Dear Rabbi Kornfeld,
Tosafoth, DH Mikamaita, says that having cut off the Nega, the person is Tamei only miderabanan.
The Gemara asks more than once in various places: where did the Tum'a go to? After all, the person was declared "Tamei" by the Kohen and the Kohen was never shown that the Nega had shrunk or disappeared, so when did he declare the person Tahor?
Or are we talking about a case hwere after cutting of the Nega, the delinquent waited till the cut healed, and then showed the place to the
Kohen, who pronounced the delinquent Tahor, in which case the Tum'a is only derabanan? That would imply that a pronouncement of a Kohen under false information is valid; that seems strange to me.
Should we say that opinion on this would be divided, like in the issue of Hekdesh Ta'ut, or Neder Ta'ut? If so then according to Beit hillel, since Hekdaesh Ta'ut is not valid, neither should be a Tahara pronounced on the basis of false information!
Yeshayahu HaKohen Hollander
The information is not false. A person who does not have a Nega is Tahor, even if the Nega did not heal. If he does not have a Nega -- even through transgressing the Isur of Ketzitzas Baheres -- he is actually Tahor.
Dear Rabbi Zupnik,
Thank you for the rsponse that a person who removes the Nega is Tahor and doesn't need a Kohen to pronounce him clean.
Would that imply that a person with a Nega who removes it by surgery can now come to Beis Hamikdah and go through the rituals connected with Tahara, after which he can eat Kodashim?
If so, we should say that a person with a Nega should do so if he has a korban to bring.: Yavo asei - to bring his korbanot veyidcheh lo Taase! And if it is close to the end of the period and he is likely to transgress 'Bal Teacher' - then we would have Ase veLo Taase veyidchu lo Taase! And if the korban to be brought would be Korban Pessah - we would have an Ase sheyesh bo Kareth!
Has this been discussed anywhere?
The Gemara in Shabbos (132b) uses Ketzitas Baheres as one of the classic examples of Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh needing to be "b'Idnei." Milah is therefore Docheh Ketzitzas Baheres, while the case you mention does not.