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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 25, 2019 | 讻状讜 讘转砖专讬 转砖状驻

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Niddah 2

Shamai and Hillel argue about a woman who sees blood and had been touching pure items before. Do the items that she was touching become impure retroactively? If so, from when? The Rabbis take the middle ground between the two opinions. What is the reason behind Shamai Hillel’s opinions? The gemara brings two mishnayot that contradict their opinions (the first contradicts both and the second only Shamai). The gemara resolves the contradition but then raises a question regarding the mishanyot themselves as they seem to contradict each other.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诪讬诐 讛专讘讛

MISHNA: Shammai says: For all women who do not have a fixed menstrual cycle, their time is sufficient. Women who discern that menstrual blood emerged do not need to be concerned that perhaps the flow of blood began before they noticed it. Rather, they assume their ritual impurity status begins at that moment, in terms of rendering impure teruma and ritually pure items with which they come in contact. Hillel says: From examination [mipekida] to examination, i.e., she assumes ritual impurity status retroactive to the last time she examined herself and determined that she was ritually pure, and this is the halakha even if her examination took place several days earlier. Any ritually pure item with which she came in contact in the interim becomes ritually impure.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪注转 诇注转 诪诪注讟转 注诇 讬讚 诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 诪诪注讟转 注诇 讬讚 诪注转 诇注转

And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this tanna nor in accordance with the statement of that tanna; rather, the principle is: A twenty-four-hour period reduces the time from examination to examination. In other words, if her final self-examination took place more than twenty-four hours earlier, she need only concern herself with ritual impurity for the twenty-four-hour period prior to discerning the blood. And from examination to examination reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period. In other words, if she examined herself in the course of the previous day and discovered no blood, she was certainly ritually pure prior to the examination.

讻诇 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜讛诪砖诪砖转 讘注讚讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 讻驻拽讬讚讛 讜诪诪注讟转 注诇 讬讚 诪注转 诇注转 讜注诇 讬讚 诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛

For any woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle [veset], and she examined herself at that time and discovered blood, her time is sufficient, and it is only from that time that she transmits ritual impurity. And with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths [be鈥檈dim] before and after intercourse, with which she ascertains whether her menstrual flow began, the halakhic status of such an action is like that of an examination, and therefore it reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period, and reduces the time from examination to examination.

讻讬爪讚 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讛讬转讛 讬讜砖讘转 讘诪讟讛 讜注住讜拽讛 讘讟讛专讜转 讜驻专砖讛 讜专讗转讛 讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讛谉 讟讛讜专讜转

Her time is sufficient, how so? If the woman was sitting in the bed and engaged in handling ritually pure items, and she left the bed and saw blood, she is ritually impure and those items are ritually pure.

讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讗讬谞讛 诪讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注讛 砖专讗转讛

Although the Rabbis said that a woman without a fixed menstrual cycle transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, a woman with a fixed cycle counts her menstrual days only from the moment that she saw blood.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚砖诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讛注诪讚 讗砖讛 注诇 讞讝拽转讛 讜讗砖讛 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专讛 注讜诪讚转 讜讛诇诇 讻讬 讗诪专 讛注诪讚 讚讘专 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 专讬注讜转讗 诪讙讜驻讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讬转转讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that when a woman discerns that her menstrual blood emerged, Shammai holds that her impurity status starts from that moment, while Hillel maintains that it begins from the time of her most recent self-examination. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Shammai? The Gemara answers: Shammai holds that as there is a principle that when the status of an item is uncertain it retains its presumptive status, here too: Establish the woman in her presumptive status, and a woman remains with the presumptive status of being ritually pure. And what is the reasoning of Hillel? He claims that when one states the principle: Establish an item in its presumptive status, that applies only where there is no weakening in the presumptive status that is a result of the item itself. But in the case of a woman,

讻讬讜谉 讚诪讙讜驻讛 拽讞讝讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽诪讛 讗讞讝拽转讛

since it is her nature to see blood flow from her body at regular intervals, we do not say: Establish her in her presumptive status of ritual purity. Her body is constantly changing, and therefore she has no such presumptive status.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪拽讜讛 讚转谞谉 诪拽讜讛 砖谞诪讚讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讞住专 讻诇 讟讛专讜转 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讙讘讬讜 诇诪驻专注 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讟诪讗讜转

With regard to the opinions of both Shammai and Hillel, the Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that of a ritual bath? As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 2:2): In the case of a ritual bath that was known to have contained the requisite forty se鈥檃, which was then measured and found lacking in its quantity of water, all pure items that had been rendered pure in it, i.e., any impure items that had been purified through immersion in this ritual bath, retroactive to when the ritual bath was last measured, whether this ritual bath is found in the private domain or in the public domain, are impure.

诇砖诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇诪驻专注

The Gemara explains: According to the opinion of Shammai, the mishna poses a difficulty from its statement that the change in the ritual bath鈥檚 status is assumed retroactive to the time when it was last measured, as he maintains that a menstruating woman鈥檚 status changes only at the present moment, not retroactive to the last time she examined herself.

诇讛诇诇 拽砖讬讗 讜讚讗讬 讚讗讬诇讜 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讻讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讚讗讬

According to the opinion of Hillel, the mishna also poses a difficulty with regard to its ruling that the items purified in the ritual bath are deemed impure with certainty, whereas a menstruating women does not assume retroactive impurity with certainty. In other words, although according to the Rabbis there is a twenty-four-hour period of retroactive ritual impurity in the case of a menstruating woman, and according to Hillel the retroactive impurity extends back to her most recent examination, nevertheless any teruma that she touched during that period is not deemed definitely impure to the extent that it must be burned. Rather, the impure status of the items she touched is uncertain and the status of the teruma is suspended, i.e., one may neither eat it nor burn it. Whereas here, in the case of the ritual bath, any item purified in it is retroactively deemed definitely impure.

讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛注诪讚 讟诪讗 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讟讘诇 讗讚专讘讛 讛注诪讚 诪拽讜讛 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讞住专 讛专讬 讞住专 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of a ritual bath, it is different, since it can be said: Establish the impure item in its presumptive status and say that it was not properly immersed. In other words, the presumptive status of the item as ritually impure is in keeping with the current deficient state of the ritual bath. The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, one should establish the ritual bath in its presumptive state of validity and say that the ritual bath was not previously lacking the requisite measure of water. The Gemara responds: There is no presumptive state of validity, as the ritual bath is lacking before you, i.e., at present, and this offsets the presumptive status that it was full.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛专讬 讚诐 诇驻谞讬讱 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚讞住专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Here too, in the case of a menstruating woman, she is one who has experienced a discharge of blood before you, i.e., at present. Just as the ritual bath鈥檚 presumptive status of validity is offset by its present lack of the requisite measure of water, so too the woman鈥檚 previous presumptive status of ritual purity is offset by her present state of impurity due to menstruation. The Gemara answers: In the case of the menstruating woman, it is possible that it is only now that she saw the first emission of her menstrual blood. The Gemara retorts: One can say the same with regard to the ritual bath: Here too, it is only now that it became lacking in the requisite measure of water.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞住专 讜讗转讗 讞住专 讜讗转讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞讝讗讬 讜讗转讗 讞讝讗讬 讜讗转讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讙住 讛讙住 讞讝讬转讬讛

The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the ritual bath, it can be said that the water slowly trickled out and consequently the amount of water was continuously diminishing. Therefore, it is possible that the ritual bath lost its valid status long ago without anyone realizing. By contrast, here, with regard to a menstruating woman, can it be said that she was continuously seeing menstrual blood? The Gemara responds: And what is the difficulty? The same possibility does in fact exist in the case of a menstruating woman, as perhaps she saw the blood depart bit [hagas] by bit.

讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 转专转讬 诇专讬注讜转讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讞讚讗 诇专讬注讜转讗

The Gemara states a different answer: There, in the case of the ritual bath, there are two factors that weaken the suggestion that the items are ritually pure: First, the ritual bath is lacking at present; second, the item has a presumptive status of impurity. Here, by contrast, there is only one factor that weakens the possibility that the items touched by the currently menstruating woman were rendered ritually impure, i.e., that she is currently experiencing a menstrual flow. Therefore, according to Shammai she assumes impurity status only from that moment onward, and according to Hillel her retroactive impurity status applies only as an uncertainty.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讞讘讬转 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 讘讜讚拽 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 诇讛讬讜转 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗 讞讜诪抓 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 (讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐) 讜讚讗讬

搂 The Gemara asks: And according to Shammai, who holds that her time is sufficient and there is no retroactive impurity, what is different in the case of a barrel? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 2:8): If someone would inspect the contents of a barrel to see if it still contained enough wine to continually mentally separate teruma from it, i.e., to exempt other untithed wine of his until all the wine in this barrel will be teruma, and afterward the contents of the barrel were found to have turned to vinegar, which cannot be set aside as teruma for untithed wine, then for all of the first three days following his most recent inspection, it is definitely considered to have been wine. Therefore, any of the untithed wine for which teruma was separated during those days is tithed.

诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽 拽砖讬讗 诇砖诪讗讬

The baraita continues: From that point forward, i.e., more than three days after the most recent inspection, it is uncertain whether it had already turned to vinegar, and consequently any untithed wine for which teruma was separated during those days remains uncertainly tithed. This poses a difficulty for Shammai, who maintains that there is no such retroactive consideration in the case of a menstruating woman.

讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛注诪讚 讟讘诇 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪专 诇讗 谞转拽谉 讗讚专讘讛 讛注诪讚 讬讬谉 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪专 诇讗 讛讞诪讬抓

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the barrel, it is different, since it can be said: Establish the untithed produce in its presumptive status, as when it first grew it was definitely untithed, and say it was not amended, i.e., exempted, and its status continues to be untithed produce. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, one should establish the wine in its presumptive status, and say that it had not turned to vinegar.

讛专讬 讛讞诪讬抓 诇驻谞讬讱 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛专讬 讚诐 诇驻谞讬讱 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讗讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚讛讞诪讬抓

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is impossible, as it is turned to vinegar before you, i.e., at present. The Gemara replies: Here too, in the case of a menstruating woman, one who has experienced a discharge of blood is before you, at present, so what is the difference? The Gemara explains: With regard to the woman, it is possible that it is only now that she saw the beginning of her menstrual blood. The Gemara responds: There too, it is possible that it is only now that it turned to vinegar, but not earlier.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讞诪讬抓 讜讗转讗 讛讞诪讬抓 讜讗转讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞讝讗讬 讜讗转讗 讞讝讗讬 讜讗转讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讙住 讛讙住 讞讝讬转讬讛

The Gemara again answers: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the wine, it can be said that it was continuously turning to vinegar. Therefore, it is possible that the wine turned to vinegar much earlier without anyone realizing. By contrast, in the case of the menstruating woman, can it be said that she was continuously seeing menstrual blood? Once again, the Gemara responds: And what is the difficulty? The same possibility does in fact exist in the case of a menstruating woman, as perhaps she saw the blood depart bit by bit.

讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 转专转讬 诇专讬注讜转讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讞讚讗 诇专讬注讜转讗

The Gemara provides a different answer: There, in the case of the barrel, there are two factors that weaken the suggestion that the wine is tithed: First, it is vinegar at present; second, the wine has a presumptive status that it is untithed. Here, by contrast, there is only one factor that weakens the possibility that the items touched by the menstruating woman were rendered ritually impure, i.e., that she is currently experiencing a menstrual flow.

讜专诪讬 讞讘讬转 讗诪拽讜讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 住驻拽

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the halakha of the barrel and that of the ritual bath: What is different here, in the case of the ritual bath, where the items are definitely impure, and what is different there, with regard to the barrel, where it is only uncertain that the produce remains untithed? In both cases the current situation, that the ritual bath is deficient and the contents of the barrel have turned to vinegar, should lead to a definite status.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讞讘讬转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚诇讙讘讬 诪拽讜讛 谞诪讬 住驻拽讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi 岣nina of Sura says: Who is the tanna who taught the halakha of the barrel? It is Rabbi Shimon, who, with regard to a ritual bath also considers it as a matter of uncertainty, rather than as definitely impure. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the two halakhot.

讚转谞谉 诪拽讜讛 砖谞诪讚讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讞住专 讻诇 讛讟讛专讜转 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讙讘讬讜 诇诪驻专注 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讟诪讗讜转

As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 2:2): In the case of a ritual bath that was known to have contained the requisite forty se鈥檃, which was then measured and found lacking in its quantity of water, all pure items that had been rendered pure in it, i.e., any impure items that had been purified through immersion in this ritual bath, retroactive to when the ritual bath was last measured, whether this ritual bath is located in the private domain or in the public domain, are impure.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 转讜诇讬谉

The mishna continues: Rabbi Shimon says: If the impure items were immersed in a ritual bath that was in the public domain, they are deemed pure. But if they were immersed in a ritual bath that was in a private domain, the status of any teruma that touched them is suspended, i.e., it is neither consumed nor burned. Rabbi Shimon holds that even in the case of a ritual bath, the items are not retroactively deemed definitely impure. Rather the status is uncertain, just as in the case of the barrel.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 2

诪转谞讬壮 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诪讬诐 讛专讘讛

MISHNA: Shammai says: For all women who do not have a fixed menstrual cycle, their time is sufficient. Women who discern that menstrual blood emerged do not need to be concerned that perhaps the flow of blood began before they noticed it. Rather, they assume their ritual impurity status begins at that moment, in terms of rendering impure teruma and ritually pure items with which they come in contact. Hillel says: From examination [mipekida] to examination, i.e., she assumes ritual impurity status retroactive to the last time she examined herself and determined that she was ritually pure, and this is the halakha even if her examination took place several days earlier. Any ritually pure item with which she came in contact in the interim becomes ritually impure.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪注转 诇注转 诪诪注讟转 注诇 讬讚 诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 诪诪注讟转 注诇 讬讚 诪注转 诇注转

And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this tanna nor in accordance with the statement of that tanna; rather, the principle is: A twenty-four-hour period reduces the time from examination to examination. In other words, if her final self-examination took place more than twenty-four hours earlier, she need only concern herself with ritual impurity for the twenty-four-hour period prior to discerning the blood. And from examination to examination reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period. In other words, if she examined herself in the course of the previous day and discovered no blood, she was certainly ritually pure prior to the examination.

讻诇 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜讛诪砖诪砖转 讘注讚讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 讻驻拽讬讚讛 讜诪诪注讟转 注诇 讬讚 诪注转 诇注转 讜注诇 讬讚 诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛

For any woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle [veset], and she examined herself at that time and discovered blood, her time is sufficient, and it is only from that time that she transmits ritual impurity. And with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths [be鈥檈dim] before and after intercourse, with which she ascertains whether her menstrual flow began, the halakhic status of such an action is like that of an examination, and therefore it reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period, and reduces the time from examination to examination.

讻讬爪讚 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讛讬转讛 讬讜砖讘转 讘诪讟讛 讜注住讜拽讛 讘讟讛专讜转 讜驻专砖讛 讜专讗转讛 讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讛谉 讟讛讜专讜转

Her time is sufficient, how so? If the woman was sitting in the bed and engaged in handling ritually pure items, and she left the bed and saw blood, she is ritually impure and those items are ritually pure.

讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讗讬谞讛 诪讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注讛 砖专讗转讛

Although the Rabbis said that a woman without a fixed menstrual cycle transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, a woman with a fixed cycle counts her menstrual days only from the moment that she saw blood.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚砖诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讛注诪讚 讗砖讛 注诇 讞讝拽转讛 讜讗砖讛 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专讛 注讜诪讚转 讜讛诇诇 讻讬 讗诪专 讛注诪讚 讚讘专 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 专讬注讜转讗 诪讙讜驻讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讬转转讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that when a woman discerns that her menstrual blood emerged, Shammai holds that her impurity status starts from that moment, while Hillel maintains that it begins from the time of her most recent self-examination. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Shammai? The Gemara answers: Shammai holds that as there is a principle that when the status of an item is uncertain it retains its presumptive status, here too: Establish the woman in her presumptive status, and a woman remains with the presumptive status of being ritually pure. And what is the reasoning of Hillel? He claims that when one states the principle: Establish an item in its presumptive status, that applies only where there is no weakening in the presumptive status that is a result of the item itself. But in the case of a woman,

讻讬讜谉 讚诪讙讜驻讛 拽讞讝讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽诪讛 讗讞讝拽转讛

since it is her nature to see blood flow from her body at regular intervals, we do not say: Establish her in her presumptive status of ritual purity. Her body is constantly changing, and therefore she has no such presumptive status.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪拽讜讛 讚转谞谉 诪拽讜讛 砖谞诪讚讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讞住专 讻诇 讟讛专讜转 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讙讘讬讜 诇诪驻专注 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讟诪讗讜转

With regard to the opinions of both Shammai and Hillel, the Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that of a ritual bath? As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 2:2): In the case of a ritual bath that was known to have contained the requisite forty se鈥檃, which was then measured and found lacking in its quantity of water, all pure items that had been rendered pure in it, i.e., any impure items that had been purified through immersion in this ritual bath, retroactive to when the ritual bath was last measured, whether this ritual bath is found in the private domain or in the public domain, are impure.

诇砖诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇诪驻专注

The Gemara explains: According to the opinion of Shammai, the mishna poses a difficulty from its statement that the change in the ritual bath鈥檚 status is assumed retroactive to the time when it was last measured, as he maintains that a menstruating woman鈥檚 status changes only at the present moment, not retroactive to the last time she examined herself.

诇讛诇诇 拽砖讬讗 讜讚讗讬 讚讗讬诇讜 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讻讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讚讗讬

According to the opinion of Hillel, the mishna also poses a difficulty with regard to its ruling that the items purified in the ritual bath are deemed impure with certainty, whereas a menstruating women does not assume retroactive impurity with certainty. In other words, although according to the Rabbis there is a twenty-four-hour period of retroactive ritual impurity in the case of a menstruating woman, and according to Hillel the retroactive impurity extends back to her most recent examination, nevertheless any teruma that she touched during that period is not deemed definitely impure to the extent that it must be burned. Rather, the impure status of the items she touched is uncertain and the status of the teruma is suspended, i.e., one may neither eat it nor burn it. Whereas here, in the case of the ritual bath, any item purified in it is retroactively deemed definitely impure.

讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛注诪讚 讟诪讗 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讟讘诇 讗讚专讘讛 讛注诪讚 诪拽讜讛 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讞住专 讛专讬 讞住专 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of a ritual bath, it is different, since it can be said: Establish the impure item in its presumptive status and say that it was not properly immersed. In other words, the presumptive status of the item as ritually impure is in keeping with the current deficient state of the ritual bath. The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, one should establish the ritual bath in its presumptive state of validity and say that the ritual bath was not previously lacking the requisite measure of water. The Gemara responds: There is no presumptive state of validity, as the ritual bath is lacking before you, i.e., at present, and this offsets the presumptive status that it was full.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛专讬 讚诐 诇驻谞讬讱 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚讞住专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Here too, in the case of a menstruating woman, she is one who has experienced a discharge of blood before you, i.e., at present. Just as the ritual bath鈥檚 presumptive status of validity is offset by its present lack of the requisite measure of water, so too the woman鈥檚 previous presumptive status of ritual purity is offset by her present state of impurity due to menstruation. The Gemara answers: In the case of the menstruating woman, it is possible that it is only now that she saw the first emission of her menstrual blood. The Gemara retorts: One can say the same with regard to the ritual bath: Here too, it is only now that it became lacking in the requisite measure of water.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞住专 讜讗转讗 讞住专 讜讗转讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞讝讗讬 讜讗转讗 讞讝讗讬 讜讗转讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讙住 讛讙住 讞讝讬转讬讛

The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the ritual bath, it can be said that the water slowly trickled out and consequently the amount of water was continuously diminishing. Therefore, it is possible that the ritual bath lost its valid status long ago without anyone realizing. By contrast, here, with regard to a menstruating woman, can it be said that she was continuously seeing menstrual blood? The Gemara responds: And what is the difficulty? The same possibility does in fact exist in the case of a menstruating woman, as perhaps she saw the blood depart bit [hagas] by bit.

讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 转专转讬 诇专讬注讜转讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讞讚讗 诇专讬注讜转讗

The Gemara states a different answer: There, in the case of the ritual bath, there are two factors that weaken the suggestion that the items are ritually pure: First, the ritual bath is lacking at present; second, the item has a presumptive status of impurity. Here, by contrast, there is only one factor that weakens the possibility that the items touched by the currently menstruating woman were rendered ritually impure, i.e., that she is currently experiencing a menstrual flow. Therefore, according to Shammai she assumes impurity status only from that moment onward, and according to Hillel her retroactive impurity status applies only as an uncertainty.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讞讘讬转 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 讘讜讚拽 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 诇讛讬讜转 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗 讞讜诪抓 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 (讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐) 讜讚讗讬

搂 The Gemara asks: And according to Shammai, who holds that her time is sufficient and there is no retroactive impurity, what is different in the case of a barrel? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 2:8): If someone would inspect the contents of a barrel to see if it still contained enough wine to continually mentally separate teruma from it, i.e., to exempt other untithed wine of his until all the wine in this barrel will be teruma, and afterward the contents of the barrel were found to have turned to vinegar, which cannot be set aside as teruma for untithed wine, then for all of the first three days following his most recent inspection, it is definitely considered to have been wine. Therefore, any of the untithed wine for which teruma was separated during those days is tithed.

诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽 拽砖讬讗 诇砖诪讗讬

The baraita continues: From that point forward, i.e., more than three days after the most recent inspection, it is uncertain whether it had already turned to vinegar, and consequently any untithed wine for which teruma was separated during those days remains uncertainly tithed. This poses a difficulty for Shammai, who maintains that there is no such retroactive consideration in the case of a menstruating woman.

讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛注诪讚 讟讘诇 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪专 诇讗 谞转拽谉 讗讚专讘讛 讛注诪讚 讬讬谉 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪专 诇讗 讛讞诪讬抓

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the barrel, it is different, since it can be said: Establish the untithed produce in its presumptive status, as when it first grew it was definitely untithed, and say it was not amended, i.e., exempted, and its status continues to be untithed produce. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, one should establish the wine in its presumptive status, and say that it had not turned to vinegar.

讛专讬 讛讞诪讬抓 诇驻谞讬讱 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛专讬 讚诐 诇驻谞讬讱 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讗讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚讛讞诪讬抓

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is impossible, as it is turned to vinegar before you, i.e., at present. The Gemara replies: Here too, in the case of a menstruating woman, one who has experienced a discharge of blood is before you, at present, so what is the difference? The Gemara explains: With regard to the woman, it is possible that it is only now that she saw the beginning of her menstrual blood. The Gemara responds: There too, it is possible that it is only now that it turned to vinegar, but not earlier.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讞诪讬抓 讜讗转讗 讛讞诪讬抓 讜讗转讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞讝讗讬 讜讗转讗 讞讝讗讬 讜讗转讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讙住 讛讙住 讞讝讬转讬讛

The Gemara again answers: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the wine, it can be said that it was continuously turning to vinegar. Therefore, it is possible that the wine turned to vinegar much earlier without anyone realizing. By contrast, in the case of the menstruating woman, can it be said that she was continuously seeing menstrual blood? Once again, the Gemara responds: And what is the difficulty? The same possibility does in fact exist in the case of a menstruating woman, as perhaps she saw the blood depart bit by bit.

讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 转专转讬 诇专讬注讜转讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讞讚讗 诇专讬注讜转讗

The Gemara provides a different answer: There, in the case of the barrel, there are two factors that weaken the suggestion that the wine is tithed: First, it is vinegar at present; second, the wine has a presumptive status that it is untithed. Here, by contrast, there is only one factor that weakens the possibility that the items touched by the menstruating woman were rendered ritually impure, i.e., that she is currently experiencing a menstrual flow.

讜专诪讬 讞讘讬转 讗诪拽讜讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 住驻拽

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the halakha of the barrel and that of the ritual bath: What is different here, in the case of the ritual bath, where the items are definitely impure, and what is different there, with regard to the barrel, where it is only uncertain that the produce remains untithed? In both cases the current situation, that the ritual bath is deficient and the contents of the barrel have turned to vinegar, should lead to a definite status.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讞讘讬转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚诇讙讘讬 诪拽讜讛 谞诪讬 住驻拽讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi 岣nina of Sura says: Who is the tanna who taught the halakha of the barrel? It is Rabbi Shimon, who, with regard to a ritual bath also considers it as a matter of uncertainty, rather than as definitely impure. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the two halakhot.

讚转谞谉 诪拽讜讛 砖谞诪讚讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讞住专 讻诇 讛讟讛专讜转 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讙讘讬讜 诇诪驻专注 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讟诪讗讜转

As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 2:2): In the case of a ritual bath that was known to have contained the requisite forty se鈥檃, which was then measured and found lacking in its quantity of water, all pure items that had been rendered pure in it, i.e., any impure items that had been purified through immersion in this ritual bath, retroactive to when the ritual bath was last measured, whether this ritual bath is located in the private domain or in the public domain, are impure.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 转讜诇讬谉

The mishna continues: Rabbi Shimon says: If the impure items were immersed in a ritual bath that was in the public domain, they are deemed pure. But if they were immersed in a ritual bath that was in a private domain, the status of any teruma that touched them is suspended, i.e., it is neither consumed nor burned. Rabbi Shimon holds that even in the case of a ritual bath, the items are not retroactively deemed definitely impure. Rather the status is uncertain, just as in the case of the barrel.

Scroll To Top