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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 26, 2019 | 讻状讝 讘转砖专讬 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 3

The gemara brings two different explanations for the debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding mikveh. The gemara brings three other explanations for understanding the root of the debate in the mishna between Shamai and Hillel.


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

讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪住讜讟讛

The Gemara explains their reasoning: And both tanna鈥檌m derived their respective opinions only from the case of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota], who is forbidden to engage in intercourse with her husband just like a definite adulteress.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻讬 住讜讟讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 住驻拽 讛讬讗 讜注砖讗讜讛 讻讜讚讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 住驻拽 讜注砖讗讜讛 讻讜讚讗讬

The Rabbis hold: This case of a ritual bath is like the case of a sota. Just as in the case of a sota it is uncertain whether she was actually unfaithful, and nevertheless the Torah rendered her like one who definitely committed adultery in that she is forbidden to her husband until she drinks the water of a sota; here too, in the case of a ritual bath, it is uncertain whether it was lacking the requisite measure of water and yet the Torah rendered it as though it was definitely lacking water, to the extent that teruma that touched an item that had been immersed in it must be burned.

讗讬 诪住讜讟讛 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 住讜讟讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the halakhot of the ritual bath are derived from those of a sota, then one can say that it should be like the halakha of a sota in another respect: Just as a sota who is suspected of having been unfaithful in a public domain is considered pure, i.e., she does not undergo to rite of a sota, here too, any impure item that was immersed in a currently deficient ritual bath that is situated in a public domain should be considered pure.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 住转讬专讛 讛讜讗 讜住转讬专讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讬讻讗 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讞住专 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇讬 讞住专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛 诇讬 讞住专 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? One cannot apply the halakha of a sota in a public domain to any other case. There, the reason why a sota is treated as having definitely been unfaithful is due to her seclusion with another man. And as a proper seclusion in the public domain is not possible, she does not assume the status of a sota. By contrast, here, in the case of the ritual bath, the uncertainty is due to the lack of the requisite measure of water in the ritual bath. If so, what difference is it to me if the ritual bath is lacking in a public domain or if it is lacking in a private domain?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗 讻诇 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 转专转讬 诇专讬注讜转讗 讻讜讚讗讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara comments: And if you would say that the guiding principle in any case of uncertainty involving impurity in a public domain is that it is ritually pure, and therefore all items immersed in a ritual bath situated in the public domain should be pure even if there is uncertainty about its status of purity, that suggestion can be rejected, as follows: Since there are two factors that weaken the possibility that the items are ritually pure: First, the ritual bath is currently lacking, and second, the item has a presumptive status of impurity, it is therefore considered as an item of definite impurity.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讻讬 住讜讟讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专

After analyzing the reasoning of the Rabbis, the Gemara turns to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Shimon holds: This case of a ritual bath is just like the case of a sota. Just as a sota who is suspected of having been unfaithful in a public domain is considered pure, here too, any impure item that was immersed in a currently deficient ritual bath that is situated in a public domain is considered pure.

讗讬 诪住讜讟讛 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 住讜讟讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讟诪讗讛 讜讚讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讟诪讗讛 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara asks: If the halakhot of the ritual bath are derived from those of a sota, then one can say that it should be like the halakha of a sota in another respect: Just as a sota who secluded herself with the man in a private domain is deemed definitely impure, i.e., she is forbidden to her husband until she undergoes the rite of the sota, here too, any ritually impure item that was immersed in a currently deficient ritual bath situated in a private domain should be considered definitely impure. If so, any teruma that comes in contact with the immersed vessel should be burned. Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon rule that its status is suspended and it is neither consumed nor burned?

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讬砖 专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专 砖讛专讬 拽讬谞讗 诇讛 讜谞住转专讛 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of a sota, there is a basis for the matter. She is considered definitely impure, as her husband issued a warning to her about this particular man and she then secluded herself with him. By contrast, here, in the case of a ritual bath, what basis for the matter is there? Why should one assume impurity with certainty?

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讙诪专 住讜祝 讟讜诪讗讛 诪转讞诇转 讟讜诪讗讛

And if you wish, say instead that this is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: He does not base his ruling on the case of a sota; rather, he derives the end of impurity from the beginning of impurity, i.e., he derives the halakha of the immersion of an impure item into a ritual bath from the halakha of the initial contraction of ritual impurity.

诪讛 转讞诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 住驻拽 谞讙注 住驻拽 诇讗 谞讙注 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专 讗祝 住讜祝 讟讜诪讗讛 住驻拽 讟讘诇 住驻拽 诇讗 讟讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专

The Gemara explains: Just as with regard to the beginning of impurity, if there is uncertainty whether or not a pure item came into contact with a source of impurity, if this occurred in the public domain it is considered ritually pure; so too in the case of the end of impurity, if there is uncertainty whether or not the impure item was immersed in a ritual bath with the requisite amount of water, the halakha is that if the ritual bath is located in the public domain, the item is considered pure.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 拽讗讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讗 诪讞转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讛讻讗 讙讘专讗 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讗讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讟讜诪讗转讜

The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis respond to this claim? They would respond: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the beginning of impurity, the man who might have touched an impure item remains with the presumptive status of ritual purity. Consequently, we do not lower his status to one who has contracted ritual impurity merely due to uncertainty. Here, in the case of the ritual bath, the man who immerses in that ritual bath has the presumptive status of ritual impurity. Therefore, we do not remove him from his status of ritual impurity due to uncertainty.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讘讜讬 讚转谞谉 讛砖专抓 砖谞诪爪讗 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘讚拽转讬 讗转 讛诪讘讜讬 讛讝讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 砖专抓 讗讜 注讚 砖注转 讛讻讬讘讜讚

搂 The Gemara returns to its analysis of the mishna. Shammai said: For all women, their time is sufficient, i.e., women who discern that menstrual blood emerged do not need to be concerned that perhaps the flow of blood began before they noticed it. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that of an alleyway? As we learned in a mishna (66a): With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal that is found in an alleyway, it renders any item in the alleyway ritually impure retroactively to the time that a person can say: I examined this alleyway and there was no carcass of a creeping animal in it, or until the time of the last sweeping of the alleyway.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 砖专爪讬诐 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讜砖专爪讬诐 讚讗转讜 诪注诇诪讗 讻转专转讬 诇专讬注讜转讗 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: There too, one can explain: Since there are two types of carcasses of creeping animals that are likely to be found in the alleyway, creeping animals from the alleyway itself and creeping animals that came from the world at large, it is compared to a case where there are two factors that weaken the possibility that the items are ritually pure. Therefore, even Shammai agrees that in such a case the impurity extends retroactively back in time.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讗讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗砖讛 诪专讙砖转 讘注爪诪讛 讜讛诇诇 讻住讘讜专讛 讛专讙砖转 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讛讬讗

And if you wish, say instead that this is the reason for the opinion of Shammai: Since a women senses within herself if she is experiencing a flow of blood, if she felt the flow only at present, it is certain that she did not experience a flow previously. And Hillel holds that she might have experienced a flow earlier while she was urinating and she thought it was all the sensation of her flow of urine.

讜诇砖诪讗讬 讛讗讬讻讗 讬砖谞讛 讬砖谞讛 谞诪讬 讗讙讘 爪注专讛 诪讬转注专讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讛专讙砖转 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: And according to Shammai, isn鈥檛 there the case of a sleeping woman, who would not sense her flow of menstrual blood? The Gemara answers: A sleeping woman would also sense her flow, and due to her discomfort she would awaken, just as it is with the sensation of the need to urinate.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖讜讟讛 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗讬 讘砖讜讟讛 讛讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 驻拽讞讜转

The Gemara raises another difficulty with regard to the opinion of Shammai: But there is the case of a mentally incompetent woman, who does not properly understand what she is sensing. She might have previously experienced a flow of menstrual blood that she did not notice. The Gemara answers: Shammai concedes in the case of a mentally incompetent woman that she is impure retroactively. The Gemara asks: But the mishna explicitly teaches that Shammai mentioned all women, which apparently includes even the mentally incompetent. The Gemara answers: When the mishna teaches: All women, it is referring to all mentally competent women.

讜诇讬转谞讬 谞砖讬诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗专讘注 谞砖讬诐 讜转讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, let the mishna teach that Shammai鈥檚 opinion applies to: Women, rather than referring to all women. The Gemara answers: The inclusive statement: All women, serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As Rabbi Eliezer said in a mishna (7a): There are four women with regard to whom the halakha is that their time is sufficient. This indicates that there are only four, and no more. Therefore, the mishna teaches us: All women, to include all mentally competent women, not only the four mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讻转诪讬诐 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 讻转诪讬诐 讚诇讗 讻砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗讬 讘讻转诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘爪驻讜专 诇讗 谞转注住拽讛 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 讟讘讞讬诐 诇讗 注讘专讛 讛讗讬 讚诐 诪讛讬讻讗 讗转讬

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty against the opinion of Shammai: But there is the case of blood stains. The mishna teaches (66a) that a woman who finds a blood stain is impure retroactive to the last time she examined her clothing and found them clean. Shall we say that we learned the mishna with regard to stains not in accordance with the opinion of Shammai? Abaye said: Shammai concedes in the case of stains. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The reason is that she neither engaged in handling a slaughtered bird nor did she pass through a marketplace of butchers. If so, from where could this blood stain on her clothing have come? Since it must be from her last menstrual flow, Shammai agrees that she is impure retroactively.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讬讛 讚砖诪讗讬 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讚诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬 讜讛诇诇 讻讜转诇讬 讘讬转 讛专讞诐 讛注诪讬讚讜讛讜 讜砖诪讗讬 讻讜转诇讬 讘讬转 讛专讞诐 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬 讚诐

The Gemara suggests another analysis: Or if you wish, say that this is the reason for the opinion of Shammai: She is impure only from that point onward, as, if it is so that there was any menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset, i.e., at the earlier time. The Gemara explains why Hillel maintains that there is ritual impurity retroactively, in light of this analysis: And as for Hillel, he holds that the walls of the womb, i.e., the walls of the vaginal canal, held back the menstrual blood from leaving the body entirely, and therefore there might have been a previous emission from the uterus into the vaginal canal that was not visible on the outside. The Gemara asks: And how does Shammai respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Shammai maintains that the walls of the womb do not hold back blood.

诪砖诪砖转 讘诪讜讱 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗讬 讘诪砖诪砖转 讘诪讜讱

The Gemara asks: With regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive absorbent cloth in the form of a wad that she inserts in her vagina at the opening of her womb so as not to become pregnant, what is there to say? In other words, how does Shammai explain why there is no retroactive impurity status in such a case, as it cannot be claimed that any previous menstrual blood would have flowed out earlier. Abaye says: Shammai concedes with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive cloth that she is impure retroactively.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讜讱 谞诪讬 讗讙讘 讝讬注讛 诪讻讜讬抓 讻讜讬抓 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讗 讘诪讜讱 讚讞讜拽

Rava says: Here as well, in a case where a woman engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive absorbent cloth, any previous menstrual blood would have flowed out, as the absorbent cloth does not hermetically seal the womb. The reason is that the cloth wrinkles due to perspiration, leaving space for blood to pass through. The Gemara adds: And nevertheless Rava concedes to Abaye that Shammai agrees that she is retroactively impure in a case where a woman engages in intercourse while using a tightly packed absorbent cloth.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讛谞讬 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讛讗讬讱 诇讬砖谞讗

搂 The Gemara suggested that the reasoning for Shammai鈥檚 opinion is that the woman would have felt any previous menstrual flow, or that any prior menstrual blood would have flowed out previously. Yet, earlier the Gemara suggested that his reason was that the woman retains her presumptive status of ritual purity. With regard to the explanations given for the opinion of Shammai, the Gemara asks: What difference is there between these versions and that version suggested earlier?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪专诪讬 讞讘讬转 讜诪拽讜讛 讜诪讘讜讬 诇讛讗讬讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪专诪讬谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讻讗 诇诪专诪讬

The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to the possibility of raising a contradiction between Shammai鈥檚 ruling here and the cases of a barrel, a ritual bath, and an alleyway. According to that version, that Shammai鈥檚 reasoning is based upon the principle that an item retains its presumptive status, there is room to raise these contradictions, as the Gemara explained. By contrast, according to these other versions, that the woman would have felt any previous menstrual flow or that any prior menstrual blood would have flowed out previously, there is no room to raise such contradictions, as those rulings do not contradict the halakha here, where a unique factor is relevant.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 诇讛讗讬讱 诇讬砖谞讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讜讱

The Gemara further asks: And what difference is there between this version, that any prior menstrual blood would have flowed out, and that version, that she would have felt any previous menstrual flow? The Gemara answers: According to Abaye, who maintains that Shammai agrees that a woman who engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive cloth is impure retroactively, there is a difference in a case where the woman engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive cloth. If Shammai鈥檚 reasoning is that a woman senses the emission of blood, in this case too it is assumed that she did not emit blood earlier. By contrast, if his reasoning is that any prior menstrual blood would have come out at the outset, it is possible that the cloth blocked the emission of blood, and she already emitted blood. Consequently, she is impure retroactively.

诇专讘讗 讗讬讻讗 诪讜讱 讚讞讜拽

According to Rava, who maintains that blood can emerge even if the woman engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive absorbent cloth, there is a difference between the two interpretations in a case where she engages in intercourse while using a tightly packed absorbent cloth, as such a cloth will prevent the blood from flowing out, but it does not affect her ability to sense an emission.

转谞讬讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讚诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诇诇 诇砖诪讗讬 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 讘拽讜驻讛 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛 讟讛专讜转 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜谞诪爪讗 砖专抓 讘讝讜讬转 讗讞专转 砖讟讛专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘诇

It is taught in a mishna (Teharot 4:4) in accordance with this version, i.e., that Shammai鈥檚 reasoning is that if it is so, that there was menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset: Hillel said to Shammai: Don鈥檛 you concede to the following halakha: In the case of a basket that was used as a container for ritually pure items, and those items were placed in one corner, and subsequently the carcass of a creeping animal was found in a different corner of the basket, the halakha is that the items initially considered ritually pure are now retroactively considered impure? Shammai said to him: Indeed, that is correct.

讜诪讛 讛驻专砖 讘讬谉 讝讜 诇讝讜 诇讝讜 讬砖 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐 诇讝讜 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐

Hillel continues: And if so, what difference is there between this case of the pure items stored in the basket, which are now considered retroactively impure, and that case of the ritually pure woman who experiences a menstrual flow, who is impure only from that point onward? Shammai answers: This one, the basket, has a base on which it rests, and therefore the creeping animal might have been there earlier unseen. That one, the menstruating woman, has no base, i.e., there is nothing to impede her menstrual blood from flowing out. Shammai鈥檚 response indicates that she is not retroactively impure because if she had experienced a previous menstruation it would have flowed at that stage.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讘讟讜诇 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讗讬 诇讛诇诇 讗诐 讻谉 讘讟诇转 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛

Rava says: The reason for the opinion of Shammai that a woman who experiences menstruation is not deemed ritually impure retroactively is due to the dereliction of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. If woman is always deemed retroactively impure, she and her husband might abstain from engaging in sexual intercourse out of fear that she is already impure even if she has not yet experienced bleeding. The Gemara adds that this explanation is also taught in a baraita: Shammai said to Hillel: If it is so, that a woman is rendered retroactively impure as you claim, you will have caused the Jewish women to be derelict in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.

讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻讬 讛讗讬讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讚诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬 讛转诐 讛诇诇 讛讜讗 讚拽讟注讬 讛讜讗 住讘专 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讗讬 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讚诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬 讜拽讗 诪拽砖讬 诇讬讛 拽讜驻讛

The Gemara asks: But according to the one who taught this version, i.e., Rava, there is a difficulty: Isn鈥檛 it taught in the aforementioned mishna in accordance with that other version, that Shammai鈥檚 reasoning is that if it is so, that there was any menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset? The Gemara answers: There, in that mishna, it is Hillel who erred. He thought the reason of Shammai is that if it is so, that there was any menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset. And therefore, he raises a difficulty against Shammai鈥檚 opinion from the case of the basket.

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讘讟讜诇 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜诇诪讗讬 讚拽讟注讬转 谞诪讬 讚拽诪拽砖讬转 拽讜驻讛 诇讝讜 讬砖 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐 讜诇讝讜 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐

And Shammai said to Hillel: You are mistaken. My reasoning is actually due to the dereliction of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. But even according to your erroneous reasoning that led you to raise a difficulty from the case of the basket, I have an answer for that as well: This basket has a base, and therefore the creeping animal could have been there earlier, unseen; but that menstruating woman has no base.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻讬 讛讗讬讱 诇讬砖谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讟讜诇 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛

The Gemara asks the reverse question: And according to the one who teaches this other version, that Shammai鈥檚 reasoning is that if there was previous menstrual blood it would have come out at the outset, isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in accordance with that other version, that Shammai鈥檚 reasoning is due to the dereliction of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇诇 诇砖诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讟注诪讗 拽讗诪专转 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讚诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬 讜诪讬讛讜 注砖讛 住讬讬讙 诇讚讘专讬讱 讚诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 住讬讬讙

The Gemara answers: That baraita was recorded at a later point in their discussion, as this is what Hillel is saying to Shammai: Yes, the reason that you say for your opinion has merit, that if it is so, that there was any menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset. Nevertheless, you should enact a safeguard for your statement and render her retroactively impure, as in what way is this case different from the rest of the entire Torah, where the Sages enact safeguards?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 讘讟诇转 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜讛诇诇 诪驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 诪讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讟讛专讜转 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪讬谞讗

Shammai said to Hillel: If so, i.e., if she is considered impure retroactively as a safeguard, you will have caused the Jewish women to be derelict in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. The Gemara asks: And how does Hillel respond to Shammai鈥檚 reasoning with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? The Gemara explains that Hillel would answer: Although I rule that she is retroactively impure, did I say that she is forbidden to her husband and must therefore abstain from the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? I said only that she renders impure any ritually pure items that she touched.

讜砖诪讗讬 诇讟讛专讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讗诐 讻谉 诇讘讜 谞讜拽驻讜 讜驻讜专砖

The Gemara asks: And how would Shammai reply to this? The Gemara answers: Shammai maintains that even a safeguard that renders ritually pure items impure should not be imposed. The reason is that if it were so, the heart of a scrupulous husband might strike him with pangs of conscience over sins that he could transgress and he would separate from his wife, out of fear that she is impure.

(砖讜诇讬诐 讘讚讜拽讬谉 诪讻讜住讬谉 讘讝讜讬转 住讬诪谉) 讗讬转诪专 拽讜驻讛 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛 讟讛专讜转 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜谞诪爪讗 砖专抓 讘讝讜讬转 讗讞专转 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讟讛专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讟讛专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讜讛讗 (讘讬转) 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 诪讜讚讜 讘拽讜驻讛 讚讟讛专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the ensuing discussions: A base; examined; covered; in a corner. It was stated: If one has a basket that was used as a container for holding ritually pure produce, and those items were placed in one corner of the basket, and subsequently the carcass of a creeping animal was found in a different corner of the basket, 岣zkiyya says: That produce initially considered ritually pure is still pure. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The produce initially considered ritually pure is now retroactively deemed impure. The Gemara asks: But how can 岣zkiyya rule that it is pure? After all, don鈥檛 Shammai and Hillel agree in the case of the basket that the produce initially considered pure is now retroactively impure?

讻讬 诪讜讚讜 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 讘拽讜驻讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘拽讜驻讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐

The Gemara answers: When do Shammai and Hillel agree that all the produce is retroactively impure? With regard to a basket that has a base. In such a case, the carcass of the creeping animal might have previously been in the basket and it went unnoticed when one removed the pure produce items. When 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree, it is with regard to a basket that has no base, i.e., both ends were open and the basket was used while it was lying on its side. In that situation, the contents of the basket are emptied by raising one end, which causes all items inside to fall out. Consequently, any creeping animal that was found subsequently must have entered the basket only after that produce was removed, which is why 岣zkiyya rules that the produce remains pure.

讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐 讜讬砖 诇讛 讗讜讙谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a case where the basket has no base, what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yo岣nan for ruling that the produce is ritually impure? The Gemara answers: The basket has no base but it does have an inward-curved rim. Therefore, it is possible that the carcass of a small creeping animal might have been held back by the rim and remained inside the basket even after it was turned over. Rabbi Yo岣nan rules that the produce is retroactively impure, due to the possibility that the creeping animal might have been in the basket previously together with the initially pure produce.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛诪讚诇讛 注砖专讛 讚诇讬讬诐 诪讬诐 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜谞诪爪讗 砖专抓 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讗讜讙谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛 讗讜讙谞讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讬谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who draws ten pails of water one after another, i.e., he draws out water in one pail and from it he fills another ten pails with water, and the carcass of a creeping animal is found in one of them, that pail of water is ritually impure but all the rest of them are pure. And Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: This halakha was taught only in a case where the pail has no inward-curved rim. Consequently, its contents are entirely emptied each time it is overturned, which means that the creeping animal must have entered only this pail. But if the pail has a rim, all of the water that had been drawn is impure, as the creeping animal might have entered the pail earlier and the rim held it back each time the pail was overturned.

诇讬诪讗 讞讝拽讬讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪讬讗 砖专拽讬 驻讬专讬 诇讗 砖专拽讬

The Gemara explains the difficulty: Shall we say that 岣zkiyya, who is not concerned that the rim of the basket might have held back the creeping animal, does not agree with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai? The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two cases: Water is slippery, whereas produce is not slippery. In order to pour water out of the pail it is not necessary to turn it over completely. Therefore, the rim might hold back a creeping animal. By contrast, a basket must have one end fully raised in order to empty out all the produce it contains. In such a case Rabbi Yannai would agree that nothing could have been held back, and therefore the emptied produce remains pure.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讗 诇讗 拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜 驻讬专讬 拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜

Alternatively, there is a different reason why one does not overturn a pail of water entirely: In the case of water, one is not particular about it, i.e., he does not mind if some is left over. Therefore he does not overturn the pail completely. By contrast, in the case of produce one is particular about it, so he raises one end of the basket entirely to ensure that every last piece of produce is emptied. Consequently, in the case of produce Rabbi Yannai would agree that even if the basket has a rim, all the produce remains pure.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 诪讜讚讜 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 讘拽讜驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘讚讜拽讛

As an alternative to its previous resolution that 岣zkiyya is discussing the case of a rimmed receptacle, the Gemara suggests another resolution of the apparent contradiction between 岣zkiyya鈥檚 ruling and the opinions of Hillel and Shammai. And if you wish, say: When do Shammai and Hillel agree? In the case of a basket that was not examined. Since he did not examine the basket when he placed the pure produce there, a creeping animal might have already been inside. Consequently, they agree that the produce does not retain its presumptive state of purity but is considered retroactively impure.

  • 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 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 3

讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪住讜讟讛

The Gemara explains their reasoning: And both tanna鈥檌m derived their respective opinions only from the case of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota], who is forbidden to engage in intercourse with her husband just like a definite adulteress.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻讬 住讜讟讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 住驻拽 讛讬讗 讜注砖讗讜讛 讻讜讚讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 住驻拽 讜注砖讗讜讛 讻讜讚讗讬

The Rabbis hold: This case of a ritual bath is like the case of a sota. Just as in the case of a sota it is uncertain whether she was actually unfaithful, and nevertheless the Torah rendered her like one who definitely committed adultery in that she is forbidden to her husband until she drinks the water of a sota; here too, in the case of a ritual bath, it is uncertain whether it was lacking the requisite measure of water and yet the Torah rendered it as though it was definitely lacking water, to the extent that teruma that touched an item that had been immersed in it must be burned.

讗讬 诪住讜讟讛 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 住讜讟讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the halakhot of the ritual bath are derived from those of a sota, then one can say that it should be like the halakha of a sota in another respect: Just as a sota who is suspected of having been unfaithful in a public domain is considered pure, i.e., she does not undergo to rite of a sota, here too, any impure item that was immersed in a currently deficient ritual bath that is situated in a public domain should be considered pure.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 住转讬专讛 讛讜讗 讜住转讬专讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讬讻讗 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讞住专 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇讬 讞住专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛 诇讬 讞住专 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? One cannot apply the halakha of a sota in a public domain to any other case. There, the reason why a sota is treated as having definitely been unfaithful is due to her seclusion with another man. And as a proper seclusion in the public domain is not possible, she does not assume the status of a sota. By contrast, here, in the case of the ritual bath, the uncertainty is due to the lack of the requisite measure of water in the ritual bath. If so, what difference is it to me if the ritual bath is lacking in a public domain or if it is lacking in a private domain?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗 讻诇 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 转专转讬 诇专讬注讜转讗 讻讜讚讗讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara comments: And if you would say that the guiding principle in any case of uncertainty involving impurity in a public domain is that it is ritually pure, and therefore all items immersed in a ritual bath situated in the public domain should be pure even if there is uncertainty about its status of purity, that suggestion can be rejected, as follows: Since there are two factors that weaken the possibility that the items are ritually pure: First, the ritual bath is currently lacking, and second, the item has a presumptive status of impurity, it is therefore considered as an item of definite impurity.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讻讬 住讜讟讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专

After analyzing the reasoning of the Rabbis, the Gemara turns to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Shimon holds: This case of a ritual bath is just like the case of a sota. Just as a sota who is suspected of having been unfaithful in a public domain is considered pure, here too, any impure item that was immersed in a currently deficient ritual bath that is situated in a public domain is considered pure.

讗讬 诪住讜讟讛 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 住讜讟讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讟诪讗讛 讜讚讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讟诪讗讛 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara asks: If the halakhot of the ritual bath are derived from those of a sota, then one can say that it should be like the halakha of a sota in another respect: Just as a sota who secluded herself with the man in a private domain is deemed definitely impure, i.e., she is forbidden to her husband until she undergoes the rite of the sota, here too, any ritually impure item that was immersed in a currently deficient ritual bath situated in a private domain should be considered definitely impure. If so, any teruma that comes in contact with the immersed vessel should be burned. Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon rule that its status is suspended and it is neither consumed nor burned?

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讬砖 专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专 砖讛专讬 拽讬谞讗 诇讛 讜谞住转专讛 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of a sota, there is a basis for the matter. She is considered definitely impure, as her husband issued a warning to her about this particular man and she then secluded herself with him. By contrast, here, in the case of a ritual bath, what basis for the matter is there? Why should one assume impurity with certainty?

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讙诪专 住讜祝 讟讜诪讗讛 诪转讞诇转 讟讜诪讗讛

And if you wish, say instead that this is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: He does not base his ruling on the case of a sota; rather, he derives the end of impurity from the beginning of impurity, i.e., he derives the halakha of the immersion of an impure item into a ritual bath from the halakha of the initial contraction of ritual impurity.

诪讛 转讞诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 住驻拽 谞讙注 住驻拽 诇讗 谞讙注 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专 讗祝 住讜祝 讟讜诪讗讛 住驻拽 讟讘诇 住驻拽 诇讗 讟讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专

The Gemara explains: Just as with regard to the beginning of impurity, if there is uncertainty whether or not a pure item came into contact with a source of impurity, if this occurred in the public domain it is considered ritually pure; so too in the case of the end of impurity, if there is uncertainty whether or not the impure item was immersed in a ritual bath with the requisite amount of water, the halakha is that if the ritual bath is located in the public domain, the item is considered pure.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 拽讗讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讗 诪讞转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讛讻讗 讙讘专讗 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讗讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讟讜诪讗转讜

The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis respond to this claim? They would respond: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the beginning of impurity, the man who might have touched an impure item remains with the presumptive status of ritual purity. Consequently, we do not lower his status to one who has contracted ritual impurity merely due to uncertainty. Here, in the case of the ritual bath, the man who immerses in that ritual bath has the presumptive status of ritual impurity. Therefore, we do not remove him from his status of ritual impurity due to uncertainty.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讘讜讬 讚转谞谉 讛砖专抓 砖谞诪爪讗 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘讚拽转讬 讗转 讛诪讘讜讬 讛讝讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 砖专抓 讗讜 注讚 砖注转 讛讻讬讘讜讚

搂 The Gemara returns to its analysis of the mishna. Shammai said: For all women, their time is sufficient, i.e., women who discern that menstrual blood emerged do not need to be concerned that perhaps the flow of blood began before they noticed it. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that of an alleyway? As we learned in a mishna (66a): With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal that is found in an alleyway, it renders any item in the alleyway ritually impure retroactively to the time that a person can say: I examined this alleyway and there was no carcass of a creeping animal in it, or until the time of the last sweeping of the alleyway.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 砖专爪讬诐 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讜砖专爪讬诐 讚讗转讜 诪注诇诪讗 讻转专转讬 诇专讬注讜转讗 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: There too, one can explain: Since there are two types of carcasses of creeping animals that are likely to be found in the alleyway, creeping animals from the alleyway itself and creeping animals that came from the world at large, it is compared to a case where there are two factors that weaken the possibility that the items are ritually pure. Therefore, even Shammai agrees that in such a case the impurity extends retroactively back in time.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讗讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗砖讛 诪专讙砖转 讘注爪诪讛 讜讛诇诇 讻住讘讜专讛 讛专讙砖转 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讛讬讗

And if you wish, say instead that this is the reason for the opinion of Shammai: Since a women senses within herself if she is experiencing a flow of blood, if she felt the flow only at present, it is certain that she did not experience a flow previously. And Hillel holds that she might have experienced a flow earlier while she was urinating and she thought it was all the sensation of her flow of urine.

讜诇砖诪讗讬 讛讗讬讻讗 讬砖谞讛 讬砖谞讛 谞诪讬 讗讙讘 爪注专讛 诪讬转注专讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讛专讙砖转 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: And according to Shammai, isn鈥檛 there the case of a sleeping woman, who would not sense her flow of menstrual blood? The Gemara answers: A sleeping woman would also sense her flow, and due to her discomfort she would awaken, just as it is with the sensation of the need to urinate.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖讜讟讛 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗讬 讘砖讜讟讛 讛讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 驻拽讞讜转

The Gemara raises another difficulty with regard to the opinion of Shammai: But there is the case of a mentally incompetent woman, who does not properly understand what she is sensing. She might have previously experienced a flow of menstrual blood that she did not notice. The Gemara answers: Shammai concedes in the case of a mentally incompetent woman that she is impure retroactively. The Gemara asks: But the mishna explicitly teaches that Shammai mentioned all women, which apparently includes even the mentally incompetent. The Gemara answers: When the mishna teaches: All women, it is referring to all mentally competent women.

讜诇讬转谞讬 谞砖讬诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗专讘注 谞砖讬诐 讜转讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, let the mishna teach that Shammai鈥檚 opinion applies to: Women, rather than referring to all women. The Gemara answers: The inclusive statement: All women, serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As Rabbi Eliezer said in a mishna (7a): There are four women with regard to whom the halakha is that their time is sufficient. This indicates that there are only four, and no more. Therefore, the mishna teaches us: All women, to include all mentally competent women, not only the four mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讻转诪讬诐 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 讻转诪讬诐 讚诇讗 讻砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗讬 讘讻转诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘爪驻讜专 诇讗 谞转注住拽讛 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 讟讘讞讬诐 诇讗 注讘专讛 讛讗讬 讚诐 诪讛讬讻讗 讗转讬

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty against the opinion of Shammai: But there is the case of blood stains. The mishna teaches (66a) that a woman who finds a blood stain is impure retroactive to the last time she examined her clothing and found them clean. Shall we say that we learned the mishna with regard to stains not in accordance with the opinion of Shammai? Abaye said: Shammai concedes in the case of stains. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The reason is that she neither engaged in handling a slaughtered bird nor did she pass through a marketplace of butchers. If so, from where could this blood stain on her clothing have come? Since it must be from her last menstrual flow, Shammai agrees that she is impure retroactively.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讬讛 讚砖诪讗讬 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讚诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬 讜讛诇诇 讻讜转诇讬 讘讬转 讛专讞诐 讛注诪讬讚讜讛讜 讜砖诪讗讬 讻讜转诇讬 讘讬转 讛专讞诐 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬 讚诐

The Gemara suggests another analysis: Or if you wish, say that this is the reason for the opinion of Shammai: She is impure only from that point onward, as, if it is so that there was any menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset, i.e., at the earlier time. The Gemara explains why Hillel maintains that there is ritual impurity retroactively, in light of this analysis: And as for Hillel, he holds that the walls of the womb, i.e., the walls of the vaginal canal, held back the menstrual blood from leaving the body entirely, and therefore there might have been a previous emission from the uterus into the vaginal canal that was not visible on the outside. The Gemara asks: And how does Shammai respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Shammai maintains that the walls of the womb do not hold back blood.

诪砖诪砖转 讘诪讜讱 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗讬 讘诪砖诪砖转 讘诪讜讱

The Gemara asks: With regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive absorbent cloth in the form of a wad that she inserts in her vagina at the opening of her womb so as not to become pregnant, what is there to say? In other words, how does Shammai explain why there is no retroactive impurity status in such a case, as it cannot be claimed that any previous menstrual blood would have flowed out earlier. Abaye says: Shammai concedes with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive cloth that she is impure retroactively.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讜讱 谞诪讬 讗讙讘 讝讬注讛 诪讻讜讬抓 讻讜讬抓 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讗 讘诪讜讱 讚讞讜拽

Rava says: Here as well, in a case where a woman engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive absorbent cloth, any previous menstrual blood would have flowed out, as the absorbent cloth does not hermetically seal the womb. The reason is that the cloth wrinkles due to perspiration, leaving space for blood to pass through. The Gemara adds: And nevertheless Rava concedes to Abaye that Shammai agrees that she is retroactively impure in a case where a woman engages in intercourse while using a tightly packed absorbent cloth.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讛谞讬 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讛讗讬讱 诇讬砖谞讗

搂 The Gemara suggested that the reasoning for Shammai鈥檚 opinion is that the woman would have felt any previous menstrual flow, or that any prior menstrual blood would have flowed out previously. Yet, earlier the Gemara suggested that his reason was that the woman retains her presumptive status of ritual purity. With regard to the explanations given for the opinion of Shammai, the Gemara asks: What difference is there between these versions and that version suggested earlier?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪专诪讬 讞讘讬转 讜诪拽讜讛 讜诪讘讜讬 诇讛讗讬讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪专诪讬谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讻讗 诇诪专诪讬

The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to the possibility of raising a contradiction between Shammai鈥檚 ruling here and the cases of a barrel, a ritual bath, and an alleyway. According to that version, that Shammai鈥檚 reasoning is based upon the principle that an item retains its presumptive status, there is room to raise these contradictions, as the Gemara explained. By contrast, according to these other versions, that the woman would have felt any previous menstrual flow or that any prior menstrual blood would have flowed out previously, there is no room to raise such contradictions, as those rulings do not contradict the halakha here, where a unique factor is relevant.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 诇讛讗讬讱 诇讬砖谞讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讜讱

The Gemara further asks: And what difference is there between this version, that any prior menstrual blood would have flowed out, and that version, that she would have felt any previous menstrual flow? The Gemara answers: According to Abaye, who maintains that Shammai agrees that a woman who engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive cloth is impure retroactively, there is a difference in a case where the woman engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive cloth. If Shammai鈥檚 reasoning is that a woman senses the emission of blood, in this case too it is assumed that she did not emit blood earlier. By contrast, if his reasoning is that any prior menstrual blood would have come out at the outset, it is possible that the cloth blocked the emission of blood, and she already emitted blood. Consequently, she is impure retroactively.

诇专讘讗 讗讬讻讗 诪讜讱 讚讞讜拽

According to Rava, who maintains that blood can emerge even if the woman engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive absorbent cloth, there is a difference between the two interpretations in a case where she engages in intercourse while using a tightly packed absorbent cloth, as such a cloth will prevent the blood from flowing out, but it does not affect her ability to sense an emission.

转谞讬讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讚诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诇诇 诇砖诪讗讬 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 讘拽讜驻讛 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛 讟讛专讜转 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜谞诪爪讗 砖专抓 讘讝讜讬转 讗讞专转 砖讟讛专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘诇

It is taught in a mishna (Teharot 4:4) in accordance with this version, i.e., that Shammai鈥檚 reasoning is that if it is so, that there was menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset: Hillel said to Shammai: Don鈥檛 you concede to the following halakha: In the case of a basket that was used as a container for ritually pure items, and those items were placed in one corner, and subsequently the carcass of a creeping animal was found in a different corner of the basket, the halakha is that the items initially considered ritually pure are now retroactively considered impure? Shammai said to him: Indeed, that is correct.

讜诪讛 讛驻专砖 讘讬谉 讝讜 诇讝讜 诇讝讜 讬砖 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐 诇讝讜 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐

Hillel continues: And if so, what difference is there between this case of the pure items stored in the basket, which are now considered retroactively impure, and that case of the ritually pure woman who experiences a menstrual flow, who is impure only from that point onward? Shammai answers: This one, the basket, has a base on which it rests, and therefore the creeping animal might have been there earlier unseen. That one, the menstruating woman, has no base, i.e., there is nothing to impede her menstrual blood from flowing out. Shammai鈥檚 response indicates that she is not retroactively impure because if she had experienced a previous menstruation it would have flowed at that stage.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讘讟讜诇 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讗讬 诇讛诇诇 讗诐 讻谉 讘讟诇转 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛

Rava says: The reason for the opinion of Shammai that a woman who experiences menstruation is not deemed ritually impure retroactively is due to the dereliction of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. If woman is always deemed retroactively impure, she and her husband might abstain from engaging in sexual intercourse out of fear that she is already impure even if she has not yet experienced bleeding. The Gemara adds that this explanation is also taught in a baraita: Shammai said to Hillel: If it is so, that a woman is rendered retroactively impure as you claim, you will have caused the Jewish women to be derelict in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.

讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻讬 讛讗讬讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讚诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬 讛转诐 讛诇诇 讛讜讗 讚拽讟注讬 讛讜讗 住讘专 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讗讬 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讚诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬 讜拽讗 诪拽砖讬 诇讬讛 拽讜驻讛

The Gemara asks: But according to the one who taught this version, i.e., Rava, there is a difficulty: Isn鈥檛 it taught in the aforementioned mishna in accordance with that other version, that Shammai鈥檚 reasoning is that if it is so, that there was any menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset? The Gemara answers: There, in that mishna, it is Hillel who erred. He thought the reason of Shammai is that if it is so, that there was any menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset. And therefore, he raises a difficulty against Shammai鈥檚 opinion from the case of the basket.

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讘讟讜诇 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜诇诪讗讬 讚拽讟注讬转 谞诪讬 讚拽诪拽砖讬转 拽讜驻讛 诇讝讜 讬砖 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐 讜诇讝讜 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐

And Shammai said to Hillel: You are mistaken. My reasoning is actually due to the dereliction of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. But even according to your erroneous reasoning that led you to raise a difficulty from the case of the basket, I have an answer for that as well: This basket has a base, and therefore the creeping animal could have been there earlier, unseen; but that menstruating woman has no base.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻讬 讛讗讬讱 诇讬砖谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讟讜诇 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛

The Gemara asks the reverse question: And according to the one who teaches this other version, that Shammai鈥檚 reasoning is that if there was previous menstrual blood it would have come out at the outset, isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in accordance with that other version, that Shammai鈥檚 reasoning is due to the dereliction of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇诇 诇砖诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讟注诪讗 拽讗诪专转 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讚诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬 讜诪讬讛讜 注砖讛 住讬讬讙 诇讚讘专讬讱 讚诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 住讬讬讙

The Gemara answers: That baraita was recorded at a later point in their discussion, as this is what Hillel is saying to Shammai: Yes, the reason that you say for your opinion has merit, that if it is so, that there was any menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset. Nevertheless, you should enact a safeguard for your statement and render her retroactively impure, as in what way is this case different from the rest of the entire Torah, where the Sages enact safeguards?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 讘讟诇转 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜讛诇诇 诪驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 诪讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讟讛专讜转 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪讬谞讗

Shammai said to Hillel: If so, i.e., if she is considered impure retroactively as a safeguard, you will have caused the Jewish women to be derelict in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. The Gemara asks: And how does Hillel respond to Shammai鈥檚 reasoning with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? The Gemara explains that Hillel would answer: Although I rule that she is retroactively impure, did I say that she is forbidden to her husband and must therefore abstain from the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? I said only that she renders impure any ritually pure items that she touched.

讜砖诪讗讬 诇讟讛专讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讗诐 讻谉 诇讘讜 谞讜拽驻讜 讜驻讜专砖

The Gemara asks: And how would Shammai reply to this? The Gemara answers: Shammai maintains that even a safeguard that renders ritually pure items impure should not be imposed. The reason is that if it were so, the heart of a scrupulous husband might strike him with pangs of conscience over sins that he could transgress and he would separate from his wife, out of fear that she is impure.

(砖讜诇讬诐 讘讚讜拽讬谉 诪讻讜住讬谉 讘讝讜讬转 住讬诪谉) 讗讬转诪专 拽讜驻讛 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛 讟讛专讜转 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜谞诪爪讗 砖专抓 讘讝讜讬转 讗讞专转 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讟讛专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讟讛专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讜讛讗 (讘讬转) 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 诪讜讚讜 讘拽讜驻讛 讚讟讛专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the ensuing discussions: A base; examined; covered; in a corner. It was stated: If one has a basket that was used as a container for holding ritually pure produce, and those items were placed in one corner of the basket, and subsequently the carcass of a creeping animal was found in a different corner of the basket, 岣zkiyya says: That produce initially considered ritually pure is still pure. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The produce initially considered ritually pure is now retroactively deemed impure. The Gemara asks: But how can 岣zkiyya rule that it is pure? After all, don鈥檛 Shammai and Hillel agree in the case of the basket that the produce initially considered pure is now retroactively impure?

讻讬 诪讜讚讜 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 讘拽讜驻讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘拽讜驻讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐

The Gemara answers: When do Shammai and Hillel agree that all the produce is retroactively impure? With regard to a basket that has a base. In such a case, the carcass of the creeping animal might have previously been in the basket and it went unnoticed when one removed the pure produce items. When 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree, it is with regard to a basket that has no base, i.e., both ends were open and the basket was used while it was lying on its side. In that situation, the contents of the basket are emptied by raising one end, which causes all items inside to fall out. Consequently, any creeping animal that was found subsequently must have entered the basket only after that produce was removed, which is why 岣zkiyya rules that the produce remains pure.

讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讜诇讬诐 讜讬砖 诇讛 讗讜讙谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a case where the basket has no base, what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yo岣nan for ruling that the produce is ritually impure? The Gemara answers: The basket has no base but it does have an inward-curved rim. Therefore, it is possible that the carcass of a small creeping animal might have been held back by the rim and remained inside the basket even after it was turned over. Rabbi Yo岣nan rules that the produce is retroactively impure, due to the possibility that the creeping animal might have been in the basket previously together with the initially pure produce.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛诪讚诇讛 注砖专讛 讚诇讬讬诐 诪讬诐 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜谞诪爪讗 砖专抓 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讗讜讙谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛 讗讜讙谞讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讬谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who draws ten pails of water one after another, i.e., he draws out water in one pail and from it he fills another ten pails with water, and the carcass of a creeping animal is found in one of them, that pail of water is ritually impure but all the rest of them are pure. And Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: This halakha was taught only in a case where the pail has no inward-curved rim. Consequently, its contents are entirely emptied each time it is overturned, which means that the creeping animal must have entered only this pail. But if the pail has a rim, all of the water that had been drawn is impure, as the creeping animal might have entered the pail earlier and the rim held it back each time the pail was overturned.

诇讬诪讗 讞讝拽讬讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪讬讗 砖专拽讬 驻讬专讬 诇讗 砖专拽讬

The Gemara explains the difficulty: Shall we say that 岣zkiyya, who is not concerned that the rim of the basket might have held back the creeping animal, does not agree with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai? The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two cases: Water is slippery, whereas produce is not slippery. In order to pour water out of the pail it is not necessary to turn it over completely. Therefore, the rim might hold back a creeping animal. By contrast, a basket must have one end fully raised in order to empty out all the produce it contains. In such a case Rabbi Yannai would agree that nothing could have been held back, and therefore the emptied produce remains pure.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讗 诇讗 拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜 驻讬专讬 拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜

Alternatively, there is a different reason why one does not overturn a pail of water entirely: In the case of water, one is not particular about it, i.e., he does not mind if some is left over. Therefore he does not overturn the pail completely. By contrast, in the case of produce one is particular about it, so he raises one end of the basket entirely to ensure that every last piece of produce is emptied. Consequently, in the case of produce Rabbi Yannai would agree that even if the basket has a rim, all the produce remains pure.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 诪讜讚讜 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 讘拽讜驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘讚讜拽讛

As an alternative to its previous resolution that 岣zkiyya is discussing the case of a rimmed receptacle, the Gemara suggests another resolution of the apparent contradiction between 岣zkiyya鈥檚 ruling and the opinions of Hillel and Shammai. And if you wish, say: When do Shammai and Hillel agree? In the case of a basket that was not examined. Since he did not examine the basket when he placed the pure produce there, a creeping animal might have already been inside. Consequently, they agree that the produce does not retain its presumptive state of purity but is considered retroactively impure.

Scroll To Top