THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
- LIQUIDS ABSORBED IN A "ZAV'S" POT
- The Mishnah (Kelim 9:5) says that utensils used by a Zav (and which had
absorbed Tamei liquids) which fell into an oven will only be Metamei the
oven if the oven is ignited (because the heat serves to extract the Tamei
liquids from the utensils). Rashi (DH Charasin) explains that the Mishnah
refers to utensils such as the urine-container ("Avit Shel Mei Raglayim")
of a Zav or Zava.
Rashi's words are perplexing. The Mishnah cited says that the oven is only
Tamei once the flame is ignited. Urine, however, is one of the Mashkin
Chamurin (that is, it is an Av ha'Tum'ah and not just a Rishon) and
according to Reish Lakish later in the Gemara, it is Metamei even without
igniting the flame of the oven!
It appears that Rashi was explaining the Mishnah according to Rebbi
Yochanan, who holds that even Mashkin Chamurin will not be Metamei the oven
until the oven is lit. Why, though, did Rashi explain the Mishnah at this
point according to Rebbi Yochanan? This question is strengthened by the
fact that the Sugya concludes that even Rebbi Yochanan holds that Mashkin
Chamurin that one wants to remove from a vessel (such as a
urine-container) will be Metamei the oven even before it is lit.
- When Rashi (DH Lo Shanu) explains what Mashkin Kalin are, he gives
tears and blood of a wound as examples. Rashi's words here are also
perplexing, because the Gemara earlier (55b) cites a Beraisa that lists the
tears of a Zav and blood of his wound as being on exactly the same level of
Tum'ah as water that the Zav touched. If so, why did Rashi not simply
explain Mashkin Kalim as water that the Zav touched?
- The Mishnah in Kelim specifically mentions that the utensils were used
by a Zav. Why does it mention Zav, when the same Halachah is true for
utensils used by anyone with any type of Tum'ah?
It must be that the Mishnah is specifically referring to Ma'ayanos of a Zav
such as urine (which is an Av ha'Tum'ah), which are exclusive to a Zav.
When Rashi explains the Mishnah to be referring to utensils that have
absorbed Mashkin Chamurin (such as urine of a Zav), he is explaining the
Mishnah according to Rebbi Yochanan in order to point out that Rebbi
Yochanan's opinion is the simple understanding of the Mishnah. Reish
Lakish's opinion is the novel approach that takes the Mishnah out of its
Why did Rashi pick sides? Rashi was bothered by a problem in the Sugya.
According to the Gemara's conclusion, Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Reish
Lakish that Mashkin Chamurin that the owner wants to be removed from the
utensils, and which can be removed, are Metamei (as the Mishnah (Ohalos
3:2) cited later in our Gemara says). However, Rebbi Yochanan still argues
that if the owner does not want the Mashkin Chamurin to be removed, even if
they will be removed in the future, they are not Metamei. From where did
Rebbi Yochanan learn this Halachah?
He learned it from the first Mishnah in our Sugya (Kelim 9:5) that says
that utensils absorbed with Mashkin Chamurin will not be Metamei (until the
oven is lit). From the apparent contradiction between the two Mishnayos,
Rebbi Yochanan derived the difference between when the owner wants the
Mashkin to come out and when he does not. This is what Rashi is pointing
out by explaining the Mishnah according to Rebbi Yochanan. (Based on the
Shiurim of ha'Gaon Rav Moshe Shapiro)
- Rashi was forced to explain Mashkin Kalim as the tears of a Zav and not
simply as water that a Zav touched, because otherwise why did the Mishnah
specifically say Zav and not any type of Tum'ah according to Reish Lakish.
Rashi understood, therefore, that the Mishnah is discussing only bodily
fluids, and since the list of bodily fluids was taught with regard to Zav
(see Gemara 55b), it mentions a Zav in the Mishnah. The Halachah of the
Mishnah, though, would apply to other Teme'im as well.
However, why did the Mishnah itself choose to discuss only bodily fluids?
The same Halachah should apply to water touched by a Zav! Perhaps the
Mishnah did not teach the Halachah with regard to water because water is
easily evaporated and it will evaporate before it reaches the inside of the
oven. Fluids from the body do not evaporate as quickly, and therefore they
will be Metamei the oven. (M. Kornfeld)
- LIQUIDS THAT ARE TAMEI WHICH HAVE BEEN ABSORBED
OPINIONS: Everyone agrees that Tamei liquids absorbed within another
substance (Mashkin Belu'in) that will not come out are Tahor. What is the
reasoning behind this Halachah?
- RASHI (DH Iy Lo) cites the Sugya in Chulin that says that a dead fetus
inside the mother's body is not Metamei because it is "Tum'ah Belu'ah,"
Tumah absorbed within another substance. This is also the opinion of Tosfos
DH mi'Kulei and the Ra'avad, Hilchos Tum'as Mes 20:5.
- The RAMBAM (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 20:5) rules that the only case where
Tum'ah Belu'ah is not Metamei is when it is absorbed inside a living being
(like the case in Chulin). The Vilna Gaon also learns like this (in his
commentary to Ohalos 11:7). According to the Rambam, a Tamei liquid that is
absorbed within another substance is Tahor because it is no longer
considered an independent entity. (It has become part of the substance in
which it is absorbed.)
- A HOUSE THAT ABSORBED BLOOD