ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 80
(a) What is the point of creating a situation of Rov Teme'im, asks the
Gemara? What is wrong with each group bringing the Pesach independently,
which is Rav's ruling by Mechtzah Al Mechtzah?
(b) Rav's reason cannot be because he holds like Rebbi Elazar ben Masya, and
he is speaking when there is already one Tamei person more than the Tehorim
- because, in that case, we can ask the same question again: What is wrong
with each group bringing the Pesach independently, like by Mechtzah Al
(c) The Gemara finally explains Rav, that if there is anyone who holds both
like the Tana Kama of the Beraisa (who says that each group brings the
Pesach independently), and like Rebbi Yehudah (who rules 'Ein Korban Tzibur
Chaluk'), then the only compromise will be to be Metamei one person with a
(a) Ula disagrees with Rav - because he holds 'Shochtin ve'Zorkin Al Tamei
Sheretz', in which case nothing will be gained by being Metamei someone,
seeing as he will still be able to bring his Pesach through a Sheli'ach.
The distinct advantage of Rav's method over Ula's - is that nobody will want
to gather his belongings and leave town, when he has the option of just
touching a Sheretz and going to Mikvah (see Tosfos DH 'Akar').
(b) He therefore suggests that one sends someone away, thereby exempting him
from bringing the Pesach, creating a situation of Rov Teme'im.
(c) Being Metamei him with a Mes and sending him away have the same
advantage inasmuch as he will able to bring the Pesach Sheni. The advantage
of sending him away lies in the Chagigah (of the fifteenth), which the
latter will be able to perform, but the former will not. Why not? Because
Ula is of the opinion that the opportunity to bring the Chagigah on the
subsequent days of Pesach is not simply an extension of the Mitzvah for
another six days, but an opportunity to compensate the Mitzvah that fell due
on the first day. Consequently, someome who was Tamei and therefore not
Chayav on the first day of Pesach, has nothing to compensate, and is Patur
from Chagigah on the other days.
(a) If the majority of the Tzibur were Zavin, and the minority Teme'ei Mes,
the latter do not bring the Pesach Rishon - because they are in the
*minority*, and it is only when the *majority* are Tamei Mes that they bring
the Pesach be'Tum'ah. Nor do they bring the Pesach Sheni - because the
Pesach Sheni is only brought if the Pesach Rishon was brought first.
(b) Rav will explain the Pasuk "ve'Ya'asu B'nei Yisrael es ha'Pasach
be'Mo'ado" when it is possible; but not when it is *not*, just as even
Shmuel would have to agree if *all* of Yisrael were Zavin.
(a) When Rav Huna said 'Ein Tashlumin le'Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah' - he was
referring to a case where the majority of Yisrael were Teme'ei Mes, and the
minority, Zavin. And what he meant was - that, since it was a Pesach ha'Ba
be'Tum'ah, the Zavin do not bring the Pesach Sheni either.
(b) Rav Ada Bar Ahavah holds 'Yesh Tashlumin le'Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah' -
and the Zavin *do* bring the Pesach Sheni.
(c) The Gemara initially attempts to explain that Rav Huna holds 'Tum'ah
Dechuyah be'Tzibur' (and we do not consider the Teme'ei Mes as if they were
Tahor); whereas Rav Ada bar Ahavah holds 'Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur' (and we
consider the Teme'ei Mes as if they were Tahor).
(d) The Gemara concludes that, according to both opinions, 'Tum'ah Dechuyah
be'Tzibur', and whereas Rav Huna holds that it is only a *Pesach ha'Ba
be'Taharah* that pushes the minority to bring a Pesach Sheni, Rav Ada bar
Ahavah maintains that even a *Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah* does, too.
According to Rav Mani bar Patish, if one third of the Tzibur are Zavin, one
third, Tahor and one third, Tamei Mes, the Teme'ei Mes do not bring ...
1. ... the Pesach Rishon - because against the third who are Zavin plus the
third who are Tahor, the Teme'ei Mes form the minority, who do not bring the
2. ... the Pesach Sheini - because together with the third who are Zavin,
they form the majority who did not bring the Rishon, and the majority do not
bring the Pesach Sheni.
(a) If after the Kohen sprinkled the blood, it was discovered that the
*Pesach* or the *blood* was Tamei, the Pesach is Kasher - because the Tzitz
atones for Tum'ah.
(b) This does not apply to a case where the *owners* were discovered to have
been Tamei Mes - because the Torah ordered anyone who is unfit to bring the
Pesach Rishon, to bring a Pesach Sheni.
(c) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yamus Mes ... va'ha'Yamim ha'Rishonim
Yiplu" - that a Nazir too, who became Tamei before he brought his Korbanos,
is not Yotze, and is obligated to begin his period of Nezirus all over
(d) Tum'as ha'Tehom is when there is a buried corpse of which nobody was
previously aware, and which only became known to the owner of the Korban
Pesach after he had already brought it, or to the Nazir after he had brought
*his* Korbanos. He will have fulfilled his obligation, and does not to to
bring a fresh Korban - Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.
(a) According to Ravina, the Beraisa: 'Al Mah ha'Tzitz Meratzeh, Al ha'Dam
ve'Al ha'Basar, ve'Al ha'Chelev she'Nitma Bein be'Shogeg Bein be'Mezid' ...
is confined to *Tum'ah*; the *Zerikah* however, is only effective if it was
performed be'Shogeg, but not be'Mezid (i.e. when he knew that he was Tamei,
as is implied by our Mishnah).
(b) Rav Shilo explains ...
1. ... 'Bein be'Shogeg, Bein be'Mezid' of the Beraisa to refer exclusively
to the Tum'ah; but as for the Zerikah, it makes no difference whether it was
performed be'Shogeg or be'Mezid.
(c) The Tana of the Beraisa writes 'Al Mah ha'Tzitz Meratzeh ... Bein
be'Yachid, Bein be'Tzibur'. Clearly, the Tzitz atones for both.
2. ... the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Dam she'Nizrak ve'Achar-Kach Noda' -
not because there is any difference between Shogeg and Mezid (as we thought
at first), but because he wants to write in the Seifa 'Nitma ha'Guf, Ein
ha'Tzitz Meratzeh, which pertains even to 'Nizrak ve'Achar-Kach Noda
(Shogeg); so he presented that case in the Reisha.
(a) Rami bar Chama asks whether the Halachah of Tum'as ha'Tehom extends to
the Kohen who discovered that he was Tamei Tum'as ha'Tehom whilst bringing
someone's Korban Pesach or Shalmei Nazir, or whether Tum'as ha'Tehom is
restricted to the owner of the Korban concerned.
(b) Assuming Rebbi Chiya's intention (in confining Tum'as ha'Tehom to Tum'as
Mes) is to preclude Tum'as Sheretz from Tum'as ha'Tehom, he cannot possibly
be referring to Tum'as ha'Tehom by a *Nazir* - due to the Pasuk "Ki Yamus
Mes Alav", which teaches us that even in the case of *Vaday* Tum'ah, it is
only Tum'as *Mes* that causes a Nazir to demolish the days of Nezirus that
he has already kept, but not Tum'as *Sheretz*, how much more so *Safek*!
(c) Rebbi Chiya might well be referring to the owner of a *Korban Pesach*
who became Tamei Tum'as ha'Tehom of a Sheretz, according to those who hold
'Shochtin ve'Zorkin Al Tamei Sheretz', since according to them, even a
*Vaday* Tamei Sheretz is Kasher, how much more so a *Safek*!
(d) Establishing that Rebbi Chiya comes to preclude the owner of a Korban
Pesach who became Tamei Tum'as ha'Tehom of *Zivah* on his seventh day is not
the same as establishing it by a Tamei Sheretz - because a Tamei Sheretz
will definitely be fit to eat the Pesach that night (so, according to those
who hold 'Shochtin ve'Zorkin Al Tamei Sheretz', if a Vaday Tamei Sheretz is
permitted, why should a Safek not be?); whereas a Zav on his seventh day can
only be compared to a Tamei Sheretz if he does *not* subsequently have a
sighting of Tum'ah; if he *does*, then he will be obligated to begin his
period of Nezirus again. And *that* is the case that Rebbi Chiya is coming
to preclude from the Din of Tum'as ha'Tehom.