tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post6002469791826371617..comments2024-03-20T18:38:31.327-05:00Comments on Havolim: Chukas, Bamidbar 19:11. Tuma Without a SourceEliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-35540799454026534862011-06-28T09:16:10.120-05:002011-06-28T09:16:10.120-05:00Thanks, enjoyable indeed. (btw, it's 27:10, no...Thanks, enjoyable indeed. (btw, it's 27:10, not 7:10)Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-42714647533646846732011-06-28T08:37:06.740-05:002011-06-28T08:37:06.740-05:00Ay, Eli, I didn't check the comments, and edit...Ay, Eli, I didn't check the comments, and edited the post as soon as I came back from davenning. I see that you addressed several of the issues I put in this morning. Thank you for the Reb Akiva Eiger. As for your suggestion that the issur of bringing tuma is because it might be metamei other things irrespective of its own tuma, please see Rabbi Meisels discussion. You'll see, he has wonderful שכל הישר and tremendous bekius. It's a pleasure to read it- I feel bad for the person he's taking apart.bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-82441346570268439042011-06-28T07:12:23.193-05:002011-06-28T07:12:23.193-05:00with the help of Google, found the Mishna - it'...with the help of Google, found the Mishna - it's Keilim 27:10 : שלשה על שלשה שנחלק טהור מן המדרס אבל טמא מגע מדרס, אמר ר' יוסי וכי באיזה מדרס נגע זה <br />See also R. Akiva Eiger there.<br /><br /><br />So, one might say (1) your Pshat, that מת is different and not Tamei at all - I now found this in סדרי טהרות http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=511&hilite= or (2) Sifri Zuta is like R. Yossi (3) מת is different for another reason. That is, Beged touches itself all the time and therefore becomes מגע מדרס. However, מת although touching itself all the time does not become אב הטומאה since it's not a Keli, food or human being. I.e. it is not מקבל טומאה even though it's Tamei itself.Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-15835995970994727242011-06-28T06:52:44.499-05:002011-06-28T06:52:44.499-05:00First of all, thanks. Really thought provoking.
S...First of all, thanks. Really thought provoking.<br /><br />Second, are you allowed to leave a dead body in the Azarah, as it's not Tamei itself (forget about the Michshol for a moment)? If indeed this is the case, it's a very nice Pshat in Yoma 23. where the father was worried about the Sakin and not the body itself. Also Rashi Shmini 10:4 says Nadav & Avihu were carried out שלא לערבב את השמחה and he does not worry about Tum'a (they might be totally burnt though)?<br /><br />However, I am not sure the Yalkut means that a dead body is not Tamei. Rather it teaches that as a dead body becomes alive, it is not considered Maga of the newly alive being with the old-gone body. In have a vague memory of Mishna Keilim that discusses this same principle wrt Keilim (whether Kli is considered to touch itself upon changing its status), but I can't remember where it is.Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-51079689666958923782011-06-28T06:35:06.058-05:002011-06-28T06:35:06.058-05:00You're probably the only one.You're probably the only one.bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-14169889319274438892011-06-28T05:34:39.218-05:002011-06-28T05:34:39.218-05:00I liked this. Thanks.I liked this. Thanks.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04703845596227974473noreply@blogger.com