamei 'object'
must both be in that category in order to be Tamei.
(a) The problem with Raban Yochanan ben Zakai in our Mishnah, who holds that everyone
agrees with the concept of a Shelishi le'Tum'ah at least in Terumah; however, since
he could not find a Pasuk for it, a generation would arise who would declare it
Tahor. The problem with this is - if he had no Pasuk for a Shelishi le'Tum'ah, why
should they not declare it Tahor?
(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav cites a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a T'vul Yom - who is permitted
to eat Chulin, yet he invalidates Terumah, a Sheini, which is Pasul by Chulin, should
certainly make a Terumah a Shelishi.
(c) We do not apply the principle of 'Dayo' (to restrict the the Sheini to being
itself Pasul to eat Terumah, like the T'vul-Yom to which it is being compared, but
not to make it a Shelishi) - because that we know already, and we have a
counter-principle that where the 'Kal va'Chomer' will not achieve anything new, then
we ignore 'Dayo'.
(a) We refute ...
1. ... the 'Kal va'Chomer' however - on the grounds that a T'vul-Yom (a Tamei person
who has Toveled and who is waiting for nightfall) is an Av ha'Tum'ah, whereas a loaf
that is a Sheini is only a Toldah.
(b) Food cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah - because when the Torah speaks about a Tamei
Mes becoming an Av, it has just spoken about Taharah be'Mikveh, and food cannot be
purified in a Mikveh.
2. ... the suggestion that we are speaking about a T'vul-Yom of a Sheretz, who is
only a Sheini, and who nevertheless, invalidates Terumah - on the grounds that even a
T'vul Yom of a Sheretz (i.e. a person) is of the species that can become an Av
ha'Tum'ah (through contact with a corpse); whereas a loaf which is a Sheini is not.
(a) It is in order to bring a support for the 'Mah Matzinu' from a T'vul-Yom of a
Sheretz from earthenware vessels (which cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah), in spite of
the fact that they are different, inasmuch as they are not permitted by Chulin (like
a T'vul-Yom of a Sheretz is) - because since we are basically learning a Chumra, it
doesn't matter that they do not possess the Kula which sparks off the 'Mah Matzinu',
Rashi explains. All that matters is that they don't possess the Chumra which creates
(b) We refute the suggestion to learn a loaf which is a Sheini from an earthenware
vessel, which cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah, and yet it can invalidate Terumah on the
grounds that earthenware vessels are different - inasmuch as they can receive Tum'ah
from the inside (even when there is no physical contact between them).
(c) Raban Yachanan ben Zakai ultimately learns that loaf of bread that is a Sheini
can make a Shelishi in Terumah - from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' (a combination of a T'vul-Yom
and earthenware vessels (which are both permitted.
(a) Rashi changes the current text of the 'Mah ha'Tzad' (from she'Mutarin be'Chulin
u'Poslin bi'Terumah') to 'she'Temei'in u'Poslin bi'Terumah'. He initially attempts to
explain 'u'Poslin bi'Terumah' with regard to K'lei Cheres - by establishing the case
by earthenware vessels that are covered and sealed tightly shut, in which case the
vessel protects Chulin that it contains from Ohel ha'Meis, but not Terumah.
(b) One of the reasons for refuting this explanation is because the implications from
a Sugya in Chagigah are that it protects Terumah, too. His second reason is - because
the phrase 'u'Poslin bi'Terumah' would then be inappropriate (since the correct
wording would have been 've'Eino Matzeles bi'Terumah).
(c) Rashi's main objection to the current text 'she'Mutarin be'Chulin' is - because
'she'Mutarin le'Chulin' is a Kula and not a Chumra.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "U'va ha'Shemesh *Ve'taher*" - that a T'vul Yom is
(b) The later generation, that would declare a Sh'lishi le'Tum'ah Tahor, according to
Raban Yochanan ben Zakai, would reject the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' because of the Pircha of
'Tzad Chamur' (which *he* does not consider a Pircha) - meaning that each of the
Pirchos is particularly radical, and can therefore not combine to include a Sheini
le'Tum'ah, which does not possess such a radical Chumra.
(a) Rebbi Yossi learn from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga *be'Chol Tamei*, Lo
Ye'achel" - that there is a Shelishi in Chulin (seeing as the Pasuk incorporates meat
that touches a Sheini).
(b) He goes on to learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mechusar Kipurim, that a Revi'i
ba'Kodesh is Pasul - because, if a Mechusar Kipurim, who is permitted to eat Terumah,
renders Kodesh Pasul, then a Shelishi, who is Pasul to eat Terumah, should certainly
render Kodesh Pasul.
(c) We might apply here the principle of 'Dayo Lavo Min ha'Din Liheyos ka'Nadun' -
and restrict the D'rashah to making a Shelishi, like a Mechusar Kipurim from which we
are learning it.
(d) We do not however, apply it - because, as we explained earlier, whenever 'Dayo'
renders the 'Kal va'Chomer ineffective, we ignore it (and here too, we already know
that a Shelishi is Pasul.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan queries Rebbi Yossi from the opinion of the Rabbanan in a Beraisa,
who say that food of Kodesh or Terumah that touched a T'vul-Yom is Pasul, yet it does
not make a Revi'i ba'Kodesh. Rebbi Meir considers a T'vul-Yom a Sheini with regard to
Kodesh (like with regard to Terumah). Practically, this means - that it is Metamei
one and Posel one.
(b) Aba Shaul says - that a T'vul-Yom has the Din of a Rishon as regards Tum'ah,
which means that it is Metamei two, and Posel one.
(a) Rav Papa suggests that Rebbi Yossi holds like Aba Shaul. He mentions Aba Shaul
(and not Rebbi Meir) as if to say 'Who says that Rebbi Yossi is not even as strict as
(b) We answer that if Rebbi Yossi held like Aba Shaul, he would learn a Revi'i
ba'Kodesh from food that touched a T'vul-Yom (rather than from a Mechusar Kipurim) -
because if food that comes from a T'vul-Yom (which is itself permitted to eat Chulin)
makes a Revi'i, then a Shelishi that comes from a Sheini (who is forbidden to eat
Chulin), should certainly make a Revi'i.
(c) We refute the Kashya that we cannot learn from a T'vul-Yom, since it is an Av
ha'Tum'ah (like we asked above) - since it is clear that Rebbi Yossi does not
consider this a Kashya.