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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 19, 2019 | 讻状讗 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Niddah 57

Why are Cutim believed about some things and not about others? Since they understand “do not put a stumbling block before a blind person” literally, how can we trust them at all – maybe they are trying to get us to sin? The eighth charpter beginning with a sicussion of spots of blood found on a woman’s body or on her clothing and the significance of where it is found. Shmuel says that a woman only becomes impure if she has an internal sensation. The gemara brings several sources that seem to go against Shmuel’s opinion, including from our mishna. In the end they conclude that Shmuel meant on a Torah level, but by rabbinic law, she would be impure even without a sensation.


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

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讚专讜砖 诇讗 转住讬讙 讙讘讜诇 专注讱 讗砖专 讙讘诇讜 专讗砖谞讬诐 讘谞讞诇转讱

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the Samaritans do not observe burial customs for stillborn children. The Gemara asks: What verse did they interpret as a source for this practice? The Gemara replies that they interpreted the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not remove your fellow鈥檚 boundary marker, which was bounded by the first ones, in your inheritance that you shall inherit, in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:14).

讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 谞讞诇讛 讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讜诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 谞讞诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讘讜诇

The Gemara explains: The Sages derived from this verse that it is prohibited to sell one鈥檚 ancestral burial ground. In accordance with this interpretation of the verse, the Samaritans derived that any individual who has an inheritance, i.e., who stands to inherit land, has a boundary, i.e., a burial place, whereas any individual who does not have an inheritance in the land, e.g., a stillborn child, does not have a boundary, i.e., a burial place. The Samaritans therefore concluded that the mitzva of burial does not apply to stillborn children.

谞讗诪谞讬诐 诇讜诪专 拽讘专谞讜 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘讻讛谉 注讜诪讚 砖诐

The mishna teaches that Samaritans are deemed credible to state: We buried the stillborn children in a certain place, or to state that they did not bury the stillborn children there, and that place does not transmit ritual impurity. The Gemara objects: But the Samaritans do not accept the Sages鈥 interpretation of the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14), that one may not cause another to sin. Since they are not concerned about misleading others, why is their testimony accepted? Rabbi Abbahu says: The mishna is referring to a case where a Samaritan priest is standing there, on that spot, which indicates that he genuinely maintains it is not impure with the impurity of a corpse.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻讛谉 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟 转专讜诪讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讜讚讬诇诪讗 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讚拽讗讻讬诇 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara objects: But perhaps he is an impure priest and therefore he does not refrain from standing in an impure place. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a situation where the priest is holding teruma in his hand, which indicates he is ritually pure. The Gemara further objects: But perhaps it is impure teruma. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case where the priest is partaking of the teruma, which indicates that it is not impure, as it is prohibited to consume impure teruma.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗 讘拽讬讗讬 讘讬爪讬专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if this is the circumstance, it is obvious that the Samaritan priest鈥檚 testimony can be accepted. Then what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the Samaritans are not knowledgeable with regard to the stages of the formation of an embryo, and they might bury a fetus believing that it is an unformed fetus that does not transmit impurity, when it is actually a forty-day-old fetus, which is impure. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, and their testimony is accepted.

谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讙讜讝讝 讜注讜讘讚

The mishna teaches that the Samaritans are deemed credible to state with regard to an animal that it previously gave birth, and its subsequent offspring does not have the sacred status of a firstborn animal. The Gemara objects: But the Samaritans do not accept the Sages鈥 interpretation of the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind,鈥 that one may not cause another to sin. Why, then, is their testimony accepted? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The mishna is referring to a case where the Samaritan is shearing and working the offspring of the animal. Since the Samaritans are meticulous with regard to Torah law, it is evident that it is not a firstborn.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗 讘拽讬讗讬 讘讟讬谞讜祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if this is the circumstance, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the Samaritans are not knowledgeable with regard to a murky discharge emitted from the uterus, which is indicative of a fetus and exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn (see Bekhorot 21a). It is possible that the Samaritan mistakenly believes the animal previously emitted a murky discharge and therefore its offspring is not a firstborn. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, and their testimony is accepted.

谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 爪讬讜谉 讜讻讜壮 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘讗 诪讝讛专 讝讛讬专讬 讘讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜专讗讛 注爪诐 讗讚诐 讜讘谞讛 讗爪诇讜 爪讬讜谉

The mishna further teaches that the Samaritans are deemed credible to testify with regard to the marking of graves, as the Samaritans mark their graves, and we rely on their marking as an indication that a corpse is buried there. Therefore, any place where there is no marking is considered ritually pure. The Gemara explains: Even though the marking of graves is required only by rabbinic law, and Samaritans generally do not observe rabbinic law, since it is written in the Bible, the Samaritans are meticulous with regard to it, as it is written: 鈥淎nd those that pass through shall pass through the land, and when one sees a human bone he shall set up a marking by it, until the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-gog鈥 (Ezekiel 39:15).

讗讘诇 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讛住讻讻讜转 讜讻讜壮 住讻讻讜转 讚转谞谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 住讻讻讜转 讗讬诇谉 讛诪讬住讱 注诇 讛讗专抓 驻专注讜转 讚转谞谉 讗讘谞讬诐 驻专注讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讜转 诪谉 讛讙讚专

The mishna teaches: 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 overhanging boughs, nor about the protrusions that jut out of stone fences. The Gemara explains these terms: The term overhanging boughs should be understood as we learned in a mishna (Oholot 8:2): These are overhanging boughs: A tree that hangs over the ground. The term protrusions should be understood as we learned in the Tosefta (Oholot 9:4): Protruding stones that jut out of a fence.

讘讬转 讛驻专住 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱

搂 The mishna teaches that the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas. With regard to a beit haperas, Rav Yehuda says that Rav Shmuel says: The reason the Sages deemed a beit haperas impure is due to the concern that the bones, but not the flesh of the corpse, were dispersed by the plow throughout the field. The halakha is that a bone transmits impurity by carrying or by contact, if it is at least the size of a barley grain, but it does not transmit impurity by means of a tent. Therefore, if a person is carrying ritually pure items, or if he wishes to remain ritually pure so that he may consume consecrated items, and yet he must pass through a beit haperas, he may blow on the earth of the beit haperas before each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it and avoid it. And in this manner he may walk across the area while remaining ritually pure, even though he might step over a bone.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讬讚砖 讟讛讜专 讜转谞讗 讛讞讜专砖 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 注讜砖讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪诇讗 诪注谞讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讘讬转 讗专讘注转 住讗讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖

Rav Yehuda bar Ami says in the name of Rav Yehuda: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot by many people is pure, as it may be assumed that any bone fragments at least as large as a barley grain that were on the surface were either broken or removed. And it was taught in a baraita: In the case of one who plows a graveyard, this individual thereby renders it a beit haperas. And to what extent does he render it a beit haperas, i.e., how far does the concern apply that bones might have been dispersed? The field is rendered a beit haperas to the extent of a full furrow [ma鈥檃na], one hundred cubits by one hundred cubits, which is the area required for sowing four se鈥檃 of seed. Rabbi Yosei says: The area rendered a beit haperas is the area required for sowing five se鈥檃 of seed.

讜诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讚讛 砖讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专 谞讗诪谉 讻讜转讬 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖诐 拽讘专

With regard to the ruling of the mishna that the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas, the Gemara asks: And aren鈥檛 they deemed credible? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a field in which a grave was lost, which has the status of a beit haperas, a Samaritan is deemed credible to say: There is no grave there?

诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讜驻讜 砖诇 拽讘专 讗讬诇谉 砖讛讜讗 诪讬住讱 注诇 讛讗专抓 谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 转讞转讬讜 拽讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讜驻讜 砖诇 拽讘专

The baraita explains: This is due to the fact that he is not considered to be testifying about a case of uncertain impurity; rather, he is testifying about the location of the grave itself, which is a matter of Torah law, and the Samaritans are deemed credible with regard to a matter of Torah law. Likewise, in the case of a tree that is hanging over the ground, a Samaritan is deemed credible to say: There is no grave beneath it, as he is testifying only about the location of the grave itself. This indicates that the Samaritans are deemed credible with regard to overhanging boughs and protrusions.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪讛诇讱 讜讘讗 注诇 驻谞讬 讻讜诇讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says in explanation: The baraita is referring to a case where the Samaritan is walking to and fro over the entire area, and therefore if there was a grave there he would certainly have become impure. Consequently, one may rely on his statement with regard to the purity of the place. By contrast, the mishna is speaking of a case where the Samaritan did not traverse the entire area, and therefore his testimony is not accepted, as they are not meticulous with regard to cases of uncertainty.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专爪讜注讛 谞驻拽讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, it is obvious that his testimony is credible, and what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the baraita is necessary, lest you say that perhaps a narrow strip of land, which is called by the same name as this field, extends into a nearby field, and the Samaritan presumes the grave is located in that strip of land. If so, even if the Samaritan traversed the entire field his testimony cannot be accepted, as he traversed the field because he considered it merely a case of uncertain impurity. The baraita therefore teaches us that if the Samaritan traverses the entire field his testimony is accepted, as this concern is not an issue.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻讜壮 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜讬讬谉 谞住讱

The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: What is added by the term: This is the principle? The Gemara answers: It serves to add that Samaritans are not deemed credible with regard to Shabbat boundaries, i.e., to say that a Shabbat boundary extends until a certain point, as the halakha of Shabbat boundaries applies by rabbinic law. And likewise, the Samaritans are not deemed credible with regard to the status of wine used for a libation in idol worship, as the Samaritans do not refrain from drinking wine touched by a gentile.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讚诐 讛谞讚讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讜讗讛 讻转诐 注诇 讘砖专讛 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛转讜专驻讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讜砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛转讜专驻讛 讟讛讜专讛 注诇 注拽讘讛 讜注诇 专讗砖 讙讜讚诇讛 讟诪讗讛

MISHNA: A woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina [beit haturpa], i.e., a place where blood that originated in her vagina could be found, becomes ritually impure, as there is a concern that it originated in the uterus and is menstrual blood. And if it was discovered on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure, as it certainly did not originate in the uterus. If the stain was discovered on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, although it is not adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there.

注诇 砖讜拽讛 讜注诇 驻专住讜转讬讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讟诪讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讟讛讜专讛 讜注诇 讛爪讚讚讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜诪讻讗谉 讟讛讜专讛

In a case where the stain was discovered on her leg or on her feet, if it was on the inner side she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. If it was on the outer side she is ritually pure, and if it was on the sides, either from here, i.e., on the front of her leg or foot, or from there, i.e., on the back of her leg or foot, she is also ritually pure, as blood from the uterus could not have reached there.

专讗转讛 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 诪谉 讛讞讙讜专 讜诇诪讟讛 讟诪讗讛 诪谉 讛讞讙讜专 讜诇诪注诇讛 讟讛讜专讛 专讗转讛 注诇 讘讬转 讬讚 砖诇 讞诇讜拽 讗诐 诪讙讬注 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛转讜专驻讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讟讛讜专讛

In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there; if it was from the belt and above she is ritually pure. In a case where she saw the stain on the end of the sleeve of the robe, if the sleeve can reach adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure; and if not, i.e., if the stain is in a place on the sleeve that does not reach adjacent to the vagina, she is ritually pure.

讛讬转讛 驻讜砖讟转讜 讜诪转讻住讛 讘讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讜 讻转诐 讟诪讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讜讝专 讜讻谉 讘驻讜诇讬讜住

If it was a robe which she would remove and with which she would cover herself at night, wherever on the robe that the stain is found, the stain renders her ritually impure, due to the fact that the robe moves while the woman is asleep and therefore the blood could have originated in the uterus. And likewise with regard to a kerchief [bapoleyos], no matter where the blood is found on the kerchief, the woman is impure.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讚拽讛 拽专拽注 注讜诇诐 讜讬砖讘讛 注诇讬讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讚诐 注诇讬讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讘砖专讛 注讚 砖转专讙讬砖 讘讘砖专讛

GEMARA: With regard to the cases discussed in the mishna concerning a blood stain found on a woman, Shmuel says: If a woman examined the ground beneath her to see if it was clean from blood and other substances, and she found nothing, and subsequently she sat upon it and then found blood on it, although it might be assumed that this blood came from her, she is ritually pure. The reason is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd her issue in her flesh shall be blood, she shall be in her menstrual state seven days鈥 (Leviticus 15:19). This verse teaches that a woman does not become impure unless she senses, i.e., experiences some type of sensation, in her flesh that she emitted blood from her uterus. Since this woman did not sense an emission of blood, she is pure.

讛讗讬 讘讘砖专讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讘讘砖专 诪讗讬 讘讘砖专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注讚 砖转专讙讬砖 讘讘砖专讛

The Gemara asks: How can Shmuel interpret the verse in this manner? After all, he requires this term: 鈥淚n her flesh,鈥 to teach a different halakha, that a woman becomes impure by finding blood inside her body just as by seeing blood outside her body, i.e., provided that the blood is uterine blood, even if it is currently situated inside her vaginal canal, she is impure. The Gemara answers: If so, if it serves to teach only that blood inside is like blood outside, let the verse say: In the flesh. What is the reason that the verse states: 鈥淚n her flesh鈥? Conclude from this term that a woman does not become impure unless she senses in her flesh.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讘砖专讛 讜诇讗 讘砖驻讬专 讜诇讗 讘讞转讬讻讛 转专转讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: And still, Shmuel requires the term 鈥渋n her flesh鈥 to teach that she is impure only if the blood touches her flesh, and not through blood found in a gestational sac, nor through blood found in an amorphous piece of tissue that she emitted. The Gemara answers: Conclude two conclusions from this verse, as the plain meaning of the term teaches all these halakhot.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗砖讛 砖讛讬讗 注讜砖讛 爪专讻讬讛 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 注讜诪讚转 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 讬讜砖讘转 讟讛讜专讛

With regard to the opinion of Shmuel, the Gemara suggests: Come and hear a mishna at the beginning of the next chapter (59b): In the case of a woman who is urinating and sees blood intermingled with the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinates while she is standing she is ritually impure, as the blood could have originated in the uterus. And if she is sitting she is ritually pure, as it is clear that the blood is from a wound.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗专讙砖讛 讬讜砖讘转 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗专讙砖讛 讜拽转谞讬 注讜诪讚转 讟诪讗讛

The Gemara analyzes this mishna: What are the circumstances? If she sensed while urinating, then in the case where she is sitting, why is she ritually pure, according to Shmuel? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense while urinating? And yet the mishna teaches that if she urinates while she is standing she is ritually impure. This indicates that her status does not depend on her sensing, which contradicts the statement of Shmuel.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗专讙砖讛 讜讗讬诪讜专 讛专讙砖转 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讛讜讗讬 注讜诪讚转 讛讚讜专 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 诇诪拽讜专 讜讗讬讬转讬 讚诐 讜讬讜砖讘转 讟讛讜专讛

The Gemara answers: This affords no proof, as the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed while urinating, and yet since this feeling accompanied urination, one might say it was the sensation of urine. Consequently, if she urinated while standing, the urine would return to her uterus and bring blood with it. But if she urinated while sitting the urine cannot return to the uterus and therefore she is pure, as the sensation is attributed to her urine.

转讗 砖诪注 注讚 砖讛讬讛 谞转讜谉 转讞转 讛讻专 讜谞诪爪讗 注诇讬讜 讚诐 讗诐 注讙讜诇 讟讛讜专 讜讗诐 诪砖讜讱 讟诪讗

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear the mishna below (58b): With regard to an examination cloth that was placed beneath the pillow and blood was later found on the cloth, and it is unclear whether it is the blood of an examination or the blood of a louse that was crushed beneath it, if the stain is round it is ritually pure. There is no concern that this blood might have come from her examination, as a woman examines through an act of wiping and a stain produced in this manner would not be round. And if the stain is elongated it is ritually impure, as this shape can be formed by an examination.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗专讙讬砖讛 注讙讜诇 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗专讙讬砖讛 讜拽转谞讬 诪砖讜讱 讟诪讗

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What are the circumstances? If she sensed, then in the case where the stain is round why is it pure? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense? And yet the mishna teaches that an elongated stain is impure. This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel that a woman is rendered impure only if she sensed.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗专讙讬砖讛 讜讗讬诪讜专 讛专讙砖转 注讚 讛讜讗讬 诪砖讜讱 讜讚讗讬 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讗 注讙讜诇 讟讛讜专

The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed, but since she also performed an examination one might say this was the sensation of the examination cloth. Consequently, if the stain was elongated, as appropriate for a stain produced by an examination, the blood certainly came from her body, whereas if the stain was round it is pure, as this is not the usual appearance of a stain from an examination.

转讗 砖诪注 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 讗转讬讜诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讟诪讗讬诐 诪住驻拽 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another mishna (14a): If blood was found on his, i.e., the husband鈥檚, examination cloth following intercourse, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure for seven days, in accordance with the halakha of a menstruating woman and one who engages in intercourse with her, and they are each liable to bring a sin offering for unwittingly performing an action punishable with excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, the woman and her husband are likewise ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her swatch after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗专讙讬砖讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗专讙讬砖讛 讜拽转谞讬 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 讗转讬讜诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗专讙讬砖讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讛专讙砖转 砖诪砖 讛讜讛

The Gemara analyzes this mishna: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a situation where she sensed, then in the case where blood was found on her cloth after time passed, why are they exempt from bringing the sin offering? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense? And yet the mishna teaches that if blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, they are ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. Once again, this contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed, but since she was engaging in intercourse at the time, one might say this was the sensation of the male organ.

转讗 砖诪注 谞诪爪讗转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 住驻拽讜转 讘讗砖讛 注诇 讘砖专讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗 住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗 住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讟讛讜专 讜讘诪讙注讜转 讜讘讛讬住讟讜转 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛专讜讘

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear from a baraita: You are found to say that there are three uncertainties involving cases where blood is found on a woman or her garments. If a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, the halakha is that it is impure. If it is found on her robe and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, the halakha is that it is pure. And in the case of a woman whose status as a menstruating woman is uncertain, with regard to her touching items and with regard to her moving items, one should follow the majority.

诪讗讬 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 诇讗讜 讗诐 专讜讘 讬诪讬讛 讟诪讗讬谉 讟诪讗讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗专讙砖讛

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What is the meaning of the phrase: Follow the majority, with regard to this woman of uncertain status? Does this not mean that if for the majority of her days she is in a state of ritual impurity, as she emits impure blood on many days, then she is considered impure even when her status is uncertain? And since this baraita does not differentiate between cases where she did and did not sense, the ruling that one follows the majority, and that she is impure, evidently applies even though she did not sense, which contradicts the opinion of Shmuel.

诇讗 讗诐 专讜讘 讬诪讬讛 讘讛专讙砖讛 讞讝讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讚讗讬诪讜专 讗专讙砖讛 讜诇讗讜 讗讚注转讛

The Gemara answers: No proof may be brought from here, as this is what the baraita means: If on the majority of her days this woman sees blood accompanied by a sensation, she is impure, despite the fact that she is uncertain whether she had a sensation, as one can say she sensed on this occasion as well, but it was not on her mind, i.e., she did not pay attention to it at the time.

讗诪专 诪专 注诇 讘砖专讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗 住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗 住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讟讛讜专

Before returning to the opinion of Shmuel, the Gemara analyzes the other clauses of this baraita. The Master said above: If a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is impure; if it is found on her robe and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is pure. The juxtaposition of these two cases indicates that the blood is found in the same area in both instances.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 诪讞讙讜专 讜诇诪讟讛 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专 讜讛讗 转谞谉 诪谉 讛讞讙讜专 讜诇诪讟讛 讟诪讗 讜讗讬 诪讞讙讜专 讜诇诪注诇讛 注诇 讘砖专讛 讗诪讗讬 讟诪讗 讜讛转谞谉 专讗转讛 讚诐 注诇 讘砖专讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛转讜专驻讛 讟讛讜专讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the blood was discovered from the belt and below, then when it was found on her robe why is she pure? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure? And if the blood was from the belt and above, then if it was discovered on her flesh why is she impure? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that if she saw blood on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讞讙讜专 讜诇诪讟讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讞讙讜专 讜诇诪注诇讛 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讞讙讜专 讜诇诪讟讛 讻讙讜谉 砖注讘专讛 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 讟讘讞讬诐 注诇 讘砖专讛 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讗讬 讚讗讬 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讗讬 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗砖转讻讜讞讬 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讗 讚讗讬 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讗 注诇 讘砖专讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗砖转讻讜讞讬

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the blood was discovered from the belt and below, and if you wish, say instead that it was found from the belt and above. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that the blood was found from the belt and below, as the baraita is referring to a situation where the blood can be attributed to an external factor, e.g., a case where she passed through a marketplace of butchers [tabba岣m]. Consequently, if the blood is found on her flesh it is assumed that it came from her body, as, if it came from the outside world, it should have been found on her robe as well. If it is discovered on her robe it is assumed that it came from the outside world, as, if it came from her body, it should have been found on her flesh as well.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讞讙讜专 讜诇诪注诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讝讚拽专讛 注诇 讘砖专讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讗讬 讚讗讬 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讗讬 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗砖转讻讜讞讬 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讗讬 讚讗讬 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讗讬 注诇 讘砖专讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗砖转讻讜讞讬

And if you wish, say instead that the blood was found from the belt and above, and the baraita is referring to a situation where it is possible the blood came from her body, e.g., a case where she jumped backward. Therefore, if the blood is found on her flesh it certainly came from her body, as, if it came from the outside world, it should have been found on her robe as well. And if it is discovered on her robe the assumption is that it came from the outside world, as, if it came from her body, it should have been found on her flesh as well.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 注诇 讘砖专讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗 住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛专讙讬砖讛 讜注讜讚 转谞谉 讛专讜讗讛 讻转诐 注诇 讘砖专讛 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛转讜专驻讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛专讙讬砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚驻转讬 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛

The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita to the opinion of Shmuel: In any event, the baraita teaches that if a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is impure, and this is the halakha even though she did not sense, which contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. And furthermore, we learned in the mishna that a woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina becomes ritually impure, and this is apparently the halakha even though she did not sense. Rav Yirmeya of Difti says: The ruling of Shmuel that a woman must sense in order to be rendered impure applies only by Torah law. But Shmuel concedes that in all the cases cited above, where it is indicated that a woman is impure despite the fact that she did not sense, she is impure

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson

Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy in Early Rabbinic Law, Part 2 of 3: The Law of Niddah

This series examines how an individual鈥檚 knowledge of their body and psyche impacts halacha, a fact that demonstrates the tension...

Niddah 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 57

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讚专讜砖 诇讗 转住讬讙 讙讘讜诇 专注讱 讗砖专 讙讘诇讜 专讗砖谞讬诐 讘谞讞诇转讱

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the Samaritans do not observe burial customs for stillborn children. The Gemara asks: What verse did they interpret as a source for this practice? The Gemara replies that they interpreted the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not remove your fellow鈥檚 boundary marker, which was bounded by the first ones, in your inheritance that you shall inherit, in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:14).

讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 谞讞诇讛 讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讜诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 谞讞诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讘讜诇

The Gemara explains: The Sages derived from this verse that it is prohibited to sell one鈥檚 ancestral burial ground. In accordance with this interpretation of the verse, the Samaritans derived that any individual who has an inheritance, i.e., who stands to inherit land, has a boundary, i.e., a burial place, whereas any individual who does not have an inheritance in the land, e.g., a stillborn child, does not have a boundary, i.e., a burial place. The Samaritans therefore concluded that the mitzva of burial does not apply to stillborn children.

谞讗诪谞讬诐 诇讜诪专 拽讘专谞讜 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘讻讛谉 注讜诪讚 砖诐

The mishna teaches that Samaritans are deemed credible to state: We buried the stillborn children in a certain place, or to state that they did not bury the stillborn children there, and that place does not transmit ritual impurity. The Gemara objects: But the Samaritans do not accept the Sages鈥 interpretation of the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14), that one may not cause another to sin. Since they are not concerned about misleading others, why is their testimony accepted? Rabbi Abbahu says: The mishna is referring to a case where a Samaritan priest is standing there, on that spot, which indicates that he genuinely maintains it is not impure with the impurity of a corpse.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻讛谉 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟 转专讜诪讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讜讚讬诇诪讗 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讚拽讗讻讬诇 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara objects: But perhaps he is an impure priest and therefore he does not refrain from standing in an impure place. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a situation where the priest is holding teruma in his hand, which indicates he is ritually pure. The Gemara further objects: But perhaps it is impure teruma. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case where the priest is partaking of the teruma, which indicates that it is not impure, as it is prohibited to consume impure teruma.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗 讘拽讬讗讬 讘讬爪讬专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if this is the circumstance, it is obvious that the Samaritan priest鈥檚 testimony can be accepted. Then what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the Samaritans are not knowledgeable with regard to the stages of the formation of an embryo, and they might bury a fetus believing that it is an unformed fetus that does not transmit impurity, when it is actually a forty-day-old fetus, which is impure. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, and their testimony is accepted.

谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讙讜讝讝 讜注讜讘讚

The mishna teaches that the Samaritans are deemed credible to state with regard to an animal that it previously gave birth, and its subsequent offspring does not have the sacred status of a firstborn animal. The Gemara objects: But the Samaritans do not accept the Sages鈥 interpretation of the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind,鈥 that one may not cause another to sin. Why, then, is their testimony accepted? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The mishna is referring to a case where the Samaritan is shearing and working the offspring of the animal. Since the Samaritans are meticulous with regard to Torah law, it is evident that it is not a firstborn.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗 讘拽讬讗讬 讘讟讬谞讜祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if this is the circumstance, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the Samaritans are not knowledgeable with regard to a murky discharge emitted from the uterus, which is indicative of a fetus and exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn (see Bekhorot 21a). It is possible that the Samaritan mistakenly believes the animal previously emitted a murky discharge and therefore its offspring is not a firstborn. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, and their testimony is accepted.

谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 爪讬讜谉 讜讻讜壮 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘讗 诪讝讛专 讝讛讬专讬 讘讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜专讗讛 注爪诐 讗讚诐 讜讘谞讛 讗爪诇讜 爪讬讜谉

The mishna further teaches that the Samaritans are deemed credible to testify with regard to the marking of graves, as the Samaritans mark their graves, and we rely on their marking as an indication that a corpse is buried there. Therefore, any place where there is no marking is considered ritually pure. The Gemara explains: Even though the marking of graves is required only by rabbinic law, and Samaritans generally do not observe rabbinic law, since it is written in the Bible, the Samaritans are meticulous with regard to it, as it is written: 鈥淎nd those that pass through shall pass through the land, and when one sees a human bone he shall set up a marking by it, until the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-gog鈥 (Ezekiel 39:15).

讗讘诇 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讛住讻讻讜转 讜讻讜壮 住讻讻讜转 讚转谞谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 住讻讻讜转 讗讬诇谉 讛诪讬住讱 注诇 讛讗专抓 驻专注讜转 讚转谞谉 讗讘谞讬诐 驻专注讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讜转 诪谉 讛讙讚专

The mishna teaches: 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 overhanging boughs, nor about the protrusions that jut out of stone fences. The Gemara explains these terms: The term overhanging boughs should be understood as we learned in a mishna (Oholot 8:2): These are overhanging boughs: A tree that hangs over the ground. The term protrusions should be understood as we learned in the Tosefta (Oholot 9:4): Protruding stones that jut out of a fence.

讘讬转 讛驻专住 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱

搂 The mishna teaches that the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas. With regard to a beit haperas, Rav Yehuda says that Rav Shmuel says: The reason the Sages deemed a beit haperas impure is due to the concern that the bones, but not the flesh of the corpse, were dispersed by the plow throughout the field. The halakha is that a bone transmits impurity by carrying or by contact, if it is at least the size of a barley grain, but it does not transmit impurity by means of a tent. Therefore, if a person is carrying ritually pure items, or if he wishes to remain ritually pure so that he may consume consecrated items, and yet he must pass through a beit haperas, he may blow on the earth of the beit haperas before each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it and avoid it. And in this manner he may walk across the area while remaining ritually pure, even though he might step over a bone.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讬讚砖 讟讛讜专 讜转谞讗 讛讞讜专砖 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 注讜砖讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪诇讗 诪注谞讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讘讬转 讗专讘注转 住讗讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖

Rav Yehuda bar Ami says in the name of Rav Yehuda: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot by many people is pure, as it may be assumed that any bone fragments at least as large as a barley grain that were on the surface were either broken or removed. And it was taught in a baraita: In the case of one who plows a graveyard, this individual thereby renders it a beit haperas. And to what extent does he render it a beit haperas, i.e., how far does the concern apply that bones might have been dispersed? The field is rendered a beit haperas to the extent of a full furrow [ma鈥檃na], one hundred cubits by one hundred cubits, which is the area required for sowing four se鈥檃 of seed. Rabbi Yosei says: The area rendered a beit haperas is the area required for sowing five se鈥檃 of seed.

讜诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讚讛 砖讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专 谞讗诪谉 讻讜转讬 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖诐 拽讘专

With regard to the ruling of the mishna that the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas, the Gemara asks: And aren鈥檛 they deemed credible? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a field in which a grave was lost, which has the status of a beit haperas, a Samaritan is deemed credible to say: There is no grave there?

诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讜驻讜 砖诇 拽讘专 讗讬诇谉 砖讛讜讗 诪讬住讱 注诇 讛讗专抓 谞讗诪谉 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 转讞转讬讜 拽讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讜驻讜 砖诇 拽讘专

The baraita explains: This is due to the fact that he is not considered to be testifying about a case of uncertain impurity; rather, he is testifying about the location of the grave itself, which is a matter of Torah law, and the Samaritans are deemed credible with regard to a matter of Torah law. Likewise, in the case of a tree that is hanging over the ground, a Samaritan is deemed credible to say: There is no grave beneath it, as he is testifying only about the location of the grave itself. This indicates that the Samaritans are deemed credible with regard to overhanging boughs and protrusions.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪讛诇讱 讜讘讗 注诇 驻谞讬 讻讜诇讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says in explanation: The baraita is referring to a case where the Samaritan is walking to and fro over the entire area, and therefore if there was a grave there he would certainly have become impure. Consequently, one may rely on his statement with regard to the purity of the place. By contrast, the mishna is speaking of a case where the Samaritan did not traverse the entire area, and therefore his testimony is not accepted, as they are not meticulous with regard to cases of uncertainty.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专爪讜注讛 谞驻拽讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, it is obvious that his testimony is credible, and what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the baraita is necessary, lest you say that perhaps a narrow strip of land, which is called by the same name as this field, extends into a nearby field, and the Samaritan presumes the grave is located in that strip of land. If so, even if the Samaritan traversed the entire field his testimony cannot be accepted, as he traversed the field because he considered it merely a case of uncertain impurity. The baraita therefore teaches us that if the Samaritan traverses the entire field his testimony is accepted, as this concern is not an issue.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻讜壮 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜讬讬谉 谞住讱

The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: What is added by the term: This is the principle? The Gemara answers: It serves to add that Samaritans are not deemed credible with regard to Shabbat boundaries, i.e., to say that a Shabbat boundary extends until a certain point, as the halakha of Shabbat boundaries applies by rabbinic law. And likewise, the Samaritans are not deemed credible with regard to the status of wine used for a libation in idol worship, as the Samaritans do not refrain from drinking wine touched by a gentile.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讚诐 讛谞讚讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讜讗讛 讻转诐 注诇 讘砖专讛 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛转讜专驻讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讜砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛转讜专驻讛 讟讛讜专讛 注诇 注拽讘讛 讜注诇 专讗砖 讙讜讚诇讛 讟诪讗讛

MISHNA: A woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina [beit haturpa], i.e., a place where blood that originated in her vagina could be found, becomes ritually impure, as there is a concern that it originated in the uterus and is menstrual blood. And if it was discovered on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure, as it certainly did not originate in the uterus. If the stain was discovered on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, although it is not adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there.

注诇 砖讜拽讛 讜注诇 驻专住讜转讬讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讟诪讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讟讛讜专讛 讜注诇 讛爪讚讚讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜诪讻讗谉 讟讛讜专讛

In a case where the stain was discovered on her leg or on her feet, if it was on the inner side she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. If it was on the outer side she is ritually pure, and if it was on the sides, either from here, i.e., on the front of her leg or foot, or from there, i.e., on the back of her leg or foot, she is also ritually pure, as blood from the uterus could not have reached there.

专讗转讛 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 诪谉 讛讞讙讜专 讜诇诪讟讛 讟诪讗讛 诪谉 讛讞讙讜专 讜诇诪注诇讛 讟讛讜专讛 专讗转讛 注诇 讘讬转 讬讚 砖诇 讞诇讜拽 讗诐 诪讙讬注 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛转讜专驻讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讟讛讜专讛

In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there; if it was from the belt and above she is ritually pure. In a case where she saw the stain on the end of the sleeve of the robe, if the sleeve can reach adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure; and if not, i.e., if the stain is in a place on the sleeve that does not reach adjacent to the vagina, she is ritually pure.

讛讬转讛 驻讜砖讟转讜 讜诪转讻住讛 讘讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讜 讻转诐 讟诪讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讜讝专 讜讻谉 讘驻讜诇讬讜住

If it was a robe which she would remove and with which she would cover herself at night, wherever on the robe that the stain is found, the stain renders her ritually impure, due to the fact that the robe moves while the woman is asleep and therefore the blood could have originated in the uterus. And likewise with regard to a kerchief [bapoleyos], no matter where the blood is found on the kerchief, the woman is impure.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讚拽讛 拽专拽注 注讜诇诐 讜讬砖讘讛 注诇讬讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讚诐 注诇讬讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讘砖专讛 注讚 砖转专讙讬砖 讘讘砖专讛

GEMARA: With regard to the cases discussed in the mishna concerning a blood stain found on a woman, Shmuel says: If a woman examined the ground beneath her to see if it was clean from blood and other substances, and she found nothing, and subsequently she sat upon it and then found blood on it, although it might be assumed that this blood came from her, she is ritually pure. The reason is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd her issue in her flesh shall be blood, she shall be in her menstrual state seven days鈥 (Leviticus 15:19). This verse teaches that a woman does not become impure unless she senses, i.e., experiences some type of sensation, in her flesh that she emitted blood from her uterus. Since this woman did not sense an emission of blood, she is pure.

讛讗讬 讘讘砖专讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讘讘砖专 诪讗讬 讘讘砖专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注讚 砖转专讙讬砖 讘讘砖专讛

The Gemara asks: How can Shmuel interpret the verse in this manner? After all, he requires this term: 鈥淚n her flesh,鈥 to teach a different halakha, that a woman becomes impure by finding blood inside her body just as by seeing blood outside her body, i.e., provided that the blood is uterine blood, even if it is currently situated inside her vaginal canal, she is impure. The Gemara answers: If so, if it serves to teach only that blood inside is like blood outside, let the verse say: In the flesh. What is the reason that the verse states: 鈥淚n her flesh鈥? Conclude from this term that a woman does not become impure unless she senses in her flesh.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讘砖专讛 讜诇讗 讘砖驻讬专 讜诇讗 讘讞转讬讻讛 转专转讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: And still, Shmuel requires the term 鈥渋n her flesh鈥 to teach that she is impure only if the blood touches her flesh, and not through blood found in a gestational sac, nor through blood found in an amorphous piece of tissue that she emitted. The Gemara answers: Conclude two conclusions from this verse, as the plain meaning of the term teaches all these halakhot.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗砖讛 砖讛讬讗 注讜砖讛 爪专讻讬讛 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 注讜诪讚转 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 讬讜砖讘转 讟讛讜专讛

With regard to the opinion of Shmuel, the Gemara suggests: Come and hear a mishna at the beginning of the next chapter (59b): In the case of a woman who is urinating and sees blood intermingled with the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinates while she is standing she is ritually impure, as the blood could have originated in the uterus. And if she is sitting she is ritually pure, as it is clear that the blood is from a wound.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗专讙砖讛 讬讜砖讘转 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗专讙砖讛 讜拽转谞讬 注讜诪讚转 讟诪讗讛

The Gemara analyzes this mishna: What are the circumstances? If she sensed while urinating, then in the case where she is sitting, why is she ritually pure, according to Shmuel? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense while urinating? And yet the mishna teaches that if she urinates while she is standing she is ritually impure. This indicates that her status does not depend on her sensing, which contradicts the statement of Shmuel.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗专讙砖讛 讜讗讬诪讜专 讛专讙砖转 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讛讜讗讬 注讜诪讚转 讛讚讜专 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 诇诪拽讜专 讜讗讬讬转讬 讚诐 讜讬讜砖讘转 讟讛讜专讛

The Gemara answers: This affords no proof, as the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed while urinating, and yet since this feeling accompanied urination, one might say it was the sensation of urine. Consequently, if she urinated while standing, the urine would return to her uterus and bring blood with it. But if she urinated while sitting the urine cannot return to the uterus and therefore she is pure, as the sensation is attributed to her urine.

转讗 砖诪注 注讚 砖讛讬讛 谞转讜谉 转讞转 讛讻专 讜谞诪爪讗 注诇讬讜 讚诐 讗诐 注讙讜诇 讟讛讜专 讜讗诐 诪砖讜讱 讟诪讗

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear the mishna below (58b): With regard to an examination cloth that was placed beneath the pillow and blood was later found on the cloth, and it is unclear whether it is the blood of an examination or the blood of a louse that was crushed beneath it, if the stain is round it is ritually pure. There is no concern that this blood might have come from her examination, as a woman examines through an act of wiping and a stain produced in this manner would not be round. And if the stain is elongated it is ritually impure, as this shape can be formed by an examination.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗专讙讬砖讛 注讙讜诇 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗专讙讬砖讛 讜拽转谞讬 诪砖讜讱 讟诪讗

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What are the circumstances? If she sensed, then in the case where the stain is round why is it pure? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense? And yet the mishna teaches that an elongated stain is impure. This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel that a woman is rendered impure only if she sensed.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗专讙讬砖讛 讜讗讬诪讜专 讛专讙砖转 注讚 讛讜讗讬 诪砖讜讱 讜讚讗讬 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讗 注讙讜诇 讟讛讜专

The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed, but since she also performed an examination one might say this was the sensation of the examination cloth. Consequently, if the stain was elongated, as appropriate for a stain produced by an examination, the blood certainly came from her body, whereas if the stain was round it is pure, as this is not the usual appearance of a stain from an examination.

转讗 砖诪注 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 讗转讬讜诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讟诪讗讬诐 诪住驻拽 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another mishna (14a): If blood was found on his, i.e., the husband鈥檚, examination cloth following intercourse, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure for seven days, in accordance with the halakha of a menstruating woman and one who engages in intercourse with her, and they are each liable to bring a sin offering for unwittingly performing an action punishable with excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, the woman and her husband are likewise ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her swatch after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗专讙讬砖讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗专讙讬砖讛 讜拽转谞讬 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 讗转讬讜诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗专讙讬砖讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讛专讙砖转 砖诪砖 讛讜讛

The Gemara analyzes this mishna: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a situation where she sensed, then in the case where blood was found on her cloth after time passed, why are they exempt from bringing the sin offering? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense? And yet the mishna teaches that if blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, they are ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. Once again, this contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed, but since she was engaging in intercourse at the time, one might say this was the sensation of the male organ.

转讗 砖诪注 谞诪爪讗转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 住驻拽讜转 讘讗砖讛 注诇 讘砖专讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗 住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗 住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讟讛讜专 讜讘诪讙注讜转 讜讘讛讬住讟讜转 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛专讜讘

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear from a baraita: You are found to say that there are three uncertainties involving cases where blood is found on a woman or her garments. If a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, the halakha is that it is impure. If it is found on her robe and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, the halakha is that it is pure. And in the case of a woman whose status as a menstruating woman is uncertain, with regard to her touching items and with regard to her moving items, one should follow the majority.

诪讗讬 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 诇讗讜 讗诐 专讜讘 讬诪讬讛 讟诪讗讬谉 讟诪讗讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗专讙砖讛

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What is the meaning of the phrase: Follow the majority, with regard to this woman of uncertain status? Does this not mean that if for the majority of her days she is in a state of ritual impurity, as she emits impure blood on many days, then she is considered impure even when her status is uncertain? And since this baraita does not differentiate between cases where she did and did not sense, the ruling that one follows the majority, and that she is impure, evidently applies even though she did not sense, which contradicts the opinion of Shmuel.

诇讗 讗诐 专讜讘 讬诪讬讛 讘讛专讙砖讛 讞讝讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讚讗讬诪讜专 讗专讙砖讛 讜诇讗讜 讗讚注转讛

The Gemara answers: No proof may be brought from here, as this is what the baraita means: If on the majority of her days this woman sees blood accompanied by a sensation, she is impure, despite the fact that she is uncertain whether she had a sensation, as one can say she sensed on this occasion as well, but it was not on her mind, i.e., she did not pay attention to it at the time.

讗诪专 诪专 注诇 讘砖专讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗 住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗 住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讟讛讜专

Before returning to the opinion of Shmuel, the Gemara analyzes the other clauses of this baraita. The Master said above: If a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is impure; if it is found on her robe and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is pure. The juxtaposition of these two cases indicates that the blood is found in the same area in both instances.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 诪讞讙讜专 讜诇诪讟讛 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专 讜讛讗 转谞谉 诪谉 讛讞讙讜专 讜诇诪讟讛 讟诪讗 讜讗讬 诪讞讙讜专 讜诇诪注诇讛 注诇 讘砖专讛 讗诪讗讬 讟诪讗 讜讛转谞谉 专讗转讛 讚诐 注诇 讘砖专讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛转讜专驻讛 讟讛讜专讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the blood was discovered from the belt and below, then when it was found on her robe why is she pure? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure? And if the blood was from the belt and above, then if it was discovered on her flesh why is she impure? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that if she saw blood on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讞讙讜专 讜诇诪讟讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讞讙讜专 讜诇诪注诇讛 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讞讙讜专 讜诇诪讟讛 讻讙讜谉 砖注讘专讛 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 讟讘讞讬诐 注诇 讘砖专讛 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讗讬 讚讗讬 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讗讬 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗砖转讻讜讞讬 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讗 讚讗讬 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讗 注诇 讘砖专讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗砖转讻讜讞讬

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the blood was discovered from the belt and below, and if you wish, say instead that it was found from the belt and above. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that the blood was found from the belt and below, as the baraita is referring to a situation where the blood can be attributed to an external factor, e.g., a case where she passed through a marketplace of butchers [tabba岣m]. Consequently, if the blood is found on her flesh it is assumed that it came from her body, as, if it came from the outside world, it should have been found on her robe as well. If it is discovered on her robe it is assumed that it came from the outside world, as, if it came from her body, it should have been found on her flesh as well.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讞讙讜专 讜诇诪注诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讝讚拽专讛 注诇 讘砖专讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讗讬 讚讗讬 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讗讬 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗砖转讻讜讞讬 注诇 讞诇讜拽讛 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讗讬 讚讗讬 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讗讬 注诇 讘砖专讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗砖转讻讜讞讬

And if you wish, say instead that the blood was found from the belt and above, and the baraita is referring to a situation where it is possible the blood came from her body, e.g., a case where she jumped backward. Therefore, if the blood is found on her flesh it certainly came from her body, as, if it came from the outside world, it should have been found on her robe as well. And if it is discovered on her robe the assumption is that it came from the outside world, as, if it came from her body, it should have been found on her flesh as well.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 注诇 讘砖专讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗 住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛专讙讬砖讛 讜注讜讚 转谞谉 讛专讜讗讛 讻转诐 注诇 讘砖专讛 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛转讜专驻讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛专讙讬砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚驻转讬 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛

The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita to the opinion of Shmuel: In any event, the baraita teaches that if a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is impure, and this is the halakha even though she did not sense, which contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. And furthermore, we learned in the mishna that a woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina becomes ritually impure, and this is apparently the halakha even though she did not sense. Rav Yirmeya of Difti says: The ruling of Shmuel that a woman must sense in order to be rendered impure applies only by Torah law. But Shmuel concedes that in all the cases cited above, where it is indicated that a woman is impure despite the fact that she did not sense, she is impure

Scroll To Top