ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) We ask whether, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the second birth has M'los regarding 'Tum'ah' - by which we mean whether the sixty-six days of Taharah pertain to her or not.
(b) The suggestion that perhaps Rebbi Yehudah's previous ruling is confined to Korban - is due to the fact that the second birth took place before the Korban for the first one fell due, but it may well be considered a birth as far as the days of Tum'ah and Taharah are concerned.
(c) The procedure would then be - to break the days of Taharah for the first birth, then to count seven days of Tum'ah for the second one, before concluding the days of Taharah of the first birth and counting the sixty-six days of Taharah of the second.
(d) What prompts us to consider the second side of the She'eilah, as opposed to the first is - the assertion that perhaps Rebbi Yehudah goes le'Chumra (to require more Chata'os, and to minimize the days of Taharah), but not le'Kula (allowing the days of Taharah to be deferred until after the days of Tum'ah have been completed).
(a) The other side of the She'eilah is - not to count the days of Tum'ah of the second birth with a view of continuing the days of Taharah of the first one after them, but rather of counting them simultaneously (thereby minimizing the actual days of Taharah of the first Leidah.
(b) We cannot simply not contend with the second Leidah at all (even with regard to its own days of Tum'ah and Taharah) - because that would be a Kula too (to allow a Tevulas Yom to eat Kodshim before her eighty days have terminated).
(c) Rav Huna from Sura tries to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which rules - that one may Shecht the Korban Pesach and sprinkle its blood on behalf of a Yoledes, on the fortieth day after she gave birth to a boy, or on the eightieth day after a girl (to enable her to eat it after nightfall).
(d) The problem with this Beraisa as it stands is - that seeing as she still needs to bring her Kaparah on the following day, how can she possibly eat the Korban Pesach that night?
(a) Rav Chisda therefore establishes the Beraisa by twins according to Rebbi Yehudah - where she gave birth to one twin on one day and to the second one on the next, so that the fortieth day after the birth of the first twin is the forty-first day after the birth of the second one.
(b) We now try to prove from there - like the first side of the She'eilah, that Rebbi Yehudah does not contend with the second birth even le'Kula (otherwise, due to the second birth, she would be a Mechusar Kipurim).
(c) We refute the proof (based on Rav Chisda's explanation) however, by establishing the Beraisa even according to the Rabbanan, and the Beraisa is speaking about a Pesach that is brought be'Tum'ah (i.e. where most of the community is Tamei). The problem with this is - that a Pesach that is brought be'Tum'ah cannot be eaten by Zavin or Zavos, Nidos or Yoldos (Mechusrei Kaparah [as we learned in the Mishnah in Pesachim]) ...
(d) ... because the concession of 'Pesach ha'Ba be'Tumah' only applies to Tum'as Meis (which is external), but not to Tum'os that come from the body).
(a) To reconcile the Beraisa with the Mishnah in Pesachim, we therefore establish it where the Yoledes Toveled, (whereas the Mishnah is speaking specifically about Zavin and Zavos ... who did not.
(b) Despite the fact that the Tevilah took place already on the eighth day, the Tana nevertheless only permits the Yoledes to send her Pesach on the fortieth - because he holds that a T'vul-Yom of a Zav (the period between the Tevilah and the day that he brings his Korban) has the Din of a Zav ...
(c) ... in spite of which the Beraisa permits her to Shecht her Pesach on the fortieth or on the eightieth day (even though she is still a Mechusar Kipurim) - because on the other hand, he holds that a Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is not like a Zav.
(d) This answer will not go according to Rava, who holds in Zevachim - that the Mechusar Kipurim of a Zav is like a Zav.
(a) To conform with Rava, Rav Ashi therefore establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Yishmael, who holds - that just as a baby boy is formed in forty-one days, so too is a baby girl formed in eighty-one days ...
(b) ... and the Beraisa is speaking (not about the fortieth or eightieth day after the birth, but) - about the fortieth or eightieth day of the pregnancy, in which case, she is allowed to eat the Pesach, because the baby was not yet formed when it was born, and the mother is not therefore, Tamei Leidah.
(c) And to answer the Kashya why she should still not be forbidden to eat the Korban Pesach because of Nidus (like every Yoledes) - we establish the Beraisa by a dry birth (where there was no blood, and where she is therefore not Tamei Nidah) ...
(d) ... and the Chidush of the Beraisa is - that it is possible for a woman to experience a dry birth.
(a) Rebbi Sh'mayah tries to resolve the She'eilah from another Beraisa. The Tana there learns from "Yom" - that the sixty-six days of Taharah following the birth of a girl are always consecutive (like the day, whose parts are always consecutive).
(b) The author of the Beraisa cannot be the Rabbanan - according to whom there is no such thing as sixty-six scattered days (as we learned in our Mishnah).
(c) Rebbi Sh'mayah therefore establishes the author as Rebbi Yehudah, who discounts the possibility of the sixty-six days being scattered, a proof - that he confines the days of Tum'ah of the second birth le'Chumra, but not le'Kula (which 'scattered' entails), as we explained.
(d) We refute this proof however, by establishing the Beraisa like the Rabbanan after all, but where the woman gave birth to a male baby during the M'los of a female baby - whereas in our Mishnah, they are speaking about the other way round, as we explained there), and ...
1. ... the case of the Pasuk is - where the forty days of Tohar of the second birth end before the conclusion of the eighty of the first birth.
2. ... we learn from "Yom", that she does not make up the second days of Taharah that correspond with the seven days of Tum'ah of the male, but that one rather counts the days of Tum'ah and Taharah of the second birth alone.
(a) The problem with this explanation is - that in such a case, it is not possible to find 'scattered days' (pertaining to the first birth [i.e. where the eighty days of the first birth end after the forty days of the second birth]) according to the Rabbanan - since if one takes into account the fourteen days of Tum'ah following the birth of the first baby, and the forty days of pregnancy, the second baby can only have been born at the earliest, twenty-six days before the M'los of the first.
(b) So we amend the previous answer by establishing it in a case of twins, in which case it is possible to find sixty-six scattered days - where the male baby was born twenty (or even up to thirty-nine) days after the birth of the first, leaving anything between one and twenty days to make up later.
(c) According to the Limud of "Yom", the days of Tohar now end - after the thirty-three days of Tohar from the second birth. And that is when she is allowed to eat Kodshim (according to the Rabbanan).
(a) Abaye resolves the She'eilah from the Seifa of the same Beraisa as Rebbi Sh'mayah. The Tana there learns from the word "Yom" (in the Pasuk "u'Sheloshim Yom u'Sheloshes Yamim") - that the thirty-three days of Taharah following the birth of a boy must be consecutive.
(b) The Beraisa is referring to a case - where the woman gave birth to twin boys, where the second one was born within thirty days of the first.
(c) And the Pasuk is coming to teach us - that we incorporate the remainder of the thirty (three) days in the seven days of Tum'ah of the second birth, and do not complete them afterwards.
(d) The author cannot be the Rabbanan - who count the days of Tum'ah and Taharah of the second birth (in which case there are no scattered days).
(e) Consequently, the Beraisa learns from "Yom" - that according to Rebbi Yehudah, we count the days of Taharah from the second birth, even though, as far as the Korban is concerned, we count from the first one.
(a) Rav Ashi brings an additional proof from the Beraisa, which discusses the words there " ... ve'Sheishes Yamim". The Tana learns there from "ve'Shishim (Yom)" that precedes it - that just as the sixty days are consecutive, so too must be the six ...
(b) ... with reference to a case - where the Yoledes gives birth (to a miscarriage) sixty-three days after the beginning of the days of Taharah (seventy-seven days following the birth) of a girl.
(c) From the fact that the Beraisa does not give her the remaining three days of Taharah after the days of Tum'ah of the second birth, Rav Ashi proves - that Rebbi Yehudah goes after the first baby le'Chumra, but not le'Kula.
(a) Our Mishnah lists five cases of Korban Oleh ve'Yored. The first is 'Shemi'as Kol' - which refers to someone who ignores a call, under oath, to come and testify on something that he witnessed.
(b) After Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodoshav, Yoledes and Metzora, the one remaining case is - Shevu'as Bituy (meaning someone who contravened his own oath not to do something that would otherwise have been permitted).
(c) The Beraisa cites three kinds of Korban in connection with a Korban Oleh ve'Yored. When the Tana refers to ...
1. ... 'Ashirus', he means a she-lamb or a she-kid goat.
2. ... 'Dalus', he means - a young dove or a pigeon.
3. ... 'Dalei Dalus', he means a tenth of an Eifah of flour.
(d) Of these ...
1. ... two (Ashirus and Dalus) effect Yoledes and Metzora and ...
2. ... all three Shemi'as Kol, Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav and Shevu'as Bituy.
(a) Another Beraisa learns that sometimes an Ani brings one instead of the one of an Ashir, and sometimes he brings two instead of two - sometimes he brings two instead of one, and sometimes he brings one instead of two.
(b) When the Tana says that ...
1. ... a Yoledes brings one instead of one, he means - that she brings a second bird instead of the lamb.
2. ... a Metzora brings two instead of two, he means that he brings - two birds instead of the two lambs.
3. ... Shemi'as Kol, Bituy Sefasayim and Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodoshav bring two instead of one, and one instead of two, he means - that they bring two birds instead of one she-lamb or a she-kid goat (by Dalus) and a tenth of an Eifah instead of two birds (by Dalei Dalus).
(c) The Beraisa finally extrapolates - that the Asiris ha'Eifah of flour must be worth at least a P'rutah (as we shall now see).
(d) The Beraisa arrives at this amount through a sequence of Limudim. We learn that the minimum value of a lamb (which is in its first year) is a Sela - from the fact that the Torah gives the price of a ram (in its second year) as two Sela'im.
(a) The minimum value of a pair of birds is a quarter of a Dinar, as we learned above in the Mishnah.
(b) The latter (a quarter Dinar) is - one sixteenth of the former (one Sela), since there are four Dinrim in a Sela.
(c) And there are forty-eight P'rutos in a quarter of a Dinar (as there are a hundred and ninety-two Perutos in a Dinar).
(d) If Dalus to Dalei Dalus follows the same ratio as Ashirus to Dalus (one sixteenth), the tenth of an Eifah of flour ought then to cost - three Perutos.
(e) The problem with this is - that the Beraisa gives the value as one Perutah.
(a) We answer that the Beraisa that reckons a Perutah, is referring specifically to a Yoledes - who brings only one bird (costing an eighth of a Dinar instead of a sixteenth).
(b) There are twenty-four P'rutos in an eighth of a Dinar (which is equivalent to a thirty-second of a Sela).
(c) When reckoning Dalei Dalus however, we cannot reckon a thirty-second of an eighth of a Dinar - because there is no Dalei Dalus by Yoledes (whilst on the other hand, the Dalus of those that do have Dalei Dalus comprises two birds).
(d) Consequently, we have to reckon one sixteenth of their Dalus (which comprises two birds), in which case the price of the flour ought to be one and a half Perutos - one sixteenth of the twenty-fourth of a Dinar of the Dalus of a Yoledes, as we just explained.
(a) In other words, we are comparing the ratio between the Dalus and the Dalei Dalus to the ratio between the Ashirus and Dalus of a Yoledes, in which case the minimum value of the flour of Dalei Dalus would be - one and a half P'rutos (as we just explained [and not the required P'rutah]).
(b) Rava therefore concludes that we gauge both the Dalus and the Dalei Dalus by the ratio of the Dalus and Ashirus of a Yoledes (even though there is no Dalei Dalus by a Yoledes) in which case, the minimum value of the Asiris ha'Eifah ought to be - three quarters of a Perutah.
(c) Nevertheless. the Beraisa gives the value as a P'rutah - because it is not respectful to bring a Korban that is worth less than a P'rutah.
(a) The distinction that the Tana draws between someone who has relations with a Shifchah Charufah and one who has relations with any of the other Arayos, as regards ...
1. ... the punishment (i.e. their respective Korbanos) is - that the former brings an Asham, the latter, a Chatas.
2. ... the gender of their respective Korbanos is - that the former is a male, the latter, a female.
3. ... the punishment of the two sinners - that whereas the man and the woman in the former receive different punishments (he a Korban, she, Malkos), in the latter case - the latter always receive the same punishment (be it Malkos, a Korban [or Misah]).
(b) We learn from the words "Shichvas Zera" (in the Pasuk in Kedoshim [in connection with a Shifchah Charufah] "ve'Ish ki Yishkav es Ishah Shichvas Zera") - that as opposed to all other Arayos (who are Chayav for Ha'ara'ah [the initial sexual contact, even though it cannot produce children), a Shifchah Charufah is only Chayav if there was G'mar Bi'ah (the final stage of intimacy, which can).
(c) The final leniency which the Tana presents regarding a Shifchah Charufah over other Arayos is - that whereas the latter are Chayav a Korban for each Bi'ah, the former brings only one Korban for any amount of Bi'os (as we learned earlier).
(d) Based on the words there "ve'Hafdeh Lo Nifdasah", Rebbi Akiva defines 'Shifchah Charufah' as - a half Shifchah and a half bas Chorin (whom one of her joint masters set free).
(e) According to Rebbi Yishmael, she is a Vaday Shifchah. Rebbi Eliezer ben Azaryah (who concurs with Rebbi Akiva) says - that whereas the status of all other Arayos is fixed, a Shifchah Charufah's status is mixed.