web analytics
February 1, 2015 / 12 Shevat, 5775
 
At a Glance
Judaism
Sponsored Post


Home » Judaism » Parsha »

Why Were The Men Tamei?

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

This column is dedicated to the refuah sheleimah of Shlomo Eliezer ben Chaya Sarah Elka.

In this week’s parshah we read about the individuals who were tamei and thus could not bring the korban Pesach. They approached Moshe Rabbeinu and asked him whether there was anything they could do to bring the korban. Ultimately, Hashem told Moshe that they should bring a korban a month after Pesach, on the 14th of Iyar.

The wording of the pasuk that describes when they first came before Moshe is: “Vayomeru ha’anashim ha’heimah – and these men spoke.” The Sifri says that we derive from the word “ha’heimah – these” that only the one with the question should ask the question. Seemingly, the Sifri is requiring that one ask a question himself; one should not send the question through another person. However, this explanation is very difficult to understand. Is one not allowed to send a question through another person?

The Panim Yafos explains the Sifri with the following different approach: these men were tamei because, according to one opinion, they were carrying Yosef’s aron. The Gemara in Shabbos 93a says that when several people carry a zav only the one who is holding the majority of the zav becomes tamei. The others remain tahor. This is because they are merely aiding him in the act of carrying, which does not render one tamei. But in this case it was not clear who was carrying the majority of the aron. Therefore it was a safek as to which one of the men was tamei.

Generally, when there is a safek as to which one of several men (more than three) became tamei the halacha states that they should all be tahor. This is based on the halacha of safek tumah, b’rishus ha’rabim tahor. If a safek regarding tumah occurs in a place where there are three or more people, we render the safek tahor. Therefore these men should have been tahor, since the safek occurred in a place where there were more than three people. However, since these men all came together to ask about their status, Moshe Rabbeinu had to rule that they were tamei. The reason for this: had each person come individually to ask about his status, all would have been deemed tahor; when all of the men ask about their status together, they must all be rendered tamei. This is due to the fact that since one of them is surely tamei, we cannot render each one as tahor when they ask together. Thus, they must all be rendered as tamei misafek.

This halacha is drawn from the halacha of shnei sheveilim (two paths), in which one has tumah and the other does not. If two people walk the other down one path, they will both be portrayed as tahor. However, if both come to ask at the same time, they will be tamei. This is because they cannot both be tahor. Thus, they are both deemed tamei misafek.

However, Tosfos in Pesachim 10a says that the halacha that we render them tamei when they come to ask at the same time is only mi’de’rabbanan. Mi’de’oraisa, they would both be classified as tahor. Hence, the explanation of the Panim Yafos is difficult to understand since we are discussing a time period before the rabbanan decreed this halacha. So in Moshe Rabbeinu’s time, the halacha should have been that they were all tahor since they only had de’oraisa-level halachos.

I would like to suggest that although the time period that we are discussing is prior to the time that the rabbanan issued their decree, perhaps Moshe Rabbeinu was aware that one day this would become a rabbinic decree and thus Moshe adhered to it. We find a similar concept in Tosafos (Kiddushin 38a) whereby Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi that asks why, when the bnei Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael, they could not eat matzah made from chadash and apply the halacha of assei, doche lo sa’assei. Tosfos answers that there is a rabbinic decree prohibiting this because if one will eat one k’zayis, he may come to eat a second k’zayis. We cannot, therefore, apply the halacha of assei, doche lo sa’assei.

This time period was also before the rabbanan decreed their halachos; yet Tosfos seems to say that the bnei Yisrael nonetheless adhered to their decrees. This can be explained due to the belief that all of the decrees that the rabbanan made were given at Har Sinai – except that they were given as de’rabbanan halachos, and not to be treated the same as de’oraisa halachos. For example, in the case of a safek, a de’oraisa is treated stringently and a de’rabbanan is treated leniently.

Perhaps Moshe Rabbeinu took into consideration the fact that one day there would be a decree mi’de’rabbanan regarding when all the people come to ask about their tumah status, and thus he ruled that they were all tamei.

About the Author: For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Why Were The Men Tamei?”

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Japanese freelance journalist Kenji Goto at work with children. Goto was captured in Syria Oct. 25, 2014 and murdered by ISIS on Saturday, Jan. 31, 2015.
US Condemns ISIS ‘Vicious’ Beheading of Kenjo Goto
Latest Judaism Stories
Staum-013015

People often think that all they are missing is “just a little more” and then they can be truly happy.

Torah-Hakehillah-121914

The Midrash is teaching a fundamental message of what it means to be a religious person.

Rabbi Sacks

Torah opposes slavery; G-d desires the free worship of free human beings, yet slavery’s permitted-?!

Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis

France allowed Islamists to flourish despite their loyalty to Islamic sharia law not French values

Approximately 18 years ago, my uncle called me into his office saying he had an urgent matter to discuss. I didn’t know what he had in mind.

“Where is God?” asked the Kotzker Rebbe “God is not everywhere but only where you let Him enter”

An Explosion In The Trench
‘With A Glowing Hot Knife’
(Yevamos 120b)

Her first tactic was tefillah; she immediately began to recite one perek after another of Tehillim.

When a miracle occurs that transcends nature, Hashem has broken the laws of nature to create the miracle.

“How could you have expected my glasses to be there?” argued Mr. Weiss. “You shouldn’t have to pay.”

Rather than submit to this fate and suffer torture and humiliation, Shaul decided to fall on his sword.

How can the Da’as Zekeinim say this was Hashem’s plan to allow them to become the Torah Nation? We know it was actually a punishment.

A strange midrash of fruit trees surrounding the Nation of Israel as they walked to freedom

Leading by example must be visible, regarding where, when and how-like Nachshon entering the Red Sea

Rabbi Yaakov Nagen, a Ram at Yeshivat Otniel, notes that the verse is suggesting that retelling the story of the Exodus is so important that Hashem is performing ever-greater miracles specifically so that parents can tell their stories to future generations.

More Articles from Rabbi Raphael Fuchs
Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

Rather than submit to this fate and suffer torture and humiliation, Shaul decided to fall on his sword.

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

And if a person can take steps to perform the mitzvah, he should do so (even if he won’t be held accountable for not performing it due to circumstances beyond his control).

The Brisker Rav suggests that the barad, in fact, only fell on people, animals, and vegetation.

Why is it necessary to perform an aveirah punishable by lashes in order to be deemed a legal rashah and be pasul l’eidus m’d’Oraisa?

Why was Yaakov not afraid that granting Yosef’s sons the status of shevatim would cause jealousy among his children?

Rav Akiva Eiger is assuming that the logic of the halacha that both the son and his mother are obligated to honor his father and therefore he must honor his fathers wishes first, is a mathematical equation.

It is clear that Tosafos maintains that only someone who lives in a house must light Chanukah candles.

But how could there have been any validity to Yosef’s allegations?

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/why-were-the-men-tamei/2013/05/22/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: