QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that during the Regel (festival), when the entire Jewish nation gathers in Yerushalayim, an Am ha'Aretz is trusted with regard to the Taharah of his produce, like a Chaver. This is derived from the verse, "And each man of Yisrael gathered towards the city like one man, comrades (Chaverim)" (Shoftim 20:11). The redundancy of "Chaverim" teaches that everyone is considered to have the status of a Chaver when all of the people gather together in the city, such as during the Regel.

What is the reasoning behind this Halachah?

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav 11:9) writes that during the Regel an Am ha'Aretz is Tahor because prior to the Regel everyone is Metaher himself in preparation for the Yom Tov (Rosh Hashanah 16b).

However, it is clear from the Gemara that despite this reason, we do not place our full trust in Amei ha'Aretz with regard to Tum'ah and Taharah during the Regel. The Mishnah and Gemara in Chagigah (26a) teach that if a person opened his barrel to sell wine or flour during the Regel, once the Regel passes it is all considered Tamei because of the Amei ha'Aretz who touched it during the festival. Similarly, the Kohanim needed to be Metaher the Azarah after the Regel due to the Amei ha'Aretz who entered during the Regel. It must be that the Chachamim trusted Amei ha'Aretz in these situations only out of necessity, and only in a limited way.

Why did the Chachamim deem it necessary to trust the Amei ha'Aretz during the Regel? During the Regel, when all of Klal Yisrael gathers in one small area, it would be physically impossible for the Chaverim to separate themselves and all of their utensils and clothes from the Amei ha'Aretz. Moreover, such conduct during the Regel would have caused a major rift in Yisrael. (See Insights to Chagigah 26:2.)

The MAHARATZ CHAYOS here writes that this second reason is the intent of the Yerushalmi, which derives this Halachah from a different source than the Bavli. The Yerushalmi in Bava Kama (7:7) quotes the verse that describes Yerushalayim as "k'Ir she'Chubrah Lah Yachdav" -- "like a city that is connected together" (Tehilim 122:3). The Yerushalmi derives from this verse that the city Yerushalayim connects Jews to each other, meaning that they are all considered Chaverim when gathered there. The Maharatz Chayos asks that the Yerushalmi in Chagigah (3:6) also learns this Halachah from this verse, but it says simply that everyone is made Chaverim during the Regel. Why is there a difference in terminology between the two sources in the Yerushalmi?

The Maharatz Chayos answers by quoting the RAMBAM in MOREH NEVUCHIM (3:43) who describes some of the purposes of Aliyah l'Regel, the Mitzvah to come to Yerushalayim during the festival. The Rambam explains that when everyone comes together, friendship is increased. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (103b) says that consumption of wine is powerful, for it makes "far ones become close," and it can make even a prophet of Ba'al be able to receive the Shechinah. Conversely, when one does not eat and drink with his friends, he weakens his bond with them, especially if he refrains from joining them because he does not trust his friend to separate Terumos and Ma'aseros properly. Accordingly, the two terminologies in the Yerushalmi are saying the same thing: when everyone is considered a Chaver, this is cause for all of the Jewish people to be connected to one another, because they no longer need to refrain from partaking of the food of others.

This is why the Chachamim decreed that if there are grounds to assume that an Am ha'Aretz is Tahor during the Regel, a Chaver is allowed to eat with him. The Regel unites the Jewish people and increases the bond between them. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: Rebbi Yitzchak teaches that Beis Hillel derives from the word "la'Zachar" (Vayikra 15:33) that the Ma'ayanos of a Metzora'as are Metamei. The Gemara explains that the word "la'Zachar" would be redundant if it referred only to a male Metzora. It must be teaching that the Dam Tohar of a female Metzora'as is Metamei.

Why does the Gemara not suggest that the verse indeed refers to a male, but it is teaching that blood that issues from a wound of a Zav is Metamei?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH Im) explains that it is more logical to assume that the verse considers a liquid to be a Ma'ayan -- and an Av ha'Tum'ah -- when it is the type of liquid that the Torah considers Tamei in other situations (such as Dam Nidah).

Tosfos resolves another problem with this answer. The Gemara later discusses the question of whether or not the first sighting of Zov is Metamei like Ma'ayanos. Tosfos asks that it is apparent from the Gemara later (56a) that Zov is not a Ma'ayan, since it is not "Mis'agel v'Yotzei." Why, then, should it be Tamei like a Ma'ayan? Tosfos (DH Makom) explains that perhaps it should be Tamei like a Ma'ayan because sometimes it is certainly Tamei (such as when there is a second flow of Zov). Accordingly, the verse "la'Zachar" -- which gives liquids associated with Tum'ah the Halachah of a Ma'ayan -- should make it Tamei.