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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 18, 2019 | 讻壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Chagigah is lovingly sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family, who are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas!

Niddah 56

From where do we derive that urine of a zav is impure and blood is impure? A creature that is dry does not transfer impurities unless it is whole. If it is burned, it is pure, unless it is whole. If one finds a creature in an alley or blood on a cloak, how do we determine from when it was impure and possibly transferred impurities to other items? How far back do we go? If one finds clothing with blood on it, when do we assume it was blood that was impure – upon what does it depend? Which halachot are Cutim (Shomronim) careful about and聽which are they not?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诪诪拽讜诐 讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讚诐 讛讬讜爪讗 诪驻讬 讛讗诪讛 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讘讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讟诪讗 讜讟讛讜专 讗祝 讗转讛 讗诇 转转诪讛 注诇 讝讛 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讘讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讬讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 讜讝讗转 诇专讘讜转 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛

from a place of impurity, the same place that emits ziva, is it not logical that it should be impure? The baraita answers: The case of blood that issues from the opening of the penis may prove that this inference is invalid, as the blood comes from a place of impurity and yet it is pure. Likewise, you should not be surprised about this, the urine of a zav, that even though it comes from a place of impurity it should be pure. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue, it is impure. And this shall be his impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:2鈥3). The term 鈥渁nd this鈥 comes to include his urine with regard to the severe form of ritual impurity.

讚诐 讛讬讜爪讗 诪驻讬 讛讗诪讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讟讛讜专 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讚诐 讛讬讜爪讗 诪驻讬讜 讜诪驻讬 讛讗诪讛 讟诪讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讚诐 讛讬讜爪讗 诪驻讬讜 讜诪驻讬 讛讗诪讛 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讛讜专

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that blood that issues from the opening of the penis is pure? As it is taught in a baraita concerning a zav: One might have thought that blood that issues from his mouth or from the opening of the penis is impure, like his saliva and urine. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is issue, it is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). The term 鈥渋t鈥 is an exclusion, indicating that it, ziva, is impure, but blood that issues from his mouth or from the opening of the penis is not impure; rather, it is pure.

讜讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚专讜拽 诪讛 专讜拽 砖诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讗祝 讻诇 砖诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讬爪讗 讚诐 砖讗讬谉 诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps I should reverse the halakhot. One could derive from the amplification 鈥渁nd this鈥 that blood issuing from the penis of the zav is impure, and from the exclusion 鈥渋t鈥 that his urine is pure. Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: Urine, rather than blood, should be included among the impure fluids of the zav, as it is similar to saliva: Just as saliva is a fluid that first gathers together and then comes out of the mouth, so too, all impure fluids are those that gather together and then come out of the body. Blood is therefore excluded, as it does not first gather together and then come out of the body.

讜讛专讬 讞诇讘 砖讘讗砖讛 砖诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讜讗诪专 诪专 讞诇讘 砖讘讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of the milk that is emitted from a woman, which first gathers together and then comes out of the body, and it should therefore transmit a severe form of ritual impurity, like saliva and ziva. And yet the Master said in the aforementioned baraita: The milk of a woman transmits the ritual impurity of liquids. One may infer that with regard to the ritual impurity of liquids, yes, it transmits impurity, but it does not transmit a severe form of ritual impurity.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚专讜拽 诪讛 专讜拽 诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讘诇注 讗祝 讻诇 诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讘诇注 讬爪讗 讚诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讬爪讗 讞诇讘 砖讘讗砖讛 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜谞讘诇注

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: In order to transmit a severe form of impurity the fluid must be similar to saliva: Just as saliva first gathers together and then comes out of the mouth, and if it is not expectorated it is reabsorbed, so too, all impure fluids first gather together and then come out of the body, and are reabsorbed by the body if they are not emitted. Blood is therefore excluded, as it does not first gather together and then come out of the body. The milk that is emitted from a woman is also excluded, as even though it gathers together and then comes out of the body it cannot be reabsorbed.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讝讜讘讜 诪讛 讝讜讘讜 砖讗讬谉 诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 诪讟诪讗 讗祝 讻诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讝讜讘讜 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 讙讜专诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara further objects: But let us derive from the case of ziva that both blood and breast milk transmit impurity: Just as his ziva does not first gather together and then come out of the body, and yet it transmits impurity, so too, all the fluids of a zav should transmit impurity, even if they do not gather together before they are emitted from the body. Rava said in explanation: One cannot derive the halakha with regard to the blood and breast milk of a zav or zava from the halakha with regard to his ziva, as the case of ziva is unique in that it causes impurity to others, i.e., to the one who emitted ziva.

讜讛砖专抓 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖专抓 砖讬讘砖 讜砖诇讚讜 拽讬讬诪转 讟诪讗 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讬讘砖讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讻讜诇谉 讛讗 讘诪拽爪转谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And the carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity when moist but not when dry. Reish Lakish says: With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal that dried up but its skeleton is intact, i.e., its bone structure remains in place, it is ritually impure. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that the items it lists, including the creeping animal, all transmit impurity when they are moist, but they do not transmit impurity when they are dry? Rabbi Zeira said: It is not difficult. This statement of Reish Lakish, that creeping animals transmit impurity even when dry, is referring to a case where all of the bones are intact. By contrast, that ruling of the mishna, that they do not transmit impurity when dry, is referring to a situation where only part of the bones are intact.

讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讘讬住谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讘讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讘讻讜诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讛诐

This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Bisna, says that Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: The verse states with regard to creeping animals: 鈥淲hoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:31). One might have thought that the carcasses of creeping animals transmit impurity only if one comes into contact with all of them, i.e., with creeping animals that are completely intact. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd upon whatever any of them falls when they are dead shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:32). The term 鈥渁ny of them鈥 indicates that this halakha applies even if one comes into contact with only part of a creeping animal.

讗讬 诪讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讘诪拽爪转谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 讘诇讞 讻讗谉 讘讬讘砖

If the halakha is derived from the term 鈥渙f them,鈥 one might have thought that even if one comes into contact with a part of them he is rendered impure. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hoever touches them,鈥 which indicates completely intact creeping animals. The baraita concludes: How can these texts be reconciled? Here, where the verse indicates that even part of them transmits impurity, it is referring to a moist creeping animal. There, where the verse teaches that only a complete creeping animal transmits impurity, it is speaking of a dry creature.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 讝讘讜讙讬 讚诪讞讜讝讗 讻讬 砖诇讚谉 拽讬讬诪转 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖专抓 砖谞砖专祝 讜砖诇讚讜 拽讬讬诪转 讟诪讗

Rava said: With regard to these lizards of the city of Me岣za, when their skeleton is intact they are impure. The dab lizard is one of the creeping animals listed in the Torah. And Reish Lakish says: With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal that was burned but its skeleton is intact, it is ritually impure.

诪讬转讬讘讬 谞诪爪讗 砖专抓 砖专讜祝 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讝讬转讬诐 讜讻谉 诪讟诇讬转 讛诪讛讜讛讗 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖讻诇 讛讟诪讗讜转 讻砖注转 诪爪讬讗转谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讻讜诇谉 讛讗 讘诪拽爪转谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna that indicates a burnt carcass of a creeping animal is pure (Teharot 9:9): In a case where a burnt creeping animal was found on top of a pile of olives, and likewise, if the tattered rag of a zav was found on a pile of olives, the olives and the rag are pure. One is not concerned that the carcass of the creeping animal touched the olives or rag before it was burned, because with regard to all matters of impurity, it is assumed that when the item in question came into contact with the potential sources of impurity, the potential sources of impurity were in the same state as they were at the time they were found, and a burnt carcass does not transmit impurity. Rabbi Zeira said: It is not difficult; this statement of Reish Lakish refers to a case where all of the bones are intact, whereas that ruling of the mishna is referring to a situation where only part of the bones are intact.

讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讘讬住谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讘讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讘讻讜诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讛诐

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Bisna, says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: When the verse states: 鈥淲hoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:31), one might have thought that creeping animals transmit impurity only if one comes into contact with all of them, i.e., with creeping animals that are completely intact. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd upon whatever any of them falls when they are dead shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:32), indicating that even a part of them transmits impurity.

讗讬 诪讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讘诪拽爪转谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 讘砖专讜祝 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 砖专讜祝

If the halakha is derived from the term 鈥渙f them,鈥 one might have thought that even contact with a part of them transmits impurity. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hoever touches them.鈥 How can these texts be reconciled? Here, where the verse teaches that only the complete carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity, it is referring to a burnt creeping animal. There, where the verse indicates that even a part of them transmits impurity, it is referring to the carcass of a creeping animal that is not burnt.

诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讝讘 讚讻转讬讘 专专 讘砖专讜 讻讬讞讜 讜谞讬注讜 讜专讜拽讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬专拽 讛讝讘 讻注讬谉 专讜拽

搂 The mishna teaches that the ziva of a zav, the mucus and saliva of a zav, the carcass of a creeping animal, an animal carcass, and semen all transmit impurity when they are moist, but they do not transmit impurity when they are dry. The Gemara cites the sources for these halakhot: The ziva of a zav transmits impurity only when moist, as it is written: 鈥淗is flesh runs with his issue鈥 (Leviticus 15:3), which is referring to a moist discharge. His phlegm and his mucus and his saliva likewise transmit impurity only when moist, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if one who has an issue spits鈥 (Leviticus 15:8), which is referring to a substance that is like saliva, which is moist.

砖专抓 讘诪讜转诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻注讬谉 诪讬转讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讝专讬注 谞讘诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讻注讬谉 诪讬转讛

The carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity only when moist, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淲hoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:31). This indicates that they transmit impurity when they are in a state similar to their state at the time of death, when creatures are still moist. Semen transmits impurity only when moist, as it must be fit to inseminate. An animal carcass transmits impurity only when moist, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if any animal of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39), which teaches that the carcass transmits impurity when it is in a state similar to its state at the time of death.

讗诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛砖专讜转 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 转讞讬诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讘驻讜砖专讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转讞讬诇转讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if one could soak those dry substances in water and restore them to their previous state they would transmit impurity both when moist and when dry. The mishna further teaches that this is referring to soaking them in lukewarm water for a twenty-four-hour period. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Does the mishna mean that the soaking must be performed in lukewarm water from the beginning of the soaking until its end, or perhaps it is sufficient if the water is lukewarm at the beginning of the soaking, even if at the end of the soaking the water is not lukewarm?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 砖专讬讬转谉 讘驻讜砖专讬谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 谞拽讜住讗 讗讜诪专 诪注转 诇注转 转讞讬诇转讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讜 驻讜砖专讬谉 诪注转 诇注转

The Gemara explains: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: How much time is their soaking in lukewarm water? Yehuda ben Nekosa says: This is referring to a twenty-four-hour period, and it is sufficient if the water is lukewarm at its beginning, even if it is not lukewarm at its end. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The water must be lukewarm for the entire twenty-four-hour period.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘砖专 讛诪转 讻讜壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘讻讝讬转 讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 专拽讘 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘砖专 讛诪转 砖讬讘砖 讜讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇砖专讜转 讜诇讞讝讜专 讻诪讜转 砖讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘讻讝讬转 讗讘诇 讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 专拽讘

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to the flesh of a corpse that is dry and cannot be soaked to restore it to its previous state, it is ritually pure. Shmuel says: It is pure from transmitting impurity by the amount of an olive-bulk, but if there is a ladleful of the flesh it transmits the impurity of the decayed flesh of a corpse. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to the flesh of a corpse that dried up and cannot be soaked and restored to its previous state, it is ritually pure from transmitting impurity by the amount of an olive-bulk, but it is impure with the impurity of the decayed flesh of a corpse.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖专抓 砖谞诪爪讗 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘讚拽转讬 讗转 讛诪讘讜讬 讛讝讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 砖专抓 讗讜 注讚 砖注转 讻讘讜讚

MISHNA: The carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway renders pure items impure retroactively. All items that passed through that alleyway from the time about which one may state: I examined this alleyway and there was no carcass of a creeping animal in it, or from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway, are impure.

讜讻谉 讻转诐 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讞诇讜拽 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘讚拽转讬 讗转 讛讞诇讜拽 讛讝讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 讻转诐 讗讜 注讚 砖注转 讛讻讘讜住

And likewise, a blood stain that was discovered on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively. Any pure items that she handled from the time about which one may state: I examined this robe and there was no blood stain on it, or from the time of the laundering of the robe, are impure.

讜诪讟诪讗 讘讬谉 诇讞 讘讬谉 讬讘砖 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讬讘砖 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 讜讛诇讞 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 注讚 砖注转 砖讬讛讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讜诇讛讬讜转 诇讞

And the carcass of a creeping animal or a blood stain renders items impure retroactively whether they are still moist or are already dried out. Rabbi Shimon says: The dry one renders items impure retroactively, but the moist one does not render items impure from the aforementioned times, but only from such a time that it could still be moist from then up to the moment it was discovered.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚 砖注转 讻讘讜讚 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讞讝拽转讜 诪转讻讘讚

GEMARA: With regard to the case of the carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: The mishna teaches that any pure items that passed through that alleyway from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway are impure. Does this mean that once the alleyway is swept its presumptive status is that it has been examined, as it is examined during the sweeping and any impure item would have been discovered, and therefore any pure items that passed through the alleyway beforehand remain pure? Or perhaps the mishna means that once the alleyway is swept its presumptive status is that it has been entirely swept, and therefore any creeping animal would have been removed by the sweeping.

讜诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬讚 讜诇讗 讘讚讬拽 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 讛讗 诇讗 讘讚拽 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 诪转讻讘讚 讛讗 诪转讻讘讚

The Gemara asks: And what is the practical difference that arises from this dilemma? The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where the one who swept the alleyway said he swept it but did not examine it. If you say that items that were present in the alleyway before it was swept remain pure because the presumptive status of a swept alleyway is that it has been examined, in this case the man explicitly said that he did not examine it, so it does not have this presumptive status. By contrast, if you say that the items remain pure because the presumptive status of the alleyway is that it has been completely swept, in this case too it has been swept, and therefore the items that were present earlier remain pure.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讙讜诪讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 诪讗谉 讚讘讚拽 讘讙讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬拽 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 诪转讻讘讚 讙讜诪讗 诇讗 诪转讻讘讚讗

Alternatively, there is a difference between these explanations in a case where the creeping animal was found in a hole in the ground. If you say the presumptive status of a swept alleyway is that it has been examined, it is clear that one who examines the alleyway also examines any holes, and any items that were in the alleyway beforehand should remain pure. By contrast, if you say its presumptive status is that it has been completely swept, this applies only to items that are on the ground, whereas a hole is not considered to have been swept. Consequently, even items that passed through the alleyway before it was swept should be deemed impure.

讜讻谉 讛讻转诐 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚 砖注转 讻讘讜住 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讞讝拽转讜 诪转讻讘住

The mishna teaches: And likewise, a blood stain that was discovered on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively. With regard to this halakha as well a dilemma was raised before the Sages: The mishna states that any pure items the woman handled from the time of laundering are impure. Does this mean that once the robe has been laundered its presumptive status is that it has been examined, as when it is laundered it is examined thoroughly, and any blood stain would have been discovered? Or perhaps the mishna means that its presumptive status is that it is thoroughly laundered, and any blood stain would have been removed by the laundering.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 讻讬讘住 讜诇讗 讘讚拽 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 讛讗 诇讗 讘讚拽 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 诪转讻讘住 讛讗 诪转讻讘住

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that arises from this dilemma? The Gemara replies: There is a difference in a case where the person who laundered the robe said he laundered it but did not examine it. If you say its presumptive status is that it has been examined, in this case the man explicitly said that he did not examine the robe, so it does not have this presumptive status. By contrast, if you say its presumptive status is that it is thoroughly laundered, in this case too it has been laundered.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讗砖转讻讞讛 讘住讟专讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 诪讗谉 讚讘讚拽 讘住讟专讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬拽 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 诪转讻讘住 讘住讟专讗 诇讗 诪转讻讘住

Alternatively, there is a difference between these explanations in a case where the blood stain was found on the side of the robe, in an area where there are folds and stitches. If you say its presumptive status is that it has been examined, it is clear that one who examines the robe also examines the side of the robe, and therefore any items that the woman handled before the robe was laundered should remain pure. By contrast, if you say its presumptive status is that it is thoroughly laundered, this applies only to the main part of the robe, but on its side it is not laundered thoroughly enough to remove a blood stain.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讛砖专抓 砖谞诪爪讗 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘讚拽转讬 讗转 讛诪讘讜讬 讛讝讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 砖专抓 讗讜 注讚 砖注转 讻讬讘讜讚 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讝拽转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘讜讚拽讬谉 诪讘讜讗讜转讬讛谉 讘砖注转 讻讘讜讚讬讛诐 讜讗诐 诇讗 讘讚拽讜 讛驻住讬讚讜讛讜 诇诪驻专注

What is the halakha with regard to these two dilemmas? Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: For what reason did the Sages say that the carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway renders pure items impure retroactively from the time about which one may state: I examined this alleyway and there was no creeping animal in it, or from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway? It is due to the fact that there is a presumption with regard to Jewish people that they examine their alleyways at the time of their sweeping. And therefore, if they did not examine the alleyway they retroactively lose the purity of any items that were there from the last time it was examined.

讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讻转诐 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讞诇讜拽 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘讚拽转讬 讗转 讛讞诇讜拽 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 讻转诐 讗讜 注讚 砖注转 讛讻讘讜住 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讝拽转 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讘讜讚拽讜转 讞诇讜拽讬讛谉 讘砖注转 讻讘讜住讬讛谉 讜讗诐 诇讗 讘讚拽讜 讛驻住讬讚讜 诇诪驻专注

And similarly, for what reason did the Sages say that a blood stain that was found on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively from the time about which one may state: I examined the robe and there was no blood stain on it, or from the time of the laundering of the robe? It is due to the fact that there is a presumption with regard to the Jewish women that they examine their robes at the time of their laundering. And therefore, if they did not examine the robe they retroactively lose the purity of any items they handled since it was last examined.

专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗诪专 转讞讝讜专 讜转讻讘住谞讜 讗诐 谞讚讞讛 诪专讗讬转讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖诇讗讞专 讻讘讜住 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖诇驻谞讬 讛讻讘讜住

Rabbi A岣 says: Even in a case where the robe was not examined when it was laundered and a blood stain was subsequently found on it, and it is unknown whether the stain was present before the laundering, there is a remedy to the dilemma: Let her launder it again. If the appearance of the blood stain changes as a result of this laundering it is known that the robe became stained after the previous laundering, which is why the present laundering affected its appearance. Consequently, those pure items that the woman handled before the earlier laundering remain pure. And if the blood stain鈥檚 appearance does not change due to the second laundering it is known that the robe became stained before the previous laundering, and therefore the items that she handled before the laundering are impure.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讻转诐 砖诇讗讞专 讛讻讘讜住 诇讻转诐 砖诇驻谞讬 讛讻讘讜住 砖讝讛 诪拽讚讬专 讜讝讛 诪讙诇讬讚 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One can differentiate between a blood stain that was on the robe before it was laundered and one that stained the robe afterward by inspecting the stain itself. This is because the appearance of a blood stain after the laundering is not similar to the appearance of a blood stain before the laundering, as this stain, from after the laundering, penetrates [makdir] the garment, and that stain, from before the laundering, forms a crust [maglid] that can be scraped off the robe. With regard to the Gemara鈥檚 dilemma, one may conclude from Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement that the presumptive status of a swept alleyway or a laundered robe is that it has been examined. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

讜诪讟诪讗 讘讬谉 诇讞 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖专抓 讗讘诇 讻转诐 诇讞 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 讗讬诪专 讬讘砖 讛讬讛 讜诪讬讗 谞驻讬诇 注诇讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And the carcass of a creeping animal or a blood stain renders items impure retroactively whether they are still moist or are already dried out. Rabbi Shimon says: The dry one renders items impure retroactively, whereas the moist one does not render items impure since the aforementioned times, but only from such a time that it could still be moist from then up to the moment it was discovered. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Elazar says: The mishna taught this halakha only with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, but Rabbi Shimon concedes that a moist blood stain also renders the woman impure retroactively from the time that the robe was examined. This is because one can say the blood stain was dry beforehand and water fell upon it, causing it to become moist.

砖专抓 谞诪讬 讗讬诪专 讬讘砖 讛讬讛 讜诪讬讗 谞驻讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专讟讜讟讬 讗讬诪专讟讟

The Gemara asks: With regard to the moist carcass of a creeping animal as well, one can say it was dried out beforehand and water fell on it. It should therefore render items impure retroactively from the time that the alleyway was swept. The Gemara answers: If it is so, that this is what occurred, the dead creeping animal would be sundered apart and would not have its current appearance.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讻转诪讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪专拽诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛诐 讙专讬诐 讜讟讜注讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉

MISHNA: Any blood stains on garments that come from the town of Rekem are ritually pure, as most of the residents there are gentiles, and the blood stains of gentile women are not ritually impure. Rabbi Yehuda deems those stains impure because in his opinion the residents of Rekem are not gentiles; rather, they are converts whose halakhic status is that of Jews, but they are misguided and do not put away their bloodstained garments. The blood stains on garments that come from among the gentiles are ritually pure. With regard to blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as they may have come from the Jews. And the Rabbis deem them ritually pure due to the fact that Jews are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains.

讙诪壮 拽驻住讬拽 讜转谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪转专诪讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讙专讬诐 诪转专诪讜讚

GEMARA: The mishna categorically teaches that any blood stains on garments that come from among the gentiles are ritually pure, thereby indicating that this applies even to garments that come from among the gentile population of Tarmod. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: That is to say, one may accept converts from Tarmod, i.e., there is no concern with regard to whether they are actually Jews of flawed lineage, who may not marry Jews of fit lineage.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜住讘讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讙专讬诐 诪转专诪讜讚

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But aren鈥檛 there Rabbi Yo岣nan and the Elders who both say that one may not accept converts from Tarmod? This is due to a concern that the daughters of the ten tribes exiled during the First Temple period might have intermingled with them, and according to Rabbi Yo岣nan the offspring of a Jewish woman and a gentile is a mamzer, who may not marry a Jew of fit lineage.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讝讗转 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛

And if you would say that Rabbi Yo岣nan merely infers that this is the opinion of the mishna, as indicated by the term: That is to say, but he himself does not hold accordingly, that is not so. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna, as is the case here?

讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara answers: They are amora鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. According to one amora, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that converts from Tarmod are not accepted, and he did not state that it is a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna. According to another amora, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that the halakha is in accordance with the unattributed mishna, and therefore one may accept converts from Tarmod.

诪讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讜壮 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讚讬砖专讗诇 诪讟讛专讬 讚诪讗谉 诪讟诪讜

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans that Rabbi Meir deems them impure, and the Rabbis deem them ritually pure. The Gemara asks: But with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis, if they deem stains that come from a Jewish woman pure, whose stains do they deem impure?

讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讟诪讗 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟诪讗 讚讻讜转讬诐 讙专讬 讗诪转 讛谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 讚讻讜转讬诐 讙专讬 讗专讬讜转 讛谉

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Everyone agrees that blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews are impure. With regard to blood stains that come from among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as he maintains the Samaritans are true converts and have the halakhic status of Jews, whose blood stains are impure. And the Rabbis deem them ritually pure, as they maintain the Samaritans are converts who converted under duress due to the threat posed by lions, and therefore their conversion is void, and their halakhic status is that of gentiles.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉 讙专讬 讗专讬讜转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, why does the mishna state that according to the Rabbis the blood stains of the Samaritans are ritually pure due to the fact that they are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains? The mishna should state that their blood stains are pure, as they are converts who converted due to the threat of lions.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讚讻讜转讬诐 讙专讬 讗诪转 讛谉 讛谞诪爪讗讬谉 讘注专讬 讬砖专讗诇 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讻转诪讬讛诐 讜讗爪谞讜注讬 诪爪谞注讬 诇讛讜

Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: Blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans are ritually impure, as everyone agrees the Samaritans are true converts. With regard to blood stains that are found in the towns of Jews, they are pure, as they are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains, and they certainly put them away. Therefore, the stains necessarily come from gentiles.

讛谞诪爪讗讬谉 讘注专讬 讻讜转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟诪讗 讚谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讻转诪讬讛诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉

The Gemara continues paraphrasing the mishna: With regard to blood stains that are found in the towns of Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as the inhabitants are suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains. And the Rabbis deem them pure, as they maintain that even Samaritans are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains, and the stains are necessarily from gentiles.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讻转诪讬诐 讛谞诪爪讗讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞诪爪讗讬诐 讘讞讚专讬诐 讜讘住讘讬讘讜转 讘讬转 讛讟诪讗讜转

MISHNA: All blood stains on garments that are found anywhere where Jews and gentiles reside are ritually pure, since they must not belong to Jews, who put away their stained garments. This is the halakha except for the stained garments that are found in the inner rooms of the house, as these might be garments that the Jews put away there; and except for the stained garments found in proximity to the house of impurity, i.e., the room that women used when they were impure due to menstruation.

讘讬转 讛讟诪讗讜转 砖诇 讻讜转讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讛诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛诐 拽讜讘专讬谉 砖诐 讗转 讛谞驻诇讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 拽讜讘专讬谉 讗诇讗 诪砖诇讬讻讬谉 讜讞讬讛 讙讜专专转讜

The house of impurity of Samaritans imparts the impurity that is imparted by a corpse by means of a tent, due to the fact that they bury the stillborn children there. Rabbi Yehuda says: The house of impurity of Samaritans does not impart that impurity, as they would not bury a stillborn child there. Rather, they would cast it outside and an animal would drag it away.

谞讗诪谞讬诐 诇讜诪专 拽讘专谞讜 砖诐 讗转 讛谞驻诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗 拽讘专谞讜 谞讗诪谞讬诐 诇讜诪专 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 讗诐 讘讻专讛 讗诐 诇讗 讘讻专讛 谞讗诪谞讬诐 注诇 爪讬讜谉 拽讘专讜转

Samaritans are deemed credible to state: We buried the stillborn children there, in a certain place, and it transmits ritual impurity; or to state: We did not bury the stillborn children there, and it does not transmit ritual impurity. They are likewise deemed credible to state about an animal whether it previously gave birth or whether it did not previously give birth; and their testimony is accepted with regard to determining whether the animal鈥檚 offspring has the status of a firstborn animal, which is sacred. They are also deemed credible to testify about the marking of graves, i.e., that where they marked is deemed a grave and where they did not mark is deemed a place where there is no grave.

讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讛住讻讻讜转 讜诇讗 注诇 讛驻专注讜转 讜诇讗 注诇 讘讬转 讛驻专住

But with regard to the following cases, in which the exact location of a grave is unknown, the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify: They are not deemed credible to testify about the overhanging boughs, nor about the protrusions that jut out of stone fences and cover the ground. If it is unknown which bough or protrusion hangs over a grave, forming a tent that transmits the impurity of a corpse, and if a Samaritan testifies that the grave is not beneath a particular bough or protrusion his testimony is not accepted. And likewise they are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas. The Sages issued a decree that in such a case, the area that was plowed is impure as far as one hundred cubits from the original grave, due to the concern that the bones were dispersed by the plow.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讚讘专 砖讞砖讜讚讬诐 讘讜 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜

This is the principle governing the credibility of Samaritans: In the case of any matter of halakha that they are suspected of not fulfilling, they are not deemed credible to testify about it.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Chagigah is lovingly sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family, who are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas!

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 56

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 56

诪诪拽讜诐 讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讚诐 讛讬讜爪讗 诪驻讬 讛讗诪讛 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讘讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讟诪讗 讜讟讛讜专 讗祝 讗转讛 讗诇 转转诪讛 注诇 讝讛 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讘讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讬讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 讜讝讗转 诇专讘讜转 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛

from a place of impurity, the same place that emits ziva, is it not logical that it should be impure? The baraita answers: The case of blood that issues from the opening of the penis may prove that this inference is invalid, as the blood comes from a place of impurity and yet it is pure. Likewise, you should not be surprised about this, the urine of a zav, that even though it comes from a place of impurity it should be pure. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue, it is impure. And this shall be his impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:2鈥3). The term 鈥渁nd this鈥 comes to include his urine with regard to the severe form of ritual impurity.

讚诐 讛讬讜爪讗 诪驻讬 讛讗诪讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讟讛讜专 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讚诐 讛讬讜爪讗 诪驻讬讜 讜诪驻讬 讛讗诪讛 讟诪讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讚诐 讛讬讜爪讗 诪驻讬讜 讜诪驻讬 讛讗诪讛 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讛讜专

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that blood that issues from the opening of the penis is pure? As it is taught in a baraita concerning a zav: One might have thought that blood that issues from his mouth or from the opening of the penis is impure, like his saliva and urine. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is issue, it is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). The term 鈥渋t鈥 is an exclusion, indicating that it, ziva, is impure, but blood that issues from his mouth or from the opening of the penis is not impure; rather, it is pure.

讜讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚专讜拽 诪讛 专讜拽 砖诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讗祝 讻诇 砖诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讬爪讗 讚诐 砖讗讬谉 诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps I should reverse the halakhot. One could derive from the amplification 鈥渁nd this鈥 that blood issuing from the penis of the zav is impure, and from the exclusion 鈥渋t鈥 that his urine is pure. Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: Urine, rather than blood, should be included among the impure fluids of the zav, as it is similar to saliva: Just as saliva is a fluid that first gathers together and then comes out of the mouth, so too, all impure fluids are those that gather together and then come out of the body. Blood is therefore excluded, as it does not first gather together and then come out of the body.

讜讛专讬 讞诇讘 砖讘讗砖讛 砖诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讜讗诪专 诪专 讞诇讘 砖讘讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of the milk that is emitted from a woman, which first gathers together and then comes out of the body, and it should therefore transmit a severe form of ritual impurity, like saliva and ziva. And yet the Master said in the aforementioned baraita: The milk of a woman transmits the ritual impurity of liquids. One may infer that with regard to the ritual impurity of liquids, yes, it transmits impurity, but it does not transmit a severe form of ritual impurity.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚专讜拽 诪讛 专讜拽 诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讘诇注 讗祝 讻诇 诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讘诇注 讬爪讗 讚诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讬爪讗 讞诇讘 砖讘讗砖讛 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜谞讘诇注

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: In order to transmit a severe form of impurity the fluid must be similar to saliva: Just as saliva first gathers together and then comes out of the mouth, and if it is not expectorated it is reabsorbed, so too, all impure fluids first gather together and then come out of the body, and are reabsorbed by the body if they are not emitted. Blood is therefore excluded, as it does not first gather together and then come out of the body. The milk that is emitted from a woman is also excluded, as even though it gathers together and then comes out of the body it cannot be reabsorbed.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讝讜讘讜 诪讛 讝讜讘讜 砖讗讬谉 诪转注讙诇 讜讬讜爪讗 诪讟诪讗 讗祝 讻诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讝讜讘讜 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 讙讜专诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara further objects: But let us derive from the case of ziva that both blood and breast milk transmit impurity: Just as his ziva does not first gather together and then come out of the body, and yet it transmits impurity, so too, all the fluids of a zav should transmit impurity, even if they do not gather together before they are emitted from the body. Rava said in explanation: One cannot derive the halakha with regard to the blood and breast milk of a zav or zava from the halakha with regard to his ziva, as the case of ziva is unique in that it causes impurity to others, i.e., to the one who emitted ziva.

讜讛砖专抓 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖专抓 砖讬讘砖 讜砖诇讚讜 拽讬讬诪转 讟诪讗 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讬讘砖讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讻讜诇谉 讛讗 讘诪拽爪转谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And the carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity when moist but not when dry. Reish Lakish says: With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal that dried up but its skeleton is intact, i.e., its bone structure remains in place, it is ritually impure. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that the items it lists, including the creeping animal, all transmit impurity when they are moist, but they do not transmit impurity when they are dry? Rabbi Zeira said: It is not difficult. This statement of Reish Lakish, that creeping animals transmit impurity even when dry, is referring to a case where all of the bones are intact. By contrast, that ruling of the mishna, that they do not transmit impurity when dry, is referring to a situation where only part of the bones are intact.

讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讘讬住谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讘讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讘讻讜诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讛诐

This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Bisna, says that Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: The verse states with regard to creeping animals: 鈥淲hoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:31). One might have thought that the carcasses of creeping animals transmit impurity only if one comes into contact with all of them, i.e., with creeping animals that are completely intact. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd upon whatever any of them falls when they are dead shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:32). The term 鈥渁ny of them鈥 indicates that this halakha applies even if one comes into contact with only part of a creeping animal.

讗讬 诪讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讘诪拽爪转谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 讘诇讞 讻讗谉 讘讬讘砖

If the halakha is derived from the term 鈥渙f them,鈥 one might have thought that even if one comes into contact with a part of them he is rendered impure. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hoever touches them,鈥 which indicates completely intact creeping animals. The baraita concludes: How can these texts be reconciled? Here, where the verse indicates that even part of them transmits impurity, it is referring to a moist creeping animal. There, where the verse teaches that only a complete creeping animal transmits impurity, it is speaking of a dry creature.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 讝讘讜讙讬 讚诪讞讜讝讗 讻讬 砖诇讚谉 拽讬讬诪转 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖专抓 砖谞砖专祝 讜砖诇讚讜 拽讬讬诪转 讟诪讗

Rava said: With regard to these lizards of the city of Me岣za, when their skeleton is intact they are impure. The dab lizard is one of the creeping animals listed in the Torah. And Reish Lakish says: With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal that was burned but its skeleton is intact, it is ritually impure.

诪讬转讬讘讬 谞诪爪讗 砖专抓 砖专讜祝 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讝讬转讬诐 讜讻谉 诪讟诇讬转 讛诪讛讜讛讗 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖讻诇 讛讟诪讗讜转 讻砖注转 诪爪讬讗转谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讻讜诇谉 讛讗 讘诪拽爪转谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna that indicates a burnt carcass of a creeping animal is pure (Teharot 9:9): In a case where a burnt creeping animal was found on top of a pile of olives, and likewise, if the tattered rag of a zav was found on a pile of olives, the olives and the rag are pure. One is not concerned that the carcass of the creeping animal touched the olives or rag before it was burned, because with regard to all matters of impurity, it is assumed that when the item in question came into contact with the potential sources of impurity, the potential sources of impurity were in the same state as they were at the time they were found, and a burnt carcass does not transmit impurity. Rabbi Zeira said: It is not difficult; this statement of Reish Lakish refers to a case where all of the bones are intact, whereas that ruling of the mishna is referring to a situation where only part of the bones are intact.

讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讘讬住谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讘讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讘讻讜诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讛诐

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Bisna, says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: When the verse states: 鈥淲hoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:31), one might have thought that creeping animals transmit impurity only if one comes into contact with all of them, i.e., with creeping animals that are completely intact. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd upon whatever any of them falls when they are dead shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:32), indicating that even a part of them transmits impurity.

讗讬 诪讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讘诪拽爪转谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 讘砖专讜祝 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 砖专讜祝

If the halakha is derived from the term 鈥渙f them,鈥 one might have thought that even contact with a part of them transmits impurity. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hoever touches them.鈥 How can these texts be reconciled? Here, where the verse teaches that only the complete carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity, it is referring to a burnt creeping animal. There, where the verse indicates that even a part of them transmits impurity, it is referring to the carcass of a creeping animal that is not burnt.

诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讝讘 讚讻转讬讘 专专 讘砖专讜 讻讬讞讜 讜谞讬注讜 讜专讜拽讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬专拽 讛讝讘 讻注讬谉 专讜拽

搂 The mishna teaches that the ziva of a zav, the mucus and saliva of a zav, the carcass of a creeping animal, an animal carcass, and semen all transmit impurity when they are moist, but they do not transmit impurity when they are dry. The Gemara cites the sources for these halakhot: The ziva of a zav transmits impurity only when moist, as it is written: 鈥淗is flesh runs with his issue鈥 (Leviticus 15:3), which is referring to a moist discharge. His phlegm and his mucus and his saliva likewise transmit impurity only when moist, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if one who has an issue spits鈥 (Leviticus 15:8), which is referring to a substance that is like saliva, which is moist.

砖专抓 讘诪讜转诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻注讬谉 诪讬转讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讝专讬注 谞讘诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讻注讬谉 诪讬转讛

The carcass of a creeping animal transmits impurity only when moist, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淲hoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:31). This indicates that they transmit impurity when they are in a state similar to their state at the time of death, when creatures are still moist. Semen transmits impurity only when moist, as it must be fit to inseminate. An animal carcass transmits impurity only when moist, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if any animal of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39), which teaches that the carcass transmits impurity when it is in a state similar to its state at the time of death.

讗诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛砖专讜转 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 转讞讬诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讘驻讜砖专讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转讞讬诇转讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if one could soak those dry substances in water and restore them to their previous state they would transmit impurity both when moist and when dry. The mishna further teaches that this is referring to soaking them in lukewarm water for a twenty-four-hour period. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Does the mishna mean that the soaking must be performed in lukewarm water from the beginning of the soaking until its end, or perhaps it is sufficient if the water is lukewarm at the beginning of the soaking, even if at the end of the soaking the water is not lukewarm?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 砖专讬讬转谉 讘驻讜砖专讬谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 谞拽讜住讗 讗讜诪专 诪注转 诇注转 转讞讬诇转讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讜 驻讜砖专讬谉 诪注转 诇注转

The Gemara explains: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: How much time is their soaking in lukewarm water? Yehuda ben Nekosa says: This is referring to a twenty-four-hour period, and it is sufficient if the water is lukewarm at its beginning, even if it is not lukewarm at its end. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The water must be lukewarm for the entire twenty-four-hour period.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘砖专 讛诪转 讻讜壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘讻讝讬转 讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 专拽讘 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘砖专 讛诪转 砖讬讘砖 讜讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇砖专讜转 讜诇讞讝讜专 讻诪讜转 砖讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘讻讝讬转 讗讘诇 讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 专拽讘

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to the flesh of a corpse that is dry and cannot be soaked to restore it to its previous state, it is ritually pure. Shmuel says: It is pure from transmitting impurity by the amount of an olive-bulk, but if there is a ladleful of the flesh it transmits the impurity of the decayed flesh of a corpse. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to the flesh of a corpse that dried up and cannot be soaked and restored to its previous state, it is ritually pure from transmitting impurity by the amount of an olive-bulk, but it is impure with the impurity of the decayed flesh of a corpse.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖专抓 砖谞诪爪讗 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘讚拽转讬 讗转 讛诪讘讜讬 讛讝讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 砖专抓 讗讜 注讚 砖注转 讻讘讜讚

MISHNA: The carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway renders pure items impure retroactively. All items that passed through that alleyway from the time about which one may state: I examined this alleyway and there was no carcass of a creeping animal in it, or from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway, are impure.

讜讻谉 讻转诐 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讞诇讜拽 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘讚拽转讬 讗转 讛讞诇讜拽 讛讝讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 讻转诐 讗讜 注讚 砖注转 讛讻讘讜住

And likewise, a blood stain that was discovered on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively. Any pure items that she handled from the time about which one may state: I examined this robe and there was no blood stain on it, or from the time of the laundering of the robe, are impure.

讜诪讟诪讗 讘讬谉 诇讞 讘讬谉 讬讘砖 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讬讘砖 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 讜讛诇讞 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 注讚 砖注转 砖讬讛讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讜诇讛讬讜转 诇讞

And the carcass of a creeping animal or a blood stain renders items impure retroactively whether they are still moist or are already dried out. Rabbi Shimon says: The dry one renders items impure retroactively, but the moist one does not render items impure from the aforementioned times, but only from such a time that it could still be moist from then up to the moment it was discovered.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚 砖注转 讻讘讜讚 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讞讝拽转讜 诪转讻讘讚

GEMARA: With regard to the case of the carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: The mishna teaches that any pure items that passed through that alleyway from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway are impure. Does this mean that once the alleyway is swept its presumptive status is that it has been examined, as it is examined during the sweeping and any impure item would have been discovered, and therefore any pure items that passed through the alleyway beforehand remain pure? Or perhaps the mishna means that once the alleyway is swept its presumptive status is that it has been entirely swept, and therefore any creeping animal would have been removed by the sweeping.

讜诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬讚 讜诇讗 讘讚讬拽 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 讛讗 诇讗 讘讚拽 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 诪转讻讘讚 讛讗 诪转讻讘讚

The Gemara asks: And what is the practical difference that arises from this dilemma? The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where the one who swept the alleyway said he swept it but did not examine it. If you say that items that were present in the alleyway before it was swept remain pure because the presumptive status of a swept alleyway is that it has been examined, in this case the man explicitly said that he did not examine it, so it does not have this presumptive status. By contrast, if you say that the items remain pure because the presumptive status of the alleyway is that it has been completely swept, in this case too it has been swept, and therefore the items that were present earlier remain pure.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讙讜诪讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 诪讗谉 讚讘讚拽 讘讙讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬拽 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 诪转讻讘讚 讙讜诪讗 诇讗 诪转讻讘讚讗

Alternatively, there is a difference between these explanations in a case where the creeping animal was found in a hole in the ground. If you say the presumptive status of a swept alleyway is that it has been examined, it is clear that one who examines the alleyway also examines any holes, and any items that were in the alleyway beforehand should remain pure. By contrast, if you say its presumptive status is that it has been completely swept, this applies only to items that are on the ground, whereas a hole is not considered to have been swept. Consequently, even items that passed through the alleyway before it was swept should be deemed impure.

讜讻谉 讛讻转诐 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚 砖注转 讻讘讜住 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讞讝拽转讜 诪转讻讘住

The mishna teaches: And likewise, a blood stain that was discovered on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively. With regard to this halakha as well a dilemma was raised before the Sages: The mishna states that any pure items the woman handled from the time of laundering are impure. Does this mean that once the robe has been laundered its presumptive status is that it has been examined, as when it is laundered it is examined thoroughly, and any blood stain would have been discovered? Or perhaps the mishna means that its presumptive status is that it is thoroughly laundered, and any blood stain would have been removed by the laundering.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 讻讬讘住 讜诇讗 讘讚拽 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 讛讗 诇讗 讘讚拽 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 诪转讻讘住 讛讗 诪转讻讘住

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that arises from this dilemma? The Gemara replies: There is a difference in a case where the person who laundered the robe said he laundered it but did not examine it. If you say its presumptive status is that it has been examined, in this case the man explicitly said that he did not examine the robe, so it does not have this presumptive status. By contrast, if you say its presumptive status is that it is thoroughly laundered, in this case too it has been laundered.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讗砖转讻讞讛 讘住讟专讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 诪讗谉 讚讘讚拽 讘住讟专讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬拽 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讝拽转讜 诪转讻讘住 讘住讟专讗 诇讗 诪转讻讘住

Alternatively, there is a difference between these explanations in a case where the blood stain was found on the side of the robe, in an area where there are folds and stitches. If you say its presumptive status is that it has been examined, it is clear that one who examines the robe also examines the side of the robe, and therefore any items that the woman handled before the robe was laundered should remain pure. By contrast, if you say its presumptive status is that it is thoroughly laundered, this applies only to the main part of the robe, but on its side it is not laundered thoroughly enough to remove a blood stain.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讛砖专抓 砖谞诪爪讗 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘讚拽转讬 讗转 讛诪讘讜讬 讛讝讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 砖专抓 讗讜 注讚 砖注转 讻讬讘讜讚 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讝拽转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘讜讚拽讬谉 诪讘讜讗讜转讬讛谉 讘砖注转 讻讘讜讚讬讛诐 讜讗诐 诇讗 讘讚拽讜 讛驻住讬讚讜讛讜 诇诪驻专注

What is the halakha with regard to these two dilemmas? Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: For what reason did the Sages say that the carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway renders pure items impure retroactively from the time about which one may state: I examined this alleyway and there was no creeping animal in it, or from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway? It is due to the fact that there is a presumption with regard to Jewish people that they examine their alleyways at the time of their sweeping. And therefore, if they did not examine the alleyway they retroactively lose the purity of any items that were there from the last time it was examined.

讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讻转诐 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讞诇讜拽 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘讚拽转讬 讗转 讛讞诇讜拽 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 讻转诐 讗讜 注讚 砖注转 讛讻讘讜住 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讝拽转 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讘讜讚拽讜转 讞诇讜拽讬讛谉 讘砖注转 讻讘讜住讬讛谉 讜讗诐 诇讗 讘讚拽讜 讛驻住讬讚讜 诇诪驻专注

And similarly, for what reason did the Sages say that a blood stain that was found on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively from the time about which one may state: I examined the robe and there was no blood stain on it, or from the time of the laundering of the robe? It is due to the fact that there is a presumption with regard to the Jewish women that they examine their robes at the time of their laundering. And therefore, if they did not examine the robe they retroactively lose the purity of any items they handled since it was last examined.

专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗诪专 转讞讝讜专 讜转讻讘住谞讜 讗诐 谞讚讞讛 诪专讗讬转讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖诇讗讞专 讻讘讜住 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖诇驻谞讬 讛讻讘讜住

Rabbi A岣 says: Even in a case where the robe was not examined when it was laundered and a blood stain was subsequently found on it, and it is unknown whether the stain was present before the laundering, there is a remedy to the dilemma: Let her launder it again. If the appearance of the blood stain changes as a result of this laundering it is known that the robe became stained after the previous laundering, which is why the present laundering affected its appearance. Consequently, those pure items that the woman handled before the earlier laundering remain pure. And if the blood stain鈥檚 appearance does not change due to the second laundering it is known that the robe became stained before the previous laundering, and therefore the items that she handled before the laundering are impure.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讻转诐 砖诇讗讞专 讛讻讘讜住 诇讻转诐 砖诇驻谞讬 讛讻讘讜住 砖讝讛 诪拽讚讬专 讜讝讛 诪讙诇讬讚 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讝拽转讜 讘讚讜拽 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One can differentiate between a blood stain that was on the robe before it was laundered and one that stained the robe afterward by inspecting the stain itself. This is because the appearance of a blood stain after the laundering is not similar to the appearance of a blood stain before the laundering, as this stain, from after the laundering, penetrates [makdir] the garment, and that stain, from before the laundering, forms a crust [maglid] that can be scraped off the robe. With regard to the Gemara鈥檚 dilemma, one may conclude from Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement that the presumptive status of a swept alleyway or a laundered robe is that it has been examined. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

讜诪讟诪讗 讘讬谉 诇讞 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖专抓 讗讘诇 讻转诐 诇讞 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注 讗讬诪专 讬讘砖 讛讬讛 讜诪讬讗 谞驻讬诇 注诇讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And the carcass of a creeping animal or a blood stain renders items impure retroactively whether they are still moist or are already dried out. Rabbi Shimon says: The dry one renders items impure retroactively, whereas the moist one does not render items impure since the aforementioned times, but only from such a time that it could still be moist from then up to the moment it was discovered. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Elazar says: The mishna taught this halakha only with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, but Rabbi Shimon concedes that a moist blood stain also renders the woman impure retroactively from the time that the robe was examined. This is because one can say the blood stain was dry beforehand and water fell upon it, causing it to become moist.

砖专抓 谞诪讬 讗讬诪专 讬讘砖 讛讬讛 讜诪讬讗 谞驻讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专讟讜讟讬 讗讬诪专讟讟

The Gemara asks: With regard to the moist carcass of a creeping animal as well, one can say it was dried out beforehand and water fell on it. It should therefore render items impure retroactively from the time that the alleyway was swept. The Gemara answers: If it is so, that this is what occurred, the dead creeping animal would be sundered apart and would not have its current appearance.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讻转诪讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪专拽诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛诐 讙专讬诐 讜讟讜注讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉

MISHNA: Any blood stains on garments that come from the town of Rekem are ritually pure, as most of the residents there are gentiles, and the blood stains of gentile women are not ritually impure. Rabbi Yehuda deems those stains impure because in his opinion the residents of Rekem are not gentiles; rather, they are converts whose halakhic status is that of Jews, but they are misguided and do not put away their bloodstained garments. The blood stains on garments that come from among the gentiles are ritually pure. With regard to blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as they may have come from the Jews. And the Rabbis deem them ritually pure due to the fact that Jews are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains.

讙诪壮 拽驻住讬拽 讜转谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪转专诪讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讙专讬诐 诪转专诪讜讚

GEMARA: The mishna categorically teaches that any blood stains on garments that come from among the gentiles are ritually pure, thereby indicating that this applies even to garments that come from among the gentile population of Tarmod. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: That is to say, one may accept converts from Tarmod, i.e., there is no concern with regard to whether they are actually Jews of flawed lineage, who may not marry Jews of fit lineage.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜住讘讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讙专讬诐 诪转专诪讜讚

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But aren鈥檛 there Rabbi Yo岣nan and the Elders who both say that one may not accept converts from Tarmod? This is due to a concern that the daughters of the ten tribes exiled during the First Temple period might have intermingled with them, and according to Rabbi Yo岣nan the offspring of a Jewish woman and a gentile is a mamzer, who may not marry a Jew of fit lineage.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讝讗转 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛

And if you would say that Rabbi Yo岣nan merely infers that this is the opinion of the mishna, as indicated by the term: That is to say, but he himself does not hold accordingly, that is not so. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna, as is the case here?

讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara answers: They are amora鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. According to one amora, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that converts from Tarmod are not accepted, and he did not state that it is a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna. According to another amora, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that the halakha is in accordance with the unattributed mishna, and therefore one may accept converts from Tarmod.

诪讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讜壮 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讚讬砖专讗诇 诪讟讛专讬 讚诪讗谉 诪讟诪讜

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans that Rabbi Meir deems them impure, and the Rabbis deem them ritually pure. The Gemara asks: But with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis, if they deem stains that come from a Jewish woman pure, whose stains do they deem impure?

讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讟诪讗 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟诪讗 讚讻讜转讬诐 讙专讬 讗诪转 讛谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 讚讻讜转讬诐 讙专讬 讗专讬讜转 讛谉

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Everyone agrees that blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews are impure. With regard to blood stains that come from among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as he maintains the Samaritans are true converts and have the halakhic status of Jews, whose blood stains are impure. And the Rabbis deem them ritually pure, as they maintain the Samaritans are converts who converted under duress due to the threat posed by lions, and therefore their conversion is void, and their halakhic status is that of gentiles.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉 讙专讬 讗专讬讜转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, why does the mishna state that according to the Rabbis the blood stains of the Samaritans are ritually pure due to the fact that they are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains? The mishna should state that their blood stains are pure, as they are converts who converted due to the threat of lions.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讚讻讜转讬诐 讙专讬 讗诪转 讛谉 讛谞诪爪讗讬谉 讘注专讬 讬砖专讗诇 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讻转诪讬讛诐 讜讗爪谞讜注讬 诪爪谞注讬 诇讛讜

Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: Blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans are ritually impure, as everyone agrees the Samaritans are true converts. With regard to blood stains that are found in the towns of Jews, they are pure, as they are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains, and they certainly put them away. Therefore, the stains necessarily come from gentiles.

讛谞诪爪讗讬谉 讘注专讬 讻讜转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟诪讗 讚谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讻转诪讬讛诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉

The Gemara continues paraphrasing the mishna: With regard to blood stains that are found in the towns of Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as the inhabitants are suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains. And the Rabbis deem them pure, as they maintain that even Samaritans are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains, and the stains are necessarily from gentiles.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讻转诪讬诐 讛谞诪爪讗讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞诪爪讗讬诐 讘讞讚专讬诐 讜讘住讘讬讘讜转 讘讬转 讛讟诪讗讜转

MISHNA: All blood stains on garments that are found anywhere where Jews and gentiles reside are ritually pure, since they must not belong to Jews, who put away their stained garments. This is the halakha except for the stained garments that are found in the inner rooms of the house, as these might be garments that the Jews put away there; and except for the stained garments found in proximity to the house of impurity, i.e., the room that women used when they were impure due to menstruation.

讘讬转 讛讟诪讗讜转 砖诇 讻讜转讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讛诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛诐 拽讜讘专讬谉 砖诐 讗转 讛谞驻诇讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 拽讜讘专讬谉 讗诇讗 诪砖诇讬讻讬谉 讜讞讬讛 讙讜专专转讜

The house of impurity of Samaritans imparts the impurity that is imparted by a corpse by means of a tent, due to the fact that they bury the stillborn children there. Rabbi Yehuda says: The house of impurity of Samaritans does not impart that impurity, as they would not bury a stillborn child there. Rather, they would cast it outside and an animal would drag it away.

谞讗诪谞讬诐 诇讜诪专 拽讘专谞讜 砖诐 讗转 讛谞驻诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗 拽讘专谞讜 谞讗诪谞讬诐 诇讜诪专 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 讗诐 讘讻专讛 讗诐 诇讗 讘讻专讛 谞讗诪谞讬诐 注诇 爪讬讜谉 拽讘专讜转

Samaritans are deemed credible to state: We buried the stillborn children there, in a certain place, and it transmits ritual impurity; or to state: We did not bury the stillborn children there, and it does not transmit ritual impurity. They are likewise deemed credible to state about an animal whether it previously gave birth or whether it did not previously give birth; and their testimony is accepted with regard to determining whether the animal鈥檚 offspring has the status of a firstborn animal, which is sacred. They are also deemed credible to testify about the marking of graves, i.e., that where they marked is deemed a grave and where they did not mark is deemed a place where there is no grave.

讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讛住讻讻讜转 讜诇讗 注诇 讛驻专注讜转 讜诇讗 注诇 讘讬转 讛驻专住

But with regard to the following cases, in which the exact location of a grave is unknown, the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify: They are not deemed credible to testify about the overhanging boughs, nor about the protrusions that jut out of stone fences and cover the ground. If it is unknown which bough or protrusion hangs over a grave, forming a tent that transmits the impurity of a corpse, and if a Samaritan testifies that the grave is not beneath a particular bough or protrusion his testimony is not accepted. And likewise they are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas. The Sages issued a decree that in such a case, the area that was plowed is impure as far as one hundred cubits from the original grave, due to the concern that the bones were dispersed by the plow.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讚讘专 砖讞砖讜讚讬诐 讘讜 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜

This is the principle governing the credibility of Samaritans: In the case of any matter of halakha that they are suspected of not fulfilling, they are not deemed credible to testify about it.

Scroll To Top