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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 11, 2019 | 讬状讙 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Niddah 49

Based on the previous mishna which discussed (according to the rabbi鈥檚 opinion) that there could be growth of pubic hairs without breast development, but there could not be breast development without hair growth, the mishna brings various cases where one item/situation cannot be in existence without a second situation/item but the reverse could be true 鈥 one can have the second without the first. The topics discussed are: utensils with a crack/hole that liquids can get into and drip out of, a limb (extra finger) that has bone and a nail, utensils that can become impure from a tent in which there is a dead body and from a zav sitting on it, categories of people that are qualified to be judges for cases of monetary and capital law.


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

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗讞专 讛驻专拽 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 讞讝拽讛 讚专讘讗

And if you wish, say instead that the tanna who taught this ruling was Rabbi Shimon, and the baraita is referring to an examination conducted after the age of majority. And Rabbi Shimon does not accept the presumption of Rava that a girl of this age has already developed signs indicating puberty.

诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗驻砖专 讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗

搂 The mishna teaches that according to the Rabbis a young woman who apparently developed the upper sign before the lower sign has reached majority, and therefore if her childless husband died she either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage with her husband鈥檚 brother. This ruling is due to the fact that the Sages said: It is possible for the lower sign of puberty to appear before the upper sign, but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this additional repetition of this point? It was already taught in the first clause that it is impossible for the upper sign to appear without the lower sign having already appeared.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪住转诪讛 讻专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐

And if you would say that it is repeated because the tanna wants to teach an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, in order to establish that the halakha follows their opinion in their dispute with Rabbi Meir, that cannot be the case. The Gemara explains why this suggestion is incorrect: This is obvious, as there is a principle that in a dispute between an individual Sage and a majority of other Sages, the halakha is always decided in accordance with the opinion of the majority.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪住转讘专讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚拽讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 拽专讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪转谞讬 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the tanna to state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis despite the fact that they are the majority, lest you say that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir is more reasonable. One might have thought this, as the verses cited above support it: 鈥淵our breasts were fashioned, and your hair was grown,鈥 and: 鈥淲hen they from Egypt bruised your breasts for the sprouting forth of your young womanhood.鈥 Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And if you wish, say instead that the tanna repeated the claim that the upper sign cannot precede the lower one because he wants to teach a case in the next mishna which is similar to this one, i.e., this summary provides a transition to the halakha brought in the following mishna.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讻诇 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讛讜讗 诪讻谞讬住 诪讜爪讬讗 讜讬砖 砖诪讜爪讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讻谞讬住

MISHNA: Similar to the order of the appearance of the signs of puberty in a girl, where it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign, there is an analogous principle with regard to the mutual dependency of two items: Any earthenware vessel with a hole that enables entry of liquid into the vessel certainly enables exit of liquid through that hole, and it thereby ceases to be a vessel fit for sanctification of the waters mixed with the ashes of the red heifer. And there are holes that enable exit of liquids from the earthenware vessels but do not enable entry of liquids from outside the vessel, and therefore it remains a vessel.

讻诇 讗讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 爪驻讜专谉 讬砖 讘讜 注爪诐 讜讬砖 砖讬砖 讘讜 注爪诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 爪驻讜专谉

Likewise, in any limb of the body where there is a nail, there is certainly a bone in it as well. If it is the limb of a corpse, it transmits ritual impurity through contact, movement, and in a tent, even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk. And there are limbs in which there is a bone but yet there is not a nail in it. That limb does not transmit impurity in a tent if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk.

讻诇 讛诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住 诪讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诪转 讜讬砖 砖诪讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诪转 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住

Similarly, any item that becomes ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading, e.g., a vessel designated for sitting, becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. And there are vessels that become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse but do not become ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading.

讙诪壮 诪讻谞讬住 驻住讜诇 诇诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜驻住讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讙住讟专讗 诪讜爪讬讗 讻砖专 诇诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜驻住讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讙住讟专讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that any earthenware vessel with a hole that enables entry of liquid into the vessel certainly enables exit of liquid through that hole, whereas there are holes that enable exit of liquids but do not enable entry. The Gemara explains the halakhic significance of this distinction. A vessel that contains a hole that is large enough to enable liquid to enter is no longer considered a vessel and is therefore unfit to contain the water of purification. And it is also disqualified as a shard [gastera] of a vessel. A shard still has some utility and is therefore susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, an earthenware vessel that contains a small hole that enables only the exit of liquids is fit for the water of purification, but is disqualified as a shard of a vessel.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 砖讜谞讬谉 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讬注讜专讜 讘讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讙住讟专讗 讘诇讘讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘讗 讙住讟专讗 诇讙住讟专讗

Rav Asi says that they teach the following halakha: In the case of an earthenware vessel, its measure of a hole that renders it no longer ritually impure is one that is large enough to enable liquid to enter it. And they said that the measure of a small hole is that which enables the exit of liquids only with regard to a shard. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for this? Mar Zutra, son of Rav Na岣an, said: It is because people do not say: Bring another shard to seal the leak of a shard; rather, they throw it out immediately. A shard is used as a plate beneath a perforated earthenware vessel. If the shard itself is also perforated and leaks, it is no longer of any use.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讻诇讬 讞专住 诇讬讚注 讗诐 谞讬拽讘 讘讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讘讬讗 注专讬讘讛 诪诇讗讛 诪讬诐 讜谞讜转谉 拽讚专讛 诇转讜讻讛 讗诐 讻谞住讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛

搂 On the topic of holes in earthenware vessels, the Sages taught in a baraita: How does one test a broken earthenware vessel to know if it was pierced with a hole that enables liquid to enter it or not? One brings a tub filled with water and places the broken pot into it. If the water from the tub enters the pot, it is known that the pot contains a hole that enables liquid to enter. And if the water does not enter the pot, it is known that the vessel contains only a small hole that merely enables the exit of liquids.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜驻祝 讗讝谞讬 拽讚专讛 诇转讜讻讛 讜诪爪讬祝 注诇讬讛 诪讬诐 讜讗诐 讻讜谞住 讘讬讚讜注 砖讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛

Rabbi Yehuda says that the method for determining whether an earthenware vessel contains a hole that allows liquid to enter is as follows: One takes the handles of the pot and turns it over,placing it upside down in an empty tub, and he then covers the pot with water. If water enters the pot, it is known that it contains a hole that enables liquid to enter, and if the water does not enter the pot, it is known that the vessel contains a small hole that enables only the exit of liquids.

讗讜 砖讜驻转讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讗讜专 讗诐 讛讗讜专 诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪讻谞讬住 诪砖拽讛

Or one can determine the size of the hole by the following method: One places the pot, with liquid in it, on the fire. If the fire holds the liquid back and does not allow it to exit the vessel, then it is known that the vessel contains a small hole that enables only the exit of liquids. And if the fire does not hold the liquid back and does not prevent it from exiting the vessel, then it is known that it contains a hole that enables liquid to enter.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 砖讜驻转讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讗讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讗讜专 诪注诪讬讚讛 讗诇讗 砖讜驻转讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讛专诪抓 讗诐 专诪抓 诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讛讬讛 讟讜专讚 讟讬驻讛 讗讞专 讟讬驻讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛

Rabbi Yosei says: One should not place the pot with liquid in it on the fire. This is not a reliable test for determining the size of the hole, as it is possible that the hole is actually large enough to enable liquid to enter, but nevertheless the fire prevents the liquid from exiting. Rather, one places the pot with liquid in it on hot ash. If the hot ash holds the liquid back and does not allow it to exit the vessel, then it is known that the vessel contains a small hole that enables only the exit of liquids. But if the hot ash does not hold the liquid back and does not prevent it from exiting the vessel, it is known that it contains a hole that enables liquid to enter. Another manner of testing is to fill the vessel with liquid. If it drips one drop after another drop, it is known that it contains a hole that enables liquid to enter.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻讬谞讜住 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the method of testing stated by the first tanna, placing the vessel in a tub of water, and that of Rabbi Yehuda, placing the vessel upside down into the tub and then covering it with water? Ulla said: The difference between their opinions is whether liquid that enters through a hole with difficulty, i.e., as the result of force, is considered entering. According to Rabbi Yehuda, placing the vessel directly into a tub of water constitutes the use of force to a certain degree, and he maintains that if water enters the vessel in such a case, this does not count as liquid entering the vessel. Therefore, he rejects the testing method of the first tanna.

讻诇 讗讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 爪驻讜专谉 讜讻讜壮 讬砖 讘讜 爪驻讜专谉 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讜讘讗讛诇 讬砖 讘讜 注爪诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 爪驻讜专谉 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇

搂 The mishna teaches: In any limb of the body where there is a nail, there is certainly a bone in it as well. But it is possible for there to be limbs that contain a bone without a nail. The Gemara explains the halakhic significance of this distinction. A limb in which there is a nail and which therefore certainly contains a bone has the status of a full-fledged limb. Therefore, it transmits impurity through contact, movement, and in a tent, even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk. By contrast, if there is a bone in the limb but there is no nail, it transmits impurity through contact and movement even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk, but it does not transmit impurity in a tent unless its size is that of an olive-bulk.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 专讘讬谞讜 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讜 讛诪拽讜诐 讬讛讬讛 讘注讝专讜 讗爪讘注 讬转专讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 注爪诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 爪驻讜专谉 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇

Rav 岣sda says: The following matter was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. An extra finger on one鈥檚 hand in which there is a bone but there is no nail transmits impurity through contact and movement even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk, but it does not transmit impurity in a tent.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻砖讗讬谞讛 谞住驻专转 注诇 讙讘 讛讬讚

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And this is the halakha, that it must contain both bone and a nail for it to be considered a limb, only in a case where this finger cannot be counted along the back of the hand, i.e., the extra finger is not aligned with the others. But if it is aligned with the other fingers then it is considered like any other limb and imparts impurity in a tent, whether or not it contains a nail.

讻诇 讛诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住 讜讻讜壮 讻诇 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讚专住 诪讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诪转

搂 The mishna further teaches: Similarly, any item that becomes ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara explains that this means that any item that is fit to become impure with the impurity of a zav imparted by treading is fit to become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse.

讜讬砖 砖诪讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诪转 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 住讗讛 讜转专拽讘

The mishna continues: And there are vessels that become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse but do not become ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading. The Gemara asks: What is added by this statement? The Gemara answers: This serves to add a measuring vessel, e.g., the measure of a se鈥檃 or a half-se鈥檃 [vetarkav].

讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讬讜砖讘 注诇 讛讻诇讬 讬讻讜诇 讻驻讛 住讗讛 讜讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 讗讜 转专拽讘 讜讬砖讘 注诇讬讜 讬讛讗 讟诪讗

As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the impurity of the treading of a zav: 鈥淎nd he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and is impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:6). One might have thought that if a zav turned over a vessel used to measure a se鈥檃 and sat on it, or if he turned over a vessel used to measure a half-se鈥檃 and sat on it, that vessel should be rendered impure as a seat upon which a zav sat.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬砖讘 注诇讬讜 讛讝讘 诪讬 砖诪讬讜讞讚 诇讬砖讬讘讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 注诪讜讚 讜谞注砖讛 诪诇讗讻转谞讜

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits鈥 (Leviticus 15:6). The wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking of an object that is designated for sitting, i.e., upon which people generally sit, excluding such a vessel, with regard to which we say to someone sitting on it: Stand up and allow us to use it to do our work, i.e., to measure. This is not defined as a vessel used for sitting, as it serves another function.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讬砖 砖专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转

MISHNA: Any person who is fit to adjudicate cases of capital law is fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law, and there are those who are fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law but are unfit to adjudicate cases of capital law.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said: The statement of the mishna that some are fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law but are unfit to adjudicate cases of capital law serves to add the case of a mamzer. Although he may not adjudicate cases of capital law, nevertheless he may adjudicate cases of monetary law.

转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专 讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙专 讜讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to teach this here? We already learned this on another occasion, in a mishna (Sanhedrin 32a): All are fit to judge cases of monetary law, but not all are fit to judge cases of capital law. And we discussed it, and asked what is added by the phrase: All are fit to judge. And Rav Yehuda said in response that this serves to add the case of a mamzer. The Gemara answers: One mishna serves to add the case of a convert, and one other mishna serves to add the case of a mamzer.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙专 诪砖讜诐 讚专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讗讘诇 诪诪讝专 讚讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara explains: And both additions are necessary. As, if the mishnayot had taught us only that a convert is fit to judge cases of monetary law, one might have said that the halakha is lenient in the case of a convert because he is fit to enter into the congregation, i.e., marry a Jewish woman. But with regard to a mamzer, who is unfit to enter into the congregation, one might say that he is not fit to judge cases of monetary law.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪诪讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗转讬 诪讟驻讛 讻砖专讛 讗讘诇 讙专 讚拽讗转讬 诪讟驻讛 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishnayot had taught us only that a mamzer is fit to judge cases of monetary law, one might have said that the halakha is lenient in the case of a mamzer because he comes from a fit drop of semen, i.e., his father is Jewish. But with regard to a convert, who comes from an unfit drop, as he was born a gentile, one might say that he is not fit to judge cases of monetary law. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the halakhot of both a convert and a mamzer.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讻砖专 诇讚讜谉 讻砖专 诇讛注讬讚 讜讬砖 砖讻砖专 诇讛注讬讚 讜讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇讚讜谉

MISHNA: Any person who is fit to adjudicate a case and serve as a judge is fit to testify as a witness, and there are those who are fit to testify but are not fit to adjudicate.

讙诪壮 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 住讜诪讗 讘讗讞转 诪注讬谞讬讜 讜诪谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by this statement, that some people are fit to testify but not to adjudicate? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This serves to add one who is blind in one of his eyes. And in accordance with whose opinion is this ruling?

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 49

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗讞专 讛驻专拽 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 讞讝拽讛 讚专讘讗

And if you wish, say instead that the tanna who taught this ruling was Rabbi Shimon, and the baraita is referring to an examination conducted after the age of majority. And Rabbi Shimon does not accept the presumption of Rava that a girl of this age has already developed signs indicating puberty.

诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗驻砖专 讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗

搂 The mishna teaches that according to the Rabbis a young woman who apparently developed the upper sign before the lower sign has reached majority, and therefore if her childless husband died she either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage with her husband鈥檚 brother. This ruling is due to the fact that the Sages said: It is possible for the lower sign of puberty to appear before the upper sign, but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this additional repetition of this point? It was already taught in the first clause that it is impossible for the upper sign to appear without the lower sign having already appeared.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪住转诪讛 讻专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐

And if you would say that it is repeated because the tanna wants to teach an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, in order to establish that the halakha follows their opinion in their dispute with Rabbi Meir, that cannot be the case. The Gemara explains why this suggestion is incorrect: This is obvious, as there is a principle that in a dispute between an individual Sage and a majority of other Sages, the halakha is always decided in accordance with the opinion of the majority.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪住转讘专讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚拽讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 拽专讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪转谞讬 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the tanna to state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis despite the fact that they are the majority, lest you say that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir is more reasonable. One might have thought this, as the verses cited above support it: 鈥淵our breasts were fashioned, and your hair was grown,鈥 and: 鈥淲hen they from Egypt bruised your breasts for the sprouting forth of your young womanhood.鈥 Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And if you wish, say instead that the tanna repeated the claim that the upper sign cannot precede the lower one because he wants to teach a case in the next mishna which is similar to this one, i.e., this summary provides a transition to the halakha brought in the following mishna.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讻诇 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讛讜讗 诪讻谞讬住 诪讜爪讬讗 讜讬砖 砖诪讜爪讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讻谞讬住

MISHNA: Similar to the order of the appearance of the signs of puberty in a girl, where it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign, there is an analogous principle with regard to the mutual dependency of two items: Any earthenware vessel with a hole that enables entry of liquid into the vessel certainly enables exit of liquid through that hole, and it thereby ceases to be a vessel fit for sanctification of the waters mixed with the ashes of the red heifer. And there are holes that enable exit of liquids from the earthenware vessels but do not enable entry of liquids from outside the vessel, and therefore it remains a vessel.

讻诇 讗讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 爪驻讜专谉 讬砖 讘讜 注爪诐 讜讬砖 砖讬砖 讘讜 注爪诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 爪驻讜专谉

Likewise, in any limb of the body where there is a nail, there is certainly a bone in it as well. If it is the limb of a corpse, it transmits ritual impurity through contact, movement, and in a tent, even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk. And there are limbs in which there is a bone but yet there is not a nail in it. That limb does not transmit impurity in a tent if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk.

讻诇 讛诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住 诪讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诪转 讜讬砖 砖诪讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诪转 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住

Similarly, any item that becomes ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading, e.g., a vessel designated for sitting, becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. And there are vessels that become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse but do not become ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading.

讙诪壮 诪讻谞讬住 驻住讜诇 诇诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜驻住讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讙住讟专讗 诪讜爪讬讗 讻砖专 诇诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜驻住讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讙住讟专讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that any earthenware vessel with a hole that enables entry of liquid into the vessel certainly enables exit of liquid through that hole, whereas there are holes that enable exit of liquids but do not enable entry. The Gemara explains the halakhic significance of this distinction. A vessel that contains a hole that is large enough to enable liquid to enter is no longer considered a vessel and is therefore unfit to contain the water of purification. And it is also disqualified as a shard [gastera] of a vessel. A shard still has some utility and is therefore susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, an earthenware vessel that contains a small hole that enables only the exit of liquids is fit for the water of purification, but is disqualified as a shard of a vessel.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 砖讜谞讬谉 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讬注讜专讜 讘讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讙住讟专讗 讘诇讘讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘讗 讙住讟专讗 诇讙住讟专讗

Rav Asi says that they teach the following halakha: In the case of an earthenware vessel, its measure of a hole that renders it no longer ritually impure is one that is large enough to enable liquid to enter it. And they said that the measure of a small hole is that which enables the exit of liquids only with regard to a shard. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for this? Mar Zutra, son of Rav Na岣an, said: It is because people do not say: Bring another shard to seal the leak of a shard; rather, they throw it out immediately. A shard is used as a plate beneath a perforated earthenware vessel. If the shard itself is also perforated and leaks, it is no longer of any use.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讻诇讬 讞专住 诇讬讚注 讗诐 谞讬拽讘 讘讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讘讬讗 注专讬讘讛 诪诇讗讛 诪讬诐 讜谞讜转谉 拽讚专讛 诇转讜讻讛 讗诐 讻谞住讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛

搂 On the topic of holes in earthenware vessels, the Sages taught in a baraita: How does one test a broken earthenware vessel to know if it was pierced with a hole that enables liquid to enter it or not? One brings a tub filled with water and places the broken pot into it. If the water from the tub enters the pot, it is known that the pot contains a hole that enables liquid to enter. And if the water does not enter the pot, it is known that the vessel contains only a small hole that merely enables the exit of liquids.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜驻祝 讗讝谞讬 拽讚专讛 诇转讜讻讛 讜诪爪讬祝 注诇讬讛 诪讬诐 讜讗诐 讻讜谞住 讘讬讚讜注 砖讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛

Rabbi Yehuda says that the method for determining whether an earthenware vessel contains a hole that allows liquid to enter is as follows: One takes the handles of the pot and turns it over,placing it upside down in an empty tub, and he then covers the pot with water. If water enters the pot, it is known that it contains a hole that enables liquid to enter, and if the water does not enter the pot, it is known that the vessel contains a small hole that enables only the exit of liquids.

讗讜 砖讜驻转讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讗讜专 讗诐 讛讗讜专 诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪讻谞讬住 诪砖拽讛

Or one can determine the size of the hole by the following method: One places the pot, with liquid in it, on the fire. If the fire holds the liquid back and does not allow it to exit the vessel, then it is known that the vessel contains a small hole that enables only the exit of liquids. And if the fire does not hold the liquid back and does not prevent it from exiting the vessel, then it is known that it contains a hole that enables liquid to enter.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 砖讜驻转讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讗讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讗讜专 诪注诪讬讚讛 讗诇讗 砖讜驻转讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讛专诪抓 讗诐 专诪抓 诪注诪讬讚讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讛讬讛 讟讜专讚 讟讬驻讛 讗讞专 讟讬驻讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛

Rabbi Yosei says: One should not place the pot with liquid in it on the fire. This is not a reliable test for determining the size of the hole, as it is possible that the hole is actually large enough to enable liquid to enter, but nevertheless the fire prevents the liquid from exiting. Rather, one places the pot with liquid in it on hot ash. If the hot ash holds the liquid back and does not allow it to exit the vessel, then it is known that the vessel contains a small hole that enables only the exit of liquids. But if the hot ash does not hold the liquid back and does not prevent it from exiting the vessel, it is known that it contains a hole that enables liquid to enter. Another manner of testing is to fill the vessel with liquid. If it drips one drop after another drop, it is known that it contains a hole that enables liquid to enter.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻讬谞讜住 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the method of testing stated by the first tanna, placing the vessel in a tub of water, and that of Rabbi Yehuda, placing the vessel upside down into the tub and then covering it with water? Ulla said: The difference between their opinions is whether liquid that enters through a hole with difficulty, i.e., as the result of force, is considered entering. According to Rabbi Yehuda, placing the vessel directly into a tub of water constitutes the use of force to a certain degree, and he maintains that if water enters the vessel in such a case, this does not count as liquid entering the vessel. Therefore, he rejects the testing method of the first tanna.

讻诇 讗讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 爪驻讜专谉 讜讻讜壮 讬砖 讘讜 爪驻讜专谉 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讜讘讗讛诇 讬砖 讘讜 注爪诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 爪驻讜专谉 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇

搂 The mishna teaches: In any limb of the body where there is a nail, there is certainly a bone in it as well. But it is possible for there to be limbs that contain a bone without a nail. The Gemara explains the halakhic significance of this distinction. A limb in which there is a nail and which therefore certainly contains a bone has the status of a full-fledged limb. Therefore, it transmits impurity through contact, movement, and in a tent, even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk. By contrast, if there is a bone in the limb but there is no nail, it transmits impurity through contact and movement even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk, but it does not transmit impurity in a tent unless its size is that of an olive-bulk.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 专讘讬谞讜 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讜 讛诪拽讜诐 讬讛讬讛 讘注讝专讜 讗爪讘注 讬转专讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 注爪诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 爪驻讜专谉 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇

Rav 岣sda says: The following matter was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. An extra finger on one鈥檚 hand in which there is a bone but there is no nail transmits impurity through contact and movement even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk, but it does not transmit impurity in a tent.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻砖讗讬谞讛 谞住驻专转 注诇 讙讘 讛讬讚

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And this is the halakha, that it must contain both bone and a nail for it to be considered a limb, only in a case where this finger cannot be counted along the back of the hand, i.e., the extra finger is not aligned with the others. But if it is aligned with the other fingers then it is considered like any other limb and imparts impurity in a tent, whether or not it contains a nail.

讻诇 讛诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住 讜讻讜壮 讻诇 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讚专住 诪讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诪转

搂 The mishna further teaches: Similarly, any item that becomes ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara explains that this means that any item that is fit to become impure with the impurity of a zav imparted by treading is fit to become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse.

讜讬砖 砖诪讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诪转 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 住讗讛 讜转专拽讘

The mishna continues: And there are vessels that become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse but do not become ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading. The Gemara asks: What is added by this statement? The Gemara answers: This serves to add a measuring vessel, e.g., the measure of a se鈥檃 or a half-se鈥檃 [vetarkav].

讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讬讜砖讘 注诇 讛讻诇讬 讬讻讜诇 讻驻讛 住讗讛 讜讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 讗讜 转专拽讘 讜讬砖讘 注诇讬讜 讬讛讗 讟诪讗

As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the impurity of the treading of a zav: 鈥淎nd he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and is impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:6). One might have thought that if a zav turned over a vessel used to measure a se鈥檃 and sat on it, or if he turned over a vessel used to measure a half-se鈥檃 and sat on it, that vessel should be rendered impure as a seat upon which a zav sat.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬砖讘 注诇讬讜 讛讝讘 诪讬 砖诪讬讜讞讚 诇讬砖讬讘讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 注诪讜讚 讜谞注砖讛 诪诇讗讻转谞讜

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits鈥 (Leviticus 15:6). The wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking of an object that is designated for sitting, i.e., upon which people generally sit, excluding such a vessel, with regard to which we say to someone sitting on it: Stand up and allow us to use it to do our work, i.e., to measure. This is not defined as a vessel used for sitting, as it serves another function.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讬砖 砖专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转

MISHNA: Any person who is fit to adjudicate cases of capital law is fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law, and there are those who are fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law but are unfit to adjudicate cases of capital law.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said: The statement of the mishna that some are fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law but are unfit to adjudicate cases of capital law serves to add the case of a mamzer. Although he may not adjudicate cases of capital law, nevertheless he may adjudicate cases of monetary law.

转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专 讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙专 讜讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to teach this here? We already learned this on another occasion, in a mishna (Sanhedrin 32a): All are fit to judge cases of monetary law, but not all are fit to judge cases of capital law. And we discussed it, and asked what is added by the phrase: All are fit to judge. And Rav Yehuda said in response that this serves to add the case of a mamzer. The Gemara answers: One mishna serves to add the case of a convert, and one other mishna serves to add the case of a mamzer.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙专 诪砖讜诐 讚专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讗讘诇 诪诪讝专 讚讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara explains: And both additions are necessary. As, if the mishnayot had taught us only that a convert is fit to judge cases of monetary law, one might have said that the halakha is lenient in the case of a convert because he is fit to enter into the congregation, i.e., marry a Jewish woman. But with regard to a mamzer, who is unfit to enter into the congregation, one might say that he is not fit to judge cases of monetary law.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪诪讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗转讬 诪讟驻讛 讻砖专讛 讗讘诇 讙专 讚拽讗转讬 诪讟驻讛 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishnayot had taught us only that a mamzer is fit to judge cases of monetary law, one might have said that the halakha is lenient in the case of a mamzer because he comes from a fit drop of semen, i.e., his father is Jewish. But with regard to a convert, who comes from an unfit drop, as he was born a gentile, one might say that he is not fit to judge cases of monetary law. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the halakhot of both a convert and a mamzer.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讻砖专 诇讚讜谉 讻砖专 诇讛注讬讚 讜讬砖 砖讻砖专 诇讛注讬讚 讜讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇讚讜谉

MISHNA: Any person who is fit to adjudicate a case and serve as a judge is fit to testify as a witness, and there are those who are fit to testify but are not fit to adjudicate.

讙诪壮 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 住讜诪讗 讘讗讞转 诪注讬谞讬讜 讜诪谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by this statement, that some people are fit to testify but not to adjudicate? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This serves to add one who is blind in one of his eyes. And in accordance with whose opinion is this ruling?

Scroll To Top