ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Megilah 8
MEGILAH 6-10 sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) The only two differences between someone who is a Mudar Hana'ah and
someone who is Mudar only regarding food, are that the latter is permitted to
enter the Madir's property, and that he may borrow from him vessels that are
not used for food. Even the latter are forbidden however, if they are vessels
that are normally hired (because whatever gains the user a Perutah, allows
him to buy food with his gains).
(b) The author of our Mishnah who permits the latter to enter the Madir's
property must be Rebbi Eliezer - who forbids a Mudar Hana'ah even such
benefit that people tend to forego.
(c) The Chachamim would permit a Mudar Hana'ah to enter the Madir's property,
since most people are not fussy about such trivial benefits.
(a) The only difference between a Neder and a Nedavah is that one is
responsible for the former but not for the latter.
1. A Neder (in this context) - is when one says 'Harei Alai' ('I am obligated
to bring a Korban') following which, he designates a specific animal to
fulfill his promise.
(b) When the Tana says that one is not responsible for a Nedavah - he means
that, should it die or get lost or stolen, he is not responsible to re-place
2. A Nedavah - is when he designates a specific animal as a Korban by
declaring 'Harei Zu Hekdesh' ('This animal is Hekdesh').
(c) Rebbi Shimon learns this distinction from the Pasuk "ve'Nirtzah Lo
Lechaper *Alav*" - implying that he has taken the responsibility on his
(a) The distinction between a Zav who sees twice and one who sees three times
is that the latter must bring a Korban. Their Din is the same however -
regarding Tum'as Mishkav u'Moshav (lying on something that is made to lie on
and sitting on something that is made to sit on - which renders them an Av
ha'Tum'ah), and the need to count seven clean days.
(b) Rebbi Sima'i learns from the fact that the Torah calls a Zav who had
*two* sightings Tamei as well as one who had *three* - that after two
sightings, a Zav becomes Tamei (with all the Chumros of a Zav); but that he
only becomes obligated to bring a Korban after the third sighting.
(c) It would be illogical to say that the Torah mentions 'two' for Tum'ah
(and not a Korban), and 'three' for a Korban (but not Tum'ah) - because,
having become Tamei after the *second* sighting, how can the Tum'ah go away
after the *third*?
(a) The Gemara suggests that maybe two is for a Korban only, and three comes
to *add* Tum'ah. We refute this suggestion from the Pasuk in Metzora
"ve'Chiper Alav ha'Kohen *mi'Zovo*" however - because the Pasuk suggests that
only in *some* cases does a Zav bring a Korban, and not in *all*.
(b) We cannot learn from the Pasuk that someone who sees twice brings a
Korban, but not someone who sees three times - because, like we said before,
having become Chayav to bring a Korban after seeing twice, how can he then
become Patur because he saw again?
(c) The Torah needs to write "mi'Zovo", in spite of Rebbi Sima'i (that the
Torah calls both a Zav who had *two* sightings Tamei and one who had
*three*), to dispense with the Kashya in a. But now that we have "mi'Zovo",
we still need Rebbi Sima'i - because without his Derashah, we would not know
how many times a Zav needs to see to become first Tamei, and then to bring a
(a) Now that we Darshen the prefix 'Mi', we (initially) learn from the Pasuk
in Metzora "ve'Chi Yit'har Ish *mi*'Zovo" - "mi'Zovo" 've'Lo mi'Zovo
u'mi'Nega'o', meaning that a man who is both a Zav and a Metzora may Tovel
after his seven clean days, to become Tahor from the Tum'os of Zav (Mishkav
u'Moshav and from being Metamei earthenware vessels by moving them
indirectly) the moment he becomes Tahor from his Tzara'as and Tovels (without
having to wait another seven days after becoming Tahor from his Tzara'as).
(b) The Tevilah is not effective immediately in any way.
(c) And we learn from the continuation of the Pasuk "*mi*'Zovo ve'Safar" - to
say that even a partial Zav (one who saw only twice) must also count seven
(d) We cannot learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the fact that he renders
Tamei through Mishkav and Moshav - because we have a precedent to the
contrary in a woman who saw once or twice during the eleven days between
Nidah and Nidah, who also renders Tamei through Mishkav and Moshav, yet she
does not require seven clean days.
(a) We just learned that "*mi*'Zovo ve'Safar" comes to *in*clude a Zav who
saw twice in the Din of seven clean days. Even though in the previous
Derashah ("ve'Chi Yit'har ha'Zav *mi*'Zovo"), we learned to *ex*clude
("mi'Zovo" 've'Lo mi'Zovo u'mi'Nega'o') - this is not possible here; because
to exclude a Zav who saw twice from the Din of seven clean days, does not
require a Pasuk (seeing as, even the 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mishkav and Moshav
- which might have included him, is ineffective, in face of the Shomeres Yom
Keneged Yom, as we just explained).
(b) In fact, now that we need the word "mi'Zovo" for the *latter* Derashah,
we can no longer use it for the former. We learn the Din of "mi'Zovo" 've'Lo
mi'Zovo u'mi'Nega'o', not from "mi'Zovo", but from "ve'Chi Yit'har *ha'Zav*
mi'Zovo", which is also superfluous (since the Torah could have written
"ve'Chi Yit'har mi'Zovo".
(a) The two differences between ...
1. ... a Metzora Musgar and a Metzora Muchlat - are P'ri'ah and P'rimah (the
prohibition of cutting the hair and tearing one's clothes for a close
relative, respectively), which pertain to the latter but not to the former.
(b) A Metzora Musgar and a Metzora Muchlat the same - as regards being sent
out of the camp (any walled town), and the stringent laws of Tum'ah that
pertain to a Metzora.
2. ... a Metzora who becomes Tahor after being a Musgar and one who became
Tahor after being a Muchlat - Tiglachas ve'Tziparim (shaving off all the hair
and bringing a Korban consisting of two birds respectively), which pertain to
the latter but not to the former.
(c) Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Huna that a
Metzora Musgar is subject to P'ri'ah and P'rimah from the Pasuk in Tazri'a
"ve'Chibes Begadav *ve'Taher*" - implying that there is something from which
he was already Tahor before (since the Torah did not write "ve'Yit'har").
(d) Rava asks on this Derashah from the same Pasuk which appears in Metzora
with regard to a Zav - because if "ve'Taher" implies what we just said it
does, how will we explain it by a Zav (from what can he possibly be Tahor
(a) We learn from "ve'Chibes Begadav *ve'Taher*" (by Zav) - that, from the
moment he Tovels on the seventh day, he does not render Tamei earthenware
vessels which he moved indirectly from that moment until he sees again (even
though, if he does have another sighting on the same day, he negates the
seven clean days retroactively in every other regard but this one).
(b) Correspondingly, we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Chibes Begadav *ve'Taher*"
(by a Metzora Musgar) - that once he has Toveled, he will not render Tamei
any vessels that are in the house that he enters between the Tevilah and the
spreading of the Tzara'as (even though, if the Tzora'as does subsequently
spread, it renders him Tamei retroactively).
(c) Rava ultimately learns that a Metzora Musgar is not subject to P'ri'ah
u'P'rimah from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'ha'Tzaru'a Asher *Bo* ha'Nega" -
implying that P'ri'ah u'P'rimah are confined to a Metzora Muchlat, whose
Tzara'as depends upon his personal situation (as long as it is there, he is a
Metzora; as long as it is not, he is not), but not to a Musgar, whose
Tzara'as depends upon time.
(d) Nevertheless, a Metzora Musgar is sent out of the camp, despite the fact
that the Torah specifically writes "Kol Yemei Asher ha'Nega *Bo* Yitma" -
because, on the other hand, the Torah writes "Kol" to include him (as to why
the Torah needs to write both "Bo" and "Kol", see S'fas Emes).
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Yatza el mi'Chutz la'Machanah ve'Hinei *Nirpa* Nega ha'Tzara'as min ha'Tzaru'a" - that it is only a Metzora Muchlat (whose Tzara'as depends upon whether he is cured or not) who has to shave off all his hair and bring two birds, but not a Musgar (whose Tzara'as depends upon time).
(b) These the only two differences between the Taharah of a Metzora Muchlat and that of a Musgar - on the day that he becomes cured. On the eighth day, a Muchlat also has to bring an Asham and a Log of oil (which a Musgar does not), but our Sugya is not concerned with this.
(a) According to the Tana Kama, the only difference between the writing of Sefarim (Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim) and that of Tefilin and Mezuzos - is that Sefarim may be written in any language, whereas Tefilin and Mezuzos must be written
in Lashon ha'Kodesh.
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that also Sefarim may only be written in Greek (ancient
(c) Sefarim and Tefilin and Mezuzos are the same - with regard to stitching them together with sinews
and to rendering the hands Tamei.