Parshas Shemini
24 Nisan 5769

April 18, 2009
Daf Yomi: Bava Kama 111

Guest Author:
Rabbi Aharon Ziegler      

Associate, Young Israel Council of Rabbis in Israel    

 

    

The Effect of Defilement Although a child younger than Bar Mitzvah age is not subject to the stringencies of Jewish law, including kashrut, it is Biblically prohibited for an adult to feed the minor any non-kosher food. The Biblical prohibition is derived in Yevamot (114a) from the pasuk (verse) in Vayikra (11:42) “Kol holeich al gachon v’chol holeich al arba....lo tolchlum ke sheketz heim,” “Everything that creeps on its belly, and everything that walks on four legs...; you may not eat them for they are an abomination.” This verse seems to be unnecessary, since the Torah has already commanded us not to eat any crawling creatures (see 11:41).  To this, the Gemara responds that the words “Lo tochlum” should be understood as “Lo ta’achilim,” which means that these foods should not even be fed to minors. An adult doing so would be violating a Biblical commandment. Although the prohibition is Biblical in nature, there is no punishment of malkot (lashes) for an adult who violates this commandment.

  There are other instances where the Torah admonishes an adult not to cause a minor to violate a Biblical commandment. An example would be the prohibition of causing a minor kohen to become tamei (spiritually contaminated) by bringing him into a cemetery.  This prohibition (Talmud [ibid]) comes from the superfluous expressions in   Vayikra (21:1), where the Torah states; “Emor el ha’kohanim b’nei Aharon, ve’amarta aleihem”; “Speak to the sons of Aharon and say to them”.  Since it is stated, “speak to them,” what is added by the statement “and say to them?”  The Gemara answers that it teaches us “Lehazhir gedolim al ha’ktanim”: an adult is Biblically prohibited from causing a minor kohen to become tamei. 

Regarding this transgression, however, there is the punishment of malkot. Why is this so, and what is the difference? 

Rav Soloveitchik zt"l, explains that the maaseh achila (the act of eating), is the violation of the Torah. The maaseh achila of a katan is not the same as the maaseh achila of a gadol. Hence, there are no malkot.  With the case of the kohen becoming tamei, on the other hand, the entire status of the person changes from a tahor to a gavra that is tamei. As a result, the violation is that much more severe. The Rav, therefore, advised that we pay special heed when dealing with children who are kohanim, even while they are infants, when we are around funeral chapels or other places of possible tumah where dead bodies are likely to be found.   

Rav Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch, extends this further with the discussion of a kohen’s pregnant wife. The prohibition against becoming tamei applies only to male kohanim. Considering the possibility that she is carrying a male child, perhaps she should be prohibited from entering a cemetery or a funeral chapel when the aron (the body of the deceased) is inside. The overall consensus is that, since there is a 50/50 chance she is carrying a girl, and since she may not be carrying a viable fetus, there is a double doubt (a sfek sfeika lekula).  Hence, there is less than a 50/50 chance of carrying a viable male child and therefore and she may enter the cemetery. In these days of modern technology and advanced medical science, however, the chances of a fetus being non-viable is so small and insignificant that we cannot consider it as doubtful (a safek). Also, if the woman had a sonogram and she is certain that the gender of the fetus is a male, then many authorities prohibit her to enter a place of tuma.    

Shabbat Shalom.