ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 51
(a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri renders the Kasher fledgling Tamei Ochlin
without even a Machshavah on the basis of the same Kal va'Chomer as the
Chachamim: If a Nivlas Of Tahor can be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah (the person
to be Metamei his clothes) without a Machshavah, then it is certainly
Metamei a Tum'ah Kalah (ordinary Tum'as Ochlin), without a Machshavah.
(b) According to Rava's original explanation of 'Einah Yoredes le'Kach',
the Gemara explained the Rabbanan's objection to Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's
Kal va'Chomer like this: whereas by Tum'ah Chamurah, the person does not
make another person Tamei (even mi'de'Rabbanan), by Tum'ah Kalah, the Ochel
does make another Ochel Tamei (mi'de'Rabbanan). Consequently, we cannot
learn that Tum'ah Kalah should be Metamei without Machshavah, from Tum'ah
Abaye however, rejects this because in fact, the opposite is true - Since
we see that Tum'ah Kalah is stricter than Tum'ah Chamurah, the Kal
va'Chomer is, if anything, strengthened, not weakened.
(a) The Gemara now learns that we cannot learn Tum'ah Kalah,
which requires Hechsher Mayim (in order to make it an Ochel), from Tum'ah
Chamurah, which does not require any form of Hechsher at all.
(b) The Hechsher that Tum'ah Kalah (of a Nivlas Of Tahor) does not need, is
that of a Sheretz.
(c) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from "Al Kol Zera Zeiru'a Asher
Yizarei'a", that food is not Metamei a person without a Hechsher, when it
is similar to seeds, which do not stand to become Tamei with a Tum'ah
Chamurah; but a food which stands to become Tamei with a Tum'ah Chamurah
(such as a Nivlas Of Tahor) does not require any Hechsher - even Hechsher
Mayim - in order to be Metamei a person.
(d) When the Rabbanan differentiated between a Tum'ah Kalah and a Tum'ah
Chamurah, they were saying that, whereas a Tum'ah Chamurah never needs a
Hechsher, there are some Tum'os Kalos which *do* require a Hechsher (even
though *this* case of Tum'ah Kalah does *not*).
(a) Rava maintains that Rebbi Yochanan will agree that, although regarding
Tum'ah, a Machshavah to render a food, on something that is attached, is
not effective, a similar Machshavah on to render it a food regarding *is*
(b) The Mishnah is Mechayev Ma'aser, hyssop, and various kinds of seeds
which are not normally sown as human foods (according to Rava), as long as
they are ultimately guarded (for human consumption).
Now if the Mishnah was speaking when the hyssop was originally sown for
human consumption, then what would be the Chidush? So it must be speaking
when they were originally sown for animals, but the owner then decided to
guard them to be used for humans, from which we see that Machshavah by
attached crops is effective (and Rebbi Yochanan would not argue with a
(c) Rav Ashi establishes that the Mishnah speaks when the hyssop etc. grew
by itself, and, in his opinion, hyssop and crops of a similar nature, *are*
intended for human consumption. The Chidush, according to Rav Ashi, is,
that if the crops are guarded, they are Chayav Ma'asros, but if not, they
are Hefker, and Hefker is Patur from Ma'aser.
(d) Rav Ashi asks from our Mishnah which says that, whatever is Chayav
Ma'asros, is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. But according to Rava, if someone
plants endives for animals, and then, whilst they are still growing, he
decides to use them for humans, they *will* be Chayav be'Ma'aser, but are
*not* subject to Tum'as Ochlin.
(e) Rava answers that what the Mishnah means is that *any species* that is
Chayav Ma'aser is Chayav Tum'as Ochlin, but not that in every case that the
former applies, so does the latter.
He proves this from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which says that 'whatever is
Chayav Reishis ha'Gez is Chayav Matanos'. Now a Tereifah is not subject to
Matanos even though it is still subject to Reishis ha'Gez?
Unless we say that the Mishnah is not concerned with individual cases, but
to species - and it is correct to say that all the species which are Chayav
Reishis ha'Gez, are also Chayav Matanos.
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, a Tereifah is not subject to Reishis ha'Gez
either; accordingly, if the author of the Seifa of the Mishnah is Rebbi
Shimon, Rava's proof that the Mishnah is referring to 'species', falls
(b) The Beraisa of 'ha'Mafkir es Karmo' etc. presents us with a case where
one is Chayav Pei'ah, but Patur from Ma'asros (where he was Mafkir his
vine-yard, and next morning, he picked the grapes). That Beraisa appears to
clash with our Mishnah of 'Kol she'Chayav be'Pei'ah, Chayav be'Ma'asros'?
Unless we say like Rava - that the Mishnah is referring to 'species', and
not to individual cases!
(a) We have already learnt that whatever is subject to Pei'ah, is subject
to Ma'aser, so that, if the Rabbanan agree that aniseed is Chayav Pei'ah,
it must also be Chayav Ma'aser; and since only food is subject to Ma'aser,
aniseed must also be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin.
(b) The first Beraisa, which includes aniseed in the Dinim of Ma'aser, and
consequently, of Tum'as Ochlin, is speaking about aniseed which is not used
as a spice, but as a dip ('le'Chamach').
(c) Since the Mishnah says in Uktzin that, once aniseed has given taste to
the pot, it is no longer Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, we can infer that, before
it has given taste to the pot, it *is* Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. Now if
aniseed was meant to be used for taste - i.e. as a spice, then it would not
be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin at all, as we learnt earlier. Consequently, we are
forced to say that S'tam aniseed is used 'le'Chamach', as a dip.
(a) Cows etc. are not subject to Reishis ha'Gez (even as regards the fluff
on the tip of the tail).
(b) Whatever grows all year round, such as the leaves of 'Lof' (a species
of onion - even a wild one) or a Dandana (a type of mint), is subject to
Ma'aser, but not to Biy'ur, since Biy'ur, by definition, applies to the
various species as the season terminates, and there is nothing left in the
fields for the animals to eat.
(a) The Gemara at first thought that "Kaskeses" could also mean fins. The
Torah therefore, writes "Senapir", so that we should know that "Kaskeses"
(b) The Gemara then explains that "Kaskeses" inherently means scales (like
we find the word used by the suit-of-armor of Golyas), in which case
"Senapir" remains superfluous.
(c) The Torah nevertheless writes "Senapir", although it is not necessary
to do so, to teach us, by the way, that the Torah knows everything -
including the fact that every fish that has scales, has fins - but not
(a) The Gemara rejects the contention that the Mishnah is referring to
Mitzvos as being the things over which one recites a Berachah before but
not afterwards, because in Eretz Yisrael, they would indeed recite the
Berachah of 'Lishmor Chukav' after removing their Tefilin (since the Torah
uses the expression "ve'Shamarta es ha'Chukah ha'Zos" - in Parshas Bo -
with regard to Tefilin, Tosfos d.h. 've'Livnei').
(b) Our Mishnah in fact, refers to things that one smells, over which a
Berachah is recited before, but not afterwards.
(c) The reason for this is because the benefit is minimal (presumably
because it is so short-lived).