Niddah 43 – נדה מג

Rashi explains that we derive the universal halacha that a beis hastarim is exempt from tumas maga from the din that a zav cannot transmit tuma with a rod positioned in his concealed area (although this is tumas heset which is a form of tumas masa, and not tumas maga).  Tosfos asks on Rashi, if so, then why does the gemara state that in the reverse case where a tahor moved a zav via a rod positioned in his concealed area he becomes tamei, shouldn’t the din be the same in both cases – since we derive the halacha from zav, why is he not tahor just like by the zav?

One thought on “Niddah 43 – נדה מג

  1. Perhaps we can answer Rashi as follows: The din that a zav can transmit tuma by pushing him with a rod is a phenomenon that is unique to a zav since there is no direct contact between him and the tahor, and we don’t find elsewhere that a tamei transmits tuma to something he is carrying. Perhaps it can be suggested that the torah is considering this interaction as a form of ‘direct contact’ between the zav and the tahor and is tantamount to tumas maga (this is an exclusive chiddush only in this scenerio). Thus the universal concept of beis hastarim will apply, which prevents him from transmitting tuma by contact via a concealed area. If this is the reasoning behind this halacha, then it is truly consistent with the general rule of beis hastarim not being metame via maga. However in the case of the tahor pushing the zav which is tumas masa, there is no exemption for beis hastarim. Thus it would seem that tosfos’ question on Rashi would be answered.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *