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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 31, 2019 | 讙壮 讘讟讘转 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 69

Rav says that a woman who finishes her third day and counts the third day as part of her seven clean days. As this makes no sense, the gemara struglles to understand what Rav meant. The gemara then concludes that Rav thinks that seven clean days can count even if one is not aware that one is in clean days until the end. Is that really true? A zav and others like him (niddah, etc.) who die still pass on impurities to items under a large stone until the flesh rots. The concern is that if they faint, people might mistake them for dead and therefore even when dead they transfer inpurity. This is not the case for a non Jew, even though we treat all non Jews as a zav. Why?


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

诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讛讜 转讞诇转谉 讜住讜驻谉 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讻讗 转讞诇转谉 讗讬讻讗 住讜驻谉 诇讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 转讞诇转谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉

according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that if they examined themselves on the first and seventh days they are considered to be pure during the intermediate days as well, what is the halakha? Do we require the first and last days of the seven, and if so, here there is an examination on the first day, and yet there is no examination on the last day, but only on the eighth day? Or perhaps Rabbi Eliezer requires an examination only on the first of the days, and this is sufficient even though there is no examination on the last of the seven days.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 转讞诇转谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 转讞诇转谉 讜住讜驻谉 讘注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 转讞诇转谉 讗讬讻讗 住讜驻谉 诇讬讻讗

Rav said: This case of examining on the first and eighth days is the same as that of examining on the first and seventh days, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer requires an examination only on the first of the days, and this examination is sufficient even though there is no examination on the last of the days. And Rabbi 岣nina said: We require an examination on the first and last days of the seven, and here there is an examination on the first day but there is no examination on the last day. Consequently, Rabbi Eliezer would not permit a zav or a zava to count any of the days in this case.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜砖讜讬谉 讘讝讘 讜讘讝讘讛 砖讘讚拽讜 注爪诪谉 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬讜诐 砖诪讬谞讬 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖诪讬谞讬 讘诇讘讚 诪讗谉 砖讜讬谉 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: And the Sages agree with regard to a zav and a zava who examined themselves on the first day and on the eighth day and found themselves to be ritually pure, that they have only the eighth day as part of their count. The Gemara asks: Who are the Sages who agree to this? Are they not Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua? These two Sages, who disagree in a case where the zav and zava examined themselves on the first and seventh days, are evidently the ones who agree in the case of a woman who performed an examination on the first and the eighth days. This seems to contradict Rav鈥檚 opinion.

诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, the Sages referred to here are Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva. Both of them agree that in this case the first day is not included in the count. Conversely, Rabbi Eliezer would say that the first seven days are included in the count and the eighth day is unnecessary, as there is a presumptive status of ritual purity from her examination on the first day.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讚讛 砖讛驻专讬砖讛 讘讟讛专讛 讘砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讛 住讜驻专转讜 诇诪谞讬谉 砖讘注讛 谞拽讬讬诐

搂 The Gemara cites another discussion with regard to which days are included in the count of seven clean days. Rav Sheshet says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: A menstruating woman who performed the examination marking the first step in her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on her third day counts that day as part of the number of seven clean days.

谞讚讛 住驻讬专讛 诇诪讛 诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讝讘讛 砖讛驻专讬砖讛 讘讟讛专讛 讘砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讛 住讜驻专转讜 诇诪谞讬谉 砖讘注讛 谞拽讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: Why does a menstruating woman require any kind of counting? If this is during her days when she is expected to menstruate she may immerse after the conclusion of seven days, whether or not those days were clean. Rather, say that Rav meant as follows: A zava who performed the examination marking the first step in her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on her third day counts that day as part of the number of seven clean days.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 专讘 讻讻讜转讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 讬讜诐 砖驻讜住拽转 讘讜 住讜驻专转讜 诇诪谞讬谉 砖讘注讛

Rav Sheshet said to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: Did Rav say his halakha in accordance with the opinion of the Samaritans, who say that the day on which a zava ceases to experience the emission of ziva counts toward the number of seven clean days, and she does not need to count seven complete days?

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 诇讘专 诪砖诇讬砖讬 讘专 诪砖诇讬砖讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 注讚 砖讘讬注讬

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba replied: When Rav says his halakha, he meant apart from the third day. Rav Sheshet challenged: If Rav meant apart from the third day, that is obvious; there is no need for him to issue such a statement at all. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba replied: No, the statement that she begins counting immediately after the third day is necessary for a case where once she saw that she was clean after the third day of her ziva emissions she did not examine herself again until the seventh day.

讜讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛转诐 转讞诇转谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 讜讛讻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 住讜驻谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 转讞诇转谉

And Rav is teaching us two halakhot. There, in the previous discussion with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, Rav stated that an examination at the beginning is sufficient, even though there is no examination at the end of the seven days. And here he teaches us that an examination at the end of the seven days is sufficient, even though there is no examination at the beginning of the seven days, but only on the day when she ceased experiencing bleeding.

讚诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 转讞诇转谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗讜拽诪讬谞讛讜 讗讞讝拽讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 住讜驻谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 转讞诇转谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Yirmeya adds that it is necessary to teach both halakhot, lest you say that we say that an examination at the beginning is sufficient even though there is no examination at the end of the seven days, as we establish the clean days in accordance with their presumptive status. But one might have thought that Rav would not permit her to consider all the days to have been clean in a case of an examination at the end of the seven days even though there is no examination at the beginning of the seven days, where no presumptive status was established. Therefore, this second statement of Rav teaches us that even if she only examined herself at the end of the seven clean days it is sufficient.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟讜注讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav Yirmeya鈥檚 explanation. Is that so? But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that a woman who is uncertain whether or not she miscarried an actual fetus must bring an offering (see 29a). The reason is that the majority of pregnant women carry actual fetuses. Rabbi Yosef objected to this from the case of a woman who was forgetful, i.e., a woman who left town when she was pregnant, and later returned no longer pregnant. It is unknown whether she miscarried an actual fetus, and if it was a fetus, whether it was male or female. The conclusion there was that she does not have any days when blood she discharges is considered ritually pure, which is the halakha following a birth, as her miscarriage might not have been a fetus at all. Apparently, here one does not follow the principle that the majority of pregnant women carry actual fetuses.

讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 砖讘讜注 拽诪讗 讚讗转讬讗 诇拽诪谉 讘诇讬诇讜转讗 诪讟讘诇讬谞谉 诇讛 讘讬诪诪讗 诇讗 诪讟讘诇讬谞谉 诇讛

Ravin continues: And I do not know what his objection is, as the reason that she does not have any days when blood she discharges is considered ritually pure is not only due to the uncertainty as to whether or not she miscarried a fetus, but because it is also unknown when that miscarriage occurred, i.e., even if she miscarried a fetus, perhaps the days when blood she discharges is considered ritually pure had already been completed. As we maintain that the first week that she comes before us, when the court is uncertain with regard to her impurity, we tell her to immerse every night of that week, in the manner of a woman purifying herself after menstruation or childbirth, but we do not tell her to immerse during the daytime, as she has not counted seven clean days (see 29b).

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 住驻讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬谞讜 讘讬诪诪讗 谞诪讬 谞讟讘诇讬谞讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专 讘讝讜讘 讛讬讗 讜注讘讚讛 诇讛 住驻讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬谞谉 住驻讜专讬谉 讘驻谞讬谞讜

The Gemara explains how this discussion apparently contradicts Rav Yirmeya鈥檚 explanation. And if it enters your mind that we do not require all seven clean days to be counted before us, i.e., if an examination on the seventh day is sufficient, let us tell her to immerse also during the daytime, as perhaps she gave birth to a male baby during her days of ziva, and already performed her seven days of counting before she came before the court. The Gemara concludes: Rather, must one not conclude from this statement of Ravin that we require that her seven clean days be counted before us, which is why the court does not instruct her to immerse during the daytime.

讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 住驻讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬谞讜

The Gemara rejects this contention. But didn鈥檛 we interpret that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that we require her seven clean days to be counted before us? By contrast, Rav鈥檚 statement was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the days do not need to be counted before us.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 住驻讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬谞讜 讚转谞谉 讟讜注讛 砖讗诪专讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 专讗讬转讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 转砖注 讟讘讬诇讜转

搂 The Gemara stated earlier that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the seven clean days do not need to be counted before us. The Gemara analyzes their opinion: And from where do you say that according to the opinion of the Rabbis we do not require that the seven days be counted before us? This is as we learned in a baraita: With regard to a woman who was forgetful and does not know whether she is now in her days of menstruation or days of ziva, who said: I saw blood on one day of impurity, the court instructs her to immerse nine immersions.

砖讘注 诇谞讚讛 讜转专讬 诇讝讬讘讛 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讟诪讗 专讗讬转讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讟讘讬诇讜转

The baraita clarifies: Since there is no way of knowing whether she is a woman purifying herself after menstruation or after ziva, she must immerse seven immersions on the following seven nights, for purification from menstruation, as each of these days might be the last of the seven days of menstruation. And she must also immerse during two days as purification from ziva, i.e., on the day that she arrives, in case she experienced bleeding the day before, and on the following day, as perhaps she experienced bleeding on the day of her arrival. But if this woman says: I saw blood at twilight that renders me impure, the court instructs her to immerse eleven immersions.

讗讞转 注砖专讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚驻转讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗转 诇驻谞讬谞讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转

The Gemara asks: These eleven days, what is their purpose? If she would normally require nine immersions, why does she require an extra two immersions if she experienced bleeding at twilight? Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: The baraita is referring specifically to a case where she came before us at twilight and says that she also experienced bleeding at twilight, but it is not clear whether she experienced bleeding on a previous day at twilight, or today at twilight.

讜讛讜讬讬谉 转诪谞讬 诇谞讚讛 讜转诇转 诇讝讬讘讛

Rav Yirmeya explains: Therefore, she requires eight immersions to purify herself from menstruation, seven in case each of the following nights is the night after the seventh day of menstruation, and the eighth in case she experienced bleeding during twilight of the day she arrived, and this occurred in a time which was actually part of the next day, such that she needs to immerse also on the eighth night from her arrival, and three additional immersions during the day to purify herself from ziva. She must immerse during the day three times: She must immerse immediately, because if she experienced bleeding on the previous day during twilight it may have still been day, and right now, at twilight, it might still be day; she must immerse on the next day, because if she experienced bleeding on the previous day during twilight it may have already been night; and she must immerse during the day following the next day, because perhaps she experienced bleeding this twilight after it was night.

诇讗 专讗讬转讬 讻诇 注讬拽专 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讟讘讬诇讜转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讚讬谞讗 讚讬讬谞讬 讘讙诇讞讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 诇讬专注讬 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 诇讬专注讬 转专讬 讬讜诪讬

If this woman who is forgetful with regard to her cycle of menstruation and ziva says: I have not seen any blood at all, the court instructs her to immerse fifteen immersions. Rava said, in reference to this final halakha in the baraita: This halakha is not a logical halakha. Rather, it is like the halakha that they judge in a place named Gala岣. In that place they follow the behavior of Sodom, and say that with regard to one who has one ox, he must shepherd the local flocks one day, and one who does not have an ox must shepherd the local flocks for two days. It is not logical that a woman who has not experienced a flow of blood must immerse more times than one who has experienced a flow of blood.

讗转专诪讬 诇讛讜 讬转诪讗 讘专 讗专诪诇转讗 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 转讜专讬 讗讝诇 谞讻住讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 诇砖拽讜诇 讞讚 诪砖讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 诇砖拽讜诇 转专讬 诪砖讻讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 住讜祝 讚讬谞讗 讻转讞诇转 讚讬谞讗 转讞诇转 讚讬谞讗 诇讗讜 诪讗谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讚讬祝 住讜祝 讚讬谞讗 谞诪讬 诪讗谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讚讬祝

Apropos the mention of Gala岣, the Gemara relates an incident that occurred in that place. There was an orphan in that town, the son of a widow [armelata], who had no oxen of his own. The people of that town gave him their oxen to shepherd. This orphan went and slaughtered all of the oxen. He said to the townspeople: Whoever has an ox should take one skin, while one who does not have an ox should take two skins. The people of Gala岣 said to the orphan: What is this that you are saying, i.e., what is the reason? He said to them: The end of the law is like the beginning of the law: Isn鈥檛 the beginning of the law that one who has no ox is preferred, and must shepherd the oxen for two days? So too, with regard to the end of the law, one who has no ox is preferred and should receive two hides.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讜诪讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讛 专讗讬转讬 住讙讬 诇讛 讗讬 讘转砖注 讟讘讬诇讜转 讗讬 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛 讟讘讬诇讜转 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗诪专讛 讗讬讛讬 诇讗 专讗讬转讬 讘注讬讗 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讟讘讬诇讜转

The Gemara returns to discuss Rava鈥檚 comment with regard to the ruling of the baraita: Here too one can claim: And if in a case where she says: I saw blood, it is sufficient for her to immerse either nine immersions or eleven immersions, so too, in a case where she says: I did not see any flow of blood at all, is it logical that she requires fifteen immersions?

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 专讗讬转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讻诪讛 专讗讬转讬 讗讬 讘讬诪讬 谞讚讛 专讗讬转讬 讗讜 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘讛 专讗讬转讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讟讘讬诇讜转 讗转讗讬 拽诪谉 讘讬诪诪讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 砖讘 诇谞讚讛

Rather, say that this is what the baraita means: If a woman says: I saw a flow of blood but I do not know how many days I saw blood, and likewise I do not know whether I saw the flow during the days of menstruation or if I saw the flow during the days of ziva, in such a case, the court instructs her to immerse fifteen immersions. The reason for these immersions is as follows: If she comes before us during the daytime, we give her seven immersions, beginning from that night, to remove the impurity of menstruation. Any of those seven nights might be the night after the last of her days of menstruation.

讜转诪谞讬 诇讝讬讘讛 讗转讗讬 拽诪谉 讘诇讬诇讜转讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 转诪谞讬 诇谞讚讛 讜砖讘 诇讝讬讘讛

And she requires eight immersions during the day to purify her from her ziva, as it is possible that she experienced bleeding for three consecutive days, rendering her a greater zava, and one of those was on this day that she came before the court, and it is also possible that the day she arrived she did not experience bleeding, and she was a zava during her last clean day and had to immerse that day. If she comes before us at night, we give her eight immersions to purify herself from her menstruation, including one on the night that she comes before the court, and seven immersions during the day to purify herself from her ziva.

讝讬讘讛 转诪谞讬 讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 砖讘 诇谞讚讛 讜转诪谞讬 诇讝讬讘讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to her ziva, she still requires eight immersions. Since it is possible that she experienced bleeding for the third day on the day before coming to the court, she might be a greater zava, who starts her clean days only the day after she arrived. In addition, any of the first seven days may be the last clean day, on which she has to immerse herself. The Gemara answers: Rather, in both this case and that case she requires seven immersions to purify herself from the impurity of menstruation, and eight immersions to purify herself from the impurity of ziva.

讘诇讬诇讜转讗 转诪谞讬 诇谞讚讛 讘注讬

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: If the woman comes at night to the court, she requires eight immersions to purify herself from her impurity of menstruation. Why does the baraita require her to immerse a total of only fifteen times when there are cases where she must immerse sixteen times?

讝讬讘讛 讚驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗转讬讗 拽诪谉 讘讬诪诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗转讬讗 拽诪谉 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讛 谞讚讛 讚诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 讚讻讬 讗转讬讗 拽诪谉 讘诇讬诇讜转讗 讘注讬 转诪谞讬 讘讬诪诪讗 诇讗 拽讘注讬 转诪谞讬 诇讗 拽讞砖讬讘 诇讛

The Gemara answers: With regard to purifying herself from the impurity of ziva, which can be taught in a distinct manner, as there is no difference whether she comes before us during the day and there is no difference whether she comes before us at night, the baraita counts the fixed amount of eight immersions. By contrast, with regard to purifying herself from menstruation, which the tanna cannot teach in a distinct manner, as when she comes before us at night she requires eight immersions but if she comes before us during the day she does not require eight immersions, the tanna did not count both options, but mentioned only seven immersions, which is the minimum number required.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住驻讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬谞讜 讘注讬谞谉 讻诇 讛谞讬 讟讘讬诇讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬 转住驻讜专 砖讘 讜讛讚专 转讟讘讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 住驻讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬谞讜

The Gemara returns to the initial purpose of this discussion, which was to indicate that the Rabbis do not require all seven days of counting before the court. And if it enters your mind that we require seven days of counting before us, why do I need all of these immersions? She should count seven clean days and only afterward immerse. Rather, must one not conclude from this that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and who say that we do not require seven days of counting before us?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗讜 转专讜爪讬 拽诪转专爪讬谞谉 诇讛 转专讬抓 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 住驻专转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注转 讻诪讛 住驻专转讬 讗诐 讘讬诪讬 谞讚讛 住驻专转讬 讜讗诐 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘讛 住驻专转讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讟讘讬诇讜转

Rav A岣, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi, in rejection of this proof: But didn鈥檛 you resolve a difficulty in the baraita? Since you admit that the baraita in any event requires revision, resolve this difficulty too, and say this: If a woman comes and says: I counted clean days but I do not know how many days I counted, and I do not know whether I counted during the days of menstruation or whether I counted during the days of ziva, the court instructs her to immerse fifteen immersions. If so, there is no proof that the Rabbis hold that the counting does not need to be before the court.

住驻专转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注转 讻诪讛 住驻专转讬 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 诪讬讛讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 住驻专讛 讞住专讛 诇讛 讟讘讬诇讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this interpretation of the baraita: If it is referring to a case where the woman said: I counted clean days but I do not know how many days I counted, it is impossible that she did not count at least one clean day. If so, she should not be required to immerse on the eighth day, in which case she is lacking one immersion, as the baraita rules that she must immerse fifteen times.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注转 讗诐 住驻专转讬 讗诐 诇讗 住驻专转讬

The Gemara answers: Rather, say that she claims: I do not know if I counted any clean days or I did not count any clean days. Likewise, she does not know whether she saw the blood during her days of menstruation or during her days of ziva. Therefore, she must immerse fifteen times, as it is possible that she has not yet counted at all.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛谞讚讛 讜讛讬讜诇讚转 讜讛诪爪讜专注 砖诪转讜 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘诪砖讗 注讚 砖讬诪讜拽 讛讘砖专 讙讜讬 砖诪转 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗

MISHNA: The corpses of a zav, and a zava, and a menstruating woman, and a woman after childbirth, and a leper, who died, transmit ritual impurity by carrying their corpses, until the flesh decays. With regard to the corpse of a gentile who died, although when alive he transmits impurity like a zav, once he dies he is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诪转讜转 谞讚讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讚讛 讗诇讗 砖诪转讛 谞讚讛

Beit Shammai say: The status of all women when they die is as though they were menstruating women at the time of death. Therefore, the garments that they were wearing before they died are impure and require immersion. And Beit Hillel say: Only a woman who died with the impurity of a menstruating woman has the status of a menstruating woman after death.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讘诪砖讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诪诪砖 讗讟讜 讻诇 诪转 诪讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the corpse of one of these impure people transmits ritual impurity by carrying. The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean by the term: By carrying? If we say that it literally means by carrying, that is difficult: Is that to say that every other corpse does not impart ritual impurity by carrying? Since every corpse imparts impurity through carrying, why does the mishna need to specify this halakha in these specific cases?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘诪砖讗 讘讗讘谉 诪住诪讗

Rather, what does the mishna mean when it states: By carrying [bemassa]? It means imparting impurity through a very heavy stone [even mesama]. There is a unique halakha with regard to the ritual impurity of a zav and a menstruating woman. If they sit on an item, even one that cannot become ritually impure, and beneath that item there is a vessel, although the weight of the zav or the menstruating woman has no physical effect on the vessel, it becomes ritually impure.

讚讻转讬讘 讜讛转讬转 讗讘谉 讞讚讗 讜砖诪转 注诇 驻诐 讙讘讗

The Gemara notes that the word mesama is based on a verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd a stone was brought and placed [vesumat] upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel鈥 (Daniel 6:18). Accordingly, the mishna is teaching that although a corpse does not normally impart ritual impurity to vessels under a heavy stone, these specific types of corpses do transmit impurity in this manner.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬转注诇驻讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages decreed that these specific types of corpses impart ritual impurity through a heavy stone? Rav said: It is a decree due to the possibility that perhaps one of these people might faint while sitting on the heavy stone, and it might be mistakenly thought they are dead and do not impart impurity to the vessels beneath.

转谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专讜 注讚 砖讬讘拽注 讻专讬住讜

A tanna taught in a baraita that the Sages said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: All of these types of corpses listed in the mishna impart ritual impurity through a heavy stone until the belly of the corpse bursts. The Sages imposed their decree only in cases where the corpse resembles a person who has fainted. Once the corpse is clearly no longer alive, it no longer imparts ritual impurity through a heavy stone.

讙讜讬 砖诪转 [讻讜壮] 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讙讜讬 砖诪转 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转讜 诪讞讬讬诐 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to the corpse of a gentile who died, although when alive he transmits impurity like a zav, once he dies he is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: For what reason did the Sages say that the corpse of a gentile who died is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity by carrying? Because his impurity that he transmits even when alive is not by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. The Sages decreed that every living gentile imparts ritual impurity in the manner of a zav; they did not extend their decree to include the corpse of a gentile in the manner of the corpse of a zav.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诇讜 讗谞砖讬 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讞讬谞谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讛 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讛讙讚讛 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讘讜专讜转 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讚专讱 讗专抓

The Sages taught: The wise people of Alexandria asked twelve matters of Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nnana. Three of them were matters of wisdom, three were matters of aggada, three were matters of ignorance, and three were matters of behavior.

砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讛 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛谞讚讛 讜讛讬讜诇讚转 讜讛诪爪讜专注 砖诪转讜 注讚 诪转讬 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘诪砖讗 讗诪专 诇讛谉 注讚 砖讬诪讜拽 讛讘砖专

The Gemara lists the questions. Three were matters of wisdom: The first question was with regard to a zav and a zava and a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth and the leper, who died: Until when do they transmit ritual impurity by carrying? Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Until the flesh decays. This is the halakha taught in the mishna.

讘转 诪砖讜诇讞转 诪讛 讛讬讗 诇讻讛谉

The second question referred to the daughter of a wife who had been sent away by her husband, i.e., divorced, who then married another, but after her divorce from her second husband or his death she returned and remarried her first husband, to whom she is forbidden (see Deuteronomy 24:1鈥4), and a daughter was born from this marriage. What is her, i.e., the daughter鈥檚, status with regard to marrying a priest?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讛 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讘谞讛 驻讙讜诐 讝讜 砖讗讬住讜专讛 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讘谞讛 驻讙讜诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讛 诇讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 诪转讞诇诇转

Do we say an a fortiori inference: And if in the case of a widow married to a High Priest, whose prohibition does not apply to all, i.e., it is prohibited for her only to marry a High Priest (see Leviticus 21:13鈥15), and yet the lineage of her son is flawed, as he is disqualified from the priesthood, then in the case of this daughter of a remarried divorc茅e, whose prohibition applies equally to all men, is it not right that her son should be of flawed lineage? Or perhaps this comparison can be refuted: What is notable about a widow married to a High Priest? It is notable in that she herself is disqualified from the priesthood, i.e., if a High Priest engages in intercourse with her she is disqualified from partaking of teruma, whereas a remarried divorc茅e is not disqualified from partaking of teruma.

讗诪专 诇讛谉

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them:

  • 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 69

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 69

诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讛讜 转讞诇转谉 讜住讜驻谉 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讻讗 转讞诇转谉 讗讬讻讗 住讜驻谉 诇讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 转讞诇转谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉

according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that if they examined themselves on the first and seventh days they are considered to be pure during the intermediate days as well, what is the halakha? Do we require the first and last days of the seven, and if so, here there is an examination on the first day, and yet there is no examination on the last day, but only on the eighth day? Or perhaps Rabbi Eliezer requires an examination only on the first of the days, and this is sufficient even though there is no examination on the last of the seven days.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 转讞诇转谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 转讞诇转谉 讜住讜驻谉 讘注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 转讞诇转谉 讗讬讻讗 住讜驻谉 诇讬讻讗

Rav said: This case of examining on the first and eighth days is the same as that of examining on the first and seventh days, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer requires an examination only on the first of the days, and this examination is sufficient even though there is no examination on the last of the days. And Rabbi 岣nina said: We require an examination on the first and last days of the seven, and here there is an examination on the first day but there is no examination on the last day. Consequently, Rabbi Eliezer would not permit a zav or a zava to count any of the days in this case.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜砖讜讬谉 讘讝讘 讜讘讝讘讛 砖讘讚拽讜 注爪诪谉 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬讜诐 砖诪讬谞讬 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 砖诪讬谞讬 讘诇讘讚 诪讗谉 砖讜讬谉 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: And the Sages agree with regard to a zav and a zava who examined themselves on the first day and on the eighth day and found themselves to be ritually pure, that they have only the eighth day as part of their count. The Gemara asks: Who are the Sages who agree to this? Are they not Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua? These two Sages, who disagree in a case where the zav and zava examined themselves on the first and seventh days, are evidently the ones who agree in the case of a woman who performed an examination on the first and the eighth days. This seems to contradict Rav鈥檚 opinion.

诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, the Sages referred to here are Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva. Both of them agree that in this case the first day is not included in the count. Conversely, Rabbi Eliezer would say that the first seven days are included in the count and the eighth day is unnecessary, as there is a presumptive status of ritual purity from her examination on the first day.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讚讛 砖讛驻专讬砖讛 讘讟讛专讛 讘砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讛 住讜驻专转讜 诇诪谞讬谉 砖讘注讛 谞拽讬讬诐

搂 The Gemara cites another discussion with regard to which days are included in the count of seven clean days. Rav Sheshet says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: A menstruating woman who performed the examination marking the first step in her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on her third day counts that day as part of the number of seven clean days.

谞讚讛 住驻讬专讛 诇诪讛 诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讝讘讛 砖讛驻专讬砖讛 讘讟讛专讛 讘砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讛 住讜驻专转讜 诇诪谞讬谉 砖讘注讛 谞拽讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: Why does a menstruating woman require any kind of counting? If this is during her days when she is expected to menstruate she may immerse after the conclusion of seven days, whether or not those days were clean. Rather, say that Rav meant as follows: A zava who performed the examination marking the first step in her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on her third day counts that day as part of the number of seven clean days.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 专讘 讻讻讜转讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 讬讜诐 砖驻讜住拽转 讘讜 住讜驻专转讜 诇诪谞讬谉 砖讘注讛

Rav Sheshet said to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: Did Rav say his halakha in accordance with the opinion of the Samaritans, who say that the day on which a zava ceases to experience the emission of ziva counts toward the number of seven clean days, and she does not need to count seven complete days?

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 诇讘专 诪砖诇讬砖讬 讘专 诪砖诇讬砖讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 注讚 砖讘讬注讬

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba replied: When Rav says his halakha, he meant apart from the third day. Rav Sheshet challenged: If Rav meant apart from the third day, that is obvious; there is no need for him to issue such a statement at all. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba replied: No, the statement that she begins counting immediately after the third day is necessary for a case where once she saw that she was clean after the third day of her ziva emissions she did not examine herself again until the seventh day.

讜讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛转诐 转讞诇转谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 讜讛讻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 住讜驻谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 转讞诇转谉

And Rav is teaching us two halakhot. There, in the previous discussion with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, Rav stated that an examination at the beginning is sufficient, even though there is no examination at the end of the seven days. And here he teaches us that an examination at the end of the seven days is sufficient, even though there is no examination at the beginning of the seven days, but only on the day when she ceased experiencing bleeding.

讚诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 转讞诇转谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗讜拽诪讬谞讛讜 讗讞讝拽讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 住讜驻谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 转讞诇转谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Yirmeya adds that it is necessary to teach both halakhot, lest you say that we say that an examination at the beginning is sufficient even though there is no examination at the end of the seven days, as we establish the clean days in accordance with their presumptive status. But one might have thought that Rav would not permit her to consider all the days to have been clean in a case of an examination at the end of the seven days even though there is no examination at the beginning of the seven days, where no presumptive status was established. Therefore, this second statement of Rav teaches us that even if she only examined herself at the end of the seven clean days it is sufficient.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟讜注讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav Yirmeya鈥檚 explanation. Is that so? But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that a woman who is uncertain whether or not she miscarried an actual fetus must bring an offering (see 29a). The reason is that the majority of pregnant women carry actual fetuses. Rabbi Yosef objected to this from the case of a woman who was forgetful, i.e., a woman who left town when she was pregnant, and later returned no longer pregnant. It is unknown whether she miscarried an actual fetus, and if it was a fetus, whether it was male or female. The conclusion there was that she does not have any days when blood she discharges is considered ritually pure, which is the halakha following a birth, as her miscarriage might not have been a fetus at all. Apparently, here one does not follow the principle that the majority of pregnant women carry actual fetuses.

讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 砖讘讜注 拽诪讗 讚讗转讬讗 诇拽诪谉 讘诇讬诇讜转讗 诪讟讘诇讬谞谉 诇讛 讘讬诪诪讗 诇讗 诪讟讘诇讬谞谉 诇讛

Ravin continues: And I do not know what his objection is, as the reason that she does not have any days when blood she discharges is considered ritually pure is not only due to the uncertainty as to whether or not she miscarried a fetus, but because it is also unknown when that miscarriage occurred, i.e., even if she miscarried a fetus, perhaps the days when blood she discharges is considered ritually pure had already been completed. As we maintain that the first week that she comes before us, when the court is uncertain with regard to her impurity, we tell her to immerse every night of that week, in the manner of a woman purifying herself after menstruation or childbirth, but we do not tell her to immerse during the daytime, as she has not counted seven clean days (see 29b).

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 住驻讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬谞讜 讘讬诪诪讗 谞诪讬 谞讟讘诇讬谞讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专 讘讝讜讘 讛讬讗 讜注讘讚讛 诇讛 住驻讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬谞谉 住驻讜专讬谉 讘驻谞讬谞讜

The Gemara explains how this discussion apparently contradicts Rav Yirmeya鈥檚 explanation. And if it enters your mind that we do not require all seven clean days to be counted before us, i.e., if an examination on the seventh day is sufficient, let us tell her to immerse also during the daytime, as perhaps she gave birth to a male baby during her days of ziva, and already performed her seven days of counting before she came before the court. The Gemara concludes: Rather, must one not conclude from this statement of Ravin that we require that her seven clean days be counted before us, which is why the court does not instruct her to immerse during the daytime.

讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 住驻讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬谞讜

The Gemara rejects this contention. But didn鈥檛 we interpret that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that we require her seven clean days to be counted before us? By contrast, Rav鈥檚 statement was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the days do not need to be counted before us.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 住驻讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬谞讜 讚转谞谉 讟讜注讛 砖讗诪专讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 专讗讬转讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 转砖注 讟讘讬诇讜转

搂 The Gemara stated earlier that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the seven clean days do not need to be counted before us. The Gemara analyzes their opinion: And from where do you say that according to the opinion of the Rabbis we do not require that the seven days be counted before us? This is as we learned in a baraita: With regard to a woman who was forgetful and does not know whether she is now in her days of menstruation or days of ziva, who said: I saw blood on one day of impurity, the court instructs her to immerse nine immersions.

砖讘注 诇谞讚讛 讜转专讬 诇讝讬讘讛 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讟诪讗 专讗讬转讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讟讘讬诇讜转

The baraita clarifies: Since there is no way of knowing whether she is a woman purifying herself after menstruation or after ziva, she must immerse seven immersions on the following seven nights, for purification from menstruation, as each of these days might be the last of the seven days of menstruation. And she must also immerse during two days as purification from ziva, i.e., on the day that she arrives, in case she experienced bleeding the day before, and on the following day, as perhaps she experienced bleeding on the day of her arrival. But if this woman says: I saw blood at twilight that renders me impure, the court instructs her to immerse eleven immersions.

讗讞转 注砖专讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚驻转讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗转 诇驻谞讬谞讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转

The Gemara asks: These eleven days, what is their purpose? If she would normally require nine immersions, why does she require an extra two immersions if she experienced bleeding at twilight? Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: The baraita is referring specifically to a case where she came before us at twilight and says that she also experienced bleeding at twilight, but it is not clear whether she experienced bleeding on a previous day at twilight, or today at twilight.

讜讛讜讬讬谉 转诪谞讬 诇谞讚讛 讜转诇转 诇讝讬讘讛

Rav Yirmeya explains: Therefore, she requires eight immersions to purify herself from menstruation, seven in case each of the following nights is the night after the seventh day of menstruation, and the eighth in case she experienced bleeding during twilight of the day she arrived, and this occurred in a time which was actually part of the next day, such that she needs to immerse also on the eighth night from her arrival, and three additional immersions during the day to purify herself from ziva. She must immerse during the day three times: She must immerse immediately, because if she experienced bleeding on the previous day during twilight it may have still been day, and right now, at twilight, it might still be day; she must immerse on the next day, because if she experienced bleeding on the previous day during twilight it may have already been night; and she must immerse during the day following the next day, because perhaps she experienced bleeding this twilight after it was night.

诇讗 专讗讬转讬 讻诇 注讬拽专 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讟讘讬诇讜转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讚讬谞讗 讚讬讬谞讬 讘讙诇讞讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 诇讬专注讬 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 诇讬专注讬 转专讬 讬讜诪讬

If this woman who is forgetful with regard to her cycle of menstruation and ziva says: I have not seen any blood at all, the court instructs her to immerse fifteen immersions. Rava said, in reference to this final halakha in the baraita: This halakha is not a logical halakha. Rather, it is like the halakha that they judge in a place named Gala岣. In that place they follow the behavior of Sodom, and say that with regard to one who has one ox, he must shepherd the local flocks one day, and one who does not have an ox must shepherd the local flocks for two days. It is not logical that a woman who has not experienced a flow of blood must immerse more times than one who has experienced a flow of blood.

讗转专诪讬 诇讛讜 讬转诪讗 讘专 讗专诪诇转讗 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 转讜专讬 讗讝诇 谞讻住讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 诇砖拽讜诇 讞讚 诪砖讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 诇砖拽讜诇 转专讬 诪砖讻讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 住讜祝 讚讬谞讗 讻转讞诇转 讚讬谞讗 转讞诇转 讚讬谞讗 诇讗讜 诪讗谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讚讬祝 住讜祝 讚讬谞讗 谞诪讬 诪讗谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讚讬祝

Apropos the mention of Gala岣, the Gemara relates an incident that occurred in that place. There was an orphan in that town, the son of a widow [armelata], who had no oxen of his own. The people of that town gave him their oxen to shepherd. This orphan went and slaughtered all of the oxen. He said to the townspeople: Whoever has an ox should take one skin, while one who does not have an ox should take two skins. The people of Gala岣 said to the orphan: What is this that you are saying, i.e., what is the reason? He said to them: The end of the law is like the beginning of the law: Isn鈥檛 the beginning of the law that one who has no ox is preferred, and must shepherd the oxen for two days? So too, with regard to the end of the law, one who has no ox is preferred and should receive two hides.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讜诪讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讛 专讗讬转讬 住讙讬 诇讛 讗讬 讘转砖注 讟讘讬诇讜转 讗讬 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛 讟讘讬诇讜转 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗诪专讛 讗讬讛讬 诇讗 专讗讬转讬 讘注讬讗 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讟讘讬诇讜转

The Gemara returns to discuss Rava鈥檚 comment with regard to the ruling of the baraita: Here too one can claim: And if in a case where she says: I saw blood, it is sufficient for her to immerse either nine immersions or eleven immersions, so too, in a case where she says: I did not see any flow of blood at all, is it logical that she requires fifteen immersions?

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 专讗讬转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讻诪讛 专讗讬转讬 讗讬 讘讬诪讬 谞讚讛 专讗讬转讬 讗讜 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘讛 专讗讬转讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讟讘讬诇讜转 讗转讗讬 拽诪谉 讘讬诪诪讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 砖讘 诇谞讚讛

Rather, say that this is what the baraita means: If a woman says: I saw a flow of blood but I do not know how many days I saw blood, and likewise I do not know whether I saw the flow during the days of menstruation or if I saw the flow during the days of ziva, in such a case, the court instructs her to immerse fifteen immersions. The reason for these immersions is as follows: If she comes before us during the daytime, we give her seven immersions, beginning from that night, to remove the impurity of menstruation. Any of those seven nights might be the night after the last of her days of menstruation.

讜转诪谞讬 诇讝讬讘讛 讗转讗讬 拽诪谉 讘诇讬诇讜转讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 转诪谞讬 诇谞讚讛 讜砖讘 诇讝讬讘讛

And she requires eight immersions during the day to purify her from her ziva, as it is possible that she experienced bleeding for three consecutive days, rendering her a greater zava, and one of those was on this day that she came before the court, and it is also possible that the day she arrived she did not experience bleeding, and she was a zava during her last clean day and had to immerse that day. If she comes before us at night, we give her eight immersions to purify herself from her menstruation, including one on the night that she comes before the court, and seven immersions during the day to purify herself from her ziva.

讝讬讘讛 转诪谞讬 讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 砖讘 诇谞讚讛 讜转诪谞讬 诇讝讬讘讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to her ziva, she still requires eight immersions. Since it is possible that she experienced bleeding for the third day on the day before coming to the court, she might be a greater zava, who starts her clean days only the day after she arrived. In addition, any of the first seven days may be the last clean day, on which she has to immerse herself. The Gemara answers: Rather, in both this case and that case she requires seven immersions to purify herself from the impurity of menstruation, and eight immersions to purify herself from the impurity of ziva.

讘诇讬诇讜转讗 转诪谞讬 诇谞讚讛 讘注讬

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: If the woman comes at night to the court, she requires eight immersions to purify herself from her impurity of menstruation. Why does the baraita require her to immerse a total of only fifteen times when there are cases where she must immerse sixteen times?

讝讬讘讛 讚驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗转讬讗 拽诪谉 讘讬诪诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗转讬讗 拽诪谉 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讛 谞讚讛 讚诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 讚讻讬 讗转讬讗 拽诪谉 讘诇讬诇讜转讗 讘注讬 转诪谞讬 讘讬诪诪讗 诇讗 拽讘注讬 转诪谞讬 诇讗 拽讞砖讬讘 诇讛

The Gemara answers: With regard to purifying herself from the impurity of ziva, which can be taught in a distinct manner, as there is no difference whether she comes before us during the day and there is no difference whether she comes before us at night, the baraita counts the fixed amount of eight immersions. By contrast, with regard to purifying herself from menstruation, which the tanna cannot teach in a distinct manner, as when she comes before us at night she requires eight immersions but if she comes before us during the day she does not require eight immersions, the tanna did not count both options, but mentioned only seven immersions, which is the minimum number required.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住驻讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬谞讜 讘注讬谞谉 讻诇 讛谞讬 讟讘讬诇讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬 转住驻讜专 砖讘 讜讛讚专 转讟讘讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 住驻讜专讬谉 诇驻谞讬谞讜

The Gemara returns to the initial purpose of this discussion, which was to indicate that the Rabbis do not require all seven days of counting before the court. And if it enters your mind that we require seven days of counting before us, why do I need all of these immersions? She should count seven clean days and only afterward immerse. Rather, must one not conclude from this that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and who say that we do not require seven days of counting before us?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗讜 转专讜爪讬 拽诪转专爪讬谞谉 诇讛 转专讬抓 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 住驻专转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注转 讻诪讛 住驻专转讬 讗诐 讘讬诪讬 谞讚讛 住驻专转讬 讜讗诐 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘讛 住驻专转讬 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讟讘讬诇讜转

Rav A岣, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi, in rejection of this proof: But didn鈥檛 you resolve a difficulty in the baraita? Since you admit that the baraita in any event requires revision, resolve this difficulty too, and say this: If a woman comes and says: I counted clean days but I do not know how many days I counted, and I do not know whether I counted during the days of menstruation or whether I counted during the days of ziva, the court instructs her to immerse fifteen immersions. If so, there is no proof that the Rabbis hold that the counting does not need to be before the court.

住驻专转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注转 讻诪讛 住驻专转讬 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 诪讬讛讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 住驻专讛 讞住专讛 诇讛 讟讘讬诇讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this interpretation of the baraita: If it is referring to a case where the woman said: I counted clean days but I do not know how many days I counted, it is impossible that she did not count at least one clean day. If so, she should not be required to immerse on the eighth day, in which case she is lacking one immersion, as the baraita rules that she must immerse fifteen times.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注转 讗诐 住驻专转讬 讗诐 诇讗 住驻专转讬

The Gemara answers: Rather, say that she claims: I do not know if I counted any clean days or I did not count any clean days. Likewise, she does not know whether she saw the blood during her days of menstruation or during her days of ziva. Therefore, she must immerse fifteen times, as it is possible that she has not yet counted at all.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛谞讚讛 讜讛讬讜诇讚转 讜讛诪爪讜专注 砖诪转讜 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘诪砖讗 注讚 砖讬诪讜拽 讛讘砖专 讙讜讬 砖诪转 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗

MISHNA: The corpses of a zav, and a zava, and a menstruating woman, and a woman after childbirth, and a leper, who died, transmit ritual impurity by carrying their corpses, until the flesh decays. With regard to the corpse of a gentile who died, although when alive he transmits impurity like a zav, once he dies he is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诪转讜转 谞讚讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讚讛 讗诇讗 砖诪转讛 谞讚讛

Beit Shammai say: The status of all women when they die is as though they were menstruating women at the time of death. Therefore, the garments that they were wearing before they died are impure and require immersion. And Beit Hillel say: Only a woman who died with the impurity of a menstruating woman has the status of a menstruating woman after death.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讘诪砖讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诪诪砖 讗讟讜 讻诇 诪转 诪讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the corpse of one of these impure people transmits ritual impurity by carrying. The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean by the term: By carrying? If we say that it literally means by carrying, that is difficult: Is that to say that every other corpse does not impart ritual impurity by carrying? Since every corpse imparts impurity through carrying, why does the mishna need to specify this halakha in these specific cases?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘诪砖讗 讘讗讘谉 诪住诪讗

Rather, what does the mishna mean when it states: By carrying [bemassa]? It means imparting impurity through a very heavy stone [even mesama]. There is a unique halakha with regard to the ritual impurity of a zav and a menstruating woman. If they sit on an item, even one that cannot become ritually impure, and beneath that item there is a vessel, although the weight of the zav or the menstruating woman has no physical effect on the vessel, it becomes ritually impure.

讚讻转讬讘 讜讛转讬转 讗讘谉 讞讚讗 讜砖诪转 注诇 驻诐 讙讘讗

The Gemara notes that the word mesama is based on a verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd a stone was brought and placed [vesumat] upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel鈥 (Daniel 6:18). Accordingly, the mishna is teaching that although a corpse does not normally impart ritual impurity to vessels under a heavy stone, these specific types of corpses do transmit impurity in this manner.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬转注诇驻讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages decreed that these specific types of corpses impart ritual impurity through a heavy stone? Rav said: It is a decree due to the possibility that perhaps one of these people might faint while sitting on the heavy stone, and it might be mistakenly thought they are dead and do not impart impurity to the vessels beneath.

转谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专讜 注讚 砖讬讘拽注 讻专讬住讜

A tanna taught in a baraita that the Sages said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: All of these types of corpses listed in the mishna impart ritual impurity through a heavy stone until the belly of the corpse bursts. The Sages imposed their decree only in cases where the corpse resembles a person who has fainted. Once the corpse is clearly no longer alive, it no longer imparts ritual impurity through a heavy stone.

讙讜讬 砖诪转 [讻讜壮] 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讙讜讬 砖诪转 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转讜 诪讞讬讬诐 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to the corpse of a gentile who died, although when alive he transmits impurity like a zav, once he dies he is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: For what reason did the Sages say that the corpse of a gentile who died is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity by carrying? Because his impurity that he transmits even when alive is not by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. The Sages decreed that every living gentile imparts ritual impurity in the manner of a zav; they did not extend their decree to include the corpse of a gentile in the manner of the corpse of a zav.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诇讜 讗谞砖讬 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讞讬谞谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讛 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讛讙讚讛 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讘讜专讜转 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讚专讱 讗专抓

The Sages taught: The wise people of Alexandria asked twelve matters of Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nnana. Three of them were matters of wisdom, three were matters of aggada, three were matters of ignorance, and three were matters of behavior.

砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讛 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛谞讚讛 讜讛讬讜诇讚转 讜讛诪爪讜专注 砖诪转讜 注讚 诪转讬 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘诪砖讗 讗诪专 诇讛谉 注讚 砖讬诪讜拽 讛讘砖专

The Gemara lists the questions. Three were matters of wisdom: The first question was with regard to a zav and a zava and a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth and the leper, who died: Until when do they transmit ritual impurity by carrying? Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Until the flesh decays. This is the halakha taught in the mishna.

讘转 诪砖讜诇讞转 诪讛 讛讬讗 诇讻讛谉

The second question referred to the daughter of a wife who had been sent away by her husband, i.e., divorced, who then married another, but after her divorce from her second husband or his death she returned and remarried her first husband, to whom she is forbidden (see Deuteronomy 24:1鈥4), and a daughter was born from this marriage. What is her, i.e., the daughter鈥檚, status with regard to marrying a priest?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讛 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讘谞讛 驻讙讜诐 讝讜 砖讗讬住讜专讛 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讘谞讛 驻讙讜诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讛 诇讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 诪转讞诇诇转

Do we say an a fortiori inference: And if in the case of a widow married to a High Priest, whose prohibition does not apply to all, i.e., it is prohibited for her only to marry a High Priest (see Leviticus 21:13鈥15), and yet the lineage of her son is flawed, as he is disqualified from the priesthood, then in the case of this daughter of a remarried divorc茅e, whose prohibition applies equally to all men, is it not right that her son should be of flawed lineage? Or perhaps this comparison can be refuted: What is notable about a widow married to a High Priest? It is notable in that she herself is disqualified from the priesthood, i.e., if a High Priest engages in intercourse with her she is disqualified from partaking of teruma, whereas a remarried divorc茅e is not disqualified from partaking of teruma.

讗诪专 诇讛谉

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them:

Scroll To Top