x-mailing-list: daf-disc...@shemayisrael.com
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
d...@dafyomi.co.il
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Re: Bechoros 034b: Being Metaher a Nega
Pesach Feldman asked:
>>If R. Eliezer says "Yetaher," the Metzora is Tahor as soon as he gets
another Nega, even if the Kohen will not see it for another seven days.
How can a Yisrael decide that the old Nega is Tahor due to the appearance
of a new Nega? He is effectively saying that the new rash is indeed a Nega
- but we know that only the Kohen may determine what is a Nega!
This is especially difficult according to Rashi, who holds that he is not
Tahor retroactively.<<
The Kollel replied:
>>When the Gemara states (second line from top of 34b) 'Yitaher' this means
that he is only Tahor after the Kohen saw it.
Even according to the possibility raised by Rav Papa below that it reads
Yitaher without a Vav (and Rashi DH Yitaher writes that according to this
he is Tahor from the first Nega immediately that the second one appears)
this also means that the Kohen must see the second Nega. The chidush of the
Yitaher possibility is that he does not have to wait till the second Nega
becomes Tahor for him become tahor from the first, but he does require a
Kohen to say the second Nega is Tamei.<<
---
The Kollel adds:
1. I think that I have support, b'Siyata d'Shmaya, for the above reply from
the He'oros of Rav Elyashiv zt'l on Bechoros 34b (page 254). The subject of
his paragraph there is, "Is it possible to make Tahor the Matzora without a
Kohen?"
Rav Elyashiv explains that even according to the first side of Rav Papa's
question, that immediately when another Nega appears he becomes Tahor from
the first one (see Rashi DH Yit'har), nevertheless it is necessary that a
Kohen pronounce him Tahor because he cannot become Tahor on his own. Rav
Elyashiv says that the second Nega's appearance cannot be better than the
first Nega healing. Since, in the latter case, a Kohen is required to
pronounce him Tahor, when a second Nega appears it is also essential to
have a Kohen pronounce the first Nega as Tahor.
2. I found that the Sefas Emes (34b, DH b'Gemara Ba'i Rav Papa) appears to
be in doubt about whether it is necessary that the Kohen must rule that the
second Nega is Tamei.
The Sefas Emes is commenting on the question of Rav Papa of whether the
text is "Yit'har" or "v'Yit'har," and on the question of the Gemara of what
difference does it make if it says "Yit'har" or "v'Yit'har." The Sefas Emes
asks that it is difficult to understand why the Gemara is doubtful about
the difference between "Yit'har" and "v'Yit'har," because there appears to
be a very clear difference, as follows:
If we say that as long as a second Nega develops, even if the Kohen did not
say it was Tamei when he saw it (for example, the Nega had already shrunk
to less than the size of a barley grain by the time the Kohen saw it, in
which case it could not be pronounced as Tamei), nevertheless the first
Nega is still rendered Tahor by the appearance of the second Nega, then it
follows that there is a significance difference between "Yit'har" and
"v'Yit'har." According to the text of "Yit'har," the first Nega would
become Tahor even if the second Nega was less than a barley grain by the
time the Kohen saw it. According to the text of "v'Yit'har," we require the
Kohen to pronounce the second Nega as Tamei and that the second Nega should
later heal.
3. We see that the Sefas Emes entertains the possibility that it is not
necessary for the Kohen to see the second Nega in order to make it Tamei.
Possibly, we may explain the reason for this as follows. First, we should
be aware of the fact that the discussion in our Gemara -- concerning the
person who cut off the Baheres -- is entirely occupied with Tum'ah
d'Rabanan, because mid'Oraisa -- since the Baheres has been removed -- it
is no longer Tamei. The entire Sugya is about a penalty that Chazal gave
the Metzora for cutting off the Baheres.
Since the Tum'ah involved here is only mid'Rabanan, we may now say that
Chazal were more lenient about how the Metzora becomes Tahor from it. It is
sufficent that we should know that the Kohen developed any kind of Nega and
then became Tahor from that Nega. Once we know that the Kohen was healed
from the second Nega, we can then apply the logic written by Rashi (on the
third line of 34b) that when the second Nega is cured, we may now say that
if the first Nega would still have been present it would also have healed.
The reason for this is given by the Bartenura in Nega'im (7:4, DH
k'she'Yivaled) that since he was healed of the second Nega, this shows us
that Hashem had mercy on the Metzora, and even if the first Nega would not
have been cut off, nevertheless Hashem would have had mercy on him and
healed this Nega too.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Write to us at d...@dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Tel/Fax(US): 646-820-3315; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004
_______________________________________________
Daf-discuss mailing list
Daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il
http://mail.shemayisrael.co.il/mailman/listinfo/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il
