1. Our pesukim tell us that certain halachos stem from childbirth.
Assuming that the word “וילדה” is only natural
childbirth and not a caesarian section, what four halachos that apply after
natural childbirth will not apply after a caesarian section.
☆2. The
Gemara in Shabbos 135 darshens from our parsha that the din of milah b’shemona even
on Shabbos does not apply by a caesarian delivery. What would you say about a
regular delivery of a baby that resulted from IVF, an implanted fetus.
3. In mid seventeen hundreds, the Frankist cult arose that claimed
that Mashiach would only come in one of two conditions: if the Jewish People kept the Torah perfectly
or if it totally broke all the laws of the Torah, and since perfection is
extremely unlikely, we should try the opposite. This idea that you can bring
Mashiach by breaking all the Torah laws was even given a name- antinomianism.
What passuk in our parsha was used to support this
belief.
4. Why is a bald man like a shmatteh.
☆5. Is there a geographic limitation on where a section of the law
of Tzaraas applies? Is this true with all the types of Tzaraas?
☆6. There are three kinds of Tzaraas. One, for example, is Tzaraas of
people. Of the three kinds, two need a korban to become tahor, and one does
not. Which, and why?
☆7. We make a bracha on counting Sefiras HaOmer because of the
Mitzva of וספרתם לכם. There are two
mitzvos of counting in the parsha but no bracha is made on them. What are they,
and why are they different than Sefiras HaOmer.
8. What issur deoraysa does a metzora have to transgress in order
to become tahor.
9. What word in the parsha can be either a verb or an
adjective. Hint: it's a color.
☆10. A man came to Rav Chaim Kanievsky with a shailah. He had
a very uncomfortable rash or psoriasis. The doctor
had prescribed a medicated ointment. The question was whether he could put it
on the rash on Shabbos, or whether there would be an issue of dissolving a
thick cream, or refuah, on Shabbos. Rav Chaim asked to see the rash and said
"You should be asking whether you can use the cream during the week, not
only on Shabbos, because the rash has the symptoms of tzaraas, and the Torah
forbids removing the signs of Tzaraas."
Was this man allowed to walk into the old city of Yerushalayim?
1. Our pesukim tell us that certain halachos stem from childbirth.
Assuming that the word “וילדה” is only natural
childbirth and not a caesarian section, what four halachos that apply after
natural childbirth will not apply after a caesarian section.
12:1-6, and Shabbos 135a-b
After a caesarian birth, there are no special laws of tuma and tahara;
There is no korban. The child’s bris can be but does not have to be on the
eight day. If the bris is done on the eighth day, it is not docheh Shabbos.
2. The
Gemara in Shabbos 135 darshens from our parsha that the din of milah b’shemona even
on Shabbos does not apply by a caesarian delivery. What would you say about a
regular delivery of a baby that resulted from IVF, an implanted fetus.
No. (Based on Taama d’Kra, but he does not say it:)
Tazria tells you
that a child born from an implanted fetus does not generate the dinim of tumas
leidah. The Gemara in Shabbos ties tumas leida to dichuy of Shabbos, and possibly to the whole din of Shmoneh.
Here
are his words:
פי״ב. ב. אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר. לכאו’ כי תזריע מיותר דהול״ל אשה כי תלד זכר ובגמ׳ דרשו ע״ז, וי״ל עוד דבא לומר בהא דחולין ע׳ א׳ הדביק שני רחמים ויצא מזה ונכנס לזה, וקאמר כאן דלענין טומאת לידה אין השני׳ טמאה בכה״ג דבעינן כי תזריע וכאן אע״פ שילדתו מ״מ לא הזריעתו.
R
Shlomo Zalman (3:98:4) holds that a child born from artificial
insemination is not docheh Shabbos according to Rabbeinu Chananel.
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=47990&st=&pgnum=14
Most
poskim do not hold like this. See Nishmas Avraham YD 260:2
https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=51474#p=321&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr=
But we are not talking about artificial insemination. We are talking about IVF. Even if you aren’t choshesh for Rabbeinu Chananel, in a case of IVF you still
need to consider Reb Chaim’s very clear diyuk in the passuk, at least for being
docheh Shabbos.
I want to make this clear. The Gemara in Chulin tells us that Rava asked whether a fetus that was not the result of this woman's insemination, but rather a transfer to a woman after it already began developing, is called a petter rechem for laws of Bechoraa, such as pidyon haben. It is an איבעיא דלא איפשטא, meaning that the Gemara does not make a decision. The Rambam in Bechoros 4:18 brings it as a safek.
Reb Chaim Kanievsky extrapolates this hypothetical to our parsha, and states that such a child would clearly not be included in כי תזריע, and it's hard to disagree with that. The Gemara in Chulin only discusses whether it is called her "פטר רחם." Reb Chaim states that it would certainly not be called כי תזריע. Given that it is not כי תזריע, he says, there would be no tumas leida.
I am only adding the obvious consequence, based on the Gemara in Shabbos 135, that where there is no tumas leida, such as in the case of a cesarian section, it is a machlokes whether the mila would be docheh Shabbos, and we are machmir and do not make the bris on Shabbos. Similarly, indistinguishably, a child born from IVF would not generate Tumas Leida. If there is no Tumas Leida, we would not make the bris on Shabbos.
UPDATE: I spoke to my father in law shlitah about this on 4/20/26 (my עזר כנגדו made me speak to him about it,) and he said that he sees no proof that tumas leidah depends on tazria. Tumas leida depends on the matzav of leidah. The safek in the Gemara in Chulin about IVF petter rechem does not prove anything about tumas leidah.
3. In mid seventeen hundreds, the Frankist cult arose that claimed
that Mashiach would only come in one of two conditions: if the Jewish People kept the Torah perfectly, or if it totally broke all the laws of the Torah. Since perfection is
extremely unlikely, we should try the opposite. This idea that you can bring
Mashiach by breaking all the Torah laws was even given a name- antinomianism.
What passuk in our parsha was used to support this
belief.
13:13
וראה הכהן והנה כסתה הצרעת את־כל־בשרו וטהר את־הנגע כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא
As the Gemara (San 97a) there says,
דאמר רבי יצחק: אין בן דוד בא עד שתתהפך כל המלכות למינות. אמר רבא: מאי
קרא? ״כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא״.
4. Why is a bald man like a shmatteh.
Because he is called a קרח or
a גבח, and a shmatteh is called קרחת או גבחת.
Man- 13:42, by someone who is bald.
וְכִי יִהְיֶה בַקָּרַחַת אוֹ בַגַּבַּחַת נֶגַע לָבָן אֲדַמְדָּם צָרַעַת פֹּרַחַת הִוא בְּקָרַחְתּוֹ אוֹ בְגַבַּחְתּוֹ.
Shmatteh- 13:55, by a piece of material.
וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אַחֲרֵי הֻכַּבֵּס אֶת הַנֶּגַע וְהִנֵּה לֹא הָפַךְ הַנֶּגַע אֶת עֵינוֹ וְהַנֶּגַע לֹא פָשָׂה טָמֵא הוּא בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרְפֶנּוּ פְּחֶתֶת הִוא בְּקָרַחְתּוֹ אוֹ בְגַבַּחְתּוֹ.
5. Is there a geographic
limitation on where a section of the law of Tzaraas applies? Is this true
with all the types of Tzaraas?
Yes. Nig’ei battim is exclusively in Eretz Yisrael. This
limitation is unique to the Tzaraas of houses. There is no such limitation for
Tzaraas of people or of cloth and leather
14:34
כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם לַאֲחֻזָּה
וְנָתַתִּי נֶגַע צָרַעַת בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם׃
One more: Not explicit in the pesukim, but a metzora is only banished from
walled cities in Eretz Yisrael that were given a special kedusha. This is how Chazal understand
the words (13:46) "בָּדָ֣ד יֵשֵׁ֔ב מִח֥וּץ
לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֖ה מוֹשָׁבֽוֹ"
6. There are three kinds of Tzaraas. One, for example, is Tzaraas of
people. Of the three kinds, two need a korban to become tahor, and one does
not. Which, and why?
Tzaraas of people and Tzaraas of houses require a korban to become tahor.
Tzaraas of clothing does not require a korban. This was pointed out and
explained by the Rama in his sefer Toras HaOla volume III chapter 68 see there. My simple explanation is that the first two hurt kedusha; of a
person, and of a house, symbolized by the mezuza. Clothing has no inherent
kedusha, so no korban is required to restore kedusha.
7. We make a bracha on counting Sefiras HaOmer because of the
Mitzva of וספרתם לכם. There are two
mitzvos of counting in the parsha but no bracha is made on them. What are they,
and why are they different than Sefiras HaOmer.
15:13, a Zav:
וכי־יטהר הזב מזובו וספר לו שבעת ימים לטהרתו וכבס בגדיו ורחץ בשרו במים
חיים וטהר
15:28, a Zavah
וְאִם־טָהֲרָה מִזּוֹבָהּ וְסָפְרָה לָּהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְאַחַר
תִּטְהָר׃
Both have to count, neither makes a bracha. Why is this different than
Sefiras HaOmer?
1. Sefiras
HaOmer is an independent mitzvah. The counting of tahara is only a הכשר, it is just a prerequisite for becoming
Tahor. If they don’t care to become tahor, they don’t have to
count. (pashut.) (problems – Machlokes Beis shammai
+ Beis Hillel against R Yosi b’reb Yehuda in Nidah 30a. BSh and Bh hold טבילה בזמנה מצוה So it’s not just
optional. Also, Shechita is a macshir and you still make a bracha.)
2. Sefira
is a set number of days. In the case of Tahara, if tuma interrupts, you have to
start over. (Tosfos Kesuvos 72a)-
וספרה לה לעצמה - וא"ת אמאי אין מברכת זבה על ספירתה כמו שמברכין על
ספירת העומר דהא כתיב וספרה וי"ל דאין מברכין אלא ביובל שמברכין ב"ד בכל
שנה שלעולם יוכל למנות כסדר וכן עומר אבל זבה שאם תראה תסתור אין לה למנות:
Explanation of Tosfos in Noda B’Yehuda II YD:23 arguing with Shelah who
makes it into a mitzvah:
כוונתן דביובל ועומר שתמיד הזמן נמשך כסדר לא צריך קרא למכתב וספרת שהרי אין
צריך בזה השגחה כלל א"ו מצוה היא אבל בזבה שאם תראה תסתור ואין הזמן עובר
ממילא וצריך השגחה על זה ואם כן אין כוונת הפסוק בוספרה לה על הספירה אלא על
ההשגחה שיהיו נקיים ולא למצוה לכך אין לה למנות. זהו הנלע"ד לדחות עיקר דברי
השל"ה. אבל לדידן אפילו אם יהיבנא ליה להגאון השל"ה סברתו שפסוק זה
וספרה לה למצוה הוא אכתי אין לדבריו קיום בנשי דידן דהרי זה פשוט אף אם נימא שהיא
מצוה מ"מ מצוה זו שייכא להטבילה דאטו אם לא תטבול כלל ואין רצונה לטבול מי יש
מצוה בספירה הזו אתמהה
From my son Rav Mordechai:
Another reason not to count with a beracha for nidah is... maybe because you don't know if you will finish betaharah...
9. What issur deoraysa
does a metzora have to transgress in order to become tahor.
Shaving his head and face with a razor- 14:9 – a double issur for any
man, and an extra issur if he is a nazir, but a metzora who needs to become
tahor has to shave all his hair.
והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את־כל־שערו את־ראשו ואת־זקנו ואת גבת עיניו
ואת־כל־שערו יגלח וכבס את־בגדיו ורחץ את־בשרו במים וטהר
And partially entering the Azara (for putting the dam and oil on him) before he is tahor, as in Zevachim 32a if you hold ביאה במקצת שמה ביאה.
Just interesting – the Gimmel in והתגלח is
written large. Reasons given are:
1. Three
people have this halacha of being shaved as bald as an egg- The initial group
of Leviim during their inauguration, every nazir after his term ends; and the
metzora.
2. That this
taglachas supersedes three issurim – peios harosh, peios hazakan, and nazir.
(Some meforshim say they did not cut their peiyos.)
3. That
a boy’s first haircut should be at three years old. I’m not making
this up. It is said in the name of the Arizal. And it’s passuk 33, so you
should do it on Lag BaOmer. If you believe that the passuk numbering is holy,
which is isn’t. Even though נעשה ונשמע
is 24:7.
7. What word in the parsha can be either a verb or an
adjective. Hint: it's a color.
Yarok. ‘Green’ and ‘will spit’.
Green- 14:37
וְרָאָה אֶת־הַנֶּגַע וְהִנֵּה הַנֶּגַע בְּקִירֹת הַבַּיִת שְׁקַעֲרוּרֹת
יְרַקְרַקֹּת אוֹ אֲדַמְדַּמֹּת
Spit- 15:8
וְכִי־יָרֹק הַזָּב בַּטָּהוֹר
10. A man came to
Rav Chaim Kanievsky with a shailah. He had a very uncomfortable rash or
psoriasis. The doctor had prescribed a medicated
ointment. The question was whether he could put it on the rash on Shabbos, or
whether there would be an issue of dissolving a thick cream or refuah on
Shabbos. Rav Chaim asked to see the rash and said "If the medicine is to
cure the rash, and not just for the discomfort, you should be asking whether
you can use the cream during the week, not only on Shabbos, because the rash
has the symptoms of tzaraas, and the Torah forbids removing the signs of
Tzaraas."
Was this man allowed to walk into the old city of Yerushalayim?
Yes, he is allowed to go into Yerushalayim.
The Tuma and Tahara status, and the banishment of the Metzora, only go
into effect when the Kohen says "Tamei" or "Tahor" (as the
Meiri says in MK 7b d'h אפילו,
'אפילו
היו סימני טומאה של מצורע או סימני –רפואה ניכרים לכל אדם אינו לא טמא ולא טהור,
עד שיטמאנו הכהן או יטהרנו'.)
Rav Kanievsky was not a Kohen so despite his psak halacha, the man
remains tahor.
However, the prohibition of removing signs of Tzaraas is inherent. It is
Safeik Issur Deoraysa to remove what might be symptoms of tzaraas (Devarim
24:8, השמר בנגע הצרעת) until an
expert, Kohen or non-Kohen, says that they are not tzaraas.
Note: There is one and only one solitary shittah that obvious tzaraas is
immediately tamei, with or without a kohen. That is the Yaavetz, שו"ת שאילת יעבץ א, קלח.
The only achron (the Minchas Yitzchak in ה,
א, יד; ו, קלב ד"ה והנה) who cites him lehalacha does so for
purely political reasons, to keep people off of the Har Habayis, an issur
kares. Everyone else only mentions him as a curiosity:
Ayeles Hashachar here in 13:2; Lehoros Nassan, 13:2;
and more.
