Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 7, 2019 | 讟壮 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖状驻

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Niddah 15

There are different interpretations regarding the three stages manetioned in the mishna about a woman finding blood after intercourse (particularly between the second a third stage). The gemara discusses the differnt approaches. Can a husband assume that his wife is not in nidda, esp. if he comes home from a trip and does she need to check herself or can she assume if she hasn’t seen blood, she is fine. On what does it depend? Is it different if she has a regular cycle or not? How does the debate regarding whether vestot (assuming a cycle will come at a particular time) is a rabbinic or Torah law? If enough days have elapsed that a woman could have menstruated and gone of the mikveh, can聽the husband assume that she did? Is it always true that a doubt cannot override a certainty?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

砖诪讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗转诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜

Perhaps you say in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that the woman transmits impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse, just as she retroactively transmits impurity to any pure items she touched in the preceding twenty-four-hour period? The Sages of Usha said to Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok: We have not heard this opinion of Rabbi Akiva, i.e., we do not accept it as halakha, and therefore we would like to know what this period of: After time passed, is.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻讱 驻专砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讬讘谞讛 诇讗 砖讛转讛 讻讚讬 砖转专讚 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 讜转讚讬讞 讗转 驻谞讬讛 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讛讜讗 讝讛 讜讟诪讗讬谉 诪住驻拽 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪拽专讘谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗砖诐 转诇讜讬

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said to them: This is how the Sages of Yavne explained it: As long as the woman did not wait before examining herself after intercourse for a period of time equivalent to the time in which she may descend from the bed and rinse her face, this is considered within the period of time referred to in the mishna as: After time passed. And if blood is found on the cloth she used to examine herself during this period, they are both impure for seven days due to uncertainty, and they are exempt from bringing a sin offering, as this offering is brought only for an unwitting sin that was definitely committed. But they are each obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.

砖讛转讛 讻讚讬 砖转专讚 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 讜转讚讬讞 讗转 驻谞讬讛 讗讞专 讛讝诪谉 讛讜讗 讝讛

If she waited before examining herself after intercourse for a period of time equivalent to the time in which she may descend from the bed and rinse her face, this is considered: After time, i.e., after the time frame referred to in the mishna as: After time passed.

讜讻谉 讻砖砖讛转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 讘讜注诇讛 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 诪讙注 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讜注诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讜注诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗讜诪专 讘注诇讛 谞讻谞住 诇讛讬讻诇 讜诪拽讟讬专 拽讟讜专转

In this case, and likewise in a case when she waited for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, i.e., she examined herself before intercourse and was pure, and then examined herself within twenty-four hours after intercourse and was impure, the man with whom she engaged in intercourse becomes impure until evening due to contact with a menstruating woman, but he does not become impure for seven days as one who engaged in intercourse with a menstruating woman. Rabbi Akiva says: He even becomes impure for seven days as one who engaged in intercourse with a menstruating woman. Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, says: In such a case, not only is her husband not impure for seven days, but he is not even deemed impure until evening by rabbinic law. Therefore, if he is a priest he may enter the Sanctuary and burn incense.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪讟讛专讬 专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains the difficulty with Rav Ashi鈥檚 interpretation of the mishna according to this baraita: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who maintains that the period of: After time passed, during which if the woman found blood on her cloth the man with whom she engaged in intercourse is rendered impure for seven days, is equivalent to the time it takes for her to extend her hand and examine herself, this is the reason that the Rabbis deem him pure if she discovered blood after this period has passed.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪讗讬 诪讟讛专讬 专讘谞谉

But according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, who holds that if she has a cloth in her hand then she renders the man with whom she engaged in intercourse impure if she discovers blood within the amount of time it takes for her to descend from the bed and rinse or clean her pubic area with the cloth she is holding in her hand, why do the Rabbis deem him pure if the amount of time that has passed is the time it takes for her to descend and clean her pubic area? She should still render him impure during that time span.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讬谉 注讚 讘讬讚讛 讛讗讬 注讚 讘讬讚讛 讜讗讬谉 注讚 讘讬讚讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 拽砖讬讗

And if you would say that the baraita is dealing with a case where the cloth is not in her hand, and for this reason the time period that it is referring to is after the amount of time it would take for the woman to extend her hand and examine herself, this cannot be the case, as if so, the tanna of the baraita should have taught two cases: A cloth is in her hand, and: A cloth is not in her hand, to differentiate between the situations. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this baraita poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ashi.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗讜诪专 讘注诇讛 谞讻谞住 诇讛讬讻诇 讜诪拽讟讬专 拽讟讜专转 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 谞讜讙注 讘诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛

搂 The baraita teaches that Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, says: If the examination took place following this period called: After time passed, her husband is not ritually impure at all, and therefore if he is a priest he may enter the Sanctuary and burn incense. The Gemara asks: And let him derive that the husband is impure because he is one who touched a menstruating woman during the twenty-four-hour period before she discovered blood, as the Sages decreed that pure items touched by a menstruating woman in the twenty-four hours before she noticed the bleeding are impure retroactively.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻砖诪讗讬 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, who said the ruling, holds like Shammai, who said in a mishna (2a): For all women, their time is sufficient, i.e., women who discern the emergence of menstrual blood do not need to be concerned that the flow of blood began before they noticed it, and they assume ritual impurity status only from that moment.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 讘注诇 拽专讬 讘砖诇讗 讙诪专 讘讬讗转讜

The Gemara raises another difficulty with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai: And let him derive that the husband is impure because he is one who experienced a seminal emission. The Gemara answers that he is referring to a case where the husband did not complete his act of intercourse.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘专讜讗讛 讻转诐 讗诪专 专讘 诇诪驻专注 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗

搂 The mishna states: And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva in the case of a woman who sees a blood stain, that she transmits seven-day impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse. The Gemara cites a dispute of amora鈥檌m in this regard. Rav says that she renders the man with whom she engaged in intercourse impure retroactively, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that a woman who sees a blood stain renders pure items impure retroactively (see 5a).

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗

And Shmuel says that she does not render him impure retroactively, but only if he engages in intercourse with her from now and onward, i.e., after she sees the blood stain, and this is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that a woman who sees a blood stain renders pure items impure only from that moment onward. The Gemara raises a difficulty with the opinion of Shmuel: Why does the mishna find it necessary to state that she renders him impure from now and onward? Isn鈥檛 it obvious?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪注转 诇注转 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻转诪讬诐 讚专讘谞谉 诪讛 诪注转 诇注转 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 讗祝 讻转诪讬诐 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that it was necessary for the mishna to state this ruling, lest you say: Since the woman鈥檚 retroactive impurity for a twenty-four-hour period is a decree that applies by rabbinic law, and the impurity of blood stains also applies by rabbinic law, one might claim as follows: Just as her retroactive impurity of a twenty-four-hour period does not render impure the man with whom she engaged in intercourse, so too, her blood stains should not render impure the man with whom she engaged in intercourse. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that she does render him impure from that point onward.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬谉 砖讜专 砖讞讜讟 诇驻谞讬讱 讛讻讗 讬砖 砖讜专 砖讞讜讟 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara asks: But perhaps one can say that indeed, she does not transmit impurity to him? The Gemara explains that there is a difference between the two types of rabbinic impurity: There, with regard to retroactive impurity, it is not a case of: The slaughtered ox is before you, i.e., the evidence of impurity did not exist at the time, as she had yet to experience menstruation. Therefore, the Sages did not apply the stringency of retroactive impurity to the husband. By contrast, here, with regard to the impurity of blood stains, it is a case of: The slaughtered ox is before you, as blood has appeared on the cloth.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇诪驻专注 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish similarly says, like Rav, that the woman transmits impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse retroactively, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yo岣nan says, like Shmuel: She renders him impure from now and onward, i.e., after she sees the blood stain, and this is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪谉 讛讚专讱 谞砖讬讛谉 诇讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛

MISHNA: All women have the presumptive status of purity for their husbands, and therefore one is not required to ascertain whether his wife is ritually pure before engaging in intercourse with her. Even with regard to husbands returning from a journey, if their wives were ritually pure when they left, their wives have the presumptive status of purity for them.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讬 讛讘讗讬谉 诪谉 讛讚专讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘诪转讗 讚专诪讬讗 讗谞驻砖讛 讜讘讚拽讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转讗 讘诪转讗 讚诇讗 专诪讬讗 讗谞驻砖讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: Why does the tanna of the mishna need to teach the halakha of husbands returning from a journey? In what manner are they different from other husbands? The Gemara explains that it might enter your mind to say: This statement, that women have the presumptive status of purity, applies only in a case where the husband is in the city of his residence, as the woman takes upon herself the responsibility of being ready for her husband at all times, and therefore she examines herself. But in a case where the husband is not in the city, since she does not take upon herself the responsibility of being constantly ready for him, perhaps she should not have the presumptive status of purity. Therefore, the tanna of the mishna teaches us that even in this case she has a presumptive status of purity.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 注讜谞转讛

The Gemara notes that in this regard, Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: And this halakha that the wife of a husband returning from a journey has a presumptive status of purity is applicable only in a case where the husband came and found that his wife was within the days of her projected period, i.e., within thirty days of her previous menstruation. In this case he may assume that she has not yet experienced a new period, and therefore he may rely on her presumptive status of purity. But if he arrived after thirty days had elapsed from her previous menstruation, it is assumed that she experienced menstruation at the usual time and therefore it is not permitted for him to engage in intercourse with her unless she examined herself and found herself pure.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讗住讜专 诇砖诪砖

搂 With regard to the presumptive status of purity of wives, Rav Huna says: The Sages taught this halakha only in the case of a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle. But with regard to a woman who does have a fixed menstrual cycle, it is prohibited for her husband to engage in intercourse with her.

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讗讬诪讗 讞讝讗讬 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讜住转 拽讘讬注 诇讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it the opposite? On the contrary; the reverse claim stands to reason: If the wife does not have a fixed cycle, one can say that perhaps she saw blood, and therefore she should be forbidden to him; whereas if she has a fixed cycle, since her cycle is fixed for her she knows when she will become impure and is presumed to be pure beforehand.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讗讘诇 讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讗住讜专讛 拽住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rather, if Rav Huna鈥檚 differentiation was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Huna says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case when the projected time of the woman鈥檚 period had not arrived before her husband returned from his journey. But if the projected time of her period had arrived, she is forbidden to him. Rav Huna maintains that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, as this is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. If a woman did not examine herself at this time she is presumed to have experienced bleeding, even if she did not sense the emission of blood, though there is no formal obligation to examine herself at this time. Accordingly, a husband returning home from a journey cannot rely on the assumption that his wife has examined herself at the projected time of her period, unless he positively establishes that she has done so.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 谞诪讬 诪讜转专转 拽住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚专讘谞谉

By contrast, Rabba bar bar 岣na says: Even if the projected time of her period had arrived, she is permitted to her husband. Rabba bar bar 岣na maintains that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law, and therefore she is not considered to have experienced bleeding, though by rabbinic law she must still examine herself to ascertain that she is pure.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rav Ashi teaches the opinions of Rav Huna and Rabba bar bar 岣na like this: Rav Huna says:

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 讗诇讗 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 讜诇拽驻讬爪讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪注砖讛 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽驻讬抓 讜诇讗 讞讝讗讬 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 讗住讜专讛 诇砖诪砖

The Sages taught this halakha, that a woman has a presumptive status of purity to her husband, only in a case where she does not have a menstrual cycle of days alone, but has a menstrual cycle that is determined both by fixed days and by physical actions she might perform, such as jumps. The reason is that since the matter is also dependent on a particular action, one can say that she did not jump and therefore she did not see blood, and consequently she is presumed to be pure. But with regard to a woman who has a menstrual cycle of days alone, and the projected day of her period arrived, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse with her husband.

拽住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara explains that Rav Huna maintains that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law. Since she has an uncertain status of impurity by Torah law when the projected day of her period arrives, it is permitted for her to engage in intercourse with her husband only after an examination.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 诪讜转专转 拽住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚专讘谞谉

Rabba bar bar 岣na says: Even if she has a menstrual cycle of days alone, she is permitted to her husband. Rabba bar bar 岣na maintains that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law. Consequently, she is not considered to have experienced bleeding, though by rabbinic law she should have examined herself to ascertain if she was pure.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讘注诇讛 诪讞砖讘 讬诪讬 讜住转讛 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛

Rav Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, and her husband was away for seven days after the expected onset of her period, at which point he returned home, her husband calculates the days of her cycle; and if in the elapsed time it was possible for her to immerse and purify herself, he can presume that she did so, and he may engage in intercourse with her even without asking her whether she is pure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讬讘讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讬诇讚讛 讚讘讝讬讝讗 诇诪讟讘诇

Rav Shmuel bar Yeiva said to Rabbi Abba: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan state this ruling even with regard to a young girl, who is embarrassed to go and immerse herself, in which case one can claim that if her husband was away she would not have gone to the ritual bath?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 讜讚讗讬 专讗转讛 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住驻拽 专讗转讛 住驻拽 诇讗 专讗转讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 专讗转讛 讗讬诪讗 讟讘诇讛

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Shmuel bar Yeiva: Is that to say that Rabbi Yo岣nan applied this halakha to all cases? Did Rabbi Yo岣nan say that a woman who definitely saw blood is also permitted to her husband? You can say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said his ruling with regard to a case where it is uncertain whether the woman saw blood and it is uncertain whether she did not see blood, and therefore her husband may engage in intercourse with her, as one can reason as follows: If you say that she saw blood, one can still say that perhaps she immersed.

讗讘诇 讜讚讗讬 专讗转讛 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚讟讘诇讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 讜讜讚讗讬 讜讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

But if she definitely saw blood, it is not permitted for the husband to engage in intercourse with her. The reason is: Who is to say that she immersed? It is a conflict between an uncertainty as to whether or not she immersed, and a certainty that she saw blood, and there is a principle that an uncertainty does not override a certainty. In the case of a young girl, since it is uncertain whether she saw blood, and it is uncertain whether she immersed, she is permitted to her husband.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讘专 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 诪讙讜专讛 诪诇讗讛 驻讬专讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 诪转讜拽谞讬谉 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讟讘诇 住驻拽 诪注讜砖专 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 诪注讜砖专 讜拽讗转讬 住驻拽 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this principle: And does an uncertainty not override a certainty? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of a 岣ver who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even if the produce was there only that day, it has the presumptive status of produce that was ritually prepared, i.e., properly tithed. This is due to the presumption that the 岣ver tithed the produce himself or instructed others to do so. The Gemara infers: And here, the produce was definitely untithed at the outset, and there is uncertainty whether the 岣ver tithed it, and there is uncertainty whether he did not tithe it. And despite this conflict, the uncertainty whether it was tithed comes and overrides the certainty that it was untithed produce.

讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 讜讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讻讚专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讞讝拽讛 注诇 讞讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讜拽谉

The Gemara rejects this claim: There, the conflict that leads to the question with regard to the produce鈥檚 status is between certainty and certainty, as the 岣ver certainly tithed the produce. This presumption is in accordance with the statement of Rav 岣nina 岣za鈥檃; as Rav 岣nina 岣za鈥檃 said: There is a presumption with regard to a 岣ver that he does not release an item from his possession that is not ritually prepared.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住驻拽 讜住驻拽 讛讜讗 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪注专讬诐 讗讚诐 注诇 转讘讜讗转讜 讜诪讻谞讬住讛 讘诪讜抓 砖诇讛 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 讘讛诪转讜 讗讜讻诇转 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

And if you wish, say instead that in that case the conflict is between uncertainty and uncertainty, as it is possible that there was never an obligation to tithe this produce, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya. As Rabbi Oshaya said: A person can employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain, and bring it into his courtyard in its chaff, so that his animal may eat from it, and this grain is exempt from tithe. Although the obligation to tithe produce applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one鈥檚 animal untithed produce that was brought into one鈥檚 home before being fully processed. Consequently, the case involving produce is a conflict between two uncertain factors, as it is uncertain whether or not the owner was obligated to tithe the produce in the first place, and even if he was required to do so, it is uncertain whether or not he tithed it.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘砖驻讞转讜 砖诇 诪住讬拽 讗讞讚 讘专讬诪讜谉 砖讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讜讘讗 讻讛谉 讜讛爪讬抓 讘讜 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛

The Gemara challenges: And still, is it correct that an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving the maidservant of a certain olive gatherer [massik] in the city of Rimon, who cast a non-viable newborn into a pit, and a priest came and looked into the pit to ascertain whether the baby was male or whether it was female, as the length of time of a woman鈥檚 ritual impurity after childbirth, even if she gave birth to a non-viable newborn, depends on whether the child was male or female (see Leviticus, chapter 12).

讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讟讛专讜讛讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讜诇讚讛 讜讘专讚诇住 诪爪讜讬讬诐 砖诐

And the incident came before the Sages to rule whether or not the priest contracted ritual impurity while standing over the corpse, and they deemed him ritually pure. The basis for this ruling was: Due to the fact that martens and hyenas are common there, it is likely that the body was dragged away before the priest arrived at the pit.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 住驻拽 讙专专讜讛讜 住驻拽 诇讗 讙专专讜讛讜 讜拽讗转讬 住驻拽 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara explains the challenge from this baraita: And here, where it is certain that the maidservant cast the non-viable newborn into the pit, and it is uncertain whether an animal dragged it away and it is uncertain whether no animal dragged it away, the Sages nevertheless ruled that an uncertainty comes and overrides a certainty.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗

The Gemara rejects this challenge: Do not say in the baraita that the woman certainly cast a non-viable newborn into a pit; rather, say

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 15

砖诪讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗转诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜

Perhaps you say in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that the woman transmits impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse, just as she retroactively transmits impurity to any pure items she touched in the preceding twenty-four-hour period? The Sages of Usha said to Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok: We have not heard this opinion of Rabbi Akiva, i.e., we do not accept it as halakha, and therefore we would like to know what this period of: After time passed, is.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻讱 驻专砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讬讘谞讛 诇讗 砖讛转讛 讻讚讬 砖转专讚 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 讜转讚讬讞 讗转 驻谞讬讛 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讛讜讗 讝讛 讜讟诪讗讬谉 诪住驻拽 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪拽专讘谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗砖诐 转诇讜讬

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said to them: This is how the Sages of Yavne explained it: As long as the woman did not wait before examining herself after intercourse for a period of time equivalent to the time in which she may descend from the bed and rinse her face, this is considered within the period of time referred to in the mishna as: After time passed. And if blood is found on the cloth she used to examine herself during this period, they are both impure for seven days due to uncertainty, and they are exempt from bringing a sin offering, as this offering is brought only for an unwitting sin that was definitely committed. But they are each obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.

砖讛转讛 讻讚讬 砖转专讚 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 讜转讚讬讞 讗转 驻谞讬讛 讗讞专 讛讝诪谉 讛讜讗 讝讛

If she waited before examining herself after intercourse for a period of time equivalent to the time in which she may descend from the bed and rinse her face, this is considered: After time, i.e., after the time frame referred to in the mishna as: After time passed.

讜讻谉 讻砖砖讛转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 讘讜注诇讛 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 诪讙注 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讜注诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讜注诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗讜诪专 讘注诇讛 谞讻谞住 诇讛讬讻诇 讜诪拽讟讬专 拽讟讜专转

In this case, and likewise in a case when she waited for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, i.e., she examined herself before intercourse and was pure, and then examined herself within twenty-four hours after intercourse and was impure, the man with whom she engaged in intercourse becomes impure until evening due to contact with a menstruating woman, but he does not become impure for seven days as one who engaged in intercourse with a menstruating woman. Rabbi Akiva says: He even becomes impure for seven days as one who engaged in intercourse with a menstruating woman. Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, says: In such a case, not only is her husband not impure for seven days, but he is not even deemed impure until evening by rabbinic law. Therefore, if he is a priest he may enter the Sanctuary and burn incense.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪讟讛专讬 专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains the difficulty with Rav Ashi鈥檚 interpretation of the mishna according to this baraita: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who maintains that the period of: After time passed, during which if the woman found blood on her cloth the man with whom she engaged in intercourse is rendered impure for seven days, is equivalent to the time it takes for her to extend her hand and examine herself, this is the reason that the Rabbis deem him pure if she discovered blood after this period has passed.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪讗讬 诪讟讛专讬 专讘谞谉

But according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, who holds that if she has a cloth in her hand then she renders the man with whom she engaged in intercourse impure if she discovers blood within the amount of time it takes for her to descend from the bed and rinse or clean her pubic area with the cloth she is holding in her hand, why do the Rabbis deem him pure if the amount of time that has passed is the time it takes for her to descend and clean her pubic area? She should still render him impure during that time span.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讬谉 注讚 讘讬讚讛 讛讗讬 注讚 讘讬讚讛 讜讗讬谉 注讚 讘讬讚讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 拽砖讬讗

And if you would say that the baraita is dealing with a case where the cloth is not in her hand, and for this reason the time period that it is referring to is after the amount of time it would take for the woman to extend her hand and examine herself, this cannot be the case, as if so, the tanna of the baraita should have taught two cases: A cloth is in her hand, and: A cloth is not in her hand, to differentiate between the situations. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this baraita poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ashi.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗讜诪专 讘注诇讛 谞讻谞住 诇讛讬讻诇 讜诪拽讟讬专 拽讟讜专转 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 谞讜讙注 讘诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛

搂 The baraita teaches that Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, says: If the examination took place following this period called: After time passed, her husband is not ritually impure at all, and therefore if he is a priest he may enter the Sanctuary and burn incense. The Gemara asks: And let him derive that the husband is impure because he is one who touched a menstruating woman during the twenty-four-hour period before she discovered blood, as the Sages decreed that pure items touched by a menstruating woman in the twenty-four hours before she noticed the bleeding are impure retroactively.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻砖诪讗讬 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, who said the ruling, holds like Shammai, who said in a mishna (2a): For all women, their time is sufficient, i.e., women who discern the emergence of menstrual blood do not need to be concerned that the flow of blood began before they noticed it, and they assume ritual impurity status only from that moment.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 讘注诇 拽专讬 讘砖诇讗 讙诪专 讘讬讗转讜

The Gemara raises another difficulty with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai: And let him derive that the husband is impure because he is one who experienced a seminal emission. The Gemara answers that he is referring to a case where the husband did not complete his act of intercourse.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘专讜讗讛 讻转诐 讗诪专 专讘 诇诪驻专注 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗

搂 The mishna states: And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva in the case of a woman who sees a blood stain, that she transmits seven-day impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse. The Gemara cites a dispute of amora鈥檌m in this regard. Rav says that she renders the man with whom she engaged in intercourse impure retroactively, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that a woman who sees a blood stain renders pure items impure retroactively (see 5a).

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗

And Shmuel says that she does not render him impure retroactively, but only if he engages in intercourse with her from now and onward, i.e., after she sees the blood stain, and this is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that a woman who sees a blood stain renders pure items impure only from that moment onward. The Gemara raises a difficulty with the opinion of Shmuel: Why does the mishna find it necessary to state that she renders him impure from now and onward? Isn鈥檛 it obvious?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪注转 诇注转 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻转诪讬诐 讚专讘谞谉 诪讛 诪注转 诇注转 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 讗祝 讻转诪讬诐 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that it was necessary for the mishna to state this ruling, lest you say: Since the woman鈥檚 retroactive impurity for a twenty-four-hour period is a decree that applies by rabbinic law, and the impurity of blood stains also applies by rabbinic law, one might claim as follows: Just as her retroactive impurity of a twenty-four-hour period does not render impure the man with whom she engaged in intercourse, so too, her blood stains should not render impure the man with whom she engaged in intercourse. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that she does render him impure from that point onward.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬谉 砖讜专 砖讞讜讟 诇驻谞讬讱 讛讻讗 讬砖 砖讜专 砖讞讜讟 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara asks: But perhaps one can say that indeed, she does not transmit impurity to him? The Gemara explains that there is a difference between the two types of rabbinic impurity: There, with regard to retroactive impurity, it is not a case of: The slaughtered ox is before you, i.e., the evidence of impurity did not exist at the time, as she had yet to experience menstruation. Therefore, the Sages did not apply the stringency of retroactive impurity to the husband. By contrast, here, with regard to the impurity of blood stains, it is a case of: The slaughtered ox is before you, as blood has appeared on the cloth.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇诪驻专注 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish similarly says, like Rav, that the woman transmits impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse retroactively, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yo岣nan says, like Shmuel: She renders him impure from now and onward, i.e., after she sees the blood stain, and this is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪谉 讛讚专讱 谞砖讬讛谉 诇讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛

MISHNA: All women have the presumptive status of purity for their husbands, and therefore one is not required to ascertain whether his wife is ritually pure before engaging in intercourse with her. Even with regard to husbands returning from a journey, if their wives were ritually pure when they left, their wives have the presumptive status of purity for them.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讬 讛讘讗讬谉 诪谉 讛讚专讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘诪转讗 讚专诪讬讗 讗谞驻砖讛 讜讘讚拽讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转讗 讘诪转讗 讚诇讗 专诪讬讗 讗谞驻砖讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: Why does the tanna of the mishna need to teach the halakha of husbands returning from a journey? In what manner are they different from other husbands? The Gemara explains that it might enter your mind to say: This statement, that women have the presumptive status of purity, applies only in a case where the husband is in the city of his residence, as the woman takes upon herself the responsibility of being ready for her husband at all times, and therefore she examines herself. But in a case where the husband is not in the city, since she does not take upon herself the responsibility of being constantly ready for him, perhaps she should not have the presumptive status of purity. Therefore, the tanna of the mishna teaches us that even in this case she has a presumptive status of purity.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 注讜谞转讛

The Gemara notes that in this regard, Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: And this halakha that the wife of a husband returning from a journey has a presumptive status of purity is applicable only in a case where the husband came and found that his wife was within the days of her projected period, i.e., within thirty days of her previous menstruation. In this case he may assume that she has not yet experienced a new period, and therefore he may rely on her presumptive status of purity. But if he arrived after thirty days had elapsed from her previous menstruation, it is assumed that she experienced menstruation at the usual time and therefore it is not permitted for him to engage in intercourse with her unless she examined herself and found herself pure.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讗住讜专 诇砖诪砖

搂 With regard to the presumptive status of purity of wives, Rav Huna says: The Sages taught this halakha only in the case of a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle. But with regard to a woman who does have a fixed menstrual cycle, it is prohibited for her husband to engage in intercourse with her.

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讗讬诪讗 讞讝讗讬 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讜住转 拽讘讬注 诇讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it the opposite? On the contrary; the reverse claim stands to reason: If the wife does not have a fixed cycle, one can say that perhaps she saw blood, and therefore she should be forbidden to him; whereas if she has a fixed cycle, since her cycle is fixed for her she knows when she will become impure and is presumed to be pure beforehand.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讗讘诇 讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讗住讜专讛 拽住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rather, if Rav Huna鈥檚 differentiation was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Huna says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case when the projected time of the woman鈥檚 period had not arrived before her husband returned from his journey. But if the projected time of her period had arrived, she is forbidden to him. Rav Huna maintains that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, as this is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. If a woman did not examine herself at this time she is presumed to have experienced bleeding, even if she did not sense the emission of blood, though there is no formal obligation to examine herself at this time. Accordingly, a husband returning home from a journey cannot rely on the assumption that his wife has examined herself at the projected time of her period, unless he positively establishes that she has done so.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 谞诪讬 诪讜转专转 拽住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚专讘谞谉

By contrast, Rabba bar bar 岣na says: Even if the projected time of her period had arrived, she is permitted to her husband. Rabba bar bar 岣na maintains that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law, and therefore she is not considered to have experienced bleeding, though by rabbinic law she must still examine herself to ascertain that she is pure.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rav Ashi teaches the opinions of Rav Huna and Rabba bar bar 岣na like this: Rav Huna says:

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 讗诇讗 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 讜诇拽驻讬爪讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪注砖讛 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽驻讬抓 讜诇讗 讞讝讗讬 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 讗住讜专讛 诇砖诪砖

The Sages taught this halakha, that a woman has a presumptive status of purity to her husband, only in a case where she does not have a menstrual cycle of days alone, but has a menstrual cycle that is determined both by fixed days and by physical actions she might perform, such as jumps. The reason is that since the matter is also dependent on a particular action, one can say that she did not jump and therefore she did not see blood, and consequently she is presumed to be pure. But with regard to a woman who has a menstrual cycle of days alone, and the projected day of her period arrived, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse with her husband.

拽住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara explains that Rav Huna maintains that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law. Since she has an uncertain status of impurity by Torah law when the projected day of her period arrives, it is permitted for her to engage in intercourse with her husband only after an examination.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 诪讜转专转 拽住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚专讘谞谉

Rabba bar bar 岣na says: Even if she has a menstrual cycle of days alone, she is permitted to her husband. Rabba bar bar 岣na maintains that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law. Consequently, she is not considered to have experienced bleeding, though by rabbinic law she should have examined herself to ascertain if she was pure.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讘注诇讛 诪讞砖讘 讬诪讬 讜住转讛 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛

Rav Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, and her husband was away for seven days after the expected onset of her period, at which point he returned home, her husband calculates the days of her cycle; and if in the elapsed time it was possible for her to immerse and purify herself, he can presume that she did so, and he may engage in intercourse with her even without asking her whether she is pure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讬讘讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讬诇讚讛 讚讘讝讬讝讗 诇诪讟讘诇

Rav Shmuel bar Yeiva said to Rabbi Abba: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan state this ruling even with regard to a young girl, who is embarrassed to go and immerse herself, in which case one can claim that if her husband was away she would not have gone to the ritual bath?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 讜讚讗讬 专讗转讛 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住驻拽 专讗转讛 住驻拽 诇讗 专讗转讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 专讗转讛 讗讬诪讗 讟讘诇讛

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Shmuel bar Yeiva: Is that to say that Rabbi Yo岣nan applied this halakha to all cases? Did Rabbi Yo岣nan say that a woman who definitely saw blood is also permitted to her husband? You can say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said his ruling with regard to a case where it is uncertain whether the woman saw blood and it is uncertain whether she did not see blood, and therefore her husband may engage in intercourse with her, as one can reason as follows: If you say that she saw blood, one can still say that perhaps she immersed.

讗讘诇 讜讚讗讬 专讗转讛 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚讟讘诇讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 讜讜讚讗讬 讜讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

But if she definitely saw blood, it is not permitted for the husband to engage in intercourse with her. The reason is: Who is to say that she immersed? It is a conflict between an uncertainty as to whether or not she immersed, and a certainty that she saw blood, and there is a principle that an uncertainty does not override a certainty. In the case of a young girl, since it is uncertain whether she saw blood, and it is uncertain whether she immersed, she is permitted to her husband.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讘专 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 诪讙讜专讛 诪诇讗讛 驻讬专讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 诪转讜拽谞讬谉 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讟讘诇 住驻拽 诪注讜砖专 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 诪注讜砖专 讜拽讗转讬 住驻拽 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this principle: And does an uncertainty not override a certainty? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of a 岣ver who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even if the produce was there only that day, it has the presumptive status of produce that was ritually prepared, i.e., properly tithed. This is due to the presumption that the 岣ver tithed the produce himself or instructed others to do so. The Gemara infers: And here, the produce was definitely untithed at the outset, and there is uncertainty whether the 岣ver tithed it, and there is uncertainty whether he did not tithe it. And despite this conflict, the uncertainty whether it was tithed comes and overrides the certainty that it was untithed produce.

讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 讜讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讻讚专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讞讝拽讛 注诇 讞讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讜拽谉

The Gemara rejects this claim: There, the conflict that leads to the question with regard to the produce鈥檚 status is between certainty and certainty, as the 岣ver certainly tithed the produce. This presumption is in accordance with the statement of Rav 岣nina 岣za鈥檃; as Rav 岣nina 岣za鈥檃 said: There is a presumption with regard to a 岣ver that he does not release an item from his possession that is not ritually prepared.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住驻拽 讜住驻拽 讛讜讗 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪注专讬诐 讗讚诐 注诇 转讘讜讗转讜 讜诪讻谞讬住讛 讘诪讜抓 砖诇讛 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 讘讛诪转讜 讗讜讻诇转 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

And if you wish, say instead that in that case the conflict is between uncertainty and uncertainty, as it is possible that there was never an obligation to tithe this produce, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya. As Rabbi Oshaya said: A person can employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain, and bring it into his courtyard in its chaff, so that his animal may eat from it, and this grain is exempt from tithe. Although the obligation to tithe produce applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one鈥檚 animal untithed produce that was brought into one鈥檚 home before being fully processed. Consequently, the case involving produce is a conflict between two uncertain factors, as it is uncertain whether or not the owner was obligated to tithe the produce in the first place, and even if he was required to do so, it is uncertain whether or not he tithed it.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘砖驻讞转讜 砖诇 诪住讬拽 讗讞讚 讘专讬诪讜谉 砖讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讜讘讗 讻讛谉 讜讛爪讬抓 讘讜 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛

The Gemara challenges: And still, is it correct that an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving the maidservant of a certain olive gatherer [massik] in the city of Rimon, who cast a non-viable newborn into a pit, and a priest came and looked into the pit to ascertain whether the baby was male or whether it was female, as the length of time of a woman鈥檚 ritual impurity after childbirth, even if she gave birth to a non-viable newborn, depends on whether the child was male or female (see Leviticus, chapter 12).

讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讟讛专讜讛讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讜诇讚讛 讜讘专讚诇住 诪爪讜讬讬诐 砖诐

And the incident came before the Sages to rule whether or not the priest contracted ritual impurity while standing over the corpse, and they deemed him ritually pure. The basis for this ruling was: Due to the fact that martens and hyenas are common there, it is likely that the body was dragged away before the priest arrived at the pit.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 住驻拽 讙专专讜讛讜 住驻拽 诇讗 讙专专讜讛讜 讜拽讗转讬 住驻拽 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara explains the challenge from this baraita: And here, where it is certain that the maidservant cast the non-viable newborn into the pit, and it is uncertain whether an animal dragged it away and it is uncertain whether no animal dragged it away, the Sages nevertheless ruled that an uncertainty comes and overrides a certainty.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗

The Gemara rejects this challenge: Do not say in the baraita that the woman certainly cast a non-viable newborn into a pit; rather, say

Scroll To Top