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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 24, 2019 | 讻状讜 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Niddah 62

Is there a way to determine if a stain is from blood or from something else? Laundering it with certain substances can be an indicator as certain substances used in a particular way can remove blood stains but not necessarily other stains. If one washes with seven specific substances, and the stain comes out, it is an indicator that it is blood. And if not, it is dye or something else. After the stain comes out or if it doesn鈥檛 come out fully, one can put in a mikveh and purify it 鈥 whatever is left is considered absorbed and it not a problem. What are the seven substances and is the order of washing important? If the stain doesn鈥檛 come out and one washes it again and the stain comes out then, does that make it impure? Does that prove that the owner thought the stain was blood and therefore we treat it as blood?聽 the owner鈥檚 intent important? If so, why? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue regarding impurity that is absorbed that does not make other items impure 鈥 does that include items that can get out if one works very hard at it? Does it matter if the item that is absorbed a high level of impurity (av hatuma and on a Torah level) or if it is low level (rabbinic and first degree impurity)? Rabbi Yochanan brings three sources to question Reish Lakish and then Reish Lakish brings one against Rabbi Yochanan. Based on the last question, Rav Papa specifies in exactly which case they disagree.


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

拽诪讜谞讬讗 讜讗砖诇讙

Cimolian earth [kamonya], and potash [eshlag].

讛讟讘讬诇讜 讜注砖讛 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讟讛专讜转 讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诇讗 注讘专 讛专讬 讝讛 爪讘注 讛讟讛专讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讘讬诇 注讘专 讗讜 砖讚讬讛讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讻转诐 讜讛讟讛专讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讜爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讘讬诇

If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is presumably from a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. If the stain disappeared or if it faded, that is a blood stain, and the ritually pure items that he handled are impure, and he must immerse the garment again.

讗讬讝讛讜 专讜拽 转驻诇 讻诇 砖诇讗 讟注诐 讻诇讜诐 诪讬 讙专讬住讬谉 诇注讬住转 讙专讬住讬谉 砖诇 驻讜诇 讞诇讜拽转 谞驻砖 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 砖讛讞诪讬爪讜

What is tasteless saliva? It is saliva that emerges from the mouth of any person who tasted nothing all night, when he first awakens in the morning. Liquid from split beans is created through the chewing of split beans that divided naturally, not by human hand, which is then applied to the stain. The urine that is an effective detergent is specifically urine that fermented for three days.

讜爪专讬讱 诇讻住讻住 砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛注讘讬专谉 砖诇讗 讻住讚专谉 讗讜 砖讛注讘讬专 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讻讗讞转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

And one must rub each and every one of the substances three times over the stain, and one must apply them separately, and one must apply them in the order they are listed in the mishna. If one applied them in a manner that is not in their prescribed order, or if one applied all seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing. One cannot determine by means of that examination whether it is blood or a dye.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 谞转专 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬转 讜诇讗 谞转专 讗谞讟驻讟专讬转

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the identities of the seven substances that remove blood stains. With regard to natron, a Sage taught in a baraita: This is referring to Alexandrian natron, i.e., from the city in Egypt, and not natron from Anpantrin, which is of a different quality.

讘讜专讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讛 讗讛诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讘讜专讬转 讜讛讗讛诇 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘讜专讬转 讻讘专讬转讗

The mishna lists borit as one of the seven substances. Rav Yehuda says: This is referring to ice plant. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Borit and ice plant, which indicates that they are two different substances? Rather, what is borit? Sulfur.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 讛诇讘讬爪讬谉 讜讛诇注讜谞讬谉 讛讘讜专讬转 讜讛讗讛诇 讜讗讬 讘讜专讬转 讻讘专讬转讗 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讛转谞谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 注讬拽专 讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讬拽专 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讘讬注讬转 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘讜专讬转 讗讛诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讘讜专讬转 讜讛讗讛诇 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讗讛诇讗

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the baraita discussing the halakha of plants whose use is prohibited during the Sabbatical Year: They added to the list of such plants: Bulbs of ornithogalum, and wormwood, and borit, and ice plant. And if it would enter your mind to say that borit is sulfur, is there sulfur that is subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a baraita that this is the principle: Anything that has a root and grows is subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year, and anything that does not have a root is not subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year? Rather, what is borit? It is ice plant. But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita: And borit and ice plant? The Gemara explains that there are two types of ice plant, one of which is called borit.

拽诪讜谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇讜祝 讚讜抓 讜讗砖诇讙 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讗诇转讬谞讛讜 诇谞讞讜转讬 讬诪讗 讜讗诪专讜 讗砖诇讙讗 砖诪讬讛 讜诪砖转讻讞 讘讬谞讬 谞拽讘讬 诪专讙谞讬转讗 讜诪驻拽讬 诇讛 讘专诪爪讗 讚驻专讝诇讗

With regard to the Cimolian earth mentioned in the mishna, Rav Yehuda said: This is the earth referred to as: Pull out, stick in. And with regard to the eshlag mentioned in the mishna, Shmuel said: I asked all of the seafarers about the identity of eshlag, and they told me it is called ashlega, in Aramaic, and can be found in the shell of the pearl, and is removed with an iron skewer.

讛讟讘讬诇讜 讜注砖讛 [讻讜壮] 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诇讗 注讘专 爪驻讜谉 讜注讘专 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟诪讗讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, but he then applied soap [tzafon] and it disappeared, any ritually pure items that he handled with the garment are impure.

爪驻讜谉 爪讘注 谞诪讬 诪注讘专 讗诇讗 讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖砖讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诇讗 注讘专 讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 爪驻讜谉 讜注讘专 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 砖讗诐 讛注讘讬专 砖讘讬注讬 诪转讞讬诇讛 砖诪讗 注讘专

The Gemara raises an objection with regard to this ruling: But soap causes dye to disappear as well; why then should one assume that the stain was blood? Rather, the baraita means that if one applied only six of the seven substances to it and the stain did not disappear, and he then applied soap to the stain and it disappeared, any ritually pure items that he handled with the garment are impure. The reason is that if he had applied all seven substances initially, perhaps the stain would have disappeared, proving that it was blood. Consequently, the garment is rendered impure due to uncertainty.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诇讗 注讘专 砖谞讗谉 讜注讘专 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转

It is taught in another baraita: If one applied the seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, indicating that it is a dye, and he then repeated and applied the seven substances a second time and the stain disappeared, any ritually pure items that he handled with the garment remain ritually pure.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讛讟讛专讜转 砖谞注砖讜 讘讬谉 转讻讘讜住转 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇砖谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讟讛专讜转 砖谞注砖讜 讗讞专 转讻讘讜住转 砖谞讬讛 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 砖讛专讬 讛拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讜注讘专

In explanation of this baraita, Rabbi Zeira says: They taught that the pure items remain pure only with regard to the ritually pure items that were handled between the first washing with the seven substances and the second washing. But with regard to any pure items that were handled with the garment after the second washing, these pure items become impure, as he was particular about it, i.e., by repeating the washing procedure he showed he was concerned that it might be blood, and the stain disappeared, demonstrating that it was in fact blood.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬讚讬 讘拽驻讬讚讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi, with regard to his statement: Does the matter of purity or impurity depend on whether or not one is particular about the blood stain? If the items he handled on the garment between the first and second washings are ritually pure, then any items he handled after the second washing should likewise be pure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讚诐 讛谞讚讛 讜讚讗讬 诪注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讜

Rav Ashi said to him: Yes, the status of purity depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the stain. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi 岣yya says: If one finds blood on a garment that is certainly from a menstruating woman and therefore renders the garment impure, one may apply the seven substances listed in the mishna to it and thereby nullify it from being considered a blood stain at all, even if the stain is not completely removed. And he may then immerse the garment in a ritual bath and it is ritually pure.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讚诐 谞讚讛 讛讜讗 讗诇诪讗 讘拽驻讬讚讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘拽驻讬讚讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗

Rav Ashi analyzes this ruling: But why is the garment pure? After all, it has blood from a menstruating woman on it. Evidently, the matter of whether or not it is ritually pure depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the blood stain. So too here, the matter of whether or not it is ritually pure depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the blood stain.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讞专住讬谉 砖谞砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讝讘 砖讘诇注讜 诪砖拽讬谉 讜谞驻诇讜 诇讗讜讬专 讛转谞讜专 讜讛讜住拽 讛转谞讜专 讛转谞讜专 讟诪讗 砖住讜祝 诪砖拽讛 诇爪讗转

We learned in a mishna there (see Kelim 9:5): In a case of pottery, i.e., a chamber pot, that a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] has used and that has absorbed impure liquids from the zav, and it then fell into the air of an oven, and the oven was subsequently heated, the oven is impure, as the impure liquid will eventually emerge from the chamber pot due to the heat of the oven.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪砖拽讬谉 拽诇讬诐 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讞诪讜专讬谉 讟诪讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讜住拽 讛转谞讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 诪砖拽讬谉 拽诇讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪砖拽讬谉 讞诪讜专讬谉 讗诐 讛讜住拽 讛转谞讜专 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to the correct interpretation of this mishna. Reish Lakish says: They taught that the oven is impure once it is heated only with regard to liquids of lesser ritual impurity, i.e., that are not primary sources of impurity, such as the tears or urine of one who was rendered impure by contact with a corpse. But with regard to liquids of greater ritual impurity, e.g., urine of a zav or zava, the oven is impure even though the oven was not heated. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to both liquids of lesser ritual impurity and liquids of greater ritual impurity that fell into an oven, if the oven was heated, then yes, the oven is impure, but if the oven was not heated, it is not impure.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讟讘讬诇讜 讜注砖讛 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讟讛专讜转 讜讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诇讗 注讘专 讛专讬 讝讛 爪讘注 讜讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讘讬诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from the mishna: If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown, and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is presumably from a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are ritually pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. Rabbi Yo岣nan understands that the stain is not definitely from a dye; even if it is from blood, such blood that is absorbed into the garment to the degree that it does not come out after this process is performed, does not impart ritual impurity. The same should apply in the case of the oven, i.e., the liquids should impart impurity only when the oven is heated and they actually emerge.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇讻转诪讬诐 讚专讘谞谉

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan in response: Leave aside blood stains, i.e., one cannot cite a proof from them, as they impart impurity by rabbinic law, and for this reason the Sages were lenient and ruled that they do not impart impurity until they actually emerge. But with regard to liquids that are impure by Torah law, the halakha is different.

讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚诐 讛谞讚讛 讜讚讗讬 诪注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan raises another objection to Reish Lakish: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach: If one finds blood on a garment that is certainly from a menstruating woman and therefore renders the garment impure, one may apply the seven substances listed in the mishna to it and nullify the stain from being considered a blood stain at all, even if the stain is not entirely removed; and he may then immerse the garment in a ritual bath and it is ritually pure?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇讗 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan in response: You cannot raise an objection to me from the baraita of Rabbi 岣yya, since if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not teach this halakha in the Mishna, from where did Rabbi 岣yya learn it? Rabbi 岣yya was a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and therefore he could not have included a halakha that contradicts the Mishna. Consequently, this statement in his name must be erroneous.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 砖谞讘诇注 讘讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讚讘住讜祝

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a mishna (Oholot 3:2): With regard to a quarterlog of blood from a corpse that was absorbed in the floor of a house, every vessel in the house is ritually impure by virtue of being under the same roof as the blood. The Gemara parenthetically notes: And some say that the mishna states that every vessel in the house is ritually pure. And these two statements do not disagree, as this first statement was issued in reference to vessels that were in the house at the outset, before the blood became absorbed; and this second statement was issued in reference to vessels that came into the house at the end, after the blood had already been absorbed.

谞讘诇注讛 讘讻住讜转 讗诐 诪转讻讘住转 讜讬讜爪讗 诪诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讟讛讜专讛

The mishna continues: In a case where the blood was absorbed in a garment, it is examined. If the garment is washed and a quarterlog of blood emerges from it, it is ritually impure and it imparts impurity to the vessels in the house as well. But if not, then it is pure, and it does not impart impurity. Apparently, only blood that can be removed from a garment is considered blood, whereas blood absorbed in the garment is insignificant. This is in accordance with the opinion that an absorbed substance does not impart ritual impurity, even if it can be removed in some manner.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪拽讜诇讬 专讘讬注讬讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 砖讗谞讬 讚诐 转讘讜住讛 讚专讘谞谉

Rav Kahana said in response: They taught here a halakha from among the leniencies that apply to the measurement of a quarter-log. That is, this case is different, as the mishna is referring to the blood of submission discharged from a body at the time of death, and such blood is ritually impure by rabbinic law. But in general, a ritually impure liquid that is absorbed into an item does impart impurity.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛讘诇讜注 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转 讟讛讜专 讛讗 讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转 讟诪讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞驻讬拽

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan from a mishna (Oholot 3:2): Any liquid that is absorbed but that is unable to emerge is pure. Reish Lakish infers from this mishna that if it is able to emerge it is impure, and that this is the halakha even though it has not yet emerged.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转 讜诇讗 讛拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟讛讜专 讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转 讜讛拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟诪讗

Rav Pappa said in defense of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: Anywhere that the liquid is unable to emerge and the owner of the garment is not particular about it, i.e., he is not bothered that this liquid is absorbed within the garment, everyone, i.e., both Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish, agrees that the garment is pure. If the liquid is able to emerge and the owner of the garment is particular about it and does not want it in his garment, everyone agrees that the garment is impure.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转 讜诇讗 讛拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转

They disagree when the liquid is able to emerge and the owner is not particular about it. One Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that since the liquid is able to emerge, even though the owner is not particular about it, the garment is impure. And one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that even though the liquid is able to emerge,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Niddah 62

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 62

拽诪讜谞讬讗 讜讗砖诇讙

Cimolian earth [kamonya], and potash [eshlag].

讛讟讘讬诇讜 讜注砖讛 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讟讛专讜转 讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诇讗 注讘专 讛专讬 讝讛 爪讘注 讛讟讛专讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讘讬诇 注讘专 讗讜 砖讚讬讛讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讻转诐 讜讛讟讛专讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讜爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讘讬诇

If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is presumably from a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. If the stain disappeared or if it faded, that is a blood stain, and the ritually pure items that he handled are impure, and he must immerse the garment again.

讗讬讝讛讜 专讜拽 转驻诇 讻诇 砖诇讗 讟注诐 讻诇讜诐 诪讬 讙专讬住讬谉 诇注讬住转 讙专讬住讬谉 砖诇 驻讜诇 讞诇讜拽转 谞驻砖 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 砖讛讞诪讬爪讜

What is tasteless saliva? It is saliva that emerges from the mouth of any person who tasted nothing all night, when he first awakens in the morning. Liquid from split beans is created through the chewing of split beans that divided naturally, not by human hand, which is then applied to the stain. The urine that is an effective detergent is specifically urine that fermented for three days.

讜爪专讬讱 诇讻住讻住 砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛注讘讬专谉 砖诇讗 讻住讚专谉 讗讜 砖讛注讘讬专 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讻讗讞转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

And one must rub each and every one of the substances three times over the stain, and one must apply them separately, and one must apply them in the order they are listed in the mishna. If one applied them in a manner that is not in their prescribed order, or if one applied all seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing. One cannot determine by means of that examination whether it is blood or a dye.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 谞转专 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬转 讜诇讗 谞转专 讗谞讟驻讟专讬转

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the identities of the seven substances that remove blood stains. With regard to natron, a Sage taught in a baraita: This is referring to Alexandrian natron, i.e., from the city in Egypt, and not natron from Anpantrin, which is of a different quality.

讘讜专讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讛 讗讛诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讘讜专讬转 讜讛讗讛诇 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘讜专讬转 讻讘专讬转讗

The mishna lists borit as one of the seven substances. Rav Yehuda says: This is referring to ice plant. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Borit and ice plant, which indicates that they are two different substances? Rather, what is borit? Sulfur.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 讛诇讘讬爪讬谉 讜讛诇注讜谞讬谉 讛讘讜专讬转 讜讛讗讛诇 讜讗讬 讘讜专讬转 讻讘专讬转讗 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讛转谞谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 注讬拽专 讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讬拽专 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讘讬注讬转 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘讜专讬转 讗讛诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讘讜专讬转 讜讛讗讛诇 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讗讛诇讗

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the baraita discussing the halakha of plants whose use is prohibited during the Sabbatical Year: They added to the list of such plants: Bulbs of ornithogalum, and wormwood, and borit, and ice plant. And if it would enter your mind to say that borit is sulfur, is there sulfur that is subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a baraita that this is the principle: Anything that has a root and grows is subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year, and anything that does not have a root is not subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year? Rather, what is borit? It is ice plant. But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita: And borit and ice plant? The Gemara explains that there are two types of ice plant, one of which is called borit.

拽诪讜谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇讜祝 讚讜抓 讜讗砖诇讙 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讗诇转讬谞讛讜 诇谞讞讜转讬 讬诪讗 讜讗诪专讜 讗砖诇讙讗 砖诪讬讛 讜诪砖转讻讞 讘讬谞讬 谞拽讘讬 诪专讙谞讬转讗 讜诪驻拽讬 诇讛 讘专诪爪讗 讚驻专讝诇讗

With regard to the Cimolian earth mentioned in the mishna, Rav Yehuda said: This is the earth referred to as: Pull out, stick in. And with regard to the eshlag mentioned in the mishna, Shmuel said: I asked all of the seafarers about the identity of eshlag, and they told me it is called ashlega, in Aramaic, and can be found in the shell of the pearl, and is removed with an iron skewer.

讛讟讘讬诇讜 讜注砖讛 [讻讜壮] 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诇讗 注讘专 爪驻讜谉 讜注讘专 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟诪讗讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, but he then applied soap [tzafon] and it disappeared, any ritually pure items that he handled with the garment are impure.

爪驻讜谉 爪讘注 谞诪讬 诪注讘专 讗诇讗 讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖砖讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诇讗 注讘专 讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 爪驻讜谉 讜注讘专 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 砖讗诐 讛注讘讬专 砖讘讬注讬 诪转讞讬诇讛 砖诪讗 注讘专

The Gemara raises an objection with regard to this ruling: But soap causes dye to disappear as well; why then should one assume that the stain was blood? Rather, the baraita means that if one applied only six of the seven substances to it and the stain did not disappear, and he then applied soap to the stain and it disappeared, any ritually pure items that he handled with the garment are impure. The reason is that if he had applied all seven substances initially, perhaps the stain would have disappeared, proving that it was blood. Consequently, the garment is rendered impure due to uncertainty.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诇讗 注讘专 砖谞讗谉 讜注讘专 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转

It is taught in another baraita: If one applied the seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, indicating that it is a dye, and he then repeated and applied the seven substances a second time and the stain disappeared, any ritually pure items that he handled with the garment remain ritually pure.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讛讟讛专讜转 砖谞注砖讜 讘讬谉 转讻讘讜住转 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇砖谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讟讛专讜转 砖谞注砖讜 讗讞专 转讻讘讜住转 砖谞讬讛 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 砖讛专讬 讛拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讜注讘专

In explanation of this baraita, Rabbi Zeira says: They taught that the pure items remain pure only with regard to the ritually pure items that were handled between the first washing with the seven substances and the second washing. But with regard to any pure items that were handled with the garment after the second washing, these pure items become impure, as he was particular about it, i.e., by repeating the washing procedure he showed he was concerned that it might be blood, and the stain disappeared, demonstrating that it was in fact blood.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬讚讬 讘拽驻讬讚讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi, with regard to his statement: Does the matter of purity or impurity depend on whether or not one is particular about the blood stain? If the items he handled on the garment between the first and second washings are ritually pure, then any items he handled after the second washing should likewise be pure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讚诐 讛谞讚讛 讜讚讗讬 诪注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讜

Rav Ashi said to him: Yes, the status of purity depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the stain. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi 岣yya says: If one finds blood on a garment that is certainly from a menstruating woman and therefore renders the garment impure, one may apply the seven substances listed in the mishna to it and thereby nullify it from being considered a blood stain at all, even if the stain is not completely removed. And he may then immerse the garment in a ritual bath and it is ritually pure.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讚诐 谞讚讛 讛讜讗 讗诇诪讗 讘拽驻讬讚讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘拽驻讬讚讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗

Rav Ashi analyzes this ruling: But why is the garment pure? After all, it has blood from a menstruating woman on it. Evidently, the matter of whether or not it is ritually pure depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the blood stain. So too here, the matter of whether or not it is ritually pure depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the blood stain.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讞专住讬谉 砖谞砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讝讘 砖讘诇注讜 诪砖拽讬谉 讜谞驻诇讜 诇讗讜讬专 讛转谞讜专 讜讛讜住拽 讛转谞讜专 讛转谞讜专 讟诪讗 砖住讜祝 诪砖拽讛 诇爪讗转

We learned in a mishna there (see Kelim 9:5): In a case of pottery, i.e., a chamber pot, that a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] has used and that has absorbed impure liquids from the zav, and it then fell into the air of an oven, and the oven was subsequently heated, the oven is impure, as the impure liquid will eventually emerge from the chamber pot due to the heat of the oven.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪砖拽讬谉 拽诇讬诐 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讞诪讜专讬谉 讟诪讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讜住拽 讛转谞讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 诪砖拽讬谉 拽诇讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪砖拽讬谉 讞诪讜专讬谉 讗诐 讛讜住拽 讛转谞讜专 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to the correct interpretation of this mishna. Reish Lakish says: They taught that the oven is impure once it is heated only with regard to liquids of lesser ritual impurity, i.e., that are not primary sources of impurity, such as the tears or urine of one who was rendered impure by contact with a corpse. But with regard to liquids of greater ritual impurity, e.g., urine of a zav or zava, the oven is impure even though the oven was not heated. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to both liquids of lesser ritual impurity and liquids of greater ritual impurity that fell into an oven, if the oven was heated, then yes, the oven is impure, but if the oven was not heated, it is not impure.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讟讘讬诇讜 讜注砖讛 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讟讛专讜转 讜讛注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诇讗 注讘专 讛专讬 讝讛 爪讘注 讜讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讘讬诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from the mishna: If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown, and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is presumably from a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are ritually pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. Rabbi Yo岣nan understands that the stain is not definitely from a dye; even if it is from blood, such blood that is absorbed into the garment to the degree that it does not come out after this process is performed, does not impart ritual impurity. The same should apply in the case of the oven, i.e., the liquids should impart impurity only when the oven is heated and they actually emerge.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇讻转诪讬诐 讚专讘谞谉

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan in response: Leave aside blood stains, i.e., one cannot cite a proof from them, as they impart impurity by rabbinic law, and for this reason the Sages were lenient and ruled that they do not impart impurity until they actually emerge. But with regard to liquids that are impure by Torah law, the halakha is different.

讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚诐 讛谞讚讛 讜讚讗讬 诪注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 住诪谞讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan raises another objection to Reish Lakish: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach: If one finds blood on a garment that is certainly from a menstruating woman and therefore renders the garment impure, one may apply the seven substances listed in the mishna to it and nullify the stain from being considered a blood stain at all, even if the stain is not entirely removed; and he may then immerse the garment in a ritual bath and it is ritually pure?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇讗 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan in response: You cannot raise an objection to me from the baraita of Rabbi 岣yya, since if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not teach this halakha in the Mishna, from where did Rabbi 岣yya learn it? Rabbi 岣yya was a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and therefore he could not have included a halakha that contradicts the Mishna. Consequently, this statement in his name must be erroneous.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 砖谞讘诇注 讘讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讚讘住讜祝

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a mishna (Oholot 3:2): With regard to a quarterlog of blood from a corpse that was absorbed in the floor of a house, every vessel in the house is ritually impure by virtue of being under the same roof as the blood. The Gemara parenthetically notes: And some say that the mishna states that every vessel in the house is ritually pure. And these two statements do not disagree, as this first statement was issued in reference to vessels that were in the house at the outset, before the blood became absorbed; and this second statement was issued in reference to vessels that came into the house at the end, after the blood had already been absorbed.

谞讘诇注讛 讘讻住讜转 讗诐 诪转讻讘住转 讜讬讜爪讗 诪诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讟讛讜专讛

The mishna continues: In a case where the blood was absorbed in a garment, it is examined. If the garment is washed and a quarterlog of blood emerges from it, it is ritually impure and it imparts impurity to the vessels in the house as well. But if not, then it is pure, and it does not impart impurity. Apparently, only blood that can be removed from a garment is considered blood, whereas blood absorbed in the garment is insignificant. This is in accordance with the opinion that an absorbed substance does not impart ritual impurity, even if it can be removed in some manner.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪拽讜诇讬 专讘讬注讬讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 砖讗谞讬 讚诐 转讘讜住讛 讚专讘谞谉

Rav Kahana said in response: They taught here a halakha from among the leniencies that apply to the measurement of a quarter-log. That is, this case is different, as the mishna is referring to the blood of submission discharged from a body at the time of death, and such blood is ritually impure by rabbinic law. But in general, a ritually impure liquid that is absorbed into an item does impart impurity.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛讘诇讜注 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转 讟讛讜专 讛讗 讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转 讟诪讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞驻讬拽

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan from a mishna (Oholot 3:2): Any liquid that is absorbed but that is unable to emerge is pure. Reish Lakish infers from this mishna that if it is able to emerge it is impure, and that this is the halakha even though it has not yet emerged.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转 讜诇讗 讛拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟讛讜专 讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转 讜讛拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟诪讗

Rav Pappa said in defense of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: Anywhere that the liquid is unable to emerge and the owner of the garment is not particular about it, i.e., he is not bothered that this liquid is absorbed within the garment, everyone, i.e., both Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish, agrees that the garment is pure. If the liquid is able to emerge and the owner of the garment is particular about it and does not want it in his garment, everyone agrees that the garment is impure.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转 讜诇讗 讛拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬讻讜诇 诇爪讗转

They disagree when the liquid is able to emerge and the owner is not particular about it. One Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that since the liquid is able to emerge, even though the owner is not particular about it, the garment is impure. And one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that even though the liquid is able to emerge,

Scroll To Top