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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 24, 2019 | 讻状讜 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖状驻

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

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

Niddah 32

What are the laws that are unique to Cutim – Shomronim – regarding nidda and those who have intercourse with a woman who is a nidda? What are laws regarding newborn infants who see blood? The gemara brings various drashot on the letter vav or from some other extra word that includes children under the age of mitzvot for various laws like nidda, zav, etc. The gemara compares the various drashot – why do they not all relate to the same age? Why is there a need for all of them?


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

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谉 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讘诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara responds: It is Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: A minor boy and a minor girl may not perform the ritual through which a yavam frees a yevama of her levirate bonds [岣litza], nor may they enter into levirate marriage. In other words, a minor boy whose brother died childless may not perform 岣litza with his brother鈥檚 widow, nor may he enter into levirate marriage with her, even if she is an adult. Likewise, a minor girl whose husband died childless may not perform 岣litza with her husband鈥檚 brother, nor may she enter into levirate marriage with him, even if he is an adult. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讬驻讛 讗诪专转 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讗讬砖 讻转讜讘 讘驻专砖讛 讜诪拽砖讬谞谉 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗讬谉 诪讬讘诪讬谉

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: You have aptly stated that they may not perform 岣litza, since 鈥渕an鈥 is written in the passage of the Torah discussing 岣litza (Deuteronomy 25:7), and we compare a woman to a man, as the aforementioned verse states: 鈥淎nd if the man does not want to take his brother鈥檚 wife.鈥 Consequently, neither a minor boy nor a minor girl may perform 岣litza. But what is the reason that they may not enter into levirate marriage?

讗诪专 诇讛谉 拽讟谉 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 住专讬住 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转诪爪讗 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讜谞诪爪讗讜 驻讜讙注讬谉 讘注专讜讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛

Rabbi Meir said to them: A minor boy may not enter into levirate marriage lest, once he is older, he be found to be a sexually underdeveloped man, who is incapable of fathering children. Likewise, a minor girl may not enter into levirate marriage lest, once she is older, she be found to be a sexually underdeveloped woman. And if a sexually underdeveloped boy or girl enters into levirate marriage they will be found to be infringing upon prohibitions against forbidden sexual intercourse where no mitzva applies, as the entire purpose of levirate marriage is to bear children in the name of the deceased.

讜专讘谞谉 讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚拽讟谞讬诐 讜专讜讘 拽讟谞讬诐 诇讗讜 住专讬住讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚拽讟谞讜转 讜专讜讘 拽讟谞讜转 诇讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara notes: And the Rabbis maintain that one follows the majority of minor boys, and most minor boys are not going to be sexually underdeveloped men; likewise, one follows the majority of minor girls, and most minor girls are not going to be sexually underdeveloped women. In any event, the baraita indicates that Rabbi Meir is concerned for the minority.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚砖讻讬讞 讗讘诇 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara objects: You can say that you heard that Rabbi Meir is concerned for a common minority, e.g., the minority of sexually underdeveloped men and sexually underdeveloped women. But did you hear him say that one is concerned for an uncommon minority, such as the minority of young girls who menstruate?

讛讗 谞诪讬 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚砖讻讬讞 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘注讬谉 讘讜诇 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讗诪讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转 砖注专讬诐 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讗诪讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪注砖讛 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讗诪讛

The Gemara explains: This minority of young girls who menstruate is also a common minority. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident in the town of Ein Bul where they immersed a baby girl in a ritual bath before her mother. In other words, the baby girl experienced bleeding so soon after birth that her immersion in a ritual bath occurred before her mother immersed fourteen days after giving birth. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi likewise said: There was an incident in Beit She鈥檃rim where they immersed a baby girl before her mother. And Rav Yosef said: There was an incident in Pumbedita where they immersed a baby girl before her mother.

讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讚专讘讬 诪砖讜诐 转专讜诪转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转 讞讜抓 诇讗专抓 讗住讜专讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖讟讜诪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讙讜驻讜 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讘谞讙讬注讛 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, the immersions reported by Rabbi Yosei and by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi are understandable, due to the teruma of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., these incidents occurred in Eretz Yisrael, where the touch of a menstruating girl disqualifies teruma. But in the incident reported by Rav Yosef, which occurred in Babylonia, why do I need to immerse the baby girl? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: The teruma of outside of Eretz Yisrael is prohibited only to one whose impurity is due to an emission from his body, e.g., a menstruating woman, or one who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]. And this statement applies only with regard to eating teruma, but with regard to touching teruma, there is no prohibition. Since the touch of a menstruating woman does not disqualify teruma outside Eretz Yisrael, why was it necessary to immerse the baby girl in the incident reported by Rav Yosef?

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇住讜讻讛 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇讜 讗转 拽讚砖讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗砖专 讬专讬诪讜 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛住讱 讜讗转 讛砖讜转讛

Mar Zutra says: That immersion was necessary only for smearing oil of teruma of outside of Eretz Yisrael. Since smearing is equivalent to eating, it would have been prohibited to smear such oil on the baby girl, were it not for her immersion in a ritual bath. And from where is it derived that smearing is like eating with regard to teruma? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse discussing the prohibition against consuming teruma in a state of ritual impurity states: 鈥淎nd they shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they set apart for the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:15). The verse serves to include in this prohibition one who smears and one who drinks.

砖讜转讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 砖转讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛住讱 讻砖讜转讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 讜转讘讗 讻诪讬诐 讘拽专讘讜 讜讻砖诪谉 讘注爪诪讜转讬讜

Mar Zutra continues: Why do I need a verse to teach that one who drinks teruma in a state of impurity is liable? Isn鈥檛 drinking included in the category of eating? Rather, the baraita means that the verse serves to include one who smears, teaching that he is like one who drinks. And if you wish, say that one may derive that smearing is like drinking from here: 鈥淎nd it came into his innards like water, and like oil into his bones鈥 (Psalms 109:18).

讗讬 讛讻讬 讚讬讚谉 谞诪讬

As it stands, the halakha that Samaritan girls are considered menstruating women from the time they lie in their cradle is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is concerned for the minority of young girls who menstruate. The Gemara objects: If so, let us be concerned for the same minority with regard to our girls as well.

讗谞谉 讚讚专砖讬谞谉 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 讜讻讬 讞讝讬讬谉 诪驻专砖讬 诇讛讜 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谞讛讜 讚诇讗 讚专砖讬 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 讜讻讬 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讗 诪驻专砖讬 诇讛讜 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains: There is no need to be concerned with regard to our young girls, as we interpret the verse: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue鈥 (Leviticus 15:19), and derive from the fact that the verse does not merely state: 鈥淎 woman,鈥 but: 鈥淎nd if a woman,鈥 that even minor girls are included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman. And consequently, when our girls see menstrual blood, we separate them in the manner of all menstruating women. Therefore, the Sages did not decree with regard to them that all young Jewish girls assume the status of menstruating women. By contrast, with regard to them, Samaritans, who do not interpret the difference between 鈥渁 woman鈥 and 鈥渁nd if a woman,鈥 when their girls see menstrual blood they do not separate them, and therefore the Sages decreed with regard to them that all Samaritan girls assume the status of menstruating women.

诪讗讬 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 转讬谞讜拽转 讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇谞讚讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗砖讛

搂 The Gemara asks: What is this interpretation of the difference between 鈥渁 woman鈥 and 鈥渁nd if a woman鈥? As it is taught in a baraita that from 鈥渁 woman鈥 I have derived only that the halakhot of menstruation apply to an adult woman. From where do I derive that the halakhot of a menstruating woman also apply to a one-day-old girl? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a woman.鈥

讗诇诪讗 讻讬 诪专讘讬 拽专讗 讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪专讘讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 转讬谞讜拽转 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇讘讬讗讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗砖讛

The Gemara asks: Apparently, when the verse includes young girls through the word 鈥渁nd鈥 it includes even a one-day-old. But you can raise a contradiction from another baraita, which discusses the verse: 鈥淎nd the woman with whom a man shall lie carnally, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:18). From the word 鈥渨oman鈥 I have derived only that the sexual intercourse of an adult woman is considered intercourse that renders her impure. From where do I derive that the sexual intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is also classified as intercourse? The verse states: And the woman. Evidently, the word 鈥渁nd鈥 includes only a girl aged three years and one day.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗住诪讻讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗拽专讗讬 讛讬 拽专讗 讜讛讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛诇讻转讗 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 拽专讗 拽专讗 住转诪讗 讻转讬讘

Rava said: These are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages merely supported them with verses. There is therefore no contradiction. The Gemara asks: Which halakha is derived from a verse and which is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? If we say that the halakha that the status of a menstruating woman may apply to a one-day-old girl is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha that the intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is considered intercourse is derived from a verse, then one may object: But the verse is written in an unspecified manner; consequently, a one-day-old girl should be included by the verse in the same manner as a three-year-old girl.

讗诇讗 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛诇讻转讗 讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 拽专讗 讜诪讗讞专 讚讛诇讻转讗 拽专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

Rather, the halakha with regard to the intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, whereas the halakha with regard to the menstruation of a one-day-old girl is derived from a verse. The Gemara asks: And now that it has been established that the halakha with regard to the intercourse of a three-year-old girl is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why do I need a verse?

诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬砖 诪讗讜讚诐

The Gemara responds: The verse serves to exclude a man from contracting ritual impurity due to red semen.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 讘转 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诇讝讬讘讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗砖讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬讙诪专 诪谞讚讛

The Gemara objects: But what about that which is taught in a baraita with regard to a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava]: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue of her blood many days鈥 (Leviticus 15:25). From the word 鈥渨oman鈥 I have derived only that ziva applies to an adult woman. From where do I derive that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of ziva? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a woman.鈥 Why do I need the verse? Let one derive that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of ziva from the fact that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman, as a woman may become a zava only after seven days of menstruation and three subsequent days of experiencing uterine discharge.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬 讞讝讗讬 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讘注讬讗 诇诪讬转讘 砖讘注讛 讗讘诇 讝讘讛 讚讗讬 讞讝讗讬 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讘砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 住讙讬 诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the verse to teach that the halakhot of ziva apply to a ten-day-old girl. As, if the Merciful One had written only that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman, I would say: The halakhot of a menstruating woman apply to a one-day-old girl because of their stringency, as when a woman sees blood on only one day she is required to sit for the seven days of menstruation. But with regard to a zava, since the halakha is that if a woman sees blood on only one day she has the status of a lesser zava, and it is enough for her to observe a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge, one might say that the halakhot of ziva do not apply to a ten-day-old girl. It was therefore necessary for the verse to indicate otherwise.

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝讘讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬 讘谞讚讛 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讗讬谉 讝讘讛 讘诇讗 谞讚讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗诇讗 拽专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬砖 诪讗讜讚诐

The Gemara objects: And let the Merciful One write that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a zava, and it would not be required to write that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman, and I would know that as a girl cannot become a zava without first assuming the status of a menstruating woman, she must also be included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so; the fact that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman can be derived from the fact that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a zava. Rather, why do I need the verse: 鈥淎nd if a woman,鈥 that is stated with regard to a menstruating woman? The verse serves to exclude a man from contracting ritual impurity due to red semen.

讛讗 诪讬注讟转讬讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讚诐

The Gemara objects: But the Torah already excluded this case on another occasion, as stated earlier. The Gemara explains: One verse serves to exclude a man from contracting ritual impurity due to red semen, and one verse serves to exclude a man from being rendered a zav due to blood that emanates from his penis.

讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讝讻专讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 转讬谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讜讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The Gemara discusses the halakha of ziva with regard to a male: And so with regard to males, the halakhot of a zav apply even to minor boys. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning a zav: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渁ny man鈥? The verse serves to include a one-day-old baby, teaching that even he is susceptible to impurity of ziva. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诇讝讻专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讝讻专 讘讬谉 砖讛讜讗 讙讚讜诇 讘讬谉 砖讛讜讗 拽讟谉 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 谞拽讘讛 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: This derivation is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd of them that have an issue, whether it be a male or a female鈥 (Leviticus 15:33). 鈥淲hether it be a male鈥 includes anyone who is a male, whether he is an adult or whether he is a minor; 鈥渙r a female鈥 includes anyone who is a female, whether she is an adult or whether she is a minor. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渁ny man鈥? The Torah spoke in the language of people, and one is not meant to derive anything from this verse.

讗诇诪讗 讻讬 诪专讘讬 拽专讗 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪专讘讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬砖 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗讬砖

The Gemara asks: Apparently, when the verse includes a minor boy it includes even a one-day-old. But raise a contradiction from another baraita, which addresses the verse: 鈥淎nd if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water and be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:16). From the word 鈥渕an鈥 I have derived only that a man is rendered ritually impure through a seminal emission. From where do I derive that the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders him impure as well? The verse states: 鈥淎nd a man.鈥 Evidently, the verse does not include a one-day-old boy.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗住诪讻讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗拽专讗讬 讛讬 讛诇讻转讗 讜讛讬 拽专讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛诇讻转讗 讜讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 拽专讗 拽专讗 住转诪讗 讻转讬讘

Rava said: These are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages merely supported them with verses. Therefore, there is no contradiction. The Gemara asks: Which is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and which halakha is derived from a verse? If we say that the halakha that a one-day-old boy is included in the halakhot of a zav is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha that the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders him impure is derived from a verse, then one may object: But the verse is written in an unspecified manner; consequently, even a one-day-old boy should be included in the verse.

讗诇讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛诇讻转讗 讜讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 拽专讗 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讛诇讻转讗 讛讬讗 拽专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗砖讛 诪诇讜讘谉

Rather, the halakha with regard to the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha that a one-day-old boy is included in the halakhot of a zav is derived from a verse. The Gemara asks: And now that the halakha with regard to the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why do I need a verse? The Gemara answers: The verse serves to exclude a woman from contracting the impurity of a zava due to a white discharge.

诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 讘讝讻专讬诐 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 讘谞拽讘讜转

The Gemara asks: Why do I need for the Merciful One to write that a one-day-old is included in the halakhot of ziva with regard to males, and why do I need for the Merciful One to write that a one-day-old is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman and a ten-day-old is included in the halakhot of ziva with regard to females?

爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝讻专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讟诪讗讜 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讘诇 谞拽讘讜转 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗讜 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers that both verses are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written only concerning males, one might say: A one-day-old boy is included in the halakhot of ziva because the halakha is more stringent with regard to males, as they are rendered impure through three sightings of ziva on one day just like through sightings on three consecutive days. But with regard to females, who are not rendered impure through three sightings on one day as they are through sightings on three consecutive days, one might say that the halakhot of ziva do not apply to ten-day-old girls.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞拽讘讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚拽诪讟诪讜 讘讗讜谞住 讗讘诇 讝讻专讬诐 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗讜 讘讗讜谞住 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And by contrast, if the Merciful One had written only with regard to females, one might say: The halakhot of ziva apply to ten-day-old girls, because of the fact that they are rendered impure even on account of sightings that occur due to circumstances beyond their control. But with regard to males, who are not rendered impure on account of sightings that occur due to circumstances beyond their control, one might say that one-day-old boys are not included in the halakhot of ziva. Therefore, both verses are necessary.

讛讻讜转讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖讻讘 转讞转讜谉 讻注诇讬讜谉 诪讗讬 诪砖讻讘 转讞转讜谉 讻注诇讬讜谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 注砖专讛 诪爪注讜转 讜讬转讬讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 诪讟诪讜 诇讛讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讛讗 讚专住 诇讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches: And the Samaritan men impart ritual impurity to the lower bedding like the upper bedding. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the clause: The lower bedding like the upper bedding? If we say it means that if there are ten mattresses stacked one upon the other and a Samaritan man sat upon them, the lowest mattress, like the upper mattresses, is rendered impure, this halakha is obvious, since he presses on all of them when he sits on them. In other words, since Samaritan men impart impurity to the bedding beneath them because they are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, there is no reason to distinguish between the lowest mattress and the other mattresses above it.

讗诇讗 砖讬讛讗 转讞转讜谞讜 砖诇 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讻注诇讬讜谞讜 砖诇 讝讘 诪讛 注诇讬讜谞讜 砖诇 讝讘 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗祝 转讞转讜谞讜 砖诇 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉

Rather, the mishna means that the status of the lowest mattress beneath a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman is like that of the bedding above a zav, i.e., the bedding beneath a Samaritan man assumes first-degree ritual impurity and does not become a primary source of impurity like the bedding beneath a zav. That is, just as the upper bedding of a zav is not a primary source of impurity and imparts impurity only to food and drink but not people or vessels, so too, the bedding beneath a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman imparts ritual impurity only to food and drink.

注诇讬讜谞讜 砖诇 讝讘 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讛谞讙注 讘讻诇 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 转讞转讬讜 讬讟诪讗 诪讗讬 转讞转讬讜

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the bedding above a zav imparts ritual impurity only to food and drink? As it is written with regard to a zav: 鈥淎nd whoever touches any thing that was under him shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:10). What is the meaning of the expression 鈥渦nder him鈥?

  • 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 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 32

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谉 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讘诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara responds: It is Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: A minor boy and a minor girl may not perform the ritual through which a yavam frees a yevama of her levirate bonds [岣litza], nor may they enter into levirate marriage. In other words, a minor boy whose brother died childless may not perform 岣litza with his brother鈥檚 widow, nor may he enter into levirate marriage with her, even if she is an adult. Likewise, a minor girl whose husband died childless may not perform 岣litza with her husband鈥檚 brother, nor may she enter into levirate marriage with him, even if he is an adult. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讬驻讛 讗诪专转 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讗讬砖 讻转讜讘 讘驻专砖讛 讜诪拽砖讬谞谉 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗讬谉 诪讬讘诪讬谉

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: You have aptly stated that they may not perform 岣litza, since 鈥渕an鈥 is written in the passage of the Torah discussing 岣litza (Deuteronomy 25:7), and we compare a woman to a man, as the aforementioned verse states: 鈥淎nd if the man does not want to take his brother鈥檚 wife.鈥 Consequently, neither a minor boy nor a minor girl may perform 岣litza. But what is the reason that they may not enter into levirate marriage?

讗诪专 诇讛谉 拽讟谉 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 住专讬住 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转诪爪讗 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讜谞诪爪讗讜 驻讜讙注讬谉 讘注专讜讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛

Rabbi Meir said to them: A minor boy may not enter into levirate marriage lest, once he is older, he be found to be a sexually underdeveloped man, who is incapable of fathering children. Likewise, a minor girl may not enter into levirate marriage lest, once she is older, she be found to be a sexually underdeveloped woman. And if a sexually underdeveloped boy or girl enters into levirate marriage they will be found to be infringing upon prohibitions against forbidden sexual intercourse where no mitzva applies, as the entire purpose of levirate marriage is to bear children in the name of the deceased.

讜专讘谞谉 讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚拽讟谞讬诐 讜专讜讘 拽讟谞讬诐 诇讗讜 住专讬住讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚拽讟谞讜转 讜专讜讘 拽讟谞讜转 诇讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara notes: And the Rabbis maintain that one follows the majority of minor boys, and most minor boys are not going to be sexually underdeveloped men; likewise, one follows the majority of minor girls, and most minor girls are not going to be sexually underdeveloped women. In any event, the baraita indicates that Rabbi Meir is concerned for the minority.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚砖讻讬讞 讗讘诇 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara objects: You can say that you heard that Rabbi Meir is concerned for a common minority, e.g., the minority of sexually underdeveloped men and sexually underdeveloped women. But did you hear him say that one is concerned for an uncommon minority, such as the minority of young girls who menstruate?

讛讗 谞诪讬 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚砖讻讬讞 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘注讬谉 讘讜诇 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讗诪讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转 砖注专讬诐 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讗诪讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪注砖讛 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讗诪讛

The Gemara explains: This minority of young girls who menstruate is also a common minority. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident in the town of Ein Bul where they immersed a baby girl in a ritual bath before her mother. In other words, the baby girl experienced bleeding so soon after birth that her immersion in a ritual bath occurred before her mother immersed fourteen days after giving birth. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi likewise said: There was an incident in Beit She鈥檃rim where they immersed a baby girl before her mother. And Rav Yosef said: There was an incident in Pumbedita where they immersed a baby girl before her mother.

讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讚专讘讬 诪砖讜诐 转专讜诪转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转 讞讜抓 诇讗专抓 讗住讜专讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖讟讜诪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讙讜驻讜 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讘谞讙讬注讛 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, the immersions reported by Rabbi Yosei and by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi are understandable, due to the teruma of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., these incidents occurred in Eretz Yisrael, where the touch of a menstruating girl disqualifies teruma. But in the incident reported by Rav Yosef, which occurred in Babylonia, why do I need to immerse the baby girl? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say: The teruma of outside of Eretz Yisrael is prohibited only to one whose impurity is due to an emission from his body, e.g., a menstruating woman, or one who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]. And this statement applies only with regard to eating teruma, but with regard to touching teruma, there is no prohibition. Since the touch of a menstruating woman does not disqualify teruma outside Eretz Yisrael, why was it necessary to immerse the baby girl in the incident reported by Rav Yosef?

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇住讜讻讛 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇讜 讗转 拽讚砖讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗砖专 讬专讬诪讜 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛住讱 讜讗转 讛砖讜转讛

Mar Zutra says: That immersion was necessary only for smearing oil of teruma of outside of Eretz Yisrael. Since smearing is equivalent to eating, it would have been prohibited to smear such oil on the baby girl, were it not for her immersion in a ritual bath. And from where is it derived that smearing is like eating with regard to teruma? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse discussing the prohibition against consuming teruma in a state of ritual impurity states: 鈥淎nd they shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they set apart for the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:15). The verse serves to include in this prohibition one who smears and one who drinks.

砖讜转讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 砖转讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛住讱 讻砖讜转讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 讜转讘讗 讻诪讬诐 讘拽专讘讜 讜讻砖诪谉 讘注爪诪讜转讬讜

Mar Zutra continues: Why do I need a verse to teach that one who drinks teruma in a state of impurity is liable? Isn鈥檛 drinking included in the category of eating? Rather, the baraita means that the verse serves to include one who smears, teaching that he is like one who drinks. And if you wish, say that one may derive that smearing is like drinking from here: 鈥淎nd it came into his innards like water, and like oil into his bones鈥 (Psalms 109:18).

讗讬 讛讻讬 讚讬讚谉 谞诪讬

As it stands, the halakha that Samaritan girls are considered menstruating women from the time they lie in their cradle is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is concerned for the minority of young girls who menstruate. The Gemara objects: If so, let us be concerned for the same minority with regard to our girls as well.

讗谞谉 讚讚专砖讬谞谉 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 讜讻讬 讞讝讬讬谉 诪驻专砖讬 诇讛讜 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谞讛讜 讚诇讗 讚专砖讬 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 讜讻讬 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讗 诪驻专砖讬 诇讛讜 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains: There is no need to be concerned with regard to our young girls, as we interpret the verse: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue鈥 (Leviticus 15:19), and derive from the fact that the verse does not merely state: 鈥淎 woman,鈥 but: 鈥淎nd if a woman,鈥 that even minor girls are included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman. And consequently, when our girls see menstrual blood, we separate them in the manner of all menstruating women. Therefore, the Sages did not decree with regard to them that all young Jewish girls assume the status of menstruating women. By contrast, with regard to them, Samaritans, who do not interpret the difference between 鈥渁 woman鈥 and 鈥渁nd if a woman,鈥 when their girls see menstrual blood they do not separate them, and therefore the Sages decreed with regard to them that all Samaritan girls assume the status of menstruating women.

诪讗讬 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 转讬谞讜拽转 讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇谞讚讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗砖讛

搂 The Gemara asks: What is this interpretation of the difference between 鈥渁 woman鈥 and 鈥渁nd if a woman鈥? As it is taught in a baraita that from 鈥渁 woman鈥 I have derived only that the halakhot of menstruation apply to an adult woman. From where do I derive that the halakhot of a menstruating woman also apply to a one-day-old girl? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a woman.鈥

讗诇诪讗 讻讬 诪专讘讬 拽专讗 讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪专讘讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 转讬谞讜拽转 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇讘讬讗讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗砖讛

The Gemara asks: Apparently, when the verse includes young girls through the word 鈥渁nd鈥 it includes even a one-day-old. But you can raise a contradiction from another baraita, which discusses the verse: 鈥淎nd the woman with whom a man shall lie carnally, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:18). From the word 鈥渨oman鈥 I have derived only that the sexual intercourse of an adult woman is considered intercourse that renders her impure. From where do I derive that the sexual intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is also classified as intercourse? The verse states: And the woman. Evidently, the word 鈥渁nd鈥 includes only a girl aged three years and one day.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗住诪讻讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗拽专讗讬 讛讬 拽专讗 讜讛讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛诇讻转讗 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 拽专讗 拽专讗 住转诪讗 讻转讬讘

Rava said: These are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages merely supported them with verses. There is therefore no contradiction. The Gemara asks: Which halakha is derived from a verse and which is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? If we say that the halakha that the status of a menstruating woman may apply to a one-day-old girl is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha that the intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is considered intercourse is derived from a verse, then one may object: But the verse is written in an unspecified manner; consequently, a one-day-old girl should be included by the verse in the same manner as a three-year-old girl.

讗诇讗 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛诇讻转讗 讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 拽专讗 讜诪讗讞专 讚讛诇讻转讗 拽专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

Rather, the halakha with regard to the intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, whereas the halakha with regard to the menstruation of a one-day-old girl is derived from a verse. The Gemara asks: And now that it has been established that the halakha with regard to the intercourse of a three-year-old girl is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why do I need a verse?

诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬砖 诪讗讜讚诐

The Gemara responds: The verse serves to exclude a man from contracting ritual impurity due to red semen.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 讘转 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诇讝讬讘讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗砖讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬讙诪专 诪谞讚讛

The Gemara objects: But what about that which is taught in a baraita with regard to a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava]: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue of her blood many days鈥 (Leviticus 15:25). From the word 鈥渨oman鈥 I have derived only that ziva applies to an adult woman. From where do I derive that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of ziva? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a woman.鈥 Why do I need the verse? Let one derive that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of ziva from the fact that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman, as a woman may become a zava only after seven days of menstruation and three subsequent days of experiencing uterine discharge.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬 讞讝讗讬 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讘注讬讗 诇诪讬转讘 砖讘注讛 讗讘诇 讝讘讛 讚讗讬 讞讝讗讬 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讘砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 住讙讬 诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the verse to teach that the halakhot of ziva apply to a ten-day-old girl. As, if the Merciful One had written only that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman, I would say: The halakhot of a menstruating woman apply to a one-day-old girl because of their stringency, as when a woman sees blood on only one day she is required to sit for the seven days of menstruation. But with regard to a zava, since the halakha is that if a woman sees blood on only one day she has the status of a lesser zava, and it is enough for her to observe a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge, one might say that the halakhot of ziva do not apply to a ten-day-old girl. It was therefore necessary for the verse to indicate otherwise.

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝讘讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬 讘谞讚讛 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讗讬谉 讝讘讛 讘诇讗 谞讚讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗诇讗 拽专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬砖 诪讗讜讚诐

The Gemara objects: And let the Merciful One write that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a zava, and it would not be required to write that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman, and I would know that as a girl cannot become a zava without first assuming the status of a menstruating woman, she must also be included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so; the fact that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman can be derived from the fact that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a zava. Rather, why do I need the verse: 鈥淎nd if a woman,鈥 that is stated with regard to a menstruating woman? The verse serves to exclude a man from contracting ritual impurity due to red semen.

讛讗 诪讬注讟转讬讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讚诐

The Gemara objects: But the Torah already excluded this case on another occasion, as stated earlier. The Gemara explains: One verse serves to exclude a man from contracting ritual impurity due to red semen, and one verse serves to exclude a man from being rendered a zav due to blood that emanates from his penis.

讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讝讻专讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 转讬谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讜讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The Gemara discusses the halakha of ziva with regard to a male: And so with regard to males, the halakhot of a zav apply even to minor boys. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning a zav: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渁ny man鈥? The verse serves to include a one-day-old baby, teaching that even he is susceptible to impurity of ziva. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诇讝讻专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讝讻专 讘讬谉 砖讛讜讗 讙讚讜诇 讘讬谉 砖讛讜讗 拽讟谉 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 谞拽讘讛 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: This derivation is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd of them that have an issue, whether it be a male or a female鈥 (Leviticus 15:33). 鈥淲hether it be a male鈥 includes anyone who is a male, whether he is an adult or whether he is a minor; 鈥渙r a female鈥 includes anyone who is a female, whether she is an adult or whether she is a minor. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渁ny man鈥? The Torah spoke in the language of people, and one is not meant to derive anything from this verse.

讗诇诪讗 讻讬 诪专讘讬 拽专讗 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪专讘讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬砖 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗讬砖

The Gemara asks: Apparently, when the verse includes a minor boy it includes even a one-day-old. But raise a contradiction from another baraita, which addresses the verse: 鈥淎nd if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water and be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:16). From the word 鈥渕an鈥 I have derived only that a man is rendered ritually impure through a seminal emission. From where do I derive that the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders him impure as well? The verse states: 鈥淎nd a man.鈥 Evidently, the verse does not include a one-day-old boy.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗住诪讻讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗拽专讗讬 讛讬 讛诇讻转讗 讜讛讬 拽专讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛诇讻转讗 讜讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 拽专讗 拽专讗 住转诪讗 讻转讬讘

Rava said: These are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages merely supported them with verses. Therefore, there is no contradiction. The Gemara asks: Which is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and which halakha is derived from a verse? If we say that the halakha that a one-day-old boy is included in the halakhot of a zav is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha that the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders him impure is derived from a verse, then one may object: But the verse is written in an unspecified manner; consequently, even a one-day-old boy should be included in the verse.

讗诇讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛诇讻转讗 讜讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 拽专讗 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讛诇讻转讗 讛讬讗 拽专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗砖讛 诪诇讜讘谉

Rather, the halakha with regard to the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha that a one-day-old boy is included in the halakhot of a zav is derived from a verse. The Gemara asks: And now that the halakha with regard to the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why do I need a verse? The Gemara answers: The verse serves to exclude a woman from contracting the impurity of a zava due to a white discharge.

诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 讘讝讻专讬诐 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 讘谞拽讘讜转

The Gemara asks: Why do I need for the Merciful One to write that a one-day-old is included in the halakhot of ziva with regard to males, and why do I need for the Merciful One to write that a one-day-old is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman and a ten-day-old is included in the halakhot of ziva with regard to females?

爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝讻专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讟诪讗讜 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讘诇 谞拽讘讜转 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗讜 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers that both verses are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written only concerning males, one might say: A one-day-old boy is included in the halakhot of ziva because the halakha is more stringent with regard to males, as they are rendered impure through three sightings of ziva on one day just like through sightings on three consecutive days. But with regard to females, who are not rendered impure through three sightings on one day as they are through sightings on three consecutive days, one might say that the halakhot of ziva do not apply to ten-day-old girls.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞拽讘讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚拽诪讟诪讜 讘讗讜谞住 讗讘诇 讝讻专讬诐 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗讜 讘讗讜谞住 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And by contrast, if the Merciful One had written only with regard to females, one might say: The halakhot of ziva apply to ten-day-old girls, because of the fact that they are rendered impure even on account of sightings that occur due to circumstances beyond their control. But with regard to males, who are not rendered impure on account of sightings that occur due to circumstances beyond their control, one might say that one-day-old boys are not included in the halakhot of ziva. Therefore, both verses are necessary.

讛讻讜转讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖讻讘 转讞转讜谉 讻注诇讬讜谉 诪讗讬 诪砖讻讘 转讞转讜谉 讻注诇讬讜谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 注砖专讛 诪爪注讜转 讜讬转讬讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 诪讟诪讜 诇讛讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讛讗 讚专住 诇讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches: And the Samaritan men impart ritual impurity to the lower bedding like the upper bedding. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the clause: The lower bedding like the upper bedding? If we say it means that if there are ten mattresses stacked one upon the other and a Samaritan man sat upon them, the lowest mattress, like the upper mattresses, is rendered impure, this halakha is obvious, since he presses on all of them when he sits on them. In other words, since Samaritan men impart impurity to the bedding beneath them because they are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, there is no reason to distinguish between the lowest mattress and the other mattresses above it.

讗诇讗 砖讬讛讗 转讞转讜谞讜 砖诇 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讻注诇讬讜谞讜 砖诇 讝讘 诪讛 注诇讬讜谞讜 砖诇 讝讘 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗祝 转讞转讜谞讜 砖诇 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉

Rather, the mishna means that the status of the lowest mattress beneath a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman is like that of the bedding above a zav, i.e., the bedding beneath a Samaritan man assumes first-degree ritual impurity and does not become a primary source of impurity like the bedding beneath a zav. That is, just as the upper bedding of a zav is not a primary source of impurity and imparts impurity only to food and drink but not people or vessels, so too, the bedding beneath a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman imparts ritual impurity only to food and drink.

注诇讬讜谞讜 砖诇 讝讘 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讛谞讙注 讘讻诇 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 转讞转讬讜 讬讟诪讗 诪讗讬 转讞转讬讜

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the bedding above a zav imparts ritual impurity only to food and drink? As it is written with regard to a zav: 鈥淎nd whoever touches any thing that was under him shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:10). What is the meaning of the expression 鈥渦nder him鈥?

Scroll To Top