ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 67
(a) Abaye asks on Resh Lakish (who learnt from 'Yomar Teme'ei Meisim, ve'Al
Yomar Zavin u'Metzora'in', that, by a Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah, Teme'ei Meisim
bring the Korban Pesach *Rishon*, and not the *Sheni*) - maybe we ought to
say 'Yomar Zavin u'Teme'ei Meisim, ve'Al Yomar Metzora (because of a Kol
she'Kein) ... Ela Yesh Lecha Sha'ah, she'Metzora'in Mishtalechin, ve'Ein
*Zavin u'Teme'ei Meisim* Mishtalechin; ve'Eizeh, Zeh Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah'
(which puts Zavin on a par with Temei'ei Mes in this regard)?
(b) This suggestion is unacceptable - because of the Beraisa, which
emphatically writes that all other Tum'os, with the exception of Tum'as Mes
be'Tzibur, must bring the Pesach Sheni.
(c) Abaye ultimately learns that Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah (by Tum'as Mes only)
brings the Pesach Rishon (and is not disqualified completely from bringing
the Korban Pesach), from the original Pasuk of "Ish Ish Ki Yihye Tamei
*la'Nefesh*". "la'Nefesh" cannot come to disqualify other Tum'os from
bringing the Pesach altogether - because of the Beraisa, which learns from
"Ish Ish", that all Tum'os who are unable to bring the Pesach Rishon, must
bring the Pesach Sheni. Consequently, "la'Nefesh" must be coming to tell us
that Tum'as Mes is different inasmuch as there are occasions when he brings
the Pesach Rishon (i.e. when the Tzibur are Tamei Mes), whereas other Tum'os
(a) Rav Chisda learns (with regard to the La'v of "ve'Lo Yetam'u es
Machaneihem") from the Asei of "Badad Yeshev, Michutz la'Machaneh Moshavo" -
that a Metzora who enters the borders that are forbidden to him, does not
receive Malkos (because it is a La'v ha'Nitak la'Asei). The borders of a
Metzora are inside the walls of any Jewish town.
(b) We learn from "va'Yikach Moshe es Atzmos Yosef Imo" - that it is not
only a Tamei Mes who is permitted inside the Machaneh Leviyah, but even a
(c) Rav Chisda's statement is actually a Machlokes Tana'im; The Tana of this
Beraisa who states that both a Metzora and a Zav who entered an area that is
forbidden to them receive Malkos, learns from 'Badad Yeshev, Michutz
la'Machaneh Moshavo", that a Metzora must leave even the third camp
(Machaneh Yisrael) where a Zav is permitted.
(d) "Kol Yemei Asher ha'Nega Bo" - implies that whenever the Metzora enters
an area that is forbidden to him, he must leave it, to be alone once again;
whereas "Badad Yeshev, Michutz la'Machaneh Moshavo" - may well be confined
to a Metzora who is outside the forbidden area, but not necessarily to once
he has entered it.
(a) Rebbi Shimon maintains that having taugght us that Tamei Mes is
obligated to leave the camp, why does the Torah need to add a Zav, and
having added a Zav, why does it need to add a Tzaru'a? If it is not to teach
us that a Zav must leave one Machaneh more than a Tamei Mes, and a Tzaru'a
one Machaneh more than a Zav - leaving "Badad Yeshev" ... to add an Asei
(like Rav Chisda).
Rebbi Yehudah, the Tana who disagrees with the Limud of Rav Chisda, learns
(b) A Tamei Mes has a Chumra over a Zav inasmuch as he requires sprinkling
with the ashes of the Parah Adumah on the third and the seventh days.
(c) We learn that a Tamei Sheretz must leave the camp - from the extra word
"*ve'Chol* Tamei la'Nefesh".
(d) The first sighting of a Zav is Metamei be'O'nes just like a Tamei
1. ... "Badad Yeshev" - 'Levado Yeshev, she'Lo Yihyu Temei'im Acherim
Yoshvim Imo' (i.e. Zavin and Temei'ei Meisim).
2. ... "ve'Lo Yetam'u es Machaneihem" - that the Zavin and the Temei'ei
Meisim must have separate Machanos (namely, the Har ha'Bayis and the
Machaneh Leviyah respectively.
(a) A Metzora is more stringent than a Zav inasmuch as he is forbidden to
cut his hair, is obligated to rent his clothes and is forbidden to have
marital relations (at least, for the duration that he is locked up).
(b) A Zav is more stringent than a Metzora inasmuch as he is Metamei Mishkav
and Moshav and renders an earthenware vessel Tamei by moving it.
(c) A Metzora does in fact, make a Mishkav and a Moshav, too, only he
renders what he lies or sits on a Rishon, whereas a Zav renders what he lies
or sits on, an Av.
(a) A Metzora is more stringent than a Ba'l Keri in the same three areas
that he is more stringent than a Zav (see 5a.)
Rebbi Eliezer learns from "Kol Tzaru'a, ve'Chol Zav ve'Chol Tamei la'Nafesh"
- that, whenever a Tamei Meis is permitted in the Azarah (such as by a
Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah), a Zav and a Metzora do not receive Kares for
entering (even though they are not initially permitted to do so).
(b) This Tana holds like Rebbi Nasan - that a Ba'l Keri requires
'ka'Chasimas Pi ha'Amah' (which he learns from "*ve'Chol* Zav") , and not a
Mashehu. Consequently, there is no area in which a Ba'l Keri is more
stringent than a Metzora.
(c) In fact, we do not learn anything from *"ve'Chol* Tzaru'a" - however,
since the Torah wrote "ve'Chol Zav" (as we just explained), it also writes
(a) The two Machanos from which a Ba'l Keri is sent out are the Machaneh
Shechinah and the Machaneh Levi'ah.
(b) The Mechilos are the tunnels underneath the Azarah. According to Rebbi
Yochanan, they were not sanctified.
(a) The Beraisa compares him a Ba'l Keri to a Maga Sheretz - with regard to
Metamei be'O'nes (unlike the Zav to whom the Ba'l Keri is otherwise
(b) The Tana cannot be referring to the duration of its Tum'ah i.e. until
nightfall - because the Torah specifically writes this with regards to both
a Maga Sheretz and a Ba'l Keri, so we do not require a Pasuk to teach us