Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 67

1) A METZORA DOES NOT GET MALKUS FOR GOING INTO THE THREE "MACHANOS"

OPINIONS: A Metzora may not walk into any of the three "Machanos." He may not go into the Azarah (the "Machaneh Shechinah"), to Har ha'Bayis (the "Machaneh Leviyah"), or into a walled city ("Machaneh Yisrael"). Rav Chisda asserts that if a Metzora walks into an area which are forbidden to him, he does not get Malkus. Even though the Torah prohibits a Metzora from going to those places, saying, "Lo Yitam'u Es Machaneihem" -- "Do not defile your camps" (Bamidbar 5:3), nevertheless by writing "Badad Yeshev..." -- "He must stay outside the Machaneh" (Vayikra 13:46), the Torah "made it into an Aseh."

Even though the Torah gives a Mitzvas Aseh to get out of the three Machanos, what happened to the Lav? He should still get Malkus for the Lav that is written in the Torah!

(a) RASHI (DH Nitko) explains that the Gemara means to say that the Lav is a Lav ha'Nitak la'Aseh. Although the Metzora did transgress a Lav, he does not get Malkus for it since it can be corrected by the performance of an Aseh.

(b) TOSFOS (DH ha'Kasuv) does not accept Rashi's explanation that this is a Lav ha'Nitak la'Aseh, because the Aseh does not appear in the Torah immediately following the Lav, which is a condition for a Lav to be a Lav ha'Nitak la'Aseh. Tosfos offers a different explanation. He explains that the Lav in the Torah of "Lo Yitam'u" includes all of the different types of Tamei people -- a Metzora, a Zav, and a Tamei Mes. When the Torah states specifically with regard to a Metzora that he must go out of the Machaneh, the Torah thereby *removes him* from being included in the Lav of "Lo Yitam'u" and prohibits him instead with an Aseh. That is, the Aseh in the Torah qualifies and limits the Lav, teaching that it does not apply to a Metzora.

The SEFAS EMES points out that there are at least two practical differences between Rashi's explanation and that of Tosfos.

(1) Rashi says that the Metzora does not get Malkus for going into the Machaneh because he can fulfill the Aseh of leaving the Machaneh. The Gemara in Makos (16a) says that if a person transgresses a Lav ha'Nitak la'Aseh and then does something which makes it impossible for him to perform the Aseh, then he gets Malkus for the Lav. Therefore, if the Metzora goes through the purification process and becomes Tahor *while he is in the Machaneh*, he can no longer fulfill the Aseh to leave the Machaneh. According to Rashi, he will get Malkus. According to Tosfos, he can never get Malkus because the Lav does not apply to him.

(2) TOSFOS asserts that when the Gemara says that a Metzora does not get Malkus for coming into the Machaneh, that is only if the Metzora comes into the Machaneh Yisrael (a walled city). Only in that situation did the Torah remove him from the Lav of "Lo Yitam'u." If, however, he goes into the Mikdash (Machaneh Shechinah) or Har ha'Bayis (Machaneh Leviyah), he will get Malkus. Tosfos points out that it does not make sense that the Lav of "Lo Yitam'u" prohibits a Mechusar Kipurim, a person with a low-level of Tum'ah who needs only bring a Korban, from going into the Azarah, while a Metzora - - whose Tum'ah is very severe -- is permitted to enter there.

According to Rashi, though, the Lav does apply to the Metzora, but he does not get Malkus because he has a way to correct the Lav. Therefore, according to Rashi, it is obvious that the Metzora will not get Malkus no matter which Machaneh he enters, even if he goes into the Mikdash itself. The Torah gave the Metzora an opportunity to correct the Lav, which it did not give to a person of any other type of Tum'ah.

67b

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a statement of Rebbi Yochanan in which he says two Halachos. He says that the tunnels underneath the Mikdash are not sanctified, and he says that someone who is Tamei because of Keri must stay out of the Machaneh Leviyah (the Har ha'Bayis), in addition to the Machaneh Shechinah (the Azarah).

RASHI is bothered by the association of these two Halachos. Why did Rebbi Yochanan say them together? What does one have to do with the other? Rashi explains that Rebbi Yochanan's Rebbi taught him both things together, and that is why he repeated them together. Does that mean that there is no connection between the two Halachos? (Also, why did his Rebbi say them together?)

ANSWER: The Gemara in Tamid (27b) explains that the Halachos in the statement of Rebbi Yochanan are indeed related. The Mishnah in Tamid (26a) tells us that if a Kohen who is sleeping (in the Machaneh Leviyah) became a Ba'al Keri, he would depart from there through underground escape tunnels that were prepared for him if such a situation should arise. These passageways went under the Birah (either the Mikdash or the Har ha'Bayis, Yoma 2a) and would exit near a Mikvah where the Kohen could be Metaher himself.

Why did they make a tunnel for him, instead of letting him walk out the normal way (MEFARESH, Tamid 26a)? Also, the tunnel was tortuous, but the Halachah requires that one who became Tamei in the Machaneh Leviyah must exist the quickest way. Why was the Kohen allowed to go out the tunnel, which took longer to exit the Har ha'Bayis (RA'AVAD, Tamid 26a)? The Gemara explains that the tunnel was used because the Kohen is not supposed to walk through the Har ha'Bayis, because of Rebbi Yochanan's second statement, that a Ba'al Keri must stay out of the Machaneh Leviyah. The tunnels beneath that area in the Har ha'Bayis were not sanctified, as stated in Rebbi Yochanan's first statement, and therefore he could go out through those tunnels without going into a sanctified area. The two Halachos of Rebbi Yochanan are intrinsically related - he learned both of them from the Mishnah in Tamid.

Why, then, does Rashi say that the two Halachos are not related and Rebbi Yochanan lumped them together simply because he heard them from his Rebbi together?

A more problematic question is that Rashi explains that the tunnels were underneath the Azarah, and even so they do not have the sanctity of the *Azarah* (Kedushas Machaneh Shechinah). The Gemara, however, says otherwise. The Gemara later (86a) explains that Rebbi Yochanan is not discussing tunnels that lead to the Azarah -- those are indeed Kadosh. He is only referring to tunnels that lead to Har ha'Bayis, and he is saying that those tunnels do not have Kedushas *Har ha'Bayis*, and therefore a Ba'al Keri may walk there. Why, then, does Rashi say that the tunnels do not have Kedushas *ha'Azarah*?

It must be that Rashi is following the Havah Amina of the Gemara (86a) which thought that Rebbi Yochanan was discussing the tunnels underneath the Azarah and not Har ha'Bayis, and he was saying that they do not have Kedushas *ha'Azarah*. According to that Havah Amina, his statement has nothing to do with the Mishnah in Tamid, which is discussing tunnels that lead to Har ha'Bayis! That is why Rashi had to say that the two Halachos are unrelated; he is explaining Rebbi Yochanan according to the Havah Amina of the Gemara later (86a). (M. Kornfeld)