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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 23, 2019 | 讻状讛 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

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

Niddah 61

Three women sleeping in one bed 鈥 it depends where they were in the bed and where the spot was found. What wasn鈥檛 this brought up in the previous mishna? The mishna brings a comparable case 鈥 three piles of stones with a dead body underneath one of them and one doesn鈥檛 know under which one. Are these cases really comparable? What is one checks and doesn鈥檛 find anything 鈥 can one assume it was taken away by a bird? Can one rely on the fact that people check thoroughly? The gemara brings stories in which part of a dead body was there but they couldn鈥檛 find it. In one case they find a ditch full of bones and the rabbis attribute it to bones from the people Yishmael killed when he assasinated Gedalia after the destruction of the first temple. How do we relate to rumors (lashon hara) that one hears. If we hear someone killed someone and is asking for protection 鈥 do we trust the rumor and not protect him or do we provide with protection? It is told about Og that he passed on a rumor to Abraham that Lot was captured and Abraham took the rumor seriously. What happens if one knows there is a stain on a cloak and can鈥檛 find it? If there was clothing with shaatnez and can鈥檛 find the string of the other type to remove it 鈥 what does one do? Were women able/should wear colored clothing and does it protect them from becoming impure from spotting.


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

讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 专讗讜讬讜转

as though they were fit, and all three are impure, because the blood must have originated from one of them.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讬砖谞讜转 讘诪讟讛 讗讞转 讜谞诪爪讗 讚诐 转讞转 讛讗诪爪注讬转 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转 转讞转 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 砖转讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讜讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讟讛讜专讛 转讞转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 砖转讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讟讛讜专讛

MISHNA: In a case of three women who were sleeping in one bed that was located adjacent to a wall, and blood was discovered beneath the middle woman, all of them are ritually impure. If the blood was discovered beneath the woman on the inside, closest to the wall, the two innermost women are ritually impure and the woman on the outside is ritually pure. If the blood was discovered beneath the woman on the outside, farthest from the wall, the two outermost women are ritually impure and the woman on the inside is ritually pure.

讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖注讘专讜 讚专讱 诪专讙诇讜转 讛诪讟讛 讗讘诇 讗诐 注讘专讜 讚专讱 注诇讬讛 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转 讘讚拽讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 讜砖转讬诐 讟诪讗讜转 讘讚拽讜 砖转讬诐 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讛谉 讟讛讜专讜转 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讟诪讗讛 砖诇砖转谉 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转

When is that the ruling? It is when they passed into their positions on the bed via the foot of the bed; but if they passed into their positions on the bed via the side of the bed, over the place where the blood was discovered, all of them are ritually impure. If immediately after the blood was discovered, one of them examined herself and she was found to be ritually pure, she is pure and the other two are impure. If two of them examined themselves and found that they were ritually pure, they are pure and the third is impure. If all three of them examined themselves and found that they were ritually pure, all of them are ritually impure, as the blood must have originated from one of them.

诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讙诇 讟诪讗 砖谞转注专讘 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讙诇讬诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 讜讘讚拽讜 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讜砖谞讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 讛诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬 讟诪讗

To what case is this matter comparable? It is similar to the case of a ritually impure pile of stones with an olive-bulk of a corpse beneath it, where this pile was intermingled with two ritually pure piles, and they examined one of them and found it pure. That pile is pure and the other two are impure. If they examined two of them and found them ritually pure, they are ritually pure and the third is impure.

砖诇砖转谉 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讘讟讜诪讗转讜 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讻谉 讛讬讗

If they examined all three of them and found them ritually pure, all of them are impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir would say: With regard to any item that has the presumptive status of ritual impurity, it forever remains in its state of ritual impurity, even if one examined the relevant area or item and the source of impurity was not found, until it becomes known to you where the ritual impurity is. The assumption is that the impurity was not found because the examination was not conducted properly.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讜讚拽 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇住诇注 讗讜 诇讘转讜诇讛

And the Rabbis say: One continues searching the relevant area until he reaches bedrock or virgin soil, beneath which there is certainly no ritual impurity. If no ritual impurity is found at that stage, presumably an animal dragged the olive-bulk of the corpse from beneath the pile, and the pile of rocks is pure.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 诪驻诇讬讙 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讚拽诪驻诇讬讙 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘诪砖讜诇讘讜转

GEMARA: The previous mishna taught that if blood is found beneath one of three women lying together on a bed, they are all ritually impure. By contrast, the mishna here distinguishes based on the precise location where the blood was found. The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause, i.e., the previous mishna, which did not distinguish on the basis of where the blood was found, and what is different in the latter clause, i.e., this mishna, which does distinguish in that manner? Rabbi Ami said that the previous mishna is referring to a case where the women were lying intertwined, and therefore it is impossible to distinguish between the woman on the inside and the woman on the outside.

讘讚拽讛 讗讞转 [讜讻讜壮] 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讬 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If immediately after the blood was discovered, one of them examined herself and she was found to be ritually pure, she is pure and the other two are impure. If two of them examined themselves and found that they were ritually pure, they are pure and the third is impure. If all three of them examined themselves and found that they were ritually pure, all of them are ritually impure. The mishna proceeds to compare this case to that of a pile of stones beneath which there is an olive-bulk of a corpse. The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna need to teach: To what case is this matter comparable? The ruling of the mishna is clear enough without this analogy.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讚诐 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬转讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讙诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬转讜

The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Meir is saying to the Rabbis: What is different with regard to the case of blood, where you do not disagree with me, as you concede that all three women are impure, and what is different with regard to the case of the pile of stones, where you disagree with me and maintain that all three piles of stones can be ritually pure if they are examined?

讜专讘谞谉 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗讬诪讗 注讜专讘 谞讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讛讗讬 讚诐 诪讛讬讻讗 讗转讗

And the Rabbis would counter that the two cases are different. Granted, there, with regard to the piles of stones, one could say that a raven or some other animal took away the olive-bulk of the corpse, so there is a reason to deem all the piles pure. But here, in the case of the three women and the blood, from where did this blood come? It must have come from one of them. Therefore, at least one of the women must be ritually impure, and one cannot say that all three are pure.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注砖讛 讘砖拽诪讛 砖诇 讻驻专 住讘讗 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讘讚拽讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 诇讬诪讬诐 谞砖讘讛 讘讜 讛专讜讞 讜注拽专转讜 讜谞诪爪讗 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖诇 诪转 转讞讜讘讛 诇讜 讘注讬拽专讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讗讬诪专 诇讗 讘讚拽讜 讻诇 爪专讻讜

The Gemara discusses other cases involving possible mistakes in examinations. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir said that there was an incident involving a sycamore tree in Kefar Sava, with regard to which they had a presumption of ritual impurity, i.e., a presumption that there was a corpse buried beneath it. And they examined by digging in that place and did not find any corpse. Some days later, the wind blew at it and uprooted the sycamore tree, and they found a skull from a corpse stuck in its roots. This apparently indicates that in general one cannot rely upon an examination. The Sages said to Rabbi Meir: Do you seek to bring a proof from there? One can say that they did not examine as much as was necessary.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘诪注专讛 砖诇 砖讬讞讬谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讘讚拽讜 注讚 砖讛讙讬注讜 诇拽专拽注 砖讛讬转讛 讞诇拽讛 讻爪驻讜专谉 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 诇讬诪讬诐 谞讻谞住讜 讘讛 驻讜注诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜谞转讝讜 讘拽专讚讜诪讜转讬讛谉 讜诪爪讗讜 诪讻转砖转 诪诇讗讛 注爪诪讜转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讗讬诪专 诇讗 讘讚拽讜 讻诇 爪专讻讜

The Gemara cites another case. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said that there was an incident involving a cave in Shi岣n with regard to which they had a presumption of ritual impurity of a corpse. And they examined by digging inside the cave until they reached ground that was as smooth as a fingernail, and they did not find any corpse. Some days later workers entered the cave because they sought shelter from the rain. And they dug with their shovels and found a mortar full of bones. Once again, this indicates that one cannot rely upon an examination. The Sages said to Rabbi Yosei: Do you bring a proof from there? One can say they did not examine as much as was necessary.

转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诪注砖讛 讘住诇注 讘讬转 讞讜专讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 讬讻诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讘讚讜拽 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬转讛 诪专讜讘讛 讜讛讬讛 砖诐 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讞谞谞讬讗 砖诪讜 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讬 住讚讬谞讬诐 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 住讚讬谞讬诐 讜砖专讗谉 讘诪讬诐 讜驻专住谉 注诇讬讛诐 诪拽讜诐 讟讛专讛 讬讘砖 诪拽讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞 讜讘讚拽讜 讜诪爪讗讜 讘讜专 讙讚讜诇 诪诇讗 注爪诪讜转

The Gemara cites yet another relevant case. It is taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul says that there was an incident involving bedrock in Beit 岣ron, with regard to which they had a presumption of ritual impurity of a corpse. And the Sages were unable to examine it because the area of the bedrock was too large. And there was one old man there, and his name was Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nanya. He said to them: Bring me sheets. They brought him sheets and he soaked them in water and spread them over the bedrock. In every place of ritual purity the ground remained dry, and in every place of ritual impurity the ground became moist. They understood that it was not entirely bedrock, as the area where the ground was wet was actually soft earth. And they examined there by digging and found a large pit filled with bones.

转谞讗 讛讜讗 讛讘讜专 砖诪讬诇讗 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 谞转谞讬讛 讞诇诇讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讜专 讗砖专 讛砖诇讬讱 砖诐 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗转 讻诇 驻讙专讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 讛讻讛 讘讬讚 讙讚诇讬讛

It is taught: That pit that they found is the pit that Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, filled with corpses, as it is written: 鈥淣ow the pit where Ishmael cast all the dead bodies of the men whom he had slain by the side of Gedaliah was that which Asa the king had made for fear of Baasa king of Israel; the same Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, filled with them that were slain鈥 (Jeremiah 41:9).

讜讻讬 讙讚诇讬讛 讛专讙谉 讜讛诇讗 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛专讙谉 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讞讜砖 诇注爪转 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 拽专讞 讜诇讗 讞砖 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛专讙谉

The Gemara analyzes that verse: And did Gedaliah kill them? But didn鈥檛 Ishmael kill them? Gedaliah was one of those killed by Ishmael and his men (see Jeremiah 41:2). The Gemara answers: Rather, since Gedaliah should have been concerned and cautious based on the advice of Johanan, son of Kareah, who warned him that Ishmael was conspiring to kill him and even offered to go and kill Ishmael in a preemptive strike (see Jeremiah 40:13鈥16), but Gedaliah was not concerned and he refused to listen to Johanan鈥檚 advice, saying that he did not want to listen to malicious speech, the verse ascribes him blame as though he himself killed them.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讘讬砖讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚诇拽讘讜诇讬 诇讗 诪讘注讬 诪讬讞砖 诇讬讛 诪讘注讬

搂 In relation to the above comment that Gedaliah was killed after not heeding the warning of Johanan, the Gemara clarifies what is permitted when receiving such a warning. Rava said: With regard to this prohibition against listening to malicious speech, even though one should not accept the malicious speech as true, one is nevertheless required to be concerned about the harm that might result from ignoring it.

讛谞讛讜 讘谞讬 讙诇讬诇讗 讚谞驻拽 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽诇讗 讚拽讟讜诇 谞驻砖讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讟诪专讬谞谉 诪专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 讗讬 诇讗 讗讟诪专讬谞讻讜 讞讝讜 讬转讬讬讻讜 讗讟诪专讬谞讻讜 讛讗 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讘讬砖讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇拽讘讜诇讬 诇讗 诪讘注讬 诪讬讞砖 诇讬讛 诪讘注讬 讝讬诇讜 讗转讜谉 讟诪专讜 谞驻砖讬讬讻讜

The Gemara cites examples of people who were concerned about malicious speech. There were these people of the Galilee about whom a rumor emerged that they had killed someone. They came before Rabbi Tarfon and said to him: Will the Master hide us? Rabbi Tarfon said to them: What should we do? If I do not hide you, your pursuers will see you and kill you. If I do hide you, this too is problematic, as didn鈥檛 the Rabbis say: With regard to this prohibition against listening to malicious speech, even though one should not accept the malicious speech as true, one is required to be concerned about the harm that might result from ignoring it? Therefore, you must go and hide yourselves.

讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讗诇 转讬专讗 诪讻讚讬 住讬讞讜谉 讜注讜讙 讗讞讬 讛讜讜 讚讗诪专 诪专 住讬讞讜谉 讜注讜讙 讘谞讬 讗讞讬讛 讘专 砖诪讞讝讗讬 讛讜讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪注讜讙 讚拽诪住转驻讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪住讬讞讜谉 讚诇讗 拽诪住转驻讬

The Gemara cites another case of a report that caused concern. Before the battle against Og, king of Bashan, it is stated: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to Moses: Do not fear him; for I have delivered him into your hand, and all his people, and his land; and you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt at Heshbon鈥 (Numbers 21:34). The Gemara asks: Now, Sihon and Og were brothers, as the Master said: Sihon and Og were sons of Ahijah, son of Shamhazai. In what way is Sihon different from Og, that God found it necessary to warn Moses not to be afraid of Og, and in what way is Og different from Sihon, that there was no need for a warning not to be afraid of Sihon?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪转砖讜讘转讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽 讗转讛 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛讬讛 讘诇讘讜 讗诪专 砖诪讗 转注诪讜讚 诇讜 讝讻讜转 砖诇 讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: From the answer that God gave to that righteous one, Moses, you know what was in his heart, i.e., what gave Moses cause to fear. Moses said to himself: Perhaps the merit of our forefather Abraham will stand for Og and save him. Og was the one who told Abraham that Lot had been taken captive by the four kings, enabling Abraham to rescue Lot.

砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讘讗 讛驻诇讬讟 讜讬讙讚 诇讗讘专诐 讛注讘专讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讛 注讜讙 砖驻诇讟 诪讚讜专 讛诪讘讜诇

The Gemara cites the source of this claim. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd there came one that was saved, and told Abram the Hebrew, now he dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshkol, and brother of Aner; and these were confederate with Abram. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan鈥 (Genesis 14:13鈥14). And Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the term 鈥渙ne that was saved鈥 is referring to Og, who was saved from the punishment of the generation of the flood. For this reason, Moses was more afraid of Og.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讙讚 砖讗讘讚 讘讜 讻转诐 诪注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪诪谞讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专

搂 The Gemara cites another instance in which an impure item was lost, similar to the case discussed above involving the pile of stones. The Sages taught in a baraita: Menstrual blood is itself a source of impurity. With regard to a garment in which a blood stain was lost, i.e., it is difficult to determine if the blood is still on the garment, one applies to it, i.e., scrubs it with, seven abrasive substances that are known to remove blood stains, and thereby nullifies the blood stain, so that the garment is pure. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

讘讜讚拽讜 砖讻讜谞讜转 砖讻讜谞讜转

He examines it section by section, as by examining each part of the garment separately he will discover any remaining blood stain.

讗讘讚讛 讘讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讞讚砖 讘讜讚拽讜 讘诪讞讟 砖讞讜拽 讘讜讚拽讜 讘讞诪讛 转谞讗 讗讬谉 砖讻讜谞讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转

In the case of a garment in which a seminal emission, which is also ritually impure, was lost, i.e., it is not known where on the garment the semen is, if the garment is new, one examines it by sticking a needle into every part of it. In this manner he will feel if the semen is in the garment. If the garment is worn out, one examines it by holding it up to the sun, as the sun鈥檚 rays will not pass through the stained part of the garment. It was taught in a baraita: The section mentioned need not be less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths in area.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讙讚 砖讗讘讚 讘讜 讻诇讗讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬诪讻专谞讜 诇讙讜讬 讜诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 诪专讚注转 诇讞诪讜专 讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 诪诪谞讜 转讻专讬讻讬谉 诇诪转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 诪爪讜转 讘讟诇讜转 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗

The Gemara cites another case of a garment in which something was lost. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a garment in which diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, was lost, i.e., it is a wool garment into which a linen thread was sewn or vice versa and it is not known where on the garment the thread is located, one may not sell it to a gentile and one may not even fashion it into a saddlecloth for a donkey. This is prohibited lest one remove a piece of the garment and sew it onto his own clothing. But one may fashion it into a shroud for a corpse, as there is no concern that one might remove it from the dead. Rav Yosef said: That is to say that the mitzvot will be nullified in the future. If this were not the case, then when the dead are resurrected they will be deriving benefit from the garment of diverse kinds in which they were buried.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇住驻讚讜 讗讘诇 诇拽讜讘专讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讜讘专讜

Abaye said to Rav Yosef, and some say that Rav Dimi said to Rav Yosef: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Mani say that Rabbi Yannai said: They taught that it is permitted to place a corpse in a shroud of diverse kinds only in order to eulogize him, but it is prohibited to bury him in a shroud of diverse kinds? Rav Yosef said to him: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that matter that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is even permitted to bury him in a shroud of diverse kinds?

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪转讬诐 讞驻砖讬 讻讬讜谉 砖诪转 讗讚诐 谞注砖讛 讞驻砖讬 诪谉 讛诪爪讜转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan conforms to his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淪et apart [岣fshi] among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, whom You remember no more鈥 (Psalms 88:6)? Once a person dies, he becomes free [岣fshi] from the mitzvot.

讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讙讚 砖讗讘讚 讘讜 讻诇讗讬诐 爪讜讘注讜 讜诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇住讘讗 讛讗

Rafram bar Pappa says that Rav 岣sda says: With regard to a garment in which diverse kinds was lost, one may dye it, and it is permitted to wear the garment, as wool and linen absorb dye differently, and therefore it will be easy to notice the location of the other kind of thread and remove it. Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: From where does the Elder, i.e., Rav 岣sda, derive this halakha?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讘讜讚拽 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇住诇注 讜讗讬 诇讬讻讗 讗讬诪专 注讜专讘 谞讟诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注诪专讗 讜讻讬转谞讗 讘讛讚讚讬 诇讗 住诇讬拽 诇讛讜 爪讘注讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讬讚讬注 讗讬诪专 诪谞转专 谞转专

Rafram bar Pappa said to him: It is derived from the mishna, as we learned: With regard to a pile of stones that was known to have an item of ritual impurity buried beneath it, one continues searching beneath each of these piles until he reaches bedrock. And if the impure item is not there, i.e., if he found nothing, one can say that a raven or some other animal took it. So too here, wool and flax, i.e., linen, do not absorb the dye in the same manner. And since he dyed the garment and he does not know of any mixture of linen and wool within it, as the entire garment absorbed the dye in the same way, one must say that that thread has fallen out, and therefore it is permitted to wear the garment.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚专诪讬 讞讜讟讗 讚讻讬转谞讗 讘讙诇讬诪讬讛 讚注诪专讗 讜谞转拽讬讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 谞转讬拽 讗讬 诇讗 谞转讬拽 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rav A岣, son of Rav Yeiva, said in the name of Mar Zutra: In a case of one who put a thread of flax in a cloak of wool and it fell out, but he does not know whether it all fell out or whether it did not all fall out, it is permitted to wear the cloak.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖注讟谞讝 讻转讬讘 注讚 砖讬讛讬讛 砖讜注 讟讜讜讬 讜谞讜讝 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 谞转拽讬讛 砖专讬

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the halakha is lenient in this case of uncertainty? By Torah law, it is written: 鈥淒iverse kinds [sha鈥檃tnez]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11), and this is interpreted as an acronym indicating that the halakha of diverse kinds does not apply unless the item is combed smooth [shua], spun [tavui] as a thread, and woven [nuz]. Without these characteristics, the combination is not considered diverse kinds by Torah law. And it is the Sages who decreed that diverse kinds that are merely attached to each other are prohibited, despite the fact that they are not combed and spun together. And in this case, since he does not know if it all fell out it is permitted, as the halakha is lenient with regard to uncertainties involving prohibitions that are by rabbinic law.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬诪专 讗讜 砖讜注 讗讜 讟讜讜讬 讗讜 谞讜讝 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讚讗驻拽讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 讘讞讚讗 诇讬砖谞讗

Rav Ashi objects to this leniency. One can say that by Torah law it is prohibited if the linen and wool are either combed, or spun, or woven. Perhaps the word sha鈥檃tnez does not limit the prohibition to a combination of all three activities, but to any one of them. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Mar Zutra, from the fact that the Merciful One expresses the prohibition in the Torah in one word, sha鈥檃tnez. Therefore, the term means all three characteristics together.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讙讚 爪讘讜注 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讻转诐 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讻转诐 砖诇讗 转拽谞讜 讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 诇讗砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: A colored garment renders a woman impure due to blood stains if she sees a blood stain on it. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: If she sees a blood stain on the colored garment she is not impure due to a blood stain, as the Sages enacted that women wear colored garments, and this decree was made only in order to be lenient with regard to their blood stains, i.e., so that they do not become impure.

转拽谞讜 诪讗讬 转拽谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讛讜转专讜 讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 诇讗砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉 讛讜转专讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讗住讬专讬

The Gemara questions Rabbi Natan bar Yosef鈥檚 use of the word: Enacted. The Sages enacted? What was their enactment? Rather, Rabbi Natan bar Yosef said the reason that the Sages permitted colored garments to women was only in order to be lenient with regard to her blood stains. The Gemara raises an objection: From the statement that the Sages permitted colored garments one can conclude by inference they were previously prohibited. But was there a time when it was not permitted for women to wear colored garments?

讗讬谉 讚转谞谉 讘驻讜诇诪讜住 砖诇 讗住驻住讬谞讜住 讙讝专讜 注诇 注讟专讜转 讞转谞讬诐 讜注诇 讛讗讬专讜住 讘拽砖讜 诇讙讝讜专 注诇 讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 讗诪专讬 讛讗 注讚讬驻讗 讻讚讬 诇讛拽诇 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉

The Gemara answers: Yes, as we learned in a mishna (Sota 49a): In the war [bapulmus] of Vespasian they decreed upon the crowns of bridegrooms, i.e., that bridegrooms may no longer wear crowns, and upon the drum [ha鈥檌rus], i.e., they also banned the playing of drums. They also sought to decree with regard to colored garments, i.e., that women may not wear such garments, but they said: This is preferable, that women should wear colored garments, in order to be lenient with regard to their blood stains, as a blood stain found on a colored garment does not render a woman ritually impure.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讻转诐 专讜拽 转驻诇 讜诪讬 讙专讬住讬谉 讜诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讜谞转专 讜讘讜专讬转

MISHNA: There are seven substances that one applies to the stain on a garment to ascertain whether it is a blood stain or a dye, as these seven substances remove the blood. They are: Tasteless saliva, and liquid from split beans, and urine, and natron, and borit,

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 61

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 61

讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 专讗讜讬讜转

as though they were fit, and all three are impure, because the blood must have originated from one of them.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讬砖谞讜转 讘诪讟讛 讗讞转 讜谞诪爪讗 讚诐 转讞转 讛讗诪爪注讬转 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转 转讞转 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 砖转讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讜讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讟讛讜专讛 转讞转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 砖转讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讟讛讜专讛

MISHNA: In a case of three women who were sleeping in one bed that was located adjacent to a wall, and blood was discovered beneath the middle woman, all of them are ritually impure. If the blood was discovered beneath the woman on the inside, closest to the wall, the two innermost women are ritually impure and the woman on the outside is ritually pure. If the blood was discovered beneath the woman on the outside, farthest from the wall, the two outermost women are ritually impure and the woman on the inside is ritually pure.

讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖注讘专讜 讚专讱 诪专讙诇讜转 讛诪讟讛 讗讘诇 讗诐 注讘专讜 讚专讱 注诇讬讛 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转 讘讚拽讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 讜砖转讬诐 讟诪讗讜转 讘讚拽讜 砖转讬诐 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讛谉 讟讛讜专讜转 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讟诪讗讛 砖诇砖转谉 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转

When is that the ruling? It is when they passed into their positions on the bed via the foot of the bed; but if they passed into their positions on the bed via the side of the bed, over the place where the blood was discovered, all of them are ritually impure. If immediately after the blood was discovered, one of them examined herself and she was found to be ritually pure, she is pure and the other two are impure. If two of them examined themselves and found that they were ritually pure, they are pure and the third is impure. If all three of them examined themselves and found that they were ritually pure, all of them are ritually impure, as the blood must have originated from one of them.

诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讙诇 讟诪讗 砖谞转注专讘 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讙诇讬诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 讜讘讚拽讜 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讜砖谞讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 讛诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬 讟诪讗

To what case is this matter comparable? It is similar to the case of a ritually impure pile of stones with an olive-bulk of a corpse beneath it, where this pile was intermingled with two ritually pure piles, and they examined one of them and found it pure. That pile is pure and the other two are impure. If they examined two of them and found them ritually pure, they are ritually pure and the third is impure.

砖诇砖转谉 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讘讟讜诪讗转讜 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讻谉 讛讬讗

If they examined all three of them and found them ritually pure, all of them are impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir would say: With regard to any item that has the presumptive status of ritual impurity, it forever remains in its state of ritual impurity, even if one examined the relevant area or item and the source of impurity was not found, until it becomes known to you where the ritual impurity is. The assumption is that the impurity was not found because the examination was not conducted properly.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讜讚拽 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇住诇注 讗讜 诇讘转讜诇讛

And the Rabbis say: One continues searching the relevant area until he reaches bedrock or virgin soil, beneath which there is certainly no ritual impurity. If no ritual impurity is found at that stage, presumably an animal dragged the olive-bulk of the corpse from beneath the pile, and the pile of rocks is pure.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 诪驻诇讬讙 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讚拽诪驻诇讬讙 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘诪砖讜诇讘讜转

GEMARA: The previous mishna taught that if blood is found beneath one of three women lying together on a bed, they are all ritually impure. By contrast, the mishna here distinguishes based on the precise location where the blood was found. The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause, i.e., the previous mishna, which did not distinguish on the basis of where the blood was found, and what is different in the latter clause, i.e., this mishna, which does distinguish in that manner? Rabbi Ami said that the previous mishna is referring to a case where the women were lying intertwined, and therefore it is impossible to distinguish between the woman on the inside and the woman on the outside.

讘讚拽讛 讗讞转 [讜讻讜壮] 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讬 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If immediately after the blood was discovered, one of them examined herself and she was found to be ritually pure, she is pure and the other two are impure. If two of them examined themselves and found that they were ritually pure, they are pure and the third is impure. If all three of them examined themselves and found that they were ritually pure, all of them are ritually impure. The mishna proceeds to compare this case to that of a pile of stones beneath which there is an olive-bulk of a corpse. The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna need to teach: To what case is this matter comparable? The ruling of the mishna is clear enough without this analogy.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讚诐 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬转讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讙诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬转讜

The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Meir is saying to the Rabbis: What is different with regard to the case of blood, where you do not disagree with me, as you concede that all three women are impure, and what is different with regard to the case of the pile of stones, where you disagree with me and maintain that all three piles of stones can be ritually pure if they are examined?

讜专讘谞谉 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗讬诪讗 注讜专讘 谞讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讛讗讬 讚诐 诪讛讬讻讗 讗转讗

And the Rabbis would counter that the two cases are different. Granted, there, with regard to the piles of stones, one could say that a raven or some other animal took away the olive-bulk of the corpse, so there is a reason to deem all the piles pure. But here, in the case of the three women and the blood, from where did this blood come? It must have come from one of them. Therefore, at least one of the women must be ritually impure, and one cannot say that all three are pure.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注砖讛 讘砖拽诪讛 砖诇 讻驻专 住讘讗 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讘讚拽讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 诇讬诪讬诐 谞砖讘讛 讘讜 讛专讜讞 讜注拽专转讜 讜谞诪爪讗 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖诇 诪转 转讞讜讘讛 诇讜 讘注讬拽专讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讗讬诪专 诇讗 讘讚拽讜 讻诇 爪专讻讜

The Gemara discusses other cases involving possible mistakes in examinations. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir said that there was an incident involving a sycamore tree in Kefar Sava, with regard to which they had a presumption of ritual impurity, i.e., a presumption that there was a corpse buried beneath it. And they examined by digging in that place and did not find any corpse. Some days later, the wind blew at it and uprooted the sycamore tree, and they found a skull from a corpse stuck in its roots. This apparently indicates that in general one cannot rely upon an examination. The Sages said to Rabbi Meir: Do you seek to bring a proof from there? One can say that they did not examine as much as was necessary.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘诪注专讛 砖诇 砖讬讞讬谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讘讚拽讜 注讚 砖讛讙讬注讜 诇拽专拽注 砖讛讬转讛 讞诇拽讛 讻爪驻讜专谉 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 诇讬诪讬诐 谞讻谞住讜 讘讛 驻讜注诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜谞转讝讜 讘拽专讚讜诪讜转讬讛谉 讜诪爪讗讜 诪讻转砖转 诪诇讗讛 注爪诪讜转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讗讬诪专 诇讗 讘讚拽讜 讻诇 爪专讻讜

The Gemara cites another case. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said that there was an incident involving a cave in Shi岣n with regard to which they had a presumption of ritual impurity of a corpse. And they examined by digging inside the cave until they reached ground that was as smooth as a fingernail, and they did not find any corpse. Some days later workers entered the cave because they sought shelter from the rain. And they dug with their shovels and found a mortar full of bones. Once again, this indicates that one cannot rely upon an examination. The Sages said to Rabbi Yosei: Do you bring a proof from there? One can say they did not examine as much as was necessary.

转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诪注砖讛 讘住诇注 讘讬转 讞讜专讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 讬讻诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讘讚讜拽 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬转讛 诪专讜讘讛 讜讛讬讛 砖诐 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讞谞谞讬讗 砖诪讜 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讬 住讚讬谞讬诐 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 住讚讬谞讬诐 讜砖专讗谉 讘诪讬诐 讜驻专住谉 注诇讬讛诐 诪拽讜诐 讟讛专讛 讬讘砖 诪拽讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞 讜讘讚拽讜 讜诪爪讗讜 讘讜专 讙讚讜诇 诪诇讗 注爪诪讜转

The Gemara cites yet another relevant case. It is taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul says that there was an incident involving bedrock in Beit 岣ron, with regard to which they had a presumption of ritual impurity of a corpse. And the Sages were unable to examine it because the area of the bedrock was too large. And there was one old man there, and his name was Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nanya. He said to them: Bring me sheets. They brought him sheets and he soaked them in water and spread them over the bedrock. In every place of ritual purity the ground remained dry, and in every place of ritual impurity the ground became moist. They understood that it was not entirely bedrock, as the area where the ground was wet was actually soft earth. And they examined there by digging and found a large pit filled with bones.

转谞讗 讛讜讗 讛讘讜专 砖诪讬诇讗 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 谞转谞讬讛 讞诇诇讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讜专 讗砖专 讛砖诇讬讱 砖诐 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗转 讻诇 驻讙专讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 讛讻讛 讘讬讚 讙讚诇讬讛

It is taught: That pit that they found is the pit that Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, filled with corpses, as it is written: 鈥淣ow the pit where Ishmael cast all the dead bodies of the men whom he had slain by the side of Gedaliah was that which Asa the king had made for fear of Baasa king of Israel; the same Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, filled with them that were slain鈥 (Jeremiah 41:9).

讜讻讬 讙讚诇讬讛 讛专讙谉 讜讛诇讗 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛专讙谉 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讞讜砖 诇注爪转 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 拽专讞 讜诇讗 讞砖 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛专讙谉

The Gemara analyzes that verse: And did Gedaliah kill them? But didn鈥檛 Ishmael kill them? Gedaliah was one of those killed by Ishmael and his men (see Jeremiah 41:2). The Gemara answers: Rather, since Gedaliah should have been concerned and cautious based on the advice of Johanan, son of Kareah, who warned him that Ishmael was conspiring to kill him and even offered to go and kill Ishmael in a preemptive strike (see Jeremiah 40:13鈥16), but Gedaliah was not concerned and he refused to listen to Johanan鈥檚 advice, saying that he did not want to listen to malicious speech, the verse ascribes him blame as though he himself killed them.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讘讬砖讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚诇拽讘讜诇讬 诇讗 诪讘注讬 诪讬讞砖 诇讬讛 诪讘注讬

搂 In relation to the above comment that Gedaliah was killed after not heeding the warning of Johanan, the Gemara clarifies what is permitted when receiving such a warning. Rava said: With regard to this prohibition against listening to malicious speech, even though one should not accept the malicious speech as true, one is nevertheless required to be concerned about the harm that might result from ignoring it.

讛谞讛讜 讘谞讬 讙诇讬诇讗 讚谞驻拽 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽诇讗 讚拽讟讜诇 谞驻砖讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讟诪专讬谞谉 诪专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 讗讬 诇讗 讗讟诪专讬谞讻讜 讞讝讜 讬转讬讬讻讜 讗讟诪专讬谞讻讜 讛讗 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讘讬砖讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇拽讘讜诇讬 诇讗 诪讘注讬 诪讬讞砖 诇讬讛 诪讘注讬 讝讬诇讜 讗转讜谉 讟诪专讜 谞驻砖讬讬讻讜

The Gemara cites examples of people who were concerned about malicious speech. There were these people of the Galilee about whom a rumor emerged that they had killed someone. They came before Rabbi Tarfon and said to him: Will the Master hide us? Rabbi Tarfon said to them: What should we do? If I do not hide you, your pursuers will see you and kill you. If I do hide you, this too is problematic, as didn鈥檛 the Rabbis say: With regard to this prohibition against listening to malicious speech, even though one should not accept the malicious speech as true, one is required to be concerned about the harm that might result from ignoring it? Therefore, you must go and hide yourselves.

讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讗诇 转讬专讗 诪讻讚讬 住讬讞讜谉 讜注讜讙 讗讞讬 讛讜讜 讚讗诪专 诪专 住讬讞讜谉 讜注讜讙 讘谞讬 讗讞讬讛 讘专 砖诪讞讝讗讬 讛讜讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪注讜讙 讚拽诪住转驻讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪住讬讞讜谉 讚诇讗 拽诪住转驻讬

The Gemara cites another case of a report that caused concern. Before the battle against Og, king of Bashan, it is stated: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to Moses: Do not fear him; for I have delivered him into your hand, and all his people, and his land; and you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt at Heshbon鈥 (Numbers 21:34). The Gemara asks: Now, Sihon and Og were brothers, as the Master said: Sihon and Og were sons of Ahijah, son of Shamhazai. In what way is Sihon different from Og, that God found it necessary to warn Moses not to be afraid of Og, and in what way is Og different from Sihon, that there was no need for a warning not to be afraid of Sihon?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪转砖讜讘转讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽 讗转讛 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛讬讛 讘诇讘讜 讗诪专 砖诪讗 转注诪讜讚 诇讜 讝讻讜转 砖诇 讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: From the answer that God gave to that righteous one, Moses, you know what was in his heart, i.e., what gave Moses cause to fear. Moses said to himself: Perhaps the merit of our forefather Abraham will stand for Og and save him. Og was the one who told Abraham that Lot had been taken captive by the four kings, enabling Abraham to rescue Lot.

砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讘讗 讛驻诇讬讟 讜讬讙讚 诇讗讘专诐 讛注讘专讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讛 注讜讙 砖驻诇讟 诪讚讜专 讛诪讘讜诇

The Gemara cites the source of this claim. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd there came one that was saved, and told Abram the Hebrew, now he dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshkol, and brother of Aner; and these were confederate with Abram. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan鈥 (Genesis 14:13鈥14). And Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the term 鈥渙ne that was saved鈥 is referring to Og, who was saved from the punishment of the generation of the flood. For this reason, Moses was more afraid of Og.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讙讚 砖讗讘讚 讘讜 讻转诐 诪注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪诪谞讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专

搂 The Gemara cites another instance in which an impure item was lost, similar to the case discussed above involving the pile of stones. The Sages taught in a baraita: Menstrual blood is itself a source of impurity. With regard to a garment in which a blood stain was lost, i.e., it is difficult to determine if the blood is still on the garment, one applies to it, i.e., scrubs it with, seven abrasive substances that are known to remove blood stains, and thereby nullifies the blood stain, so that the garment is pure. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

讘讜讚拽讜 砖讻讜谞讜转 砖讻讜谞讜转

He examines it section by section, as by examining each part of the garment separately he will discover any remaining blood stain.

讗讘讚讛 讘讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讞讚砖 讘讜讚拽讜 讘诪讞讟 砖讞讜拽 讘讜讚拽讜 讘讞诪讛 转谞讗 讗讬谉 砖讻讜谞讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转

In the case of a garment in which a seminal emission, which is also ritually impure, was lost, i.e., it is not known where on the garment the semen is, if the garment is new, one examines it by sticking a needle into every part of it. In this manner he will feel if the semen is in the garment. If the garment is worn out, one examines it by holding it up to the sun, as the sun鈥檚 rays will not pass through the stained part of the garment. It was taught in a baraita: The section mentioned need not be less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths in area.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讙讚 砖讗讘讚 讘讜 讻诇讗讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬诪讻专谞讜 诇讙讜讬 讜诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 诪专讚注转 诇讞诪讜专 讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 诪诪谞讜 转讻专讬讻讬谉 诇诪转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 诪爪讜转 讘讟诇讜转 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗

The Gemara cites another case of a garment in which something was lost. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a garment in which diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, was lost, i.e., it is a wool garment into which a linen thread was sewn or vice versa and it is not known where on the garment the thread is located, one may not sell it to a gentile and one may not even fashion it into a saddlecloth for a donkey. This is prohibited lest one remove a piece of the garment and sew it onto his own clothing. But one may fashion it into a shroud for a corpse, as there is no concern that one might remove it from the dead. Rav Yosef said: That is to say that the mitzvot will be nullified in the future. If this were not the case, then when the dead are resurrected they will be deriving benefit from the garment of diverse kinds in which they were buried.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇住驻讚讜 讗讘诇 诇拽讜讘专讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讜讘专讜

Abaye said to Rav Yosef, and some say that Rav Dimi said to Rav Yosef: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Mani say that Rabbi Yannai said: They taught that it is permitted to place a corpse in a shroud of diverse kinds only in order to eulogize him, but it is prohibited to bury him in a shroud of diverse kinds? Rav Yosef said to him: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that matter that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is even permitted to bury him in a shroud of diverse kinds?

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪转讬诐 讞驻砖讬 讻讬讜谉 砖诪转 讗讚诐 谞注砖讛 讞驻砖讬 诪谉 讛诪爪讜转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan conforms to his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淪et apart [岣fshi] among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, whom You remember no more鈥 (Psalms 88:6)? Once a person dies, he becomes free [岣fshi] from the mitzvot.

讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讙讚 砖讗讘讚 讘讜 讻诇讗讬诐 爪讜讘注讜 讜诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇住讘讗 讛讗

Rafram bar Pappa says that Rav 岣sda says: With regard to a garment in which diverse kinds was lost, one may dye it, and it is permitted to wear the garment, as wool and linen absorb dye differently, and therefore it will be easy to notice the location of the other kind of thread and remove it. Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: From where does the Elder, i.e., Rav 岣sda, derive this halakha?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讘讜讚拽 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇住诇注 讜讗讬 诇讬讻讗 讗讬诪专 注讜专讘 谞讟诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注诪专讗 讜讻讬转谞讗 讘讛讚讚讬 诇讗 住诇讬拽 诇讛讜 爪讘注讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讬讚讬注 讗讬诪专 诪谞转专 谞转专

Rafram bar Pappa said to him: It is derived from the mishna, as we learned: With regard to a pile of stones that was known to have an item of ritual impurity buried beneath it, one continues searching beneath each of these piles until he reaches bedrock. And if the impure item is not there, i.e., if he found nothing, one can say that a raven or some other animal took it. So too here, wool and flax, i.e., linen, do not absorb the dye in the same manner. And since he dyed the garment and he does not know of any mixture of linen and wool within it, as the entire garment absorbed the dye in the same way, one must say that that thread has fallen out, and therefore it is permitted to wear the garment.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚专诪讬 讞讜讟讗 讚讻讬转谞讗 讘讙诇讬诪讬讛 讚注诪专讗 讜谞转拽讬讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 谞转讬拽 讗讬 诇讗 谞转讬拽 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rav A岣, son of Rav Yeiva, said in the name of Mar Zutra: In a case of one who put a thread of flax in a cloak of wool and it fell out, but he does not know whether it all fell out or whether it did not all fall out, it is permitted to wear the cloak.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖注讟谞讝 讻转讬讘 注讚 砖讬讛讬讛 砖讜注 讟讜讜讬 讜谞讜讝 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 谞转拽讬讛 砖专讬

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the halakha is lenient in this case of uncertainty? By Torah law, it is written: 鈥淒iverse kinds [sha鈥檃tnez]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11), and this is interpreted as an acronym indicating that the halakha of diverse kinds does not apply unless the item is combed smooth [shua], spun [tavui] as a thread, and woven [nuz]. Without these characteristics, the combination is not considered diverse kinds by Torah law. And it is the Sages who decreed that diverse kinds that are merely attached to each other are prohibited, despite the fact that they are not combed and spun together. And in this case, since he does not know if it all fell out it is permitted, as the halakha is lenient with regard to uncertainties involving prohibitions that are by rabbinic law.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬诪专 讗讜 砖讜注 讗讜 讟讜讜讬 讗讜 谞讜讝 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讚讗驻拽讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 讘讞讚讗 诇讬砖谞讗

Rav Ashi objects to this leniency. One can say that by Torah law it is prohibited if the linen and wool are either combed, or spun, or woven. Perhaps the word sha鈥檃tnez does not limit the prohibition to a combination of all three activities, but to any one of them. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Mar Zutra, from the fact that the Merciful One expresses the prohibition in the Torah in one word, sha鈥檃tnez. Therefore, the term means all three characteristics together.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讙讚 爪讘讜注 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讻转诐 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讻转诐 砖诇讗 转拽谞讜 讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 诇讗砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: A colored garment renders a woman impure due to blood stains if she sees a blood stain on it. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: If she sees a blood stain on the colored garment she is not impure due to a blood stain, as the Sages enacted that women wear colored garments, and this decree was made only in order to be lenient with regard to their blood stains, i.e., so that they do not become impure.

转拽谞讜 诪讗讬 转拽谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讛讜转专讜 讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 诇讗砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉 讛讜转专讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讗住讬专讬

The Gemara questions Rabbi Natan bar Yosef鈥檚 use of the word: Enacted. The Sages enacted? What was their enactment? Rather, Rabbi Natan bar Yosef said the reason that the Sages permitted colored garments to women was only in order to be lenient with regard to her blood stains. The Gemara raises an objection: From the statement that the Sages permitted colored garments one can conclude by inference they were previously prohibited. But was there a time when it was not permitted for women to wear colored garments?

讗讬谉 讚转谞谉 讘驻讜诇诪讜住 砖诇 讗住驻住讬谞讜住 讙讝专讜 注诇 注讟专讜转 讞转谞讬诐 讜注诇 讛讗讬专讜住 讘拽砖讜 诇讙讝讜专 注诇 讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 讗诪专讬 讛讗 注讚讬驻讗 讻讚讬 诇讛拽诇 注诇 讻转诪讬讛谉

The Gemara answers: Yes, as we learned in a mishna (Sota 49a): In the war [bapulmus] of Vespasian they decreed upon the crowns of bridegrooms, i.e., that bridegrooms may no longer wear crowns, and upon the drum [ha鈥檌rus], i.e., they also banned the playing of drums. They also sought to decree with regard to colored garments, i.e., that women may not wear such garments, but they said: This is preferable, that women should wear colored garments, in order to be lenient with regard to their blood stains, as a blood stain found on a colored garment does not render a woman ritually impure.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讻转诐 专讜拽 转驻诇 讜诪讬 讙专讬住讬谉 讜诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讜谞转专 讜讘讜专讬转

MISHNA: There are seven substances that one applies to the stain on a garment to ascertain whether it is a blood stain or a dye, as these seven substances remove the blood. They are: Tasteless saliva, and liquid from split beans, and urine, and natron, and borit,

Scroll To Top