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

Daf Yomi

November 21, 2019 | 讻状讙 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Niddah 29

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan debate the case when the fetus comes out in parts – if the head comes out, is that enough to consider it birth or does it need to be the majority? The gemara聽discusses聽the basis of the argument and teh connection (if there is one) between Shmuel’s opinion regarding the law regarding the head coming out in a non-viable fetus. If one miscarries and doesn’t know what she miscarried, she treats it by teh stringencies of male and female. The gemara brings a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi regarding a woman who loses the fetus entirely and doesn’t know if it was a miscarriage of a fetus or nothing – it;s follow laws of majority and treated as a birth. The gemara brings several questions from tannitic sources, including our mishna. Ravin says that Rabbi Yossi son on Rabbi Chanina brought a question from a case of a woman who forgot when she gave birth and Ravin doesn’t understand why it raises a difficulty. The gemara explain what the difficulty was and why Ravin thought it wasn’t. Then the gemara explains the case in detail and why in that particular case is she permitted to her husband only on the night of the 35th day and why is there a three way debate (based on whther or not one holds that one must go to the mikveh at the exact time that one’s time for tevila has arrived) regarding how many times she has to go to the mikveh. Beit Shamai hold 95! And the gemara begins to explain why.


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

诇讞诇拽 讘讬谉 注专讱 讗讬砖 诇注专讱 讗砖讛


in order to differentiate between the valuation of a man and the valuation of a woman. Therefore, it could not have been derived from that verse that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are excluded from the halakha of valuations, were it not for the superfluous words 鈥渢he鈥 and 鈥渋f.鈥


讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讗讜 诪住讜专住 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛专讗砖 注诪讛谉


搂 The mishna teaches that if the fetus emerged in pieces, or if it emerged reversed, i.e., feetfirst rather than headfirst; when most of its limbs emerge, its status is like that of a child born, with regard to the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Rabbi Elazar says: Even if the head is among the limbs that emerged, provided that the majority of the limbs did not yet emerge, the fetus is not considered born.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讛专讗砖 注诪讛谉 讗讘诇 讛专讗砖 注诪讛谉 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专


And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught in the mishna that the woman is not impure unless most of the fetus鈥檚 limbs emerged only in a case where the head is not among the limbs that emerged; but if the head is among them, the head exempts the woman鈥檚 future offspring from the obligation of primogeniture, as the fetus is considered born.


诇讬诪讗 讘讚砖诪讜讗诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专 讘谞驻诇讬诐


The Gemara asks: Shall we say that these Sages disagree with regard to the opinion of Shmuel? As Shmuel said that if a woman is pregnant with twins, and the head of one of the fetuses emerges and then disappears back into the womb, this does not exempt the other fetus from the obligation of primogeniture should it be born first. Shmuel says this specifically in a case of non-viable newborns, i.e., where the fetus whose head emerged was a non-viable newborn and the one that was eventually born first is a viable offspring. But if both are viable offspring, the emergence of the head is considered birth. The suggestion is that Rabbi Elazar agrees with the opinion of Shmuel, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees with the opinion of Shmuel and maintains that the emergence of the head is considered birth even in the case of a non-viable newborn.


讘砖诇诐 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讞讜转讱 讚诪专 住讘专 讘砖诇诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讞砖讬讘 讘诪讞讜转讱 诇讗 拽讞砖讬讘 讜诪专 住讘专 讘诪讞讜转讱 谞诪讬 讞砖讬讘


The Gemara rejects this suggestion, as it is possible that in the case of a whole non-viable newborn, everyone, i.e., Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yo岣nan, agrees that the emergence of the head is considered a birth, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel. When they disagree, it is in the case of a fetus that emerged in pieces. As one Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that it is specifically in the case of a whole non-viable newborn that the emergence of the head is considered birth, whereas with regard to a fetus that emerged in pieces it is not considered birth; and one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that in the case of a fetus that emerged in pieces as well, the emergence of the head is considered birth.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讗讜 诪住讜专住 讛讗 讻转拽谞讜 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专 讘谞驻诇讬诐


The Gemara cites another version of this discussion. The reason it is necessary for most of the limbs of the fetus to emerge for it to be considered born is that it emerged in pieces, or that it emerged reversed, i.e., feet first. It may be inferred from here that if it emerged in its proper manner, headfirst and whole, it is considered born, even according to Rabbi Elazar. Therefore, if the woman is pregnant with twins, the emergence of the head exempts the other twin from the obligations of primogeniture. Evidently, both Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar do not hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said that the emergence of the head of one of the twins does not exempt the other in a case of non-viable newborns.


讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转转讗 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬谉 讛专讗砖 讻专讜讘 讗讘专讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛专讗砖 讻专讜讘 讗讘专讬诐 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚砖诪讜讗诇


There are those who teach this halakha by itself, i.e., not in reference to the mishna: Rabbi Elazar says: The emergence of the head of a non-viable newborn is not considered like the emergence of most of the limbs; and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The emergence of the head of a non-viable newborn is considered like the emergence of most of the limbs. And they disagree with regard to the opinion of Shmuel; Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan does not accept the opinion of Shmuel.


转谞谉 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讗讜 诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讬诇讜讚 诪讚拽讗诪专 诪住讜专住 诪讻诇诇 讚诪讞讜转讱 讻转拽谞讜 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讻讬诇讜讚 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna that if the fetus emerged in pieces or if it emerged reversed, when most of its limbs emerge, its status is like that of a child born. The Gemara infers: From the fact that the mishna states: Or reversed, by inference in the case of a fetus that emerged in pieces it emerged in its proper manner, i.e., the head first and then the body, and nevertheless the mishna states that it is only when most of its limbs emerge that its status is like that of a child born. This is difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as he maintains that once the head emerges, the fetus is considered born.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬诪讗 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讜诪住讜专住


The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: Say that the mishna is referring to a case where the fetus emerged in pieces and reversed, whereas if it emerged with its head first, it is considered born even if most of its limbs did not emerge yet.


讜讛讗 讗讜 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讗讜 砖诇诐 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讻讬诇讜讚


The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach that the fetus emerged in pieces or reversed? If so, it cannot be explained as referring to a case where the fetus emerged both in pieces and reversed. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: If the fetus emerged in pieces or whole, and in both this case and that case it emerged reversed, then when most of its limbs emerge, its status is like that of a child born.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻转谞讗讬 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讗讜 诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讬诇讜讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬爪讗 讻转拽谞讜 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专


Rav Pappa says: This dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yo岣nan is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is stated in a baraita: If the fetus emerged in pieces or reversed, when most of its limbs emerge its status is like that of a child born. Rabbi Yosei says: Its status is like that of a child born when it emerges in its proper manner. The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Yosei saying? His statement apparently indicates that if a fetus emerges with its feet first, then even after most of its limbs emerge it is not considered born.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讜诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讬诇讜讚 讛讗 讻转拽谞讜 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讻转拽谞讜


Rav Pappa says that this is what the baraita is saying: If the fetus emerged in pieces or reversed, when most of its limbs emerge its status is like that of a child born; but by inference, if the fetus emerged in its proper manner, then the emergence of the head exempts its twin, should it eventually be born first, from the obligations of primogeniture. And Rabbi Yosei says: The status of a fetus that emerged in pieces is like that of a child born when most of its limbs emerge, provided that it emerged in its proper manner, i.e., both requirements are necessary. The suggestion is that the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan is in accordance with the ruling of the first tanna, that even if a fetus emerges in pieces, once its head emerges it is considered born; whereas the opinion of Rabbi Elazar follows the ruling of Rabbi Yosei that even if such a fetus emerges headfirst, it is not considered born.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪讻诇诇 讚讘诪住讜专住 专讜讘讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 驻讜讟专 讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚专讜讘讜 讻讻讜诇讜


Rav Zevid objects to Rav Pappa鈥檚 interpretation of the baraita: Since Rabbi Yosei issued his statement that both requirements are necessary, i.e., a majority of limbs and emergence in the proper manner, with regard to the two cases mentioned by the first tanna, by inference in the other case, where the fetus emerged reversed, even when most of its limbs emerge it does not exempt its twin from the obligations of primogeniture. But this is difficult, as we maintain that the majority of an item is considered like all of it. Accordingly, when most of the fetus鈥檚 limbs emerge it should be considered born even if it came out feetfirst.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讜诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讻讬诇讜讚 讛讗 讻转拽谞讜 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬爪讗 讻转拽谞讜 诇讞讬讬诐


Rather, Rav Zevid says that this is what the baraita is saying: If the fetus emerged in pieces and reversed, when most of its limbs emerge its status is like that of a child born; but by inference, if the fetus emerged in its proper manner then the emergence of the head exempts its twin from the obligations of primogeniture, even if it was born in pieces. Rabbi Yosei says: The fetus is considered born once its head emerges only in a case when it emerges in its proper manner alive; if it emerges in pieces, the fetus is considered born only when most of its limbs emerge.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 (讗讜) 诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讻讬诇讜讚 讛讗 讻转拽谞讜 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬爪讗 讻转拽谞讜 诇讞讬讬诐


This explanation is also taught explicitly in another baraita: If the fetus emerged in pieces and reversed, then when most of its limbs emerge its status is like that of a child born; but if the fetus emerged in its proper manner, the emergence of the head exempts its twin. Rabbi Yosei says: The fetus is considered born once its head emerges only in a case where it emerges in its proper manner alive.


讜讗讬讝讛讜 讻转拽谞讜 诇讞讬讬诐 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘 专讗砖讜 讜讗讬讝讛讜 专讜讘 专讗砖讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬爪讗讜 爪讚注讬讜 讗讘讗 讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬爪讗 驻讚讞转讜 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讬专讗讜 拽专谞讬 专讗砖讜


And what is the exact stage when a fetus that emerged in its proper manner alive is considered born? When most of its head emerges. And what is the stage when most of its head emerges? Rabbi Yosei says: When its temples emerge. Abba 岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: When its forehead emerges. And some say: When the corners of its head, i.e., the projection of the head above the neck, are visible.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻诇转 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 诪讛讜 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 讗诐 讜诇讚 讛讬讛 讗诐 诇讗讜 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讜诇谞讚讛


MISHNA: In the case of a woman who discharges and it is not known what is the fetus鈥檚 sex, she shall observe the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female. She is impure for fourteen days, like a woman who gave birth to a female, and any blood the woman sees only until forty days after birth, not eighty days thereafter, is pure, like a woman who gave birth to a male. If it is unknown whether it was a male or female offspring or whether it was not an offspring at all, she shall observe the period of impurity for a woman who gave birth to a male and for a woman who gave birth to a female; and for any blood that she sees, she observes the halakhot of a menstruating woman. Since it is possible that what she discharged was not an offspring at all, any blood she sees might be due to menstruation, not childbirth.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 注讘专讛 谞讛专 讜讛驻讬诇讛 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讜专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讜诇讚 诪注诇讬讗 讬诇讚谉


GEMARA: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to a pregnant woman who passed across a river and she discharged her fetus into the river, and she does not know whether the fetus was fully formed, she brings the offering of a woman after childbirth, which is a burnt offering and a sin offering. And the sin offering, which is a bird, is eaten after the nape of its neck has been pinched, in the manner of a regular bird sin offering. This is the halakha despite the uncertainty that this fetus might not have been fully formed, in which case the woman would not be obligated to bring this offering, and a bird that is not an offering may not be eaten if its nape was pinched. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains the reasoning behind this ruling: One must follow the majority of pregnant women, and most pregnant women give birth to full-fledged offspring.


转谞谉 讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 讗诐 讜诇讚 讛讬讛 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讜诇谞讚讛 讗诪讗讬 转砖讘 诇谞讚讛 诇讬诪讗 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讜专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讜诇讚 诪注诇讬讗 讬诇讚谉


The Gemara analyzes this claim. We learned in the mishna: If it is unknown whether what the woman discharged was a male or female offspring or whether it was not an offspring at all, she shall observe the period of impurity for a woman who gave birth to a male and for a woman who gave birth to a female; and for any blood that she sees, she observes the halakhot of a menstruating woman. The Gemara asks: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, why must the woman observe the halakhot of a menstruating woman? Let us say that one must follow the majority of women, and the majority of women give birth to full-fledged offspring. If so, she should observe a period of purity, during which any blood she sees is pure, after her period of impurity, like all women after childbirth.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讛 注讜讘专讛 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻砖讛讜讞讝拽讛 注讜讘专讛


The Gemara answers: The halakha in the mishna is referring to a case where the woman had not been presumed to be pregnant prior to her miscarriage; and when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that a woman who discharges is presumed to have discharged an offspring, he was speaking of a case where the woman had been presumed to be pregnant prior to her miscarriage.


转讗 砖诪注 讘讛诪讛 砖讬爪讗讛 诪诇讗讛 讜讘讗讛 专讬拽谞讬转 讛讘讗 讗讞专讬讜 讘讻讜专 诪住驻拽


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi from a baraita: There is the case of a kosher animal that had not yet given birth, which went to the pasture full, i.e., pregnant, and came back the same day empty, i.e., with no live offspring.It clearly discharged, but it is unknown whether or not it discharged an offspring, which would exempt the animal鈥檚 subsequent offspring from the status of a firstborn. In this case, the offspring that comes after it is a firstborn of uncertain status.


讜讗诪讗讬 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讜专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讜诇讚 诪注诇讬讗 讬诇讚谉 讜讛讗讬 驻砖讜讟 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: But why is this the halakha? According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, one should follow the reality among the majority of animals, and the majority of animals give birth to full-fledged offspring. And if so, this subsequent offspring of the animal is a regular offspring, i.e., it is definitely not a firstborn.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讬讜诇讚讜转 讚讘专 讛驻讜讟专 诪讘讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜讟谉 讬讜诇讚讜转 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专 诪讘讻讜专讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诇讚讜转 诪讟谞驻讜转 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 讟谞驻讛 讗转专注 诇讛 专讜讘讗


Ravina says in response: In this case, the halakha does not follow the majority of animals, because it can be said that the majority of animals give birth to an item that exempts the animal鈥檚 subsequent offspring from firstborn status, but a minority of animals give birth to an item that does not exempt the animal鈥檚 subsequent offspring from firstborn status, i.e., an item that is not a full-fledged offspring. And an additional factor is that all animals that give birth to full-fledged offspring discharge turbid liquids one day before giving birth, and since this animal did not discharge turbid liquids before going to the pasture, the effect of the majority is undermined. Consequently, the status of the animal鈥檚 birth is uncertain, and for this reason its subsequent offspring is considered a firstborn of uncertain status.


讗讬 讻诇 讛讬讜诇讚讜转 诪讟谞驻讜转 讛讗 诪讚诇讗 诪讟谞驻讛 讘讻讜专 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 专讜讘 讬讜诇讚讜转 诪讟谞驻讜转 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 讟谞驻讛 讗转专注 诇讛 专讜讘讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If all animals that give birth to full-fledged offspring discharge turbid liquids before giving birth, then it should be concluded from the fact that this animal did not discharge turbid liquids that it did not discharge a full-fledged offspring, and therefore the animal鈥檚 subsequent offspring is a proper firstborn, not a firstborn of uncertain status. Rather, one should say that Ravina meant the following: The majority of animals that give birth discharge turbid liquids beforehand, and therefore, since this animal did not discharge turbid liquids, the effect of the majority is undermined.


讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟讜注讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 转讬讜讘转讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗


When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi from the halakha of a forgetful woman; but I do not know what the objection is. The Gemara asks: This halakha of a forgetful woman, which forms the basis of the objection, what is it? The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita:


讗砖讛 砖讬爪转讛 诪诇讗讛 讜讘讗讛 专讬拽谞讬转 讜讛讘讬讗讛 诇驻谞讬谞讜 砖诇砖讛 砖讘讜注讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜注砖专讛 砖讘讜注讜转 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 讟讛讜专


A woman left home for an extended period of time while she was full, i.e., pregnant, and came back when she was empty, as she discharged the fetus, but it is unknown exactly when and what she discharged; and she spent three weeks in our presence during which she was pure, i.e., she did not experience any bleeding, and for the following ten weeks she alternated between one impure week, in which she experienced bleeding every day, and one pure week, in which she did not experience bleeding at all.


诪砖诪砖转 诇讗讜专 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讜诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 转砖注讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讟讘讬诇讜转 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讞诪砖 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讬讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛 砖转讛讗 讘讗讞专讜谞讛


In such a case, the woman may engage in intercourse with her husband at the end of the fifth week following her return, on the eve of the thirty-fifth day, after which she is again prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband. And we require her to immerse in a ritual bath a total of ninety-five immersions. This is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say that she is required to immerse thirty-five times. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: She is required to immerse only once, as it is sufficient for the immersion to be at the end of the period when she is required to immerse every day. The entire baraita will be explained below.


讘砖诇诪讗 砖讘讜注 专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 诪砖诪砖转 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专 讛讬讗 砖讘讜注 砖谞讬 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗


The Gemara explains the objection from the baraita to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Granted in the first week following her arrival the woman may not engage in intercourse with her husband, despite the fact that she did not experience bleeding during that week, as one can say that perhaps she is a woman who gave birth to a male just before her arrival, which would mean that the first week is her seven-day period of impurity. Likewise, it is clear that the woman may not engage in intercourse with her husband during the second week after her arrival, as one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a female, and consequently her period of impurity is two weeks long.


砖讘讜注 砖诇讬砖讬 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讘讝讜讘 讛讬讗


It is also clear why she may not engage in intercourse during the third week, as one can say that perhaps she is a woman who gave birth to a female as a zava, i.e., a woman who experienced a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period for three days without the pain of labor, and therefore assumed the status of a zava before giving birth. If so, she must count seven clean days after her two-week period of impurity, and subsequently immerse.


讗诇讗 砖讘讜注 专讘讬注讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 讞讝讬讗 讚诐 转砖诪砖 讚讛讗 讚诐 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗


But in the fourth week, even though the woman sees blood during that period, let her engage in intercourse with her husband, as it is pure blood. At this stage the woman鈥檚 period of purity is certainly underway. Why does the baraita state that she may not engage in intercourse with her husband in this week? Is it not due to the concern that she might have discharged an item that was not a full-fledged offspring? Evidently, although most pregnant women give birth to full-fledged offspring, we do not follow the majority, which contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讗讬诪专 讛专讞讬拽讛 诇讬讚转讛


The Gemara asks: Rather, as this is apparently a valid objection, what is the reason that Ravin said: I do not know what the objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is? The Gemara explains: Perhaps it is in fact assumed that the woman gave birth to a full-fledged offspring, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and the reason she is not considered pure in the fourth week after her arrival is that one can say that her birth was distant, i.e., she gave birth a long time before her arrival, and therefore her period of purity had already ended before the fourth week.


讛讱 砖讘讜注 讞诪讬砖讬 讚讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 转砖诪砖


搂 The Gemara further analyzes the above baraita: During this fifth week, when the woman is pure, as she did not experience any bleeding, let her engage in intercourse with her husband. Why is she permitted to do so only on the eve of the thirty-fifth day, at the end of the fifth week?


讛讱 砖讘讜注 专讘讬注讬 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讜讬讜诪讗 诪住驻拽讬谉 讘住讜祝 诇讬讚讛 讜讘转讞诇转 谞讚讛 讜注砖专讬谉 讜转诪谞讬讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬诪专 转讞诇转 谞讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注讬讗 诇诪讬转讘 砖讘注讛 诇谞讚转讛


The Gemara answers: During this fourth week, when she experiences bleeding every day, we are uncertain with regard to each and every day as to whether it is the end of the woman鈥檚 period of purity as a woman after childbirth, and that it is therefore the beginning of the seven-day period that she must observe as a menstruating woman. And with regard to the twenty-eighth day itself, the last day of the fourth week, one can also say that it is after the last day of her period of purity and the beginning of her period as a menstruating woman, and therefore she is required to observe seven days for her menstruation, which end on the thirty-fourth day after her arrival. Consequently, the woman may engage in intercourse with her husband only on the eve of the thirty-fifth day.


讘注砖专讬诐 讜讞讚 转砖诪砖


The Gemara further inquires: As explained above, the reason it is prohibited for the woman to engage in intercourse during the third week is that she might have given birth just before arriving and had been a zava at the time, and therefore after observing the two weeks of impurity of a woman after childbirth, she must observe an additional seven days of impurity as a zava. A zava may undergo her purification process on the seventh day of her impurity, following which she is permitted to engage in intercourse. Accordingly, let the woman engage in intercourse on the twenty-first day after her arrival.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇注砖讜转 讻谉 砖诪讗 转讘讗 诇讬讚讬 住驻拽 诇讗讜专转讗 转砖诪砖 讻砖专讗转讛 讘注专讘


The Gemara answers: The halakha in this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that it is prohibited for a woman to do so, i.e., to engage in intercourse on the seventh day of her ziva after immersing in a ritual bath, lest she come to a case of uncertainty. If she engages in intercourse on that seventh day after immersion, and subsequently experiences bleeding on that same day, it retroactively nullifies her entire seven clean days, and it turns out that she engaged in intercourse while she was impure. The Gemara continues to ask: Even so, let her engage in intercourse that night, after having completed seven clean days. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case when the woman saw blood in the evening, i.e., her fourth week of experiencing bleeding started in the nighttime.


讜诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 转砖注讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讟讘讬诇讜转 砖讘讜注 拽诪讗 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘诇讬诇讜转讗 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专 讛讬讗


搂 The Gemara analyzes the statement of Beit Shammai: And we require the woman to immerse in a ritual bath for a total of ninety-five immersions. The Gemara explains: During the first week she is required to immerse at night, every night of the week. The reason is that as the date of her childbirth and the sex of the offspring are unknown, one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a male. If so, the seven days of impurity might have ended on any night of the first week, and therefore she must immerse in a ritual bath on each night.


砖讘讜注 砖谞讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘诇讬诇讜转讗 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗 讘讬诪诪讗 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专 讘讝讜讘 讛讬讗


During the second week, she is required to immerse at night, every night, as one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a female, and therefore it is possible that her fourteen-day period of impurity ended on any of the nights of the second week. She must also immerse every day of the second week in the daytime, as one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a male as a zava. If so, it is possible that her seven-day period of impurity as a woman after childbirth ended on any given day during the first week, after which she must start to count seven clean days as a zava. These seven days necessarily culminate during the second week, and the halakha is that a woman must immerse in a ritual bath on the morning when her seven clean days of ziva conclude.


砖讘讜注 砖诇讬砖讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬诪诪讗 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讘讝讜讘 讛讬讗


During the third week, she is required to immerse every day in the daytime, as one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a female as a zava, and consequently her fourteen-day period of impurity as a woman after childbirth ended during the second week. Therefore, the woman鈥檚 seven clean days as a zava might end on any day of the third week, and she is obligated to immerse on that morning.


讘诇讬诇讜转讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专讬 讟讘讜诇转 讬讜诐 讗专讜讱 讘注讬 讟讘讬诇讛


She is also required to immerse on every night of the third week, according to Beit Shammai. Beit Shammai conform to their line of reasoning, as they say in a mishna (71b) that a woman who finished her period of purity after childbirth, referred to as a woman who immersed that long day and is waiting for her purification process to be completed, requires immersion at the end of this period. The woman must therefore immerse on every night of the third week, in case that night is the end of her period of purity, for a total of thirty-five immersions by the end of the week. She must continue to immerse every night until her period of purity is certainly over, no matter when she gave birth, i.e., until the eightieth day since her arrival.


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

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 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 29

诇讞诇拽 讘讬谉 注专讱 讗讬砖 诇注专讱 讗砖讛


in order to differentiate between the valuation of a man and the valuation of a woman. Therefore, it could not have been derived from that verse that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are excluded from the halakha of valuations, were it not for the superfluous words 鈥渢he鈥 and 鈥渋f.鈥


讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讗讜 诪住讜专住 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛专讗砖 注诪讛谉


搂 The mishna teaches that if the fetus emerged in pieces, or if it emerged reversed, i.e., feetfirst rather than headfirst; when most of its limbs emerge, its status is like that of a child born, with regard to the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Rabbi Elazar says: Even if the head is among the limbs that emerged, provided that the majority of the limbs did not yet emerge, the fetus is not considered born.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讛专讗砖 注诪讛谉 讗讘诇 讛专讗砖 注诪讛谉 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专


And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught in the mishna that the woman is not impure unless most of the fetus鈥檚 limbs emerged only in a case where the head is not among the limbs that emerged; but if the head is among them, the head exempts the woman鈥檚 future offspring from the obligation of primogeniture, as the fetus is considered born.


诇讬诪讗 讘讚砖诪讜讗诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专 讘谞驻诇讬诐


The Gemara asks: Shall we say that these Sages disagree with regard to the opinion of Shmuel? As Shmuel said that if a woman is pregnant with twins, and the head of one of the fetuses emerges and then disappears back into the womb, this does not exempt the other fetus from the obligation of primogeniture should it be born first. Shmuel says this specifically in a case of non-viable newborns, i.e., where the fetus whose head emerged was a non-viable newborn and the one that was eventually born first is a viable offspring. But if both are viable offspring, the emergence of the head is considered birth. The suggestion is that Rabbi Elazar agrees with the opinion of Shmuel, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees with the opinion of Shmuel and maintains that the emergence of the head is considered birth even in the case of a non-viable newborn.


讘砖诇诐 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讞讜转讱 讚诪专 住讘专 讘砖诇诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讞砖讬讘 讘诪讞讜转讱 诇讗 拽讞砖讬讘 讜诪专 住讘专 讘诪讞讜转讱 谞诪讬 讞砖讬讘


The Gemara rejects this suggestion, as it is possible that in the case of a whole non-viable newborn, everyone, i.e., Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yo岣nan, agrees that the emergence of the head is considered a birth, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel. When they disagree, it is in the case of a fetus that emerged in pieces. As one Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that it is specifically in the case of a whole non-viable newborn that the emergence of the head is considered birth, whereas with regard to a fetus that emerged in pieces it is not considered birth; and one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that in the case of a fetus that emerged in pieces as well, the emergence of the head is considered birth.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讗讜 诪住讜专住 讛讗 讻转拽谞讜 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专 讘谞驻诇讬诐


The Gemara cites another version of this discussion. The reason it is necessary for most of the limbs of the fetus to emerge for it to be considered born is that it emerged in pieces, or that it emerged reversed, i.e., feet first. It may be inferred from here that if it emerged in its proper manner, headfirst and whole, it is considered born, even according to Rabbi Elazar. Therefore, if the woman is pregnant with twins, the emergence of the head exempts the other twin from the obligations of primogeniture. Evidently, both Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar do not hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said that the emergence of the head of one of the twins does not exempt the other in a case of non-viable newborns.


讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转转讗 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬谉 讛专讗砖 讻专讜讘 讗讘专讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛专讗砖 讻专讜讘 讗讘专讬诐 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚砖诪讜讗诇


There are those who teach this halakha by itself, i.e., not in reference to the mishna: Rabbi Elazar says: The emergence of the head of a non-viable newborn is not considered like the emergence of most of the limbs; and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The emergence of the head of a non-viable newborn is considered like the emergence of most of the limbs. And they disagree with regard to the opinion of Shmuel; Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan does not accept the opinion of Shmuel.


转谞谉 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讗讜 诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讬诇讜讚 诪讚拽讗诪专 诪住讜专住 诪讻诇诇 讚诪讞讜转讱 讻转拽谞讜 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讻讬诇讜讚 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna that if the fetus emerged in pieces or if it emerged reversed, when most of its limbs emerge, its status is like that of a child born. The Gemara infers: From the fact that the mishna states: Or reversed, by inference in the case of a fetus that emerged in pieces it emerged in its proper manner, i.e., the head first and then the body, and nevertheless the mishna states that it is only when most of its limbs emerge that its status is like that of a child born. This is difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as he maintains that once the head emerges, the fetus is considered born.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬诪讗 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讜诪住讜专住


The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: Say that the mishna is referring to a case where the fetus emerged in pieces and reversed, whereas if it emerged with its head first, it is considered born even if most of its limbs did not emerge yet.


讜讛讗 讗讜 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讗讜 砖诇诐 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讻讬诇讜讚


The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach that the fetus emerged in pieces or reversed? If so, it cannot be explained as referring to a case where the fetus emerged both in pieces and reversed. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: If the fetus emerged in pieces or whole, and in both this case and that case it emerged reversed, then when most of its limbs emerge, its status is like that of a child born.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻转谞讗讬 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讗讜 诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讬诇讜讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬爪讗 讻转拽谞讜 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专


Rav Pappa says: This dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yo岣nan is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is stated in a baraita: If the fetus emerged in pieces or reversed, when most of its limbs emerge its status is like that of a child born. Rabbi Yosei says: Its status is like that of a child born when it emerges in its proper manner. The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Yosei saying? His statement apparently indicates that if a fetus emerges with its feet first, then even after most of its limbs emerge it is not considered born.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讜诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讬诇讜讚 讛讗 讻转拽谞讜 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讻转拽谞讜


Rav Pappa says that this is what the baraita is saying: If the fetus emerged in pieces or reversed, when most of its limbs emerge its status is like that of a child born; but by inference, if the fetus emerged in its proper manner, then the emergence of the head exempts its twin, should it eventually be born first, from the obligations of primogeniture. And Rabbi Yosei says: The status of a fetus that emerged in pieces is like that of a child born when most of its limbs emerge, provided that it emerged in its proper manner, i.e., both requirements are necessary. The suggestion is that the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan is in accordance with the ruling of the first tanna, that even if a fetus emerges in pieces, once its head emerges it is considered born; whereas the opinion of Rabbi Elazar follows the ruling of Rabbi Yosei that even if such a fetus emerges headfirst, it is not considered born.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪讻诇诇 讚讘诪住讜专住 专讜讘讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 驻讜讟专 讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚专讜讘讜 讻讻讜诇讜


Rav Zevid objects to Rav Pappa鈥檚 interpretation of the baraita: Since Rabbi Yosei issued his statement that both requirements are necessary, i.e., a majority of limbs and emergence in the proper manner, with regard to the two cases mentioned by the first tanna, by inference in the other case, where the fetus emerged reversed, even when most of its limbs emerge it does not exempt its twin from the obligations of primogeniture. But this is difficult, as we maintain that the majority of an item is considered like all of it. Accordingly, when most of the fetus鈥檚 limbs emerge it should be considered born even if it came out feetfirst.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讜诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讻讬诇讜讚 讛讗 讻转拽谞讜 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬爪讗 讻转拽谞讜 诇讞讬讬诐


Rather, Rav Zevid says that this is what the baraita is saying: If the fetus emerged in pieces and reversed, when most of its limbs emerge its status is like that of a child born; but by inference, if the fetus emerged in its proper manner then the emergence of the head exempts its twin from the obligations of primogeniture, even if it was born in pieces. Rabbi Yosei says: The fetus is considered born once its head emerges only in a case when it emerges in its proper manner alive; if it emerges in pieces, the fetus is considered born only when most of its limbs emerge.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 (讗讜) 诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讻讬诇讜讚 讛讗 讻转拽谞讜 讛专讗砖 驻讜讟专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬爪讗 讻转拽谞讜 诇讞讬讬诐


This explanation is also taught explicitly in another baraita: If the fetus emerged in pieces and reversed, then when most of its limbs emerge its status is like that of a child born; but if the fetus emerged in its proper manner, the emergence of the head exempts its twin. Rabbi Yosei says: The fetus is considered born once its head emerges only in a case where it emerges in its proper manner alive.


讜讗讬讝讛讜 讻转拽谞讜 诇讞讬讬诐 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘 专讗砖讜 讜讗讬讝讛讜 专讜讘 专讗砖讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬爪讗讜 爪讚注讬讜 讗讘讗 讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪砖讬爪讗 驻讚讞转讜 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讬专讗讜 拽专谞讬 专讗砖讜


And what is the exact stage when a fetus that emerged in its proper manner alive is considered born? When most of its head emerges. And what is the stage when most of its head emerges? Rabbi Yosei says: When its temples emerge. Abba 岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: When its forehead emerges. And some say: When the corners of its head, i.e., the projection of the head above the neck, are visible.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻诇转 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 诪讛讜 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 讗诐 讜诇讚 讛讬讛 讗诐 诇讗讜 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讜诇谞讚讛


MISHNA: In the case of a woman who discharges and it is not known what is the fetus鈥檚 sex, she shall observe the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female. She is impure for fourteen days, like a woman who gave birth to a female, and any blood the woman sees only until forty days after birth, not eighty days thereafter, is pure, like a woman who gave birth to a male. If it is unknown whether it was a male or female offspring or whether it was not an offspring at all, she shall observe the period of impurity for a woman who gave birth to a male and for a woman who gave birth to a female; and for any blood that she sees, she observes the halakhot of a menstruating woman. Since it is possible that what she discharged was not an offspring at all, any blood she sees might be due to menstruation, not childbirth.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 注讘专讛 谞讛专 讜讛驻讬诇讛 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讜专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讜诇讚 诪注诇讬讗 讬诇讚谉


GEMARA: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to a pregnant woman who passed across a river and she discharged her fetus into the river, and she does not know whether the fetus was fully formed, she brings the offering of a woman after childbirth, which is a burnt offering and a sin offering. And the sin offering, which is a bird, is eaten after the nape of its neck has been pinched, in the manner of a regular bird sin offering. This is the halakha despite the uncertainty that this fetus might not have been fully formed, in which case the woman would not be obligated to bring this offering, and a bird that is not an offering may not be eaten if its nape was pinched. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains the reasoning behind this ruling: One must follow the majority of pregnant women, and most pregnant women give birth to full-fledged offspring.


转谞谉 讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 讗诐 讜诇讚 讛讬讛 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讜诇谞讚讛 讗诪讗讬 转砖讘 诇谞讚讛 诇讬诪讗 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讜专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讜诇讚 诪注诇讬讗 讬诇讚谉


The Gemara analyzes this claim. We learned in the mishna: If it is unknown whether what the woman discharged was a male or female offspring or whether it was not an offspring at all, she shall observe the period of impurity for a woman who gave birth to a male and for a woman who gave birth to a female; and for any blood that she sees, she observes the halakhot of a menstruating woman. The Gemara asks: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, why must the woman observe the halakhot of a menstruating woman? Let us say that one must follow the majority of women, and the majority of women give birth to full-fledged offspring. If so, she should observe a period of purity, during which any blood she sees is pure, after her period of impurity, like all women after childbirth.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讛 注讜讘专讛 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻砖讛讜讞讝拽讛 注讜讘专讛


The Gemara answers: The halakha in the mishna is referring to a case where the woman had not been presumed to be pregnant prior to her miscarriage; and when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that a woman who discharges is presumed to have discharged an offspring, he was speaking of a case where the woman had been presumed to be pregnant prior to her miscarriage.


转讗 砖诪注 讘讛诪讛 砖讬爪讗讛 诪诇讗讛 讜讘讗讛 专讬拽谞讬转 讛讘讗 讗讞专讬讜 讘讻讜专 诪住驻拽


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi from a baraita: There is the case of a kosher animal that had not yet given birth, which went to the pasture full, i.e., pregnant, and came back the same day empty, i.e., with no live offspring.It clearly discharged, but it is unknown whether or not it discharged an offspring, which would exempt the animal鈥檚 subsequent offspring from the status of a firstborn. In this case, the offspring that comes after it is a firstborn of uncertain status.


讜讗诪讗讬 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讜专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讜诇讚 诪注诇讬讗 讬诇讚谉 讜讛讗讬 驻砖讜讟 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: But why is this the halakha? According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, one should follow the reality among the majority of animals, and the majority of animals give birth to full-fledged offspring. And if so, this subsequent offspring of the animal is a regular offspring, i.e., it is definitely not a firstborn.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讬讜诇讚讜转 讚讘专 讛驻讜讟专 诪讘讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜讟谉 讬讜诇讚讜转 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专 诪讘讻讜专讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诇讚讜转 诪讟谞驻讜转 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 讟谞驻讛 讗转专注 诇讛 专讜讘讗


Ravina says in response: In this case, the halakha does not follow the majority of animals, because it can be said that the majority of animals give birth to an item that exempts the animal鈥檚 subsequent offspring from firstborn status, but a minority of animals give birth to an item that does not exempt the animal鈥檚 subsequent offspring from firstborn status, i.e., an item that is not a full-fledged offspring. And an additional factor is that all animals that give birth to full-fledged offspring discharge turbid liquids one day before giving birth, and since this animal did not discharge turbid liquids before going to the pasture, the effect of the majority is undermined. Consequently, the status of the animal鈥檚 birth is uncertain, and for this reason its subsequent offspring is considered a firstborn of uncertain status.


讗讬 讻诇 讛讬讜诇讚讜转 诪讟谞驻讜转 讛讗 诪讚诇讗 诪讟谞驻讛 讘讻讜专 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 专讜讘 讬讜诇讚讜转 诪讟谞驻讜转 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 讟谞驻讛 讗转专注 诇讛 专讜讘讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If all animals that give birth to full-fledged offspring discharge turbid liquids before giving birth, then it should be concluded from the fact that this animal did not discharge turbid liquids that it did not discharge a full-fledged offspring, and therefore the animal鈥檚 subsequent offspring is a proper firstborn, not a firstborn of uncertain status. Rather, one should say that Ravina meant the following: The majority of animals that give birth discharge turbid liquids beforehand, and therefore, since this animal did not discharge turbid liquids, the effect of the majority is undermined.


讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟讜注讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 转讬讜讘转讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗


When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi from the halakha of a forgetful woman; but I do not know what the objection is. The Gemara asks: This halakha of a forgetful woman, which forms the basis of the objection, what is it? The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita:


讗砖讛 砖讬爪转讛 诪诇讗讛 讜讘讗讛 专讬拽谞讬转 讜讛讘讬讗讛 诇驻谞讬谞讜 砖诇砖讛 砖讘讜注讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜注砖专讛 砖讘讜注讜转 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 讟讛讜专


A woman left home for an extended period of time while she was full, i.e., pregnant, and came back when she was empty, as she discharged the fetus, but it is unknown exactly when and what she discharged; and she spent three weeks in our presence during which she was pure, i.e., she did not experience any bleeding, and for the following ten weeks she alternated between one impure week, in which she experienced bleeding every day, and one pure week, in which she did not experience bleeding at all.


诪砖诪砖转 诇讗讜专 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讜诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 转砖注讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讟讘讬诇讜转 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讞诪砖 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讬讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛 砖转讛讗 讘讗讞专讜谞讛


In such a case, the woman may engage in intercourse with her husband at the end of the fifth week following her return, on the eve of the thirty-fifth day, after which she is again prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband. And we require her to immerse in a ritual bath a total of ninety-five immersions. This is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say that she is required to immerse thirty-five times. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: She is required to immerse only once, as it is sufficient for the immersion to be at the end of the period when she is required to immerse every day. The entire baraita will be explained below.


讘砖诇诪讗 砖讘讜注 专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 诪砖诪砖转 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专 讛讬讗 砖讘讜注 砖谞讬 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗


The Gemara explains the objection from the baraita to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Granted in the first week following her arrival the woman may not engage in intercourse with her husband, despite the fact that she did not experience bleeding during that week, as one can say that perhaps she is a woman who gave birth to a male just before her arrival, which would mean that the first week is her seven-day period of impurity. Likewise, it is clear that the woman may not engage in intercourse with her husband during the second week after her arrival, as one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a female, and consequently her period of impurity is two weeks long.


砖讘讜注 砖诇讬砖讬 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讘讝讜讘 讛讬讗


It is also clear why she may not engage in intercourse during the third week, as one can say that perhaps she is a woman who gave birth to a female as a zava, i.e., a woman who experienced a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period for three days without the pain of labor, and therefore assumed the status of a zava before giving birth. If so, she must count seven clean days after her two-week period of impurity, and subsequently immerse.


讗诇讗 砖讘讜注 专讘讬注讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 讞讝讬讗 讚诐 转砖诪砖 讚讛讗 讚诐 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗


But in the fourth week, even though the woman sees blood during that period, let her engage in intercourse with her husband, as it is pure blood. At this stage the woman鈥檚 period of purity is certainly underway. Why does the baraita state that she may not engage in intercourse with her husband in this week? Is it not due to the concern that she might have discharged an item that was not a full-fledged offspring? Evidently, although most pregnant women give birth to full-fledged offspring, we do not follow the majority, which contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讗讬诪专 讛专讞讬拽讛 诇讬讚转讛


The Gemara asks: Rather, as this is apparently a valid objection, what is the reason that Ravin said: I do not know what the objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is? The Gemara explains: Perhaps it is in fact assumed that the woman gave birth to a full-fledged offspring, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and the reason she is not considered pure in the fourth week after her arrival is that one can say that her birth was distant, i.e., she gave birth a long time before her arrival, and therefore her period of purity had already ended before the fourth week.


讛讱 砖讘讜注 讞诪讬砖讬 讚讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 转砖诪砖


搂 The Gemara further analyzes the above baraita: During this fifth week, when the woman is pure, as she did not experience any bleeding, let her engage in intercourse with her husband. Why is she permitted to do so only on the eve of the thirty-fifth day, at the end of the fifth week?


讛讱 砖讘讜注 专讘讬注讬 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讜讬讜诪讗 诪住驻拽讬谉 讘住讜祝 诇讬讚讛 讜讘转讞诇转 谞讚讛 讜注砖专讬谉 讜转诪谞讬讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬诪专 转讞诇转 谞讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注讬讗 诇诪讬转讘 砖讘注讛 诇谞讚转讛


The Gemara answers: During this fourth week, when she experiences bleeding every day, we are uncertain with regard to each and every day as to whether it is the end of the woman鈥檚 period of purity as a woman after childbirth, and that it is therefore the beginning of the seven-day period that she must observe as a menstruating woman. And with regard to the twenty-eighth day itself, the last day of the fourth week, one can also say that it is after the last day of her period of purity and the beginning of her period as a menstruating woman, and therefore she is required to observe seven days for her menstruation, which end on the thirty-fourth day after her arrival. Consequently, the woman may engage in intercourse with her husband only on the eve of the thirty-fifth day.


讘注砖专讬诐 讜讞讚 转砖诪砖


The Gemara further inquires: As explained above, the reason it is prohibited for the woman to engage in intercourse during the third week is that she might have given birth just before arriving and had been a zava at the time, and therefore after observing the two weeks of impurity of a woman after childbirth, she must observe an additional seven days of impurity as a zava. A zava may undergo her purification process on the seventh day of her impurity, following which she is permitted to engage in intercourse. Accordingly, let the woman engage in intercourse on the twenty-first day after her arrival.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇注砖讜转 讻谉 砖诪讗 转讘讗 诇讬讚讬 住驻拽 诇讗讜专转讗 转砖诪砖 讻砖专讗转讛 讘注专讘


The Gemara answers: The halakha in this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that it is prohibited for a woman to do so, i.e., to engage in intercourse on the seventh day of her ziva after immersing in a ritual bath, lest she come to a case of uncertainty. If she engages in intercourse on that seventh day after immersion, and subsequently experiences bleeding on that same day, it retroactively nullifies her entire seven clean days, and it turns out that she engaged in intercourse while she was impure. The Gemara continues to ask: Even so, let her engage in intercourse that night, after having completed seven clean days. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case when the woman saw blood in the evening, i.e., her fourth week of experiencing bleeding started in the nighttime.


讜诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 转砖注讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讟讘讬诇讜转 砖讘讜注 拽诪讗 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘诇讬诇讜转讗 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专 讛讬讗


搂 The Gemara analyzes the statement of Beit Shammai: And we require the woman to immerse in a ritual bath for a total of ninety-five immersions. The Gemara explains: During the first week she is required to immerse at night, every night of the week. The reason is that as the date of her childbirth and the sex of the offspring are unknown, one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a male. If so, the seven days of impurity might have ended on any night of the first week, and therefore she must immerse in a ritual bath on each night.


砖讘讜注 砖谞讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘诇讬诇讜转讗 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗 讘讬诪诪讗 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专 讘讝讜讘 讛讬讗


During the second week, she is required to immerse at night, every night, as one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a female, and therefore it is possible that her fourteen-day period of impurity ended on any of the nights of the second week. She must also immerse every day of the second week in the daytime, as one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a male as a zava. If so, it is possible that her seven-day period of impurity as a woman after childbirth ended on any given day during the first week, after which she must start to count seven clean days as a zava. These seven days necessarily culminate during the second week, and the halakha is that a woman must immerse in a ritual bath on the morning when her seven clean days of ziva conclude.


砖讘讜注 砖诇讬砖讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬诪诪讗 讗讬诪专 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讘讝讜讘 讛讬讗


During the third week, she is required to immerse every day in the daytime, as one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a female as a zava, and consequently her fourteen-day period of impurity as a woman after childbirth ended during the second week. Therefore, the woman鈥檚 seven clean days as a zava might end on any day of the third week, and she is obligated to immerse on that morning.


讘诇讬诇讜转讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专讬 讟讘讜诇转 讬讜诐 讗专讜讱 讘注讬 讟讘讬诇讛


She is also required to immerse on every night of the third week, according to Beit Shammai. Beit Shammai conform to their line of reasoning, as they say in a mishna (71b) that a woman who finished her period of purity after childbirth, referred to as a woman who immersed that long day and is waiting for her purification process to be completed, requires immersion at the end of this period. The woman must therefore immerse on every night of the third week, in case that night is the end of her period of purity, for a total of thirty-five immersions by the end of the week. She must continue to immerse every night until her period of purity is certainly over, no matter when she gave birth, i.e., until the eightieth day since her arrival.


Scroll To Top