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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 28, 2019 | 讻状讟 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 5

What is the halacha regarding spots of blood on women’s clothing? Does it create a problem for impurities retroactively? Is there a difference in this halacha between women who menstruate regularly and those who don’t? Are the two internal examinations before and after intercourse considered a good internal exam (so that anything before will not become impure? Why did the mishna mention that the woman was sitting on a bed? What halacha does the gemara derive from here regarding the status of bed regarding a higher level of impurity that is found by a Niddah of mishkav and moshav? What determines whether an item has the descriptor “it has consciousness and can be asked”?


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

讜讘专讬讬转讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

And as for the ruling of the baraita, that a woman who discovers menstrual blood not at her fixed time for menstruation is impure retroactively, this is a halakha with which everyone agrees.

讜诇讜拽诪讗 讗讬驻讻讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let us interpret the mishna in the opposite manner. Why interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa and the baraita in accordance with everyone, when we can give precedence to the mishna, which is more authoritative, by interpreting it in accordance with all opinions, as was first explained, and the baraita only in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诇讗讜拽讜诪讬 诇拽讜诇讗 讜诇讞讜诪专讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: Since there is a way to interpret it as a leniency, i.e., that all agree that blood discovered at the fixed time of menstruation renders items impure only from that point onward, and it can also be interpreted in a manner that leads to a stringency, i.e., everyone agrees that blood discovered not at her fixed time for menstruation causes retroactive impurity, and furthermore the Rabbis hold that this is the halakha even when blood is discovered at her fixed time of menstruation, we interpret it the way that leads to a stringency.

拽转谞讬 砖讗诐 转专讗讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讜住转讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讟注诪讗 讚讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 讻转诪讛 诇专讗讬讬转讛

搂 It is taught in the baraita: If a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle finds a blood stain, her blood stain is retroactively impure. The reason is that if she sees a flow of menstrual blood not at the fixed time of her menstrual cycle, it renders her ritually impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that she is a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle; therefore, the Rabbis distinguish between her blood stain, which causes retroactive impurity like a sighting not at her fixed time, and her sighting of her menstrual flow at its fixed time, which does not cause retroactive impurity.

讛讗 砖讗专 谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讻转诪谉 讻专讗讬讬转谉

It can be inferred from here that in the case of those other women, e.g., a pregnant or elderly woman, with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient and their menstrual flow never causes retroactive impurity, the same halakha applies to their blood stains as to their sighting of their menstrual flow, i.e., the stains do not cause retroactive impurity.

诪谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讻转诪谉 讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 讜谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讻转诪谉 讻专讗讬讬转谉 讞讜抓 诪转讬谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 住讚讬谞讬谉 砖诇讛 诪诇讜讻诇讻讬谉 讘讚诐 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讛

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita taught? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus: The halakha with regard to all women is that their blood stains are impure retroactively. But any women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, their blood stains share the same ruling as their sighting of their menstrual flow, i.e., they do not cause retroactive impurity. This is the halakha except for the case of a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived. With regard to her, even if her sheets are soiled with blood one need not be concerned for it, i.e., her blood stains do not cause any impurity at all, even from that point onward.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻转诐 讻诇诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讻转诪谉 讟诪讗 讜谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讻转诪谉 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转诐 讻诇诇 诇讗 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转诐 诇诪驻专注 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转诐 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus hold that a blood stain causes ritual impurity at all? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The halakha with regard to all women is that their blood stains are impure. And similarly, women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, their blood stains are also impure. Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: The halakha of women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, is that they do not have the ritual impurity of a blood stain. What, is it not correct to say that this means they have no impurity caused by a blood stain at all? The Gemara answers: No, it means that they do not have impurity caused by a blood stain retroactively, but they do have the impurity caused by a blood stain from here onward.

诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪驻专注 讗讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚诪讞诪讬专 讙讘讬 讻转诪讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讻转诪谉 讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 讜谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讻转诪谉 讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus holds that a blood stain imparts ritual impurity from that point onward, does this not indicate that the first tanna holds that it causes ritual impurity even retroactively? The Gemara answers: Yes, the ruling of the first tanna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is stringent with regard to blood stains. As it is taught in a baraita: The halakha with regard to all women is that their blood stains are impure retroactively. And similarly, women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, their blood stains are also impure retroactively. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讻转诪谉 讻专讗讬讬转谉 讜转讬谞讜拽转 砖讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讬砖 诇讛 讻转诐 讜砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛 讻转诐 讜讗讬诪转讬 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 诪砖讛讙讬注讜 讬诪讬 讛谞注讜专讬诐

The baraita continues: Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: The halakha of women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, is that their blood stains share the same ruling as their sighting of their menstrual flow, i.e., they cause ritual impurity from that point onward. And in the case of a young girl, if her time to see the flow of menstrual blood has arrived, then she has impurity status when she finds a blood stain. But if her time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not yet arrived, she does not have impurity status when she finds a blood stain. The Gemara asks: And when does a young girl arrive at her time to see the flow of menstrual blood? The Gemara answers: When the days of her young womanhood have arrived.

讜讛诪砖诪砖转 讘注讚讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 砖诇驻谞讬 转砖诪讬砖 讗讬谞讜 诪诪注讟 讻驻拽讬讚讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths, with which she ascertains whether the menstrual flow began, since the halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination, it reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period and reduces the time from examination to examination. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The examination cloth with which she examined herself before intercourse does not reduce the time from a twenty-four-hour period like a regular examination.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 诪转讜讱 砖诪讛讜诪讛 诇讘讬转讛 讜讻讬 诪讛讜诪讛 诇讘讬转讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 诪转讜讱 砖诪讛讜诪讛 诇讘讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讻谞住转 诇讞讜专讬谉 讜诇住讚拽讬谉

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Shmuel? Rav Ketina says: Since she is excited [shemehuma] and hurried for intercourse with her husband, it is not considered a proper examination. The Gemara asks: And even if she is excited for intercourse with her husband, what of it? Why does that invalidate her examination? The Gemara answers: Since she is excited and hurried for intercourse with her husband, she does not insert the examination cloth into her recesses and folds.

转谞谉 讛诪砖诪砖转 讘注讚讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 讻驻拽讬讚讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讞讚 诇驻谞讬 转砖诪讬砖 讜讞讚 诇讗讞专 转砖诪讬砖 诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇讗讞专 转砖诪讬砖 讜讗讞讚 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇讛 讻讚转谞谉 讚专讱 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讗讞讚 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna: And a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths, the halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination. The mishna refers to examination cloths in the plural. What, is it not speaking of one cloth used before intercourse and one cloth used after intercourse? The Gemara answers: No, this cloth and that cloth are both used after intercourse; and the reason why the mishna uses the plural is that one cloth is for his use and one is for her use. As we learned in a mishna (14a): It is the custom of Jewish women to engage in intercourse with their husbands with two examination cloths, one for his use and one for her use.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞讚 诇驻谞讬 转砖诪讬砖 讜讞讚 诇讗讞专 转砖诪讬砖 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪转讜讱 砖诪讛讜诪讛 诇讘讬转讛 诇讗 讘讚拽讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛专讬 讝讜 讻驻拽讬讚讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇讗讞专 转砖诪讬砖 驻砖讬讟讗

The Gemara asks: What is this? Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to one cloth used before intercourse and one used after intercourse, it was necessary for the mishna to mention both examinations, as it might enter your mind to say that since she is excited and hurried for intercourse with her husband, she did not examine herself properly. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that her examination with a cloth before intercourse is considered as a halakhically valid examination. But if you say that this cloth and that cloth are his and her cloths used after intercourse, isn鈥檛 it obvious that they are treated as halakhic examinations? Why is this ruling necessary?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 砖诪讗 转专讗讛 讟驻转 讚诐 讻讞专讚诇 讜转讞驻谞讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: The halakha that the examinations performed after intercourse count as valid examinations is necessary, lest you say that perhaps she might see a drop of blood corresponding to the size of a mustard seed and a drop of semen covered it. In other words, it is possible that she discharged a tiny amount of menstrual blood that went undetected, as it was covered by a drop of semen. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that one does not need to be concerned for this possibility.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖转讬 讘讚讬拽讜转 讗爪专讻讜讛 专讘谞谉 讞讚 诇驻谞讬 转砖诪讬砖 讜讞讚 诇讗讞专 转砖诪讬砖 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛专讬 讝讜 讻驻拽讬讚讛 讗诇讗讞专 转砖诪讬砖 讜讛讗 讛诪砖诪砖转 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 讜诪砖诪砖转

And if you wish, say instead: The mishna is referring only to her examinations, but the reason the mishna mentions two examinations is not to give them the status of valid examinations, but to teach that they are both obligatory. As the Sages required her to perform two examinations: One before intercourse and one after intercourse. And when the mishna teaches: The halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination, it is referring specifically to the examination performed after intercourse. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the mishna teaches: A woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths. This formulation indicates that the examination is voluntary and is not mandated by the Sages. The Gemara explains that one should emend the text of the mishna so that it teaches: And a woman must engage in intercourse while using examination cloths.

诪诪注讟转 注诇 讬讚 诪注转 诇注转 讛砖转讗 诪注转 诇注转 诪诪注讟转

搂 The mishna teaches: And with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths, as the halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination, it reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period, and reduces the time from examination to examination. The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna teaches that this examination reduces time from a twenty-four-hour period,

诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

is it necessary to teach that an examination reduces the time from examination to examination, which is less than twenty-four hours?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪注转 诇注转 讞砖讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 诇驻住讬讚讗 讚讟讛专讜转 讗讘诇 诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary, lest you say that with regard to the significant passage of a twenty-four-hour period the Sages are concerned for the possible loss of ritually pure items, but with regard to the smaller period from examination to examination, the Sages are not concerned for the loss of pure items, and therefore the use of an examination cloth should not reduce the time of possible impurity between that and her next examination. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it does reduce this time.

讻讬爪讚 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讛讬转讛 讬讜砖讘转 讘诪讟讛 讜注住拽讛 讘讟讛专讜转 诇讬转谞讬 讛讬转讛 注住讜拽讛 讘讟讛专讜转 讜驻专砖讛 讜专讗转讛

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle: Her time is sufficient, how so? If the woman was sitting in a bed and engaged in handling ritually pure items, and she left the bed and saw blood, she is impure and those items are pure. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach: If the woman was sitting in a bed and engaged in handling pure items? Let the mishna teach the same ruling without mentioning the bed: If she was engaged in handling pure items and she left and saw blood. The detail that she was sitting in a bed is apparently superfluous.

讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讛讗 诪注转 诇注转 诪讟讛 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讬讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇讝注讬专讬 讚讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 注讜砖讛 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐

The Gemara answers: This detail teaches us that the reason why the bed is not rendered impure is that her time is sufficient and there is no retroactive impurity. It can be inferred that in a case where she is impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, her bed is also rendered impure. This supports the opinion of Ze鈥檈iri, as Ze鈥檈iri said: The level of impurity of the retroactive twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman renders impure a bed upon which she lies and a chair upon which she sits, to the extent that they transmit impurity to a person who comes in contact with them, to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing.

诪讻讚讬 讛讗讬 诪讟讛 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 住驻拽讜 讟讛讜专 转专讙诪讛 讝注讬专讬 讻砖讞讘专讜转讬讛 谞讜砖讗讜转 讗讜转讛 讘诪讟讛 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讬讚 讞讘专讜转讬讛

This Gemara raises a difficulty: Now, this bed upon which she sat is an entity that lacks consciousness in order for it to be asked, and the principle with regard to any entity that lacks consciousness in order for it to be asked is that the item with uncertain status is deemed pure. The Gemara explains: Ze鈥檈iri interpreted his ruling as applying specifically to a case where her friends are carrying her in the bed, where the bed is considered as the extended hand of her friends. In other words, it is part of an entity that has consciousness in order for it to be asked, and therefore the item with uncertain status is deemed impure.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 谞砖讗诇讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬 诪讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讻诪讬 砖讬砖 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讞讘专讜转讬讛 谞讜砖讗讜转 讗讜转讛 讘诪讟讛

The Gemara provides another answer: And now that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In a case of uncertain ritual impurity that comes about by the hand of a person, i.e., through his involvement, the owner of the vessel must consult a Sage about it, i.e., it is considered an entity that has consciousness in order for it to be asked, as in such a case even with regard to a vessel that is placed upon the ground, which is certainly incapable of providing an answer if asked, its halakhic status is like that of an item that has consciousness in order for it to be asked. With this statement in mind, one can explain that according to Ze鈥檈iri a menstruating woman transmits impurity to a bed even though her friends are not carrying her in the bed. Rather, as the bed鈥檚 ritual impurity was caused by the hand of a person, it has the halakhic status of an item that has consciousness in order for it to be asked.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 谞砖讗诇讬诐 注诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬 讛诪讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讻诪讬 砖讬砖 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇

搂 The Gemara discusses the matter of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement itself. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In a case of uncertain ritual impurity that comes about by the hand of man, its owner must consult a Sage about it, i.e., it is ritually impure, as in such a case even with regard to a vessel that is placed upon the ground, its halakhic status is like that of an item that has consciousness in order for it to be asked.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 诪转注讟祝 讘讟诇讬转讜 讜讟讛专讜转 讜讟讜诪讗讜转 讘爪讚讜 讜讟讛专讜转 讜讟讜诪讗讜转 诇诪注诇讛 诪专讗砖讜 住驻拽 谞讙注 住驻拽 诇讗 谞讙注 讟讛讜专 讜讗诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讙注 讟诪讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 4:1): If a man who contracted ritual impurity was wrapping himself in his cloak and there were pure items beside him; or if he was pure and there were impure items beside him as he was wrapping his cloak; or if there were pure items and impure items above his head at the time and there is uncertainty whether he touched the impure items with his cloak and then touched the pure items with his cloak, and uncertainty whether it did not touch them, the halakha is that the pure items remain pure. But if it is impossible for him to have wrapped himself unless his cloak had touched the impure items in the process, then those previously pure items become impure.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 砖谞讛 讜砖讜谞讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 砖讜谞讬诐 讘讟讛专讜转

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that we say to him: Repeat your action. And he repeats the action of wrapping himself with his cloak, and it can then be determined whether or not the cloak and the other items came in contact with each other. The Rabbis said to him: We do not rely on repeated actions with regard to the determination of ritually pure items. Since the second action may not exactly mimic the first, it cannot be relied upon to determine ritual purity status.

讗诪讗讬 讛讗 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara explains the objection: But according to the Rabbis, why is the halakha that the items in question remain pure? Isn鈥檛 this a case of uncertain ritual impurity that comes about by the hand of man, which, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, is considered as having consciousness in order for it to be asked? If so, these items should be ritually impure.

讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 住驻拽讜 讟诪讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专

The Gemara answers: Except for that one, i.e., do not raise a difficulty from that baraita, since it is referring to a specific case. As Rav Hoshaya teaches with regard to an item whose purity status is uncertain: When it is in the private domain, the item with uncertain status is deemed impure; when it is in the public domain, it is deemed pure. The baraita is referring to an item located in the public domain. Consequently, even if it is considered as having consciousness in order to be asked, nevertheless it is pure, as its uncertainty occurred in the public domain.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 注讜砖讛 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐

搂 The Gemara analyzes the matter of Ze鈥檈iri鈥檚 ruling itself. Ze鈥檈iri says: The level of impurity assumed during the retroactive twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman renders a bed upon which she lies and a chair upon which she sits impure to the extent that they transmit impurity to a person who comes in contact with them to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 诪砖讻讘讛 讜诪讜砖讘讛 讻诪讙注讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讛 诪讙注讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讗祝 诪砖讻讘讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Avimi came from Bei 岣zai, he came and brought the following baraita with him: The level of impurity during the retroactive twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman renders her bed upon which she lies and her chair upon which she sits impure like the impurity level caused by her touch. The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not correct to say that this means that just as an item rendered impure by her touch does not render another person impure, so too, her bed does not render another person impure?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讻诇讬 讞专住 讛诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 讛谞讬爪讜诇 讘讗讜讛诇 讛诪转 讗讬谞讜 谞讬爪讜诇 讘诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 诪砖讻讘讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讬爪讜诇讬谉 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讬谉 谞讬爪讜诇讬谉 讘诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛

Rava says: And how can you understand it in that manner? There is an a fortiori inference here: And if an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover, which is spared from impurity when it is in a tent that has a corpse in it, is nevertheless not spared from impurity if the woman moved it during the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman and is impure as though she moved it after she experienced bleeding; so too, with regard to beds and chairs, which are not spared from impurity in a tent that has a corpse in it, is it not logical that they are also not spared from impurity when used during the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman and are impure as though she used them after she experienced bleeding?

讜讛讗 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 诪转谞讬转讗 拽讗诪专 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讻讘讛 讜诪讜砖讘讛

The Gemara asks: But Avimi from Bei 岣zai cited a baraita that apparently does not accept Rava鈥檚 a fortiori inference. The Gemara answers: One can say that the baraita does not mean that her bed and chair are rendered impure with the light level of impurity caused by her touch, but rather: Her bed upon which she lies and her chair upon which she sits

  • 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 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 5

讜讘专讬讬转讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

And as for the ruling of the baraita, that a woman who discovers menstrual blood not at her fixed time for menstruation is impure retroactively, this is a halakha with which everyone agrees.

讜诇讜拽诪讗 讗讬驻讻讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let us interpret the mishna in the opposite manner. Why interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa and the baraita in accordance with everyone, when we can give precedence to the mishna, which is more authoritative, by interpreting it in accordance with all opinions, as was first explained, and the baraita only in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诇讗讜拽讜诪讬 诇拽讜诇讗 讜诇讞讜诪专讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: Since there is a way to interpret it as a leniency, i.e., that all agree that blood discovered at the fixed time of menstruation renders items impure only from that point onward, and it can also be interpreted in a manner that leads to a stringency, i.e., everyone agrees that blood discovered not at her fixed time for menstruation causes retroactive impurity, and furthermore the Rabbis hold that this is the halakha even when blood is discovered at her fixed time of menstruation, we interpret it the way that leads to a stringency.

拽转谞讬 砖讗诐 转专讗讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讜住转讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讟注诪讗 讚讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 讻转诪讛 诇专讗讬讬转讛

搂 It is taught in the baraita: If a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle finds a blood stain, her blood stain is retroactively impure. The reason is that if she sees a flow of menstrual blood not at the fixed time of her menstrual cycle, it renders her ritually impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that she is a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle; therefore, the Rabbis distinguish between her blood stain, which causes retroactive impurity like a sighting not at her fixed time, and her sighting of her menstrual flow at its fixed time, which does not cause retroactive impurity.

讛讗 砖讗专 谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讻转诪谉 讻专讗讬讬转谉

It can be inferred from here that in the case of those other women, e.g., a pregnant or elderly woman, with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient and their menstrual flow never causes retroactive impurity, the same halakha applies to their blood stains as to their sighting of their menstrual flow, i.e., the stains do not cause retroactive impurity.

诪谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讻转诪谉 讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 讜谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讻转诪谉 讻专讗讬讬转谉 讞讜抓 诪转讬谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 住讚讬谞讬谉 砖诇讛 诪诇讜讻诇讻讬谉 讘讚诐 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讛

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita taught? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus: The halakha with regard to all women is that their blood stains are impure retroactively. But any women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, their blood stains share the same ruling as their sighting of their menstrual flow, i.e., they do not cause retroactive impurity. This is the halakha except for the case of a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived. With regard to her, even if her sheets are soiled with blood one need not be concerned for it, i.e., her blood stains do not cause any impurity at all, even from that point onward.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻转诐 讻诇诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讻转诪谉 讟诪讗 讜谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讻转诪谉 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转诐 讻诇诇 诇讗 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转诐 诇诪驻专注 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转诐 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus hold that a blood stain causes ritual impurity at all? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The halakha with regard to all women is that their blood stains are impure. And similarly, women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, their blood stains are also impure. Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: The halakha of women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, is that they do not have the ritual impurity of a blood stain. What, is it not correct to say that this means they have no impurity caused by a blood stain at all? The Gemara answers: No, it means that they do not have impurity caused by a blood stain retroactively, but they do have the impurity caused by a blood stain from here onward.

诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪驻专注 讗讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚诪讞诪讬专 讙讘讬 讻转诪讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讻转诪谉 讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 讜谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讻转诪谉 讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus holds that a blood stain imparts ritual impurity from that point onward, does this not indicate that the first tanna holds that it causes ritual impurity even retroactively? The Gemara answers: Yes, the ruling of the first tanna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is stringent with regard to blood stains. As it is taught in a baraita: The halakha with regard to all women is that their blood stains are impure retroactively. And similarly, women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, their blood stains are also impure retroactively. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 谞砖讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讻转诪谉 讻专讗讬讬转谉 讜转讬谞讜拽转 砖讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讬砖 诇讛 讻转诐 讜砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛 讻转诐 讜讗讬诪转讬 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 诪砖讛讙讬注讜 讬诪讬 讛谞注讜专讬诐

The baraita continues: Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: The halakha of women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, is that their blood stains share the same ruling as their sighting of their menstrual flow, i.e., they cause ritual impurity from that point onward. And in the case of a young girl, if her time to see the flow of menstrual blood has arrived, then she has impurity status when she finds a blood stain. But if her time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not yet arrived, she does not have impurity status when she finds a blood stain. The Gemara asks: And when does a young girl arrive at her time to see the flow of menstrual blood? The Gemara answers: When the days of her young womanhood have arrived.

讜讛诪砖诪砖转 讘注讚讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 砖诇驻谞讬 转砖诪讬砖 讗讬谞讜 诪诪注讟 讻驻拽讬讚讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths, with which she ascertains whether the menstrual flow began, since the halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination, it reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period and reduces the time from examination to examination. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The examination cloth with which she examined herself before intercourse does not reduce the time from a twenty-four-hour period like a regular examination.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 诪转讜讱 砖诪讛讜诪讛 诇讘讬转讛 讜讻讬 诪讛讜诪讛 诇讘讬转讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 诪转讜讱 砖诪讛讜诪讛 诇讘讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讻谞住转 诇讞讜专讬谉 讜诇住讚拽讬谉

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Shmuel? Rav Ketina says: Since she is excited [shemehuma] and hurried for intercourse with her husband, it is not considered a proper examination. The Gemara asks: And even if she is excited for intercourse with her husband, what of it? Why does that invalidate her examination? The Gemara answers: Since she is excited and hurried for intercourse with her husband, she does not insert the examination cloth into her recesses and folds.

转谞谉 讛诪砖诪砖转 讘注讚讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 讻驻拽讬讚讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讞讚 诇驻谞讬 转砖诪讬砖 讜讞讚 诇讗讞专 转砖诪讬砖 诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇讗讞专 转砖诪讬砖 讜讗讞讚 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇讛 讻讚转谞谉 讚专讱 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讗讞讚 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna: And a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths, the halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination. The mishna refers to examination cloths in the plural. What, is it not speaking of one cloth used before intercourse and one cloth used after intercourse? The Gemara answers: No, this cloth and that cloth are both used after intercourse; and the reason why the mishna uses the plural is that one cloth is for his use and one is for her use. As we learned in a mishna (14a): It is the custom of Jewish women to engage in intercourse with their husbands with two examination cloths, one for his use and one for her use.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞讚 诇驻谞讬 转砖诪讬砖 讜讞讚 诇讗讞专 转砖诪讬砖 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪转讜讱 砖诪讛讜诪讛 诇讘讬转讛 诇讗 讘讚拽讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛专讬 讝讜 讻驻拽讬讚讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇讗讞专 转砖诪讬砖 驻砖讬讟讗

The Gemara asks: What is this? Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to one cloth used before intercourse and one used after intercourse, it was necessary for the mishna to mention both examinations, as it might enter your mind to say that since she is excited and hurried for intercourse with her husband, she did not examine herself properly. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that her examination with a cloth before intercourse is considered as a halakhically valid examination. But if you say that this cloth and that cloth are his and her cloths used after intercourse, isn鈥檛 it obvious that they are treated as halakhic examinations? Why is this ruling necessary?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 砖诪讗 转专讗讛 讟驻转 讚诐 讻讞专讚诇 讜转讞驻谞讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: The halakha that the examinations performed after intercourse count as valid examinations is necessary, lest you say that perhaps she might see a drop of blood corresponding to the size of a mustard seed and a drop of semen covered it. In other words, it is possible that she discharged a tiny amount of menstrual blood that went undetected, as it was covered by a drop of semen. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that one does not need to be concerned for this possibility.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖转讬 讘讚讬拽讜转 讗爪专讻讜讛 专讘谞谉 讞讚 诇驻谞讬 转砖诪讬砖 讜讞讚 诇讗讞专 转砖诪讬砖 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛专讬 讝讜 讻驻拽讬讚讛 讗诇讗讞专 转砖诪讬砖 讜讛讗 讛诪砖诪砖转 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 讜诪砖诪砖转

And if you wish, say instead: The mishna is referring only to her examinations, but the reason the mishna mentions two examinations is not to give them the status of valid examinations, but to teach that they are both obligatory. As the Sages required her to perform two examinations: One before intercourse and one after intercourse. And when the mishna teaches: The halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination, it is referring specifically to the examination performed after intercourse. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the mishna teaches: A woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths. This formulation indicates that the examination is voluntary and is not mandated by the Sages. The Gemara explains that one should emend the text of the mishna so that it teaches: And a woman must engage in intercourse while using examination cloths.

诪诪注讟转 注诇 讬讚 诪注转 诇注转 讛砖转讗 诪注转 诇注转 诪诪注讟转

搂 The mishna teaches: And with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths, as the halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination, it reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period, and reduces the time from examination to examination. The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna teaches that this examination reduces time from a twenty-four-hour period,

诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

is it necessary to teach that an examination reduces the time from examination to examination, which is less than twenty-four hours?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪注转 诇注转 讞砖讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 诇驻住讬讚讗 讚讟讛专讜转 讗讘诇 诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary, lest you say that with regard to the significant passage of a twenty-four-hour period the Sages are concerned for the possible loss of ritually pure items, but with regard to the smaller period from examination to examination, the Sages are not concerned for the loss of pure items, and therefore the use of an examination cloth should not reduce the time of possible impurity between that and her next examination. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it does reduce this time.

讻讬爪讚 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讛讬转讛 讬讜砖讘转 讘诪讟讛 讜注住拽讛 讘讟讛专讜转 诇讬转谞讬 讛讬转讛 注住讜拽讛 讘讟讛专讜转 讜驻专砖讛 讜专讗转讛

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle: Her time is sufficient, how so? If the woman was sitting in a bed and engaged in handling ritually pure items, and she left the bed and saw blood, she is impure and those items are pure. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach: If the woman was sitting in a bed and engaged in handling pure items? Let the mishna teach the same ruling without mentioning the bed: If she was engaged in handling pure items and she left and saw blood. The detail that she was sitting in a bed is apparently superfluous.

讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讛讗 诪注转 诇注转 诪讟讛 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讬讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇讝注讬专讬 讚讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 注讜砖讛 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐

The Gemara answers: This detail teaches us that the reason why the bed is not rendered impure is that her time is sufficient and there is no retroactive impurity. It can be inferred that in a case where she is impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, her bed is also rendered impure. This supports the opinion of Ze鈥檈iri, as Ze鈥檈iri said: The level of impurity of the retroactive twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman renders impure a bed upon which she lies and a chair upon which she sits, to the extent that they transmit impurity to a person who comes in contact with them, to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing.

诪讻讚讬 讛讗讬 诪讟讛 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 住驻拽讜 讟讛讜专 转专讙诪讛 讝注讬专讬 讻砖讞讘专讜转讬讛 谞讜砖讗讜转 讗讜转讛 讘诪讟讛 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讬讚 讞讘专讜转讬讛

This Gemara raises a difficulty: Now, this bed upon which she sat is an entity that lacks consciousness in order for it to be asked, and the principle with regard to any entity that lacks consciousness in order for it to be asked is that the item with uncertain status is deemed pure. The Gemara explains: Ze鈥檈iri interpreted his ruling as applying specifically to a case where her friends are carrying her in the bed, where the bed is considered as the extended hand of her friends. In other words, it is part of an entity that has consciousness in order for it to be asked, and therefore the item with uncertain status is deemed impure.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 谞砖讗诇讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬 诪讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讻诪讬 砖讬砖 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讞讘专讜转讬讛 谞讜砖讗讜转 讗讜转讛 讘诪讟讛

The Gemara provides another answer: And now that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In a case of uncertain ritual impurity that comes about by the hand of a person, i.e., through his involvement, the owner of the vessel must consult a Sage about it, i.e., it is considered an entity that has consciousness in order for it to be asked, as in such a case even with regard to a vessel that is placed upon the ground, which is certainly incapable of providing an answer if asked, its halakhic status is like that of an item that has consciousness in order for it to be asked. With this statement in mind, one can explain that according to Ze鈥檈iri a menstruating woman transmits impurity to a bed even though her friends are not carrying her in the bed. Rather, as the bed鈥檚 ritual impurity was caused by the hand of a person, it has the halakhic status of an item that has consciousness in order for it to be asked.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 谞砖讗诇讬诐 注诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬 讛诪讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讻诪讬 砖讬砖 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇

搂 The Gemara discusses the matter of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement itself. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In a case of uncertain ritual impurity that comes about by the hand of man, its owner must consult a Sage about it, i.e., it is ritually impure, as in such a case even with regard to a vessel that is placed upon the ground, its halakhic status is like that of an item that has consciousness in order for it to be asked.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 诪转注讟祝 讘讟诇讬转讜 讜讟讛专讜转 讜讟讜诪讗讜转 讘爪讚讜 讜讟讛专讜转 讜讟讜诪讗讜转 诇诪注诇讛 诪专讗砖讜 住驻拽 谞讙注 住驻拽 诇讗 谞讙注 讟讛讜专 讜讗诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讙注 讟诪讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 4:1): If a man who contracted ritual impurity was wrapping himself in his cloak and there were pure items beside him; or if he was pure and there were impure items beside him as he was wrapping his cloak; or if there were pure items and impure items above his head at the time and there is uncertainty whether he touched the impure items with his cloak and then touched the pure items with his cloak, and uncertainty whether it did not touch them, the halakha is that the pure items remain pure. But if it is impossible for him to have wrapped himself unless his cloak had touched the impure items in the process, then those previously pure items become impure.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 砖谞讛 讜砖讜谞讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 砖讜谞讬诐 讘讟讛专讜转

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that we say to him: Repeat your action. And he repeats the action of wrapping himself with his cloak, and it can then be determined whether or not the cloak and the other items came in contact with each other. The Rabbis said to him: We do not rely on repeated actions with regard to the determination of ritually pure items. Since the second action may not exactly mimic the first, it cannot be relied upon to determine ritual purity status.

讗诪讗讬 讛讗 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara explains the objection: But according to the Rabbis, why is the halakha that the items in question remain pure? Isn鈥檛 this a case of uncertain ritual impurity that comes about by the hand of man, which, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, is considered as having consciousness in order for it to be asked? If so, these items should be ritually impure.

讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 住驻拽讜 讟诪讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讟讛讜专

The Gemara answers: Except for that one, i.e., do not raise a difficulty from that baraita, since it is referring to a specific case. As Rav Hoshaya teaches with regard to an item whose purity status is uncertain: When it is in the private domain, the item with uncertain status is deemed impure; when it is in the public domain, it is deemed pure. The baraita is referring to an item located in the public domain. Consequently, even if it is considered as having consciousness in order to be asked, nevertheless it is pure, as its uncertainty occurred in the public domain.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 注讜砖讛 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐

搂 The Gemara analyzes the matter of Ze鈥檈iri鈥檚 ruling itself. Ze鈥檈iri says: The level of impurity assumed during the retroactive twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman renders a bed upon which she lies and a chair upon which she sits impure to the extent that they transmit impurity to a person who comes in contact with them to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 诪砖讻讘讛 讜诪讜砖讘讛 讻诪讙注讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讛 诪讙注讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讗祝 诪砖讻讘讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Avimi came from Bei 岣zai, he came and brought the following baraita with him: The level of impurity during the retroactive twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman renders her bed upon which she lies and her chair upon which she sits impure like the impurity level caused by her touch. The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not correct to say that this means that just as an item rendered impure by her touch does not render another person impure, so too, her bed does not render another person impure?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讻诇讬 讞专住 讛诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 讛谞讬爪讜诇 讘讗讜讛诇 讛诪转 讗讬谞讜 谞讬爪讜诇 讘诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 诪砖讻讘讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讬爪讜诇讬谉 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讬谉 谞讬爪讜诇讬谉 讘诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛

Rava says: And how can you understand it in that manner? There is an a fortiori inference here: And if an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover, which is spared from impurity when it is in a tent that has a corpse in it, is nevertheless not spared from impurity if the woman moved it during the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman and is impure as though she moved it after she experienced bleeding; so too, with regard to beds and chairs, which are not spared from impurity in a tent that has a corpse in it, is it not logical that they are also not spared from impurity when used during the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman and are impure as though she used them after she experienced bleeding?

讜讛讗 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 诪转谞讬转讗 拽讗诪专 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讻讘讛 讜诪讜砖讘讛

The Gemara asks: But Avimi from Bei 岣zai cited a baraita that apparently does not accept Rava鈥檚 a fortiori inference. The Gemara answers: One can say that the baraita does not mean that her bed and chair are rendered impure with the light level of impurity caused by her touch, but rather: Her bed upon which she lies and her chair upon which she sits

Scroll To Top