1) A PERSON WHO IS "TAMEI" IN THE AIRSPACE OF THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH

QUESTIONS: The Gemara earlier (16b) teaches that in order for one to be obligated to bring a Korban for becoming Tamei while in the Beis ha'Mikdash, he must have either bowed down in the Azarah or tarried the amount of time that it takes to bow down. In the Gemara here, Rava asks whether a person who is Tamei who is suspended in the air of the Azarah for this amount of time is obligated to bring a Korban. Perhaps only one who has the ability to bow down will be obligated to bring a Korban if he waits that amount of time in the Azarah while Tamei, but since one who is suspended in the air is unable to bow down he will not be obligated to bring a Korban. On the other hand, perhaps the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that says one is obligated to bring a Korban when he waits the amount of time that it takes to bow down applies regardless of whether it is physically possible to bow, and thus he will be obligated to bring a Korban once that time has passed. The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.

TOSFOS cites another Girsa of the Gemara, which is the text of RASHI (according to the RITVA), the RAMBAM (Hilchos Shegagos 11:4), and other Rishonim. According to this Girsa, Rava's doubt is simply whether being in the air of the Azarah is considered the same as being in the Azarah.

Tosfos questions this Girsa from the Gemara in Zevachim (32a). The Gemara there explicitly states that when a person who is Tamei stretches his hand into the airspace of the Azarah, he is guilty of entering the Azarah while Tamei. The Gemara there explains that even a partial entrance into the Azarah is considered being in the Azarah. The same should apply to one who is suspended in the airspace of the Azarah.

Furthermore, the Gemara there (32b) asks how is a Metzora permitted to extend his right thumb and big toe into the airspace of the Azarah (as part of his purification process), according to the opinion that even a partial entry into the Azarah while Tamei is forbidden. It is evident from the Gemara's question that even the airspace is considered like the Azarah, for if it were not considered like the Azarah, then the Metzora should be permitted to extend his hand into the airspace even if a partial entry is considered a full entry.

Finally, Tosfos asks that the airspace certainly must be considered part of the Azarah, because otherwise all of the blood and limbs of the Korbanos that are carried to the Mizbe'ach should be rendered unfit, as if they left the Azarah, by being lifted into the airspace of the Azarah! Tosfos, therefore, concludes that this Girsa is not correct.

How can these questions on this Girsa be reconciled?

ANSWERS:

(a) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH answers that when a person stands outside of the Azarah and stretches his hand into the Azarah, his hand is considered situated on the ground of the Azarah and is *not* in the airspace, since *he* is standing on the ground and his hand is attached to him (according to the opinion that a partial entry is considered a full entry). Accordingly, a person who is Tamei who extends his hand into the Azarah, and a Metzora who extends his hand into the Azarah, and the blood and limbs of Korbanos being carried by a Kohen are all considered resting on the ground of the Azarah, since they are attached to, or being held by, someone touching the ground. In contrast, Rava's question involves a person who is completely suspended in the air, with no connection at all to the ground.

(b) The RITVA rejects this answer. The Gemara in Zevachim (32a) and Yoma (31a) proves that partially entering the Azarah is not called "being in" the Azarah, as is evident from the fact that a Metzora is permitted to stretch his hand into the airspace of the Azarah. According to the logic of the Tosfos ha'Rosh, the Gemara has no proof from the case of a Metzora, because perhaps the hand of the Metzora is not considered to be in the Azarah at all, since it follows the position of the Metzora's body (which is outside the Azarah)! Since the Metzora's hand is attached to his body, and his body is touching the ground, his hand is considered to be touching the ground where his body is, and it is not considered to be in the Azarah at all. How, then, can the Gemara prove from a Metzora that a partial entry is not considered a full entry? There is not even a partial entry in that case.

The RAMBAN and RITVA conclude that the two different Girsa'os actually mean the same thing. When the Gemara, according to the second Girsa, says that Rava's doubt is whether the airspace of the Azarah is like the Azarah, it means that the doubt is whether the airspace of the Azarah -- in which one is not able to bow down -- is like the Azarah, in which one is able to bow down.

(c) The KEHILOS YAKOV (#12) suggests another explanation for this Girsa, which he says is the approach of RABEINU CHANANEL (who also has the Girsa of Rashi). Rabeinu Chananel quotes Rava's question as, "Is he (the one suspended in the airspace of the Azarah) guilty of causing the Mikdash to become Tamei, or is he not guilty since he is not touching it?" The Kehilos Yakov explains that being in the Mikdash while Tamei differs from other prohibitions. It is obvious, as Tosfos asserts, that the airspace of the Mikdash is holy, and that blood and limbs of Korbanos being carried to the Mizbe'ach are considered to be inside the Beis ha'Mikdash. Rava's doubt was whether the sin of bringing Tum'ah into the Beis ha'Mikdash applies only to one who comes into *physical contact* with the Beis ha'Mikdash, or it applies even to merely bringing Tum'ah into the holy airspace of the Beis ha'Mikdash.

This, however, does not answer Tosfos' question from the Gemara in Zevachim which states that a person who is Tamei who stretches his hand into the airspace of the Azarah is guilty of Tum'as Mikdash. If the Torah prohibits Tum'ah in the Beis ha'Mikdash only when it makes physical contact with the Mikdash, then why should one be liable for stretching his hand into the airspace of the Azarah? The Kehilos Yakov answers that there are two prohibitions of Tum'ah, as Tosfos earlier describes (16b, DH Teneihu). One prohibition is, "She shall not come into the Mikdash [while Tamei]" (Vayikra 12:4), and the other is, "They shall not defile their camps" (Bamidbar 5:3). In the case of the person who is Tamei who extends his hand into the Mikdash, the hand certainly is considered as having "come into the Mikdash," and thus the person transgresses the first prohibition. In contrast, in the case of Rava, the person is not considered to have "come into the Mikdash," because Rava refers to a person who becomes Tamei *while he is in* the Beis ha'Mikdash. Such a person does not transgress the prohibition against "coming into the Mikdash" in a state of Tum'ah, since he entered the Mikdash while he was Tahor. Rava's doubt is whether physical contact is required in order to qualify as "defiling their camps," or whether merely being in the airspace of the holy place suffices. (See extensive discussion on this topic in the Kehilos Yakov here.) (Y. MONTROSE)

2) LEAVING HIS NOSE OUT OF THE "BAYIS HA'MENUGA"

QUESTION: Rebbi Oshiya said that he wanted to state a certain teaching but he was afraid of the response of his colleagues. He explained that he wanted to state that a person who walks backwards into a Bayis ha'Menuga, leaving only his nose outside of the house, remains Tahor. This is because the verse, "ha'Ba El ha'Bayis" (Vayikra 14:46), implies that only one who enters the house in the normal manner of entering ("Derech Bi'ah") becomes Tamei. Rebbi Oshiya said that he was afraid of the response of his colleagues, because according to his logic a person who walks backwards into a Bayis ha'Menuga should remain Tahor even if his entire body enters the house, since he did not enter in the normal manner. Rava gave an answer to Rebbi Oshiya's question on his own statement: a person who finds himself inside of a Bayis ha'Menuga should be no different from vessels that are completely in the house, and thus once he is completely inside the house he should become Tamei regardless of how he entered.

A number of sources (Zevachim 32a, Yoma 31a) indicate that a partial entry into the Beis ha'Mikdash is considered a full entry (see previous Insight). According to those sources, how does Rava's answer reconcile the view of Rebbi Oshiya? If Rebbi Oshiya agrees that a person becomes Tamei when he is entirely in the Bayis ha'Menuga (regardless of how he entered), then he should also say that a person whose body is partially inside the house is Tamei, even though part of his body remains outside! Why, then, does Rebbi Oshiya say that such a person remains Tahor because he did not enter the house in a normal manner when he walked backwards? It does not matter how he entered; once he is considered to be entirely in the Bayis ha'Menuga, he should be Tamei!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS explains that Rebbi Oshiya maintains that a partial entry is *not* considered a full entry. Therefore, when a person enters a Bayis ha'Menuga in a normal manner of entering, he becomes Tamei only when most of his body enters the Bayis ha'Menuga, since "Rubo k'Chulo," most of his body is considered like all of his body.

However, even Ula, who maintains that a partial entry is considered a full entry, says this only with regard to one who enters the Beis ha'Mikdash (because the verse from which he derives this principle is written with regard to the Beis ha'Mikdash). He agrees with Rebbi Oshiya that most of a person's body must enter a Bayis ha'Menuga in order for him to become Tamei.

Based on this approach, TOSFOS and the RITVA ask a question. If a person who enters a Bayis ha'Menuga in a normal manner becomes Tamei when most of his body enters the house because of "Rubo k'Chulo," then the same should apply when he enters the house in an unusual way! When he walks in backwards, he should become Tamei when most of his body enters, because once most his body enters it is considered as though his entire body has entered. Such a person, whose entire body enters even in an unusual manner, becomes Tamei, as Rava states!

Tosfos and the Ritva answer that a person does not become Tamei through the principle of "Rubo k'Chulo" when he walks backwards into a Bayis ha'Menuga for the following reason. The verse teaches that entering the house in a normal manner makes one Tamei, while entering in an unusual manner does not make one Tamei. This indicates that it is easier to become Tamei when entering in a normal manner than when entering in an unusual manner. Accordingly, it must be that if one becomes Tamei when *most* of his body enters the house in a *normal* manner, then when one enters in an *unusual* one does not become Tamei until *all* of his body enters. (Y. MONTROSE)