QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the process of preparing utensils that will
be used for the Efer Chatas (the ashes of the Parah Adumah in the
purification process of a person who became Tamei with Tum'as Mes), such as
a wooden reed used for gathering the ashes. The Gemara says that even if the
utensil was completed b'Taharah, it requires Tevilah. This is consistent
with the decree mentioned in the Mishnah (20b), that Kelim that were
completed b'Taharah still require Tevilah (for use with Kodesh or Chatas,
but not for Terumah).
However, the Chachamim were more stringent with this Kli (to be used with
Efer Chatas) than with a normal Kli that was completed b'Taharah (for use
with Kodesh). Normally, the finished Kli has the status of a Sheni l'Tum'ah.
In this case, though, the Chachamim gave the finished Kli the status of a
Tamei Mes -- an Av ha'Tum'ah -- and it is Metamei the person who cut it and
thus he needs Tevilah as well.
The Gemara asks that if the finished Kli is considered as if it touched a
Mes and is therefore an Av ha'Tum'ah, then the person who cut it or handled
it should not only require Tevilah, but should also require Haza'ah on the
third and seventh days! Why does the Beraisa say that one who cut the wooden
reed or immersed it needs only Tevilah? He should also need Haza'ah! The
Gemara answers that the reed is like a Tamei Mes *on its seventh day* which
has already had Haza'ah on the third and seventh days. Such a Tamei Mes is
still considered an Av ha'Tum'ah, but it cannot make a person Tamei to
require Haza'ah, only Tevilah.
The Gemara originally said that if the wooden reed is considered to have
touched a Mes, then the person who touches it needs Haza'ah on the third and
seventh days, meaning that he is also an Av ha'Tum'ah (since a Rishon
l'Tum'ah does not need Haza'ah). But why should a person who touches the
reed become a Tamei Mes? The reed itself is a Tamei Mes, an Av ha'Tum'ah,
and so it should only make the person who touches it a *Rishon* l'Tum'ah
(which does not require Haza'ah)! Why should the person who touches it
become a Tamei Mes and require Haza'ah (according to the Gemara's Havah
Amina)? (Acharonim -- see HAGAHOS MAHARSHAM)
ANSWERS:
(a) The MINCHAS CHINUCH (263:13:[20]) cites this Gemara as proof for the
opinion of the RAMBAM (Hil. Tum'as Mes 5:3) and RABEINU YITZCHAK of Simfonte
(quoted by TOSFOS in Nazir 54b and by the RASH in Ohalos 1:2 -- see Insights
to Pesachim 14:2), who say that the principle of "Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal"
applies to all Kelim, and not just to metal Kelim. The principle of "Cherev
Harei Hu k'Chalal" states that a sword (or Kli) that touches a Mes acquires
the Tum'ah of the Mes itself and becomes an *Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah*.
Consequently the sword could make a person into an Av ha'Tum'ah
(necessitating Haza'ah on the third and seventh days).
Most Rishonim maintain that this principle applies only to metal Kelim, but
the Rambam and Rabeinu Yitzchak Simfonte rule that it also applies to Kelim
made of other materials, such as wood. This Gemara supports their opinion,
for it implies that a wooden Kli that [is considered to have] touched a Mes
can make a person into an Av ha'Tum'ah.
However, this does not fully explain the Gemara here. If the Gemara's
question was that the one who touches the wooden reed should be like a
person who touches a Mes because the reed is like a Mes (due to the
principle of "Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal") it did not have to answer that the
Chachamim only made the reed "like a Tamei Mes on its seventh day." The
Gemara could have answered that the Chachamim gave the reed the status of a
Kli that touched *a person or Kli* who touched a Mes, which is only an Av
ha'Tum'ah and not an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah (i.e. it does not have the status of
the Mes itself). That would explain why the reed does not cause the person
who touches it to require Haza'ah!
(b) The OR HA'CHAYIM in RISHON L'TZIYON (see also MEROMEI SADEH of the
Netziv) explains that the Gemara was not asking that the person who touches
the reed should require Haza'ah on the third and seventh days. Rather, the
Gemara was asking that if the Chachamim gave the reed the status of Kelim
that touched a Mes, the *reed itself* should require Haza'ah and not just
Tevilah. Proof to the Or Hachayim's understanding of the Gemara may be
brought from the Gemara's wording, "Iy Hachi, *Tiba'i* [as opposed to
*Liba'i*] Haza'ah" -- meaning, "if so, *it* [as opposed to *he*] should
require Haza'ah."
The Gemara then brings proof that Haza'ah is not required from a Beraisa
that says "Chotchah u'Matbilah Ta'un Tevilah" ("[The person who] cuts it and
immerses it, must immerse himself"). How does this Beraisa prove that the
reed does not require Haza'ah? It would seem to prove that the *person who
handles it* does not require Haza'ah, as the Minchas Chinuch understood, and
not that the reed itself does not require Haza'ah! (See Netziv)
It would appear that a letter "Vav" is missing from our texts of the
Beraisa. The Beraisa should read as it is cited by Rabeinu Chananel,
"Chotchah u'Matbilah *v'Ta'un* Tevilah" ("He should cut the reed and immerse
it, and then he himself must immerse"). According to this reading, the
Beraisa is explaining how to prepare the reed for use, and yet it only
mentions that it must be immersed. From this the Gemara infers that *the
reed* does not require Haza'ah. (M. Kornfeld -- The Girsa correction we have
suggested is reinforced by the fact that according to our Girsa the syntax
of the Beraisa is inconsistent. It should have said "*ha*'Chotchah", with a
"Heh," instead of "Chotchah.")