QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the question of whether the Re'iyah Rishonah of a Metzora is Tamei or Tahor. The Gemara explains that it depends on whether it is a Ma'ayan or not. The Gemara concludes that since a verse (Vayikra 15:2) is needed to teach that the second Re'iyah of a Metzora is Tamei, obviously it is not a Ma'ayan. The Metzora's first Re'iyah therefore is Tahor.

RASHI (DH v'Itkish) cites an opinion that the verse is teaching that even the first Re'iyah of a Metzora is Tamei. Rashi asks four questions on this explanation:

(a) The Gemara concludes, "From here we see that Zov is not a Ma'ayan." According to this explanation, however, whether or not Zov is a Ma'ayan is not relevant, because the Re'iyah of a Metzora is Tamei even if it is not a Ma'ayan (as the verse teaches).

(b) The Gemara later (55a) explains that since the words "Zovo Tamei" are the second mention of Zov in the verse, they must refer to the second Re'iyah of Zov and not the first Re'iyah. How, then, can the Gemara say that the verse is teaching that even the first Re'iyah is Tamei?

(c) The Gemara derives from a Kal va'Chomer that if Zov causes others to be Metamei through Masa, then the Zov itself must certainly be Metamei through Masa. This Kal va'Chomer, however, applies only to a second Re'iyah, because after the first Re'iyah a Zav is not Metamei b'Masa.

(d) The first Re'iyah cannot be Metamei b'Masa because it is considered only Keri. How, then, can the Beraisa state that it is Metamei b'Masa?

(a) The RITVA answers the first question by suggesting that the reason why the Gemara concludes by saying that "we learn from here that the place of Zivah is not a Ma'ayan" is to emphasize that it is a mistake to think that this question (of whether the first Re'iyah of a Metzora is Tahor or Tamei) depends on whether it is a Ma'ayan or not.

(b) The RAMBAN answers that the explanation cited by Rashi agrees that the words "Zovo Tamei" refer to the Re'iyah Sheniyah of a Zav, as is clear from the fact that this is the second "Zov" mentioned in the verse. He explains that those who offered this explanation understood the verse to be teaching by means of "Im Eino Inyan" that the first Re'iyah of a Metzora is Tamei.

(c) The Ramban's suggestion also answers the third and fourth questions. The verse is not needed to teach that the second Re'iyah of a Zav is Tamei, because that is derived from a Kal va'Chomer.

(d) Since a Kal va'Chomer teaches that the second Re'iyah of a Zav is Tamei, the verse must be teaching that there are times when the first Re'iyah is Metamei b'Masa (such as when it comes from a Metzora).

QUESTION: The Mishnah (34a) records an argument between Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai in the case of a woman who, after giving birth, saw blood during her Yemei Tohar but before she went to the Mikvah. Normally, Tamei blood is able to be Metamei others whether it is still wet (Lach) or has dried (Yavesh). Does the blood of the Yoledes in this case have the same ability to be Metamei others? Beis Hillel says that it is Metamei others; since the woman did not yet go to the Mikvah, her blood is considered blood that is Metamei Lach v'Yavesh. Beis Shamai argues that the blood of such a woman is Metamei only when it is Lach.

Beis Hillel challenges Beis Shamai's opinion from the law that the blood that a Nidah sees before she goes to the Mikvah is Tamei. Beis Shamai answers that the blood of a Nidah is different. In the case of a Nidah, even if she would have gone to the Mikvah before she saw blood, she would be Tamei now. In contrast, when a Yoledes sees blood during a time that the Torah explicitly says that the blood is Tahor (Yemei Tohar), the blood obviously is not Tamei.

TOSFOS (DH Iy Atem Modim) asks that Beis Shamai's response to Beis Hillel is so obvious that it is not clear what Beis Hillel's question was in the first place. What was the logic behind Beis Hillel's question on Beis Shamai?

(a) TOSFOS answers that Beis Hillel's question was based on the fact that the verses that discuss the Tum'ah of a Yoledes describe it as a Tum'ah of Nidah. When the Torah discusses the birth of a boy, it says that the mother is Tamei for seven days "k'Yemei Nidas Devosah Titma" -- "like the days of her Nidah flow she shall be Tamei" (Vayikra 12:2). A similar description is used for the Tum'as Yoledes following the birth of a girl. The verse there says, "v'Tam'ah Shevu'ayim k'Nidasah" -- "and she shall be Tamei for two weeks, like her state of Nidah" (Vayikra 12:5). The Gemara, in a number of places, derive from these verses that the Halachos of a Yoledes during her Yemei Tum'ah are compared to those of a Nidah (see, for example, 37b). Due to this similarity, Beis Hillel maintains that the blood of a Yoledes during her Yemei Tohar should also be similar to Dam Nidah when the flow of blood has ceased, before she immerses in a Mikvah. Beis Shamai maintains that although some laws may be learned from this comparison in the verses, the verses cannot be compared with regard to all laws because the two cases are too dissimilar (see CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN). This answer is also given by the TOSFEI HA'ROSH.

(b) The RITVA gives a different answer. He explains that there is a fundamental disagreement between Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai with regard to the transition from Yemei Tum'ah to Yemei Tohar. Beis Shamai maintains that it is simply a matter of time. The blood during the first seven days (for a boy) or the first fourteen days (for a girl) is Tamei, and any blood that appears after that is Tahor. Beis Hillel maintains that the Torah considers any blood seen during the Yemei Tohar to be Tahor blood only when the woman immersed in the Mikvah after her Yemei Tum'ah.

Accordingly, Beis Hillel's question is logical. If a Nidah who sees Dam after her Yemei Nidah is Tamei, then certainly a Yoledes who sees blood during her Yemei Tohar and before she immerses in the Mikvah should be Tamei.

The Ritva concludes that this explanation is preferable to the explanation of Tosfos, because according to Tosfos' explanation, Beis Hillel's question should have been from the verses that compare a Yoledes to a Nidah. (Y. MONTROSE)