QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Mishnah (Eduyos 2:3) that states that if a
Kohen finds a [Tamei] needle while cutting the flesh of an animal being
offered as a Korban, his hands and the knife that he held are Tahor and we
are not afraid that they became Tamei by touching the needle.
The Gemara tries to determine what type of Tum'ah this needle had, that we
might have thought that the Kohen's hands and the knife are Tamei. Two
answers are given: (1) Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav says that the needle
is one that was *known* to be Tamei with Tum'as Mes (Av ha'Tum'ah) (2) An
unidentified needle was found, but it is assumed to be Tamei because the
animal was muzzled upon entering Yerushalayim, and thus it must have
swallowed the needle outside of the city. There is rabbinical decree which
states that all utensils found outside of Yerushalayim are Tamei out of
doubt.
From the Gemara at the top of this Amud it is clear that according to the
second answer, the needle is only a Rishon l'Tum'ah out of doubt (RASHI, DH
Ela Amar Rava), and such a Tum'ah cannot be Metamei the knife, because a
utensil cannot become a Sheni. In the first answer, then, why does Rav
Yehudah in the name of Rav have to say that the needle was an Av ha'Tum'ah?
Why did Rav say that one lost a needle that was Tamei Mes, when the needle
that was lost could have also been a Rishon l'Tum'ah?
ANSWER: If the needle that was found could be identified and proven to be a
Rishon, why would the Mishnah need to tell us that the knife that cut the
meat is Tahor? Why should it be Tamei? Even if it touched the neeldle, a
Rishon cannot make the knife Tamei! It must be that the needle is an Av
ha'Tum'ah, and the only reason the knife is Tahor is because we were not
*certain* that it touched the needle, and the rule is that when a question
arises in Reshus ha'Rabim concerning the Tum'ah of an item (Safek Tum'ah
b'Reshus ha'Rabim), it is Tahor.
However, according to the second answer of the Gemara, that one found an
unknown needle in the animal, the Mishnah is teaching an important point,
even if the needle is considered a Rishon. It is teaching that if one finds
a utensil (such as a needle), the level of Tum'ah that we afford it is that
of a Rishon, and not an Av. Therefore it is not Metamei the knife. That
itself is the Chidush -- that the needle is only a Rishon and not an Av when
in doubt.
3) PROVING THAT THE "AZARAH" IS CONSIDERED A RESHUS HA'RABIM
According to Rav, if a Kohen is cutting an animal and finds a needle that is
known to be an Av ha'Tum'ah, the Kohen's hands and the knife are Tahor. The
Gemara asks why are they Tahor -- perhaps the knife or the person's hands
touched the needle, and since the needle is an Av ha'Tum'ah, it can be
Metamei them! Rav Ashi answers that it can be proven from here that the
Azarah of the Beis ha'Mikdash, where the animal is being slaughtered and
cut, is considered a Reshus ha'Rabim. When a doubt arises concerning Tum'ah
in Reshus ha'Rabim (Safek Tum'ah b'Reshus ha'Rabim) we rule "Tahor."
The Gemara then asks that even if the Azarah is considered a Reshus
ha'Yachid (in which a Safek Tum'ah will be *Tamei*), the knife will not be
Tamei because it is an inanimate object, an "Ein Bo Da'as liSha'el," and out
of doubt it cannot be made Tamei! How, then, can Rav Ashi prove that the
Azarah is a Reshus ha'Rabim?
What is the Gemara's objection to Rav Ashi's proof? Rav Ashi had to say that
the Azarah is a Reshus ha'Rabim to explain why the *person* is Tahor, even
though he may have touched the needle, and not in order to explain why the
*knife* is Tahor! The person would certainly be Tamei mi'Safek in Reshus
ha'Yachid, and therefore it can be proven that the Azarah is a Reshus
ha'Rabim! (TOSFOS DH Ha)
ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS HA'ROSH answers that Rav Ashi's wording implies that he is giving
a reason why *both* the knife and the person are Tahor. The Gemara is asking
why that reason had to be given to explain why the knife is Tahor. It still
can be proven, though, that the Azarah is a Reshus ha'Rabim from the fact
that the person himself is Tahor.
(b) Perhaps there is no question at all whether the person touched the
needle or not -- he knows that he definitely did *not* touch the needle. The
only question was whether the *knife* touched the needle. If so, it cannot
be proven from here that the Azarah is a Reshus ha'Rabim, since both the
knife and the person would be Tahor even if the Azarah is a Reshus
ha'Yachid, as the Gemara asks.
However, if no question arose whether the person touched the needle, why
does the Mishnah have to say that he is Tahor? Of course he is Tahor, what
could have made him Tamei!
The answer is that we might have thought that the person's hands are Tamei
because they touched a Rishon -- the flesh that is being cut, since normally
the Rabanan decreed Tum'ah on hands that touched a Rishon. The reason why
the hands are indeed not Tamei even though they touched the flesh is because
in the Beis ha'Mikdash, the Rabanan suspended their decree that when hands
touch a Rishon they become Tamei, as the Rebbi Akiva explains in the
Mishnah. Although the hands *definitely* touched the meat, the Rabanan did
not decree that they should be Tamei in the Beis ha'Mikdash. (Rebbi Akiva
makes this assertion in the Mishnah, so all interpretations of the Mishnah
must agree to this point -- TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ here.)
According to this, when the Gemara asks that if the Azarah is a Reshus
ha'Yachid then the person and knife should be Tamei, it really meant to ask
*only* with regard to the knife, and it just mentioned the person because
the Mishnah mentions the person. (M. Kornfeld)