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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 14, 2019 | 讟状讝 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Niddah 22

The gemara is trying to evaluate what the source of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis – are they disagreeing about whether blood that came out through a tube would be impure or not or is the issue something else entirely? Is there impurity of a seminal discharge if it came out through a reed? Does a seminal emission cancel out clean days of a zav? And if so, is it the same as if he saw a zav discharge during the clean days? Is dry blood impure? Some stories regarding questions聽 woman in the generation of Yavneh where the rabbis went to ask the doctors. Did they follow the doctors or not? What type of water and for how long does one soak the dry blood? oes Rabbi Yehuda disagree with tana kamma also regarding one who miscarries something that looks like a fish? Why is there a distinction in the mishna between fish and animals? What is the difference between a gezeira shava made from a word that is free and if both words are free?


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

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞转讬讻讛 诪专 住讘专 讚专讻讛 砖诇 讗砖讛 诇专讗讜转 讚诐 讘讞转讬讻讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 砖诇 讗砖讛 诇专讗讜转 讚诐 讘讞转讬讻讛

When they disagree, it is with regard to the case of blood that is found in a piece of tissue. One Sage, the first tanna, who follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, holds that it is the manner of a woman to see menstrual blood in a piece of tissue that she discharges. Therefore, the term 鈥渋n her flesh鈥 applies to the blood in the cracks. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that it is not the manner of a woman to see menstrual blood in a piece of tissue that she discharges. Therefore, the blood found in the piece of tissue is not considered menstrual blood, and it does not render the woman impure.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 砖诇 讗砖讛 诇专讗讜转 讚诐 讘讞转讬讻讛

Rava says there is another explanation of this dispute: Everyone, both the first tanna and the Rabbis, agrees that it is not the manner of a woman to see menstrual blood in a piece of tissue that she discharges. Consequently, the blood that emerges from the cracks in the piece of tissue is not considered menstrual blood, and it does not render the woman impure.

讜讛讻讗 讘讗砖讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟诪讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讗砖讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讚诐 讟诪讗 讚讛讗 讗转讬 讚专讱 诪拽讜专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗砖讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟讛讜专

And here, they disagree as to whether it is possible that the woman herself is pure but the location of the source, i.e., the uterus, is impure. As Rabbi Eliezer holds that the woman is pure, i.e., she was not rendered a menstruating woman with the discharge of the blood, but the blood is impure, despite the fact that it emerged in a piece of tissue, as it emerged through the source, which is impure. Therefore, when the blood comes into contact with the woman鈥檚 body she contracts first-degree impurity, and the woman subsequently transmits impurity to foods that she touches. And the Rabbis hold that the woman is entirely pure, and the location of the source is also pure. Therefore, pure food that she touches is not rendered impure.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛专讜讗讛 拽专讬 讘拽讬住诐 诪讛讜 诪诪谞讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 注讚 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讘砖专讜 讜诇讗 讘拽讬住诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 诪诪谞讜 注讚 砖转爪讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讞讜抓 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽讬住诐 谞诪讬

Rabba asked Rav Huna a similar question to the case of the tube: With regard to a man who sees semen by extracting it from his penis with a sliver of wood, what is the halakha? Does he assume the impurity status of one who experiences a seminal emission? The Gemara explains the question. The verse states: 鈥淎 man from whom the flow of semen emerges鈥 (Leviticus 22:4). Since the Merciful One states: 鈥淔rom whom,鈥 is it derived that the man is not impure unless the semen emerges from his flesh by itself, and not when it is extracted with a sliver of wood? Or perhaps from this term: 鈥淔rom whom,鈥 it is derived merely that the man is not impure unless his impurity, i.e., his semen, emerges outside his body, but he is impure even if this is achieved with a sliver of wood.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讘讞转讬诪转 驻讬 讛讗诪讛

Rav Huna said to Rabba: Derive that the man is pure from the fact that semen itself becomes impure only in a case where the discharge is substantial enough to cause a blockage of the tip of the penis. Since this amount cannot be extracted with a sliver of wood, it is not impure.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚谞讜讙注 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗诇 讬住转讜专 讘讝讬讘讛

Rabba replied to Rav Huna: Since a minimum measure is required for this impurity, is this to say that the reason a man who experiences a seminal emission is impure is that his penis touches the semen after it is emitted? If he was rendered impure merely by the emission of the semen then no minimum measure would apply, as is the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman. But if that is so, then a seminal emission should not negate the count of seven clean days for a man who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva]. A zav does not stop his counting when he touches a source of impurity, e.g., the carcass of a creeping animal.

讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讝讘 讜讗砖专 转爪讗 诪诪谞讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诪讛 讝讬讘讛 住讜转专转 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 谞诪讬 住讜转专

If so, why is it taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse鈥檚 juxtaposition between a zav and one who experienced a seminal emission: 鈥淭his is the law of the zav, and of one from whom the flow of semen emerges鈥 (Leviticus 15:32), that just as ziva during the seven clean days negates the count, so too, a seminal emission negates the count. If it is not the emission itself that renders the man impure but only his contact with the semen, why does the emission negate the count of seven clean days?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 住转讬专讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚住讜转专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 讘诇讗 爪讞爪讜讞讬 讝讬讘讛

Rav Huna said to Rabba in response: The halakha of negation is not difficult, as this is the reason that a seminal emission negates the count of seven clean days: Because it is impossible for a zav to experience a seminal emission without it containing bits of [tza岣zo岣i] ziva.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 转住转讜专 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讝讘 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 讝讬讘讛 住讜转专转 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 住讜转专

Rabba further objected: If that is so, then a seminal emission should negate the entire count of seven clean days, just like an emission of ziva, not merely the day on which the seminal emission occurred. But then why is it taught in the baraita: It is derived from the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the zav, and of one from whom the flow of semen emerges, so that he is impure by it鈥 (Leviticus 15:32), that just as ziva during the seven clean days negates the count, so too, a seminal emission negates the count.

讗讬 诪讛 讝讬讘讛 住讜转专转 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 谞诪讬 住讜转专 讻诇 砖讘注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讟诪讗讛 讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讗诪讜专 讘讛 住讜转专转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

The baraita continues: If a seminal emission is compared to ziva, then it might be suggested that just as ziva negates the entire count of seven days, so too, a seminal emission should also negate the entire count of seven days. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪o that he is impure by it,鈥 to teach that in the case of a seminal emission you have a negation of the count that is equivalent only to the impurity that is stated by it, i.e., impurity for one day. Accordingly, a seminal emission negates only one day of the count, not the entire count. This apparently contradicts Rav Huna鈥檚 statement that the reason a seminal emission negates the count at all is that the seminal emission of a zav always contains ziva.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专转 讛讻转讜讘 讛讬讗 讝讬讘讛 讙诪讜专讛 讚诇讗 注专讘讛 讘讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 住讜转专转 讻诇 砖讘注讛 爪讞爪讜讞讬 讝讬讘讛 讚注专讘讛 讘讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诇讗 住讜转专转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Rav Huna said to Rabba: It is a Torah edict that an emission that is purely ziva, when semen is not mixed in it, negates the entire count of seven days, whereas bits of ziva in which some semen is mixed negate only one day of the count.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚诐 讬讘砖 诪讛讜 讻讬 讬讝讜讘 讝讜讘 讚诪讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 注讚 讚诪讬讚讘 讚讬讬讘 诇讬讛 诇讞 讗讬谉 讬讘砖 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讻讬 讬讝讜讘 讝讘 讚诪讛 讗讜专讞讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜诇注讜诇诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讘砖 谞诪讬

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, asked Rabbi Elazar: If a woman discharges dry blood, what is the halakha? Does she have the status of a menstruating woman? The Gemara explains the dilemma: Since the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd if a woman has a flow of her blood many days鈥 (Leviticus 15:25), does this indicate that the woman is not impure unless the blood flows, i.e., if it is wet, yes, she is impure, whereas if it is dry she is not impure? Or perhaps this phrase: 鈥淚f a woman has a flow of her blood,鈥 is merely referring to the normal manner that menstrual blood emerges, but actually even dry blood renders the woman impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讚诐 讛谞讚讛 讜讘砖专 讛诪转 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讞讬诐 讜讬讘砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞 讜谞注砖讛 讬讘砖 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讻讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讬讘砖 诪注讬拽专讗

Rabbi Elazar said to him: You learned the solution to your dilemma in a mishna (54b): The blood of a menstruating woman and the flesh of a corpse impart impurity whether they are wet or dry. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said to him in response: I do not raise the dilemma about blood that was wet when it came out and subsequently dried, as such blood is certainly impure. When I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to blood that was dry at the outset, when it emerged.

讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬转讜讛 讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 拽诇讬驻讛 讻诪讬谉 砖注专讛 讻诪讬谉 注驻专 讻诪讬谉 讬讘讞讜砖讬谉 讗讚讜诪讬谉 转讟讬诇 诇诪讬诐

Rabbi Elazar responded: You learned the solution to this dilemma as well, in the mishna here: In the case of a woman who discharges an item similar to a shell, or similar to a hair, or similar to soil, or similar to mosquitoes, if these are red, she should cast them into water to ascertain their nature.

讗诐 谞诪讜讞讜 讟诪讗讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘诇讗 谞诪讜讞讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻讬 诇讗 谞诪讜讞讜 讘专讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讛讬讗

If they dissolved, it is blood, and the woman is impure; and if not, she is ritually pure. Evidently, dry blood is impure, as these items are all dry until they are soaked in water. The Gemara asks: If so, that dry blood is impure, these items are impure also in a case where they do not dissolve in water. Why is this examination necessary at all? Rabba says: In a case where they do not dissolve, this indicates that the item is not blood at all; rather, it is a distinct entity.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 砖谞讬 诪注砖讬诐 讛注诇讛 讗讘讗 诪讟讘注讬谉 诇讬讘谞讛

The Gemara asks with regard to these instances discussed in the mishna: But are there actually cases like this? The Gemara answers: Yes there are, and it is taught likewise in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: My father raised two incidents from Tivin to the Sages in Yavne for discussion.

诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 砖讛讬转讛 诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 拽诇讬驻讜转 讗讚讜诪讜转 讜讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 讗讘讗 讜讗讘讗 砖讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 砖讗诇讜 诇专讜驻讗讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讗砖讛 讝讜 诪讻讛 讬砖 诇讛 讘转讜讱 诪注讬讛 砖诪诪谞讛 诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 拽诇讬驻讜转 转讟讬诇 诇诪讬诐 讗诐 谞诪讜讞讜 讟诪讗讛

The first was an incident involving a woman who would repeatedly discharge items similar to red shells, and the local residents came and asked my father whether this rendered the woman impure. And my father asked the other Sages, and the Sages asked the doctors what causes this to happen. And the doctors said to them: This woman has a wound in her womb from which she discharges red items similar to shells. The Sages therefore ruled that the woman should cast them into water to ascertain their nature. If they dissolved, it is blood and the woman is impure.

讜砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 砖讛讬转讛 诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 砖注专讜转 讗讚讜诪讜转 讜讘讗讛 讜砖讗诇讛 讗转 讗讘讗 讜讗讘讗 砖讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讜驻讗讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 砖讜诪讗 讬砖 诇讛 讘转讜讱 诪注讬讛 砖诪诪谞讛 诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 砖注专讜转 讗讚讜诪讜转 转讟讬诇 诇诪讬诐 讗诐 谞诪讜讞讜 讟诪讗讛

And again there was a similar incident involving a woman who would discharge items similar to red hairs, and she came and asked my father whether she was impure. And my father asked the other Sages, and the Sages asked the doctors, and the doctors said to them: The woman has a mole in her womb from which she discharges items similar to red hairs. The Sages therefore ruled that the woman should cast them into water, and if they dissolved, she is impure.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讘驻讜砖专讬谉 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 转讟讬诇 诇诪讬诐 讜讘驻讜砖专讬谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪诪注讻转讜 讘专讜拽 注诇 讙讘讬 讛爪驻讜专谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪注讜讱 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Reish Lakish says: And this examination is conducted only with lukewarm [uvefoshrin] water. This is also taught in a baraita: The woman should cast the item into water, and this examination is conducted only with lukewarm water. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The woman mashes the item with saliva, using the fingers of one hand on a fingernail of her other hand. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two opinions? Ravina says: The difference between them is whether an item is considered blood if it can be mashed by pressing on it, or only if the item dissolves by itself.

讛转诐 转谞谉 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 砖专讬讬转谉 讘驻讜砖专讬谉 诪注转 诇注转 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诪讬 讘注讬谞讗 诪注转 诇注转 讗讜 诇讗

We learned in the mishna there (54b) with regard to an animal carcass or the carcass of a creeping animal that dried up, which is examined by soaking it in water to determine whether or not it still imparts impurity: For how long is its soaking in lukewarm water necessary? It is for a twenty-four-hour period. The Gemara asks: Here, with regard to the examination of an item discharged by a woman, what is the halakha? Do I need it to be soaked in lukewarm water for a twenty-four-hour period, or not?

砖专抓 讜谞讘诇讛 讚讗拽讜砖讬 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转 讗讘诇 讚诐 讚专讻讬讱 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜

The Gemara explains the question: Perhaps with regard to a carcass of a creeping animal and an unslaughtered animal carcass, which are hard when they dry up, we require soaking for a twenty-four-hour period, but blood, which is relatively soft after it dries up, does not need to be soaked for that long. In other words, if the item did not dissolve after even a shorter period of time, it is not blood. Or perhaps the examination of a discharged item is no different, and it also must be soaked for twenty-four hours. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 讚讙讬诐 讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讛讗

搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of a woman who discharges an item similar to fish or to grasshoppers, repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, if blood emerges with it, the woman is impure, and if not, she is pure. The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Yehuda disagree with the Rabbis with regard to this halakha as well, just as he disagrees with them in the first clause of the mishna, in the case where a woman discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, as he maintains that she is impure whether or not blood emerges with it.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 讞转讬讻讛 讚注讘讬讚 讚诐 讚拽专讬砖 讜讛讜讬 讞转讬讻讛 讗讘诇 讘专讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讬

Reish Lakish says: This case is also subject to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and the opinion cited in the mishna is that of the Rabbis. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: You may even say that the ruling of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as when Rabbi Yehuda says that the woman is impure even if blood does not emerge, it is only there, in the case of an amorphous piece of tissue, as the blood is likely to dry and turn into the form of a piece of tissue. But blood is not likely to become the form of a creature, such as a fish or a grasshopper.

讜诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇驻转讬讞转 讛拽讘专 讘诇讗 讚诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讛讗

The Gemara challenges: But this is difficult according to that version in which Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether opening of the womb is impossible without a discharge of blood (see 21b). Since Rabbi Yehuda holds that blood automatically emerges whenever the womb opens, and therefore the woman is impure even if she did not notice any blood, he should disagree with the Rabbis in this case too, i.e., if a woman discharges an item similar to a fish or one of the other creatures.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: The one who teaches that version of the above discussion teaches an alternative version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion here as well, like this: With regard to a woman who discharges an item similar to fish, or to grasshoppers, repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish both say that this case is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and the opinion stated in the mishna is that of the Rabbis.

讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 [讜讻讜壮]

搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of a woman who discharges tissue in the form of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, whether of a kosher or non-kosher species, if it is male, the woman observes the periods of impurity and purity for a woman who gives birth to a male. If it is female, the woman observes the periods of impurity and purity for a woman who gives birth to a female. And if its sex is unknown, the woman observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth to both a male and a female. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 讬爪讬专讛 讻讗讚诐

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that a woman who discharges a fetus in the form of an animal has the same status as one who discharges a fetus with human form or gives birth to a human? It is since the Torah uses a similar formulation in the two cases, as a term of formation is stated with regard to the creation of these types of animals, in the verse: 鈥淎nd out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field, and every fowl of the air鈥 (Genesis 2:19), just as it is stated with regard to the creation of man: 鈥淎nd the Lord God formed man鈥 (Genesis 2:7).

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛诪驻诇转 讚诪讜转 转谞讬谉 转讛讗 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专 讘讜 讬爪讬专讛 讻讗讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讘专讗 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转 讛转谞讬谞诐 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then with regard to a woman who discharges an item with the form of a sea monster, its mother should be impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth, since the concept of formation is stated with regard to its creation, just as it is stated with regard to the creation of man. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd God created the great sea monsters鈥 (Genesis 1:21).

讗诪专讬 讚谞讬谉 讬爪讬专讛 诪讬爪讬专讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讘专讬讗讛 诪讬爪讬专讛

The Sages say in response: One derives halakhot of a matter with regard to which formation is stated by means of a verbal analogy from another matter with regard to which formation is stated, but one does not derive halakhot of a matter with regard to which creation is stated from a matter with regard to which formation is stated.

诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜砖讘 讛讻讛谉 讜讘讗 讛讻讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讬讘讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讬讗讛

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between formation and creation? A verbal analogy can be drawn between different words with similar meanings. For example, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall return [veshav] on the seventh day鈥 (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest鈥檚 visit seven days later states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall come [uva] and look鈥 (Leviticus 14:44). This returning and this coming have the same meaning, and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the halakha that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week.

讜注讜讚 谞讙诪专 讘专讬讗讛 诪讘专讬讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讘专讗 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转 讛讗讚诐 讘爪诇诪讜

And furthermore, the halakha of a woman who discharges an item similar to a sea monster, with regard to which creation is stated, can be derived by a different verbal analogy from the halakha of human offspring, since here it also states creation, as it is written: 鈥淎nd God created man in His own image鈥 (Genesis 1:27).

讗诪专讬 讜讬讘专讗 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讬讬爪专 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 讜讚谞讬谉 讬爪讬专讛 诪讬爪讬专讛

The Sages say in response: The verse 鈥淎nd God created man鈥 is necessary to teach the matter itself, i.e., the creation of man. By contrast, the term 鈥淎nd the Lord God formed man,鈥 serves to render it free, i.e., the mention of the formation of man is superfluous in its context and was stated for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. And therefore one derives the halakhot of animals, with regard to which formation is stated, from the halakhot of man, with regard to which formation is stated.

讗讚专讘讛 讜讬讬爪专 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讬讘专讗 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 讜讚谞讬谉 讘专讬讗讛 诪讘专讬讗讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, one can say that the verse 鈥淎nd the Lord God formed man鈥 was stated to teach the matter itself, whereas the term 鈥淎nd God created man鈥 serves to render it free; and therefore one derives the halakhot of sea monsters, with regard to which creation is stated, from the halakhot of man, with regard to which creation is stated.

讗诇讗 讜讬讬爪专 诪讜驻谞讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 诪讜驻谞讛 讙讘讬 讗讚诐 讜诪讜驻谞讛 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讜讬讘专讗 讙讘讬 讗讚诐 诪讜驻谞讛 讙讘讬 转谞讬谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讜驻谞讛

The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason it is animals and not sea monsters that are compared to man is that the term 鈥渁nd鈥ormed鈥 is free on both sides, i.e., it is free with regard to man and it is free with regard to animals. By contrast, the term 鈥渁nd鈥reated鈥 is free with regard to man, but it is not free with regard to sea monsters.

诪讗讬 诪讜驻谞讛 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注砖 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转 讞讬转 讛讗专抓 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讬爪专 [讛壮] 讗诇讛讬诐 诪谉 讛讗讚诪讛 讻诇 讞讬转 讛砖讚讛 讙讘讬 转谞讬谉 谞诪讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讻诇 专诪砖 讛讗讚诪讛 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讘专讗 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转 讛转谞讬谞讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the term 鈥渁nd鈥ormed鈥 that appears with regard to animals is considered free? If we say it is due to the fact that it is written: 鈥淎nd God made the animals of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind鈥 (Genesis 1:25), and it is similarly written: 鈥淎nd out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field鈥 (Genesis 2:19), and therefore this verse is superfluous, but with regard to the sea monster as well, the expression 鈥渁nd鈥reated鈥 is free, as it is written: 鈥淎nd God made鈥and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind鈥 (Genesis 1:25), and it is also written: 鈥淎nd God created the great sea monsters.鈥 Consequently, the term 鈥渁nd鈥reated鈥 is also free on both sides of the verbal analogy.

专诪砖 讚讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讚讬讘砖讛 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讘讬谉 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 诇诪讜驻谞讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: The creeping animal that is written there is referring to creeping animals of the land, not of the sea. Therefore, the term: 鈥淎nd鈥reated,鈥 stated with regard to sea monsters is not superfluous. The Gemara asks: But what difference is there between a verbal analogy that is free on one side and a verbal analogy that is free on both sides?

谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讜驻谞讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 讗讬谉 诇诪讚讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇诪讚讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讜砖讬讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 诇诪讚讬谉 讜诪砖讬讘讬谉 诪讜驻谞讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇诪讚讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉

The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, with regard to the exegetical principle of verbal analogy: With regard to any verbal analogy that is not free at all, one cannot derive halakhot from it. If the verbal analogy is free on one side, according to Rabbi Yishmael one can derive halakhot from it, and one cannot refute it through logic, even if there are valid counterarguments. According to the Rabbis, one can derive halakhot from it, but one can also refute it logically if there are grounds to distinguish between the two cases. If a verbal analogy is free on both sides, everyone agrees that one can derive halakhot from it and one cannot refute it logically.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 诇诪讜驻谞讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜诪讜驻谞讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 砖讘拽讬谞谉 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, what difference is there between a verbal analogy that is free on one side and a verbal analogy that is free on both sides? In both cases, he holds that one can derive halakhot from it and one cannot refute it. The Gemara answers: He holds that the difference is that in a case where there are two mutually exclusive verbal analogies, one that is free on one side and one that is free on both sides, we disregard the analogy that is free on one side,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 22

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞转讬讻讛 诪专 住讘专 讚专讻讛 砖诇 讗砖讛 诇专讗讜转 讚诐 讘讞转讬讻讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 砖诇 讗砖讛 诇专讗讜转 讚诐 讘讞转讬讻讛

When they disagree, it is with regard to the case of blood that is found in a piece of tissue. One Sage, the first tanna, who follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, holds that it is the manner of a woman to see menstrual blood in a piece of tissue that she discharges. Therefore, the term 鈥渋n her flesh鈥 applies to the blood in the cracks. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that it is not the manner of a woman to see menstrual blood in a piece of tissue that she discharges. Therefore, the blood found in the piece of tissue is not considered menstrual blood, and it does not render the woman impure.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 砖诇 讗砖讛 诇专讗讜转 讚诐 讘讞转讬讻讛

Rava says there is another explanation of this dispute: Everyone, both the first tanna and the Rabbis, agrees that it is not the manner of a woman to see menstrual blood in a piece of tissue that she discharges. Consequently, the blood that emerges from the cracks in the piece of tissue is not considered menstrual blood, and it does not render the woman impure.

讜讛讻讗 讘讗砖讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟诪讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讗砖讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讚诐 讟诪讗 讚讛讗 讗转讬 讚专讱 诪拽讜专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗砖讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟讛讜专

And here, they disagree as to whether it is possible that the woman herself is pure but the location of the source, i.e., the uterus, is impure. As Rabbi Eliezer holds that the woman is pure, i.e., she was not rendered a menstruating woman with the discharge of the blood, but the blood is impure, despite the fact that it emerged in a piece of tissue, as it emerged through the source, which is impure. Therefore, when the blood comes into contact with the woman鈥檚 body she contracts first-degree impurity, and the woman subsequently transmits impurity to foods that she touches. And the Rabbis hold that the woman is entirely pure, and the location of the source is also pure. Therefore, pure food that she touches is not rendered impure.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛专讜讗讛 拽专讬 讘拽讬住诐 诪讛讜 诪诪谞讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 注讚 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讘砖专讜 讜诇讗 讘拽讬住诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 诪诪谞讜 注讚 砖转爪讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讞讜抓 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽讬住诐 谞诪讬

Rabba asked Rav Huna a similar question to the case of the tube: With regard to a man who sees semen by extracting it from his penis with a sliver of wood, what is the halakha? Does he assume the impurity status of one who experiences a seminal emission? The Gemara explains the question. The verse states: 鈥淎 man from whom the flow of semen emerges鈥 (Leviticus 22:4). Since the Merciful One states: 鈥淔rom whom,鈥 is it derived that the man is not impure unless the semen emerges from his flesh by itself, and not when it is extracted with a sliver of wood? Or perhaps from this term: 鈥淔rom whom,鈥 it is derived merely that the man is not impure unless his impurity, i.e., his semen, emerges outside his body, but he is impure even if this is achieved with a sliver of wood.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讘讞转讬诪转 驻讬 讛讗诪讛

Rav Huna said to Rabba: Derive that the man is pure from the fact that semen itself becomes impure only in a case where the discharge is substantial enough to cause a blockage of the tip of the penis. Since this amount cannot be extracted with a sliver of wood, it is not impure.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚谞讜讙注 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗诇 讬住转讜专 讘讝讬讘讛

Rabba replied to Rav Huna: Since a minimum measure is required for this impurity, is this to say that the reason a man who experiences a seminal emission is impure is that his penis touches the semen after it is emitted? If he was rendered impure merely by the emission of the semen then no minimum measure would apply, as is the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman. But if that is so, then a seminal emission should not negate the count of seven clean days for a man who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva]. A zav does not stop his counting when he touches a source of impurity, e.g., the carcass of a creeping animal.

讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讝讘 讜讗砖专 转爪讗 诪诪谞讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诪讛 讝讬讘讛 住讜转专转 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 谞诪讬 住讜转专

If so, why is it taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse鈥檚 juxtaposition between a zav and one who experienced a seminal emission: 鈥淭his is the law of the zav, and of one from whom the flow of semen emerges鈥 (Leviticus 15:32), that just as ziva during the seven clean days negates the count, so too, a seminal emission negates the count. If it is not the emission itself that renders the man impure but only his contact with the semen, why does the emission negate the count of seven clean days?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 住转讬专讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚住讜转专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 讘诇讗 爪讞爪讜讞讬 讝讬讘讛

Rav Huna said to Rabba in response: The halakha of negation is not difficult, as this is the reason that a seminal emission negates the count of seven clean days: Because it is impossible for a zav to experience a seminal emission without it containing bits of [tza岣zo岣i] ziva.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 转住转讜专 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讝讘 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 讝讬讘讛 住讜转专转 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 住讜转专

Rabba further objected: If that is so, then a seminal emission should negate the entire count of seven clean days, just like an emission of ziva, not merely the day on which the seminal emission occurred. But then why is it taught in the baraita: It is derived from the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the zav, and of one from whom the flow of semen emerges, so that he is impure by it鈥 (Leviticus 15:32), that just as ziva during the seven clean days negates the count, so too, a seminal emission negates the count.

讗讬 诪讛 讝讬讘讛 住讜转专转 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 谞诪讬 住讜转专 讻诇 砖讘注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讟诪讗讛 讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讗诪讜专 讘讛 住讜转专转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

The baraita continues: If a seminal emission is compared to ziva, then it might be suggested that just as ziva negates the entire count of seven days, so too, a seminal emission should also negate the entire count of seven days. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪o that he is impure by it,鈥 to teach that in the case of a seminal emission you have a negation of the count that is equivalent only to the impurity that is stated by it, i.e., impurity for one day. Accordingly, a seminal emission negates only one day of the count, not the entire count. This apparently contradicts Rav Huna鈥檚 statement that the reason a seminal emission negates the count at all is that the seminal emission of a zav always contains ziva.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专转 讛讻转讜讘 讛讬讗 讝讬讘讛 讙诪讜专讛 讚诇讗 注专讘讛 讘讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 住讜转专转 讻诇 砖讘注讛 爪讞爪讜讞讬 讝讬讘讛 讚注专讘讛 讘讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诇讗 住讜转专转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Rav Huna said to Rabba: It is a Torah edict that an emission that is purely ziva, when semen is not mixed in it, negates the entire count of seven days, whereas bits of ziva in which some semen is mixed negate only one day of the count.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚诐 讬讘砖 诪讛讜 讻讬 讬讝讜讘 讝讜讘 讚诪讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 注讚 讚诪讬讚讘 讚讬讬讘 诇讬讛 诇讞 讗讬谉 讬讘砖 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讻讬 讬讝讜讘 讝讘 讚诪讛 讗讜专讞讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜诇注讜诇诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讘砖 谞诪讬

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, asked Rabbi Elazar: If a woman discharges dry blood, what is the halakha? Does she have the status of a menstruating woman? The Gemara explains the dilemma: Since the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd if a woman has a flow of her blood many days鈥 (Leviticus 15:25), does this indicate that the woman is not impure unless the blood flows, i.e., if it is wet, yes, she is impure, whereas if it is dry she is not impure? Or perhaps this phrase: 鈥淚f a woman has a flow of her blood,鈥 is merely referring to the normal manner that menstrual blood emerges, but actually even dry blood renders the woman impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讚诐 讛谞讚讛 讜讘砖专 讛诪转 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讞讬诐 讜讬讘砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞 讜谞注砖讛 讬讘砖 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讻讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讬讘砖 诪注讬拽专讗

Rabbi Elazar said to him: You learned the solution to your dilemma in a mishna (54b): The blood of a menstruating woman and the flesh of a corpse impart impurity whether they are wet or dry. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said to him in response: I do not raise the dilemma about blood that was wet when it came out and subsequently dried, as such blood is certainly impure. When I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to blood that was dry at the outset, when it emerged.

讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬转讜讛 讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 拽诇讬驻讛 讻诪讬谉 砖注专讛 讻诪讬谉 注驻专 讻诪讬谉 讬讘讞讜砖讬谉 讗讚讜诪讬谉 转讟讬诇 诇诪讬诐

Rabbi Elazar responded: You learned the solution to this dilemma as well, in the mishna here: In the case of a woman who discharges an item similar to a shell, or similar to a hair, or similar to soil, or similar to mosquitoes, if these are red, she should cast them into water to ascertain their nature.

讗诐 谞诪讜讞讜 讟诪讗讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘诇讗 谞诪讜讞讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻讬 诇讗 谞诪讜讞讜 讘专讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讛讬讗

If they dissolved, it is blood, and the woman is impure; and if not, she is ritually pure. Evidently, dry blood is impure, as these items are all dry until they are soaked in water. The Gemara asks: If so, that dry blood is impure, these items are impure also in a case where they do not dissolve in water. Why is this examination necessary at all? Rabba says: In a case where they do not dissolve, this indicates that the item is not blood at all; rather, it is a distinct entity.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 砖谞讬 诪注砖讬诐 讛注诇讛 讗讘讗 诪讟讘注讬谉 诇讬讘谞讛

The Gemara asks with regard to these instances discussed in the mishna: But are there actually cases like this? The Gemara answers: Yes there are, and it is taught likewise in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: My father raised two incidents from Tivin to the Sages in Yavne for discussion.

诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 砖讛讬转讛 诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 拽诇讬驻讜转 讗讚讜诪讜转 讜讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 讗讘讗 讜讗讘讗 砖讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 砖讗诇讜 诇专讜驻讗讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讗砖讛 讝讜 诪讻讛 讬砖 诇讛 讘转讜讱 诪注讬讛 砖诪诪谞讛 诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 拽诇讬驻讜转 转讟讬诇 诇诪讬诐 讗诐 谞诪讜讞讜 讟诪讗讛

The first was an incident involving a woman who would repeatedly discharge items similar to red shells, and the local residents came and asked my father whether this rendered the woman impure. And my father asked the other Sages, and the Sages asked the doctors what causes this to happen. And the doctors said to them: This woman has a wound in her womb from which she discharges red items similar to shells. The Sages therefore ruled that the woman should cast them into water to ascertain their nature. If they dissolved, it is blood and the woman is impure.

讜砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 砖讛讬转讛 诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 砖注专讜转 讗讚讜诪讜转 讜讘讗讛 讜砖讗诇讛 讗转 讗讘讗 讜讗讘讗 砖讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讜驻讗讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 砖讜诪讗 讬砖 诇讛 讘转讜讱 诪注讬讛 砖诪诪谞讛 诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 砖注专讜转 讗讚讜诪讜转 转讟讬诇 诇诪讬诐 讗诐 谞诪讜讞讜 讟诪讗讛

And again there was a similar incident involving a woman who would discharge items similar to red hairs, and she came and asked my father whether she was impure. And my father asked the other Sages, and the Sages asked the doctors, and the doctors said to them: The woman has a mole in her womb from which she discharges items similar to red hairs. The Sages therefore ruled that the woman should cast them into water, and if they dissolved, she is impure.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讘驻讜砖专讬谉 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 转讟讬诇 诇诪讬诐 讜讘驻讜砖专讬谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪诪注讻转讜 讘专讜拽 注诇 讙讘讬 讛爪驻讜专谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪注讜讱 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Reish Lakish says: And this examination is conducted only with lukewarm [uvefoshrin] water. This is also taught in a baraita: The woman should cast the item into water, and this examination is conducted only with lukewarm water. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The woman mashes the item with saliva, using the fingers of one hand on a fingernail of her other hand. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two opinions? Ravina says: The difference between them is whether an item is considered blood if it can be mashed by pressing on it, or only if the item dissolves by itself.

讛转诐 转谞谉 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 砖专讬讬转谉 讘驻讜砖专讬谉 诪注转 诇注转 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诪讬 讘注讬谞讗 诪注转 诇注转 讗讜 诇讗

We learned in the mishna there (54b) with regard to an animal carcass or the carcass of a creeping animal that dried up, which is examined by soaking it in water to determine whether or not it still imparts impurity: For how long is its soaking in lukewarm water necessary? It is for a twenty-four-hour period. The Gemara asks: Here, with regard to the examination of an item discharged by a woman, what is the halakha? Do I need it to be soaked in lukewarm water for a twenty-four-hour period, or not?

砖专抓 讜谞讘诇讛 讚讗拽讜砖讬 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转 讗讘诇 讚诐 讚专讻讬讱 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜

The Gemara explains the question: Perhaps with regard to a carcass of a creeping animal and an unslaughtered animal carcass, which are hard when they dry up, we require soaking for a twenty-four-hour period, but blood, which is relatively soft after it dries up, does not need to be soaked for that long. In other words, if the item did not dissolve after even a shorter period of time, it is not blood. Or perhaps the examination of a discharged item is no different, and it also must be soaked for twenty-four hours. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 讚讙讬诐 讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讛讗

搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of a woman who discharges an item similar to fish or to grasshoppers, repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, if blood emerges with it, the woman is impure, and if not, she is pure. The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Yehuda disagree with the Rabbis with regard to this halakha as well, just as he disagrees with them in the first clause of the mishna, in the case where a woman discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, as he maintains that she is impure whether or not blood emerges with it.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 讞转讬讻讛 讚注讘讬讚 讚诐 讚拽专讬砖 讜讛讜讬 讞转讬讻讛 讗讘诇 讘专讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讬

Reish Lakish says: This case is also subject to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and the opinion cited in the mishna is that of the Rabbis. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: You may even say that the ruling of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as when Rabbi Yehuda says that the woman is impure even if blood does not emerge, it is only there, in the case of an amorphous piece of tissue, as the blood is likely to dry and turn into the form of a piece of tissue. But blood is not likely to become the form of a creature, such as a fish or a grasshopper.

讜诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇驻转讬讞转 讛拽讘专 讘诇讗 讚诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讛讗

The Gemara challenges: But this is difficult according to that version in which Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether opening of the womb is impossible without a discharge of blood (see 21b). Since Rabbi Yehuda holds that blood automatically emerges whenever the womb opens, and therefore the woman is impure even if she did not notice any blood, he should disagree with the Rabbis in this case too, i.e., if a woman discharges an item similar to a fish or one of the other creatures.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: The one who teaches that version of the above discussion teaches an alternative version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion here as well, like this: With regard to a woman who discharges an item similar to fish, or to grasshoppers, repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish both say that this case is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and the opinion stated in the mishna is that of the Rabbis.

讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 [讜讻讜壮]

搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of a woman who discharges tissue in the form of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, whether of a kosher or non-kosher species, if it is male, the woman observes the periods of impurity and purity for a woman who gives birth to a male. If it is female, the woman observes the periods of impurity and purity for a woman who gives birth to a female. And if its sex is unknown, the woman observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth to both a male and a female. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 讬爪讬专讛 讻讗讚诐

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that a woman who discharges a fetus in the form of an animal has the same status as one who discharges a fetus with human form or gives birth to a human? It is since the Torah uses a similar formulation in the two cases, as a term of formation is stated with regard to the creation of these types of animals, in the verse: 鈥淎nd out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field, and every fowl of the air鈥 (Genesis 2:19), just as it is stated with regard to the creation of man: 鈥淎nd the Lord God formed man鈥 (Genesis 2:7).

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛诪驻诇转 讚诪讜转 转谞讬谉 转讛讗 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专 讘讜 讬爪讬专讛 讻讗讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讘专讗 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转 讛转谞讬谞诐 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then with regard to a woman who discharges an item with the form of a sea monster, its mother should be impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth, since the concept of formation is stated with regard to its creation, just as it is stated with regard to the creation of man. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd God created the great sea monsters鈥 (Genesis 1:21).

讗诪专讬 讚谞讬谉 讬爪讬专讛 诪讬爪讬专讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讘专讬讗讛 诪讬爪讬专讛

The Sages say in response: One derives halakhot of a matter with regard to which formation is stated by means of a verbal analogy from another matter with regard to which formation is stated, but one does not derive halakhot of a matter with regard to which creation is stated from a matter with regard to which formation is stated.

诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜砖讘 讛讻讛谉 讜讘讗 讛讻讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讬讘讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讬讗讛

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between formation and creation? A verbal analogy can be drawn between different words with similar meanings. For example, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall return [veshav] on the seventh day鈥 (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest鈥檚 visit seven days later states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall come [uva] and look鈥 (Leviticus 14:44). This returning and this coming have the same meaning, and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the halakha that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week.

讜注讜讚 谞讙诪专 讘专讬讗讛 诪讘专讬讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讘专讗 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转 讛讗讚诐 讘爪诇诪讜

And furthermore, the halakha of a woman who discharges an item similar to a sea monster, with regard to which creation is stated, can be derived by a different verbal analogy from the halakha of human offspring, since here it also states creation, as it is written: 鈥淎nd God created man in His own image鈥 (Genesis 1:27).

讗诪专讬 讜讬讘专讗 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讬讬爪专 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 讜讚谞讬谉 讬爪讬专讛 诪讬爪讬专讛

The Sages say in response: The verse 鈥淎nd God created man鈥 is necessary to teach the matter itself, i.e., the creation of man. By contrast, the term 鈥淎nd the Lord God formed man,鈥 serves to render it free, i.e., the mention of the formation of man is superfluous in its context and was stated for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. And therefore one derives the halakhot of animals, with regard to which formation is stated, from the halakhot of man, with regard to which formation is stated.

讗讚专讘讛 讜讬讬爪专 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讬讘专讗 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 讜讚谞讬谉 讘专讬讗讛 诪讘专讬讗讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, one can say that the verse 鈥淎nd the Lord God formed man鈥 was stated to teach the matter itself, whereas the term 鈥淎nd God created man鈥 serves to render it free; and therefore one derives the halakhot of sea monsters, with regard to which creation is stated, from the halakhot of man, with regard to which creation is stated.

讗诇讗 讜讬讬爪专 诪讜驻谞讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 诪讜驻谞讛 讙讘讬 讗讚诐 讜诪讜驻谞讛 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讜讬讘专讗 讙讘讬 讗讚诐 诪讜驻谞讛 讙讘讬 转谞讬谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讜驻谞讛

The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason it is animals and not sea monsters that are compared to man is that the term 鈥渁nd鈥ormed鈥 is free on both sides, i.e., it is free with regard to man and it is free with regard to animals. By contrast, the term 鈥渁nd鈥reated鈥 is free with regard to man, but it is not free with regard to sea monsters.

诪讗讬 诪讜驻谞讛 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注砖 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转 讞讬转 讛讗专抓 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讬爪专 [讛壮] 讗诇讛讬诐 诪谉 讛讗讚诪讛 讻诇 讞讬转 讛砖讚讛 讙讘讬 转谞讬谉 谞诪讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讻诇 专诪砖 讛讗讚诪讛 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讘专讗 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转 讛转谞讬谞讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the term 鈥渁nd鈥ormed鈥 that appears with regard to animals is considered free? If we say it is due to the fact that it is written: 鈥淎nd God made the animals of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind鈥 (Genesis 1:25), and it is similarly written: 鈥淎nd out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field鈥 (Genesis 2:19), and therefore this verse is superfluous, but with regard to the sea monster as well, the expression 鈥渁nd鈥reated鈥 is free, as it is written: 鈥淎nd God made鈥and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind鈥 (Genesis 1:25), and it is also written: 鈥淎nd God created the great sea monsters.鈥 Consequently, the term 鈥渁nd鈥reated鈥 is also free on both sides of the verbal analogy.

专诪砖 讚讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讚讬讘砖讛 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讘讬谉 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 诇诪讜驻谞讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: The creeping animal that is written there is referring to creeping animals of the land, not of the sea. Therefore, the term: 鈥淎nd鈥reated,鈥 stated with regard to sea monsters is not superfluous. The Gemara asks: But what difference is there between a verbal analogy that is free on one side and a verbal analogy that is free on both sides?

谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讜驻谞讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 讗讬谉 诇诪讚讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇诪讚讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讜砖讬讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 诇诪讚讬谉 讜诪砖讬讘讬谉 诪讜驻谞讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇诪讚讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉

The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, with regard to the exegetical principle of verbal analogy: With regard to any verbal analogy that is not free at all, one cannot derive halakhot from it. If the verbal analogy is free on one side, according to Rabbi Yishmael one can derive halakhot from it, and one cannot refute it through logic, even if there are valid counterarguments. According to the Rabbis, one can derive halakhot from it, but one can also refute it logically if there are grounds to distinguish between the two cases. If a verbal analogy is free on both sides, everyone agrees that one can derive halakhot from it and one cannot refute it logically.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 诇诪讜驻谞讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜诪讜驻谞讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 砖讘拽讬谞谉 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, what difference is there between a verbal analogy that is free on one side and a verbal analogy that is free on both sides? In both cases, he holds that one can derive halakhot from it and one cannot refute it. The Gemara answers: He holds that the difference is that in a case where there are two mutually exclusive verbal analogies, one that is free on one side and one that is free on both sides, we disregard the analogy that is free on one side,

Scroll To Top