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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 30, 2019 | 讗壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Niddah 7

A dough at the stage where challa can be taken is already considered like challa for purposes of impurities (if a case of doubt arises). The gemara assumes that dough from which challa is ready to be taken but hasn’t yet been taken is like non sacred items that people treat like truma and therefore questions the previous halacha from the fact that we do not have the laws of retroactive impurity (a case of doubt) for non sacred items that were treated like truma. Two answers are given. Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkanus and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree regarding to which women the laws of retroactive impurtiy are not applicable. Why was Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is prefered but was only followed after his death? What are the definitions of the four women who Rabbi Eliezer wqas referring to? In what other cases do we hold like Rabbi Eliezer.


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

讜讞诇转讛 转诇讜讬讛 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉 讘讗讬讝讛 住驻拽 讗诪专讜 讘住驻拽 讞诇讛 诪讗讬 住驻拽 讞诇讛

And as the 岣lla of this kneaded, untithed dough is in a state of uncertain purity, its status is suspended: It is neither eaten like ritually pure 岣lla, nor is it burned like impure 岣lla. With regard to which uncertainty did they state this halakha? With regard to 岣lla of uncertain status. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the concept of 岣lla of uncertain status? This apparently indicates a scenario of possible ritual impurity that applies specifically to 岣lla, not to non-sacred food.

讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 讘讛讜讻讞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 讻诪讜 砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讚讛转诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讙专讬讚讗 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讜

Abaye and Rava both say: One should not say that we learned this case of 岣lla of uncertain status among the cases of equal proofs, i.e., an unresolvable uncertainty, such as the case of two paths, where someone walked down one of two paths, one of which was ritually impure and the other ritually pure, and he does not remember which one he walked down. As there, even regular non-sacred food is also rendered ritually impure due to uncertainty.

讗诇讗 讘谞砖注谉 讚转谞谉 讝讘 讜讟讛讜专 砖讛讬讜 驻讜专拽讬谉 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专 讗讜 讟讜注谞讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖诪砖讗谉 讻讘讚 讟诪讗 诪砖讗谉 拽诇 讟讛讜专 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 诇讘谞讬 讛讻谞住转 讜讟诪讗讬谉 诇转专讜诪讛

Rather, the uncertainty referred to here is similar to the less likely case of leaning, as we learned in a mishna (Zavim 3:2): In a case of a zav and a ritually pure person who were unloading a package from a donkey or who were loading a package onto a donkey, when their package is heavy the pure person is rendered impure, as perhaps the zav leaned on him while they handled the package together. If their package is light, he remains pure. And in all those cases, he remains ritually pure even if he is one of the members of a synagogue whose congregants handle non-sacred food according to the standards of sacrificial food, as this is not a true case of a zav moving a pure person. But he is impure with regard to matters involving teruma, by rabbinic law.

讜讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗砖讛 砖讛讬讗 讟讘讜诇转 讬讜诐 诇砖讛 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讜拽讜爪讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讞诇转讛 讜诪谞讬讞转讛 讘讻驻讬砖讛 讗讜 讘讗谞讞讜转讗 讜诪拽驻转 讜拽讜专讗 诇讛 砖诐

The Gemara asks: And is non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to the obligation to separate 岣lla really considered like 岣lla to the extent that it is rendered impure even in a case of leaning? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, she may separate 岣lla: She may knead the dough, and separate its 岣lla from it, and place the separated dough into a wicker basket or a wooden board [be鈥檃n岣ta], and subsequently she may bring it near the rest of the dough, and she may then designate it 岣lla by name.

诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖诇讬砖讬 讟讛讜专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜 讛讗 讟诪讬转谞讛讜

The baraita continues: The reason that this is allowed, despite her impurity, is because the dough is impure by third-degree ritual impurity, and an item that has third-degree impurity is considered pure with regard to non-sacred food. The Gemara concludes its question: And if you say that non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to the obligation to separate 岣lla is considered like 岣lla, then she should render it impure with her touch, just as she would render actual 岣lla impure.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 砖讜讚讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讙讝专讜 注诇 住驻拽讜 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 讜讛讗讬 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讚讗讬 讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛

Abaye says: With regard to any item that when it is definitely impure renders non-sacred food impure, as in the case of the zav, the Sages issued a decree that its uncertain impurity should also render non-sacred food items impure, due to its status as non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to 岣lla. But with regard to this case of one who immersed that day, since even when she is definitely impure she does not render non-sacred food impure, they did not issue a decree that she should render that dough impure due to its status as non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to 岣lla.

讜讛讗 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 讚讜讚讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇 住驻拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛

The Gemara asks: But what about the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman? As a definitely impure menstruating woman renders non-sacred food impure and nevertheless with regard to untithed dough the Sages did not issue a decree to treat her uncertain impurity as definite impurity due to the dough鈥檚 status as non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to 岣lla.

讚讗诪专 诪专 拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara cites its source for this claim: As the Master said: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k received from Rav Na岣an: The retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman transmits impurity to non-sacred food items that were prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, but not to non-sacred food items that were prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma. It is assumed that the level of purity required for non-sacred food items prepared according to the standards required of teruma is the same as that of dough from which 岣lla has not been separated, i.e., it is not treated as real 岣lla, which is rendered impure by her retroactive twenty-four-hour period of impurity.

讛转诐 诇讗 驻转讬讻讗 讘讛讜 转专讜诪讛 讛讻讗 驻转讬讻讗 讘讛讜 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara answers: The level of purity required for non-sacred food items that were prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma is actually lower than the level required for dough from which 岣lla has not been separated. The reason is that there, in the case of non-sacred food items, there is no actual teruma mixed in it. By contrast, here, in the case of untithed dough, there is teruma, i.e., 岣lla, mixed in it, which will eventually be separated from this dough.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讞 诪注转 诇注转 讚专讘谞谉

If you wish, say instead: Leave aside the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman, as it applies by rabbinic law. One cannot raise a difficulty against the principle that untithed dough is treated with the same level of purity as 岣lla from the case of the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman, since that retroactive impurity is a rabbinic decree, and therefore there is more room for leniency.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注 谞砖讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讘转讜诇讛 诪注讜讘专转 诪谞讬拽讛 讜讝拽讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗谞讬 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 讘转讜诇讛

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: Unlike the women with regard to whom it was taught that they transmit impurity retroactively, there are four women who discern menstrual blood and their time is sufficient, i.e., they transmit impurity only from the moment that they saw the blood: A virgin, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, and an elderly woman. Rabbi Yehoshua says: I heard this halakha from my teachers only with regard to a virgin,

讗讘诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

but the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讘转讜诇讛 讻诇 砖诇讗 专讗转讛 讚诐 诪讬诪讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞砖讜讗讛 诪注讜讘专转 诪砖讬讜讚注 注讜讘专讛 诪谞讬拽讛 注讚 砖转讙诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讛 谞转谞讛 讘谞讛 诇诪谞讬拽讛 讙诪诇转讜 讗讜 诪转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

Who is the woman characterized as a virgin in this context? It is any woman who has not seen the flow of menstrual blood in all her days, even if she was married and has experienced bleeding as a result of intercourse consummating her marriage. The time of a pregnant woman is from the point in her pregnancy when the existence of her fetus is known to all who see her. The time of a nursing woman is until she weans her child from nursing. If she stopped nursing, e.g., she gave her child to a wet nurse, weaned him from nursing, or her child died, and she saw menstrual blood, Rabbi Meir says: She transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from her most recent examination. And the Rabbis say: Even in those cases, her time is sufficient.

讗讬讝讜讛讬 讝拽谞讛 讻诇 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 住诪讜讱 诇讝拽谞转讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗砖讛 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛谉 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉

Who is the woman characterized as an elderly woman in this context? It is any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed during which she saw no menstrual blood, at a stage of her life close to her old age. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles passed during which she saw no menstrual blood, if she then experiences bleeding, her time is sufficient. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if they then saw blood, their time is sufficient.

讜讘诪讛 讗诪专 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讘专讗讬讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜讗诐 专讗转讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讗讜谞住 讗祝 讛砖谞讬讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

And in the above cases, with regard to what did the tanna say her time is sufficient? It is with regard to the first sighting of blood, but with regard to the second sighting, her status is like that of any other woman, and she transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from her most recent examination. And if she saw the first sighting as a result of unnatural circumstances, even with regard to the second sighting, the halakha is that her time is sufficient.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗转讛 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗谞讬 砖诪注转讬 讗转讛 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讗谞讬 砖诪注转讬 讛专讘讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Eliezer teaches in the mishna that there are four women who transmit impurity only from the moment that they saw menstrual blood, not retroactively. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard this halakha from my teachers only with regard to a virgin. The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: You did not hear, but I did hear it. In other words, you may not have received a tradition from your teachers with regard to any other woman, but I did receive such a tradition. Furthermore, you heard a halakhic ruling with regard to only one woman, and I heard rulings with regard to many women.

讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇诪讬 砖诇讗 专讗讛 讗转 讛讞讚砖 讬讘讗 讜讬注讬讚 讗诇讗 诇诪讬 砖专讗讛讜 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗讞专 驻讟讬专转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讞讝讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗转 讛讚讘专 诇讬讜砖谞讜

Rabbi Eliezer continued his rebuttal with a metaphor from the practice of sanctifying the new moon, which required the testimony of witnesses: We do not say to one who had not seen the new moon to come and testify. Rather we give such an instruction only to he who saw it. Similarly, my opinion is weightier with regard to this issue, as I heard many rulings about the matter, whereas you did not. The Gemara reports: All the days of the life of Rabbi Eliezer, they would practice in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, i.e., only a virgin would be exempt from retroactive impurity. After Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 passing, Rabbi Yehoshua returned the matter to its former custom, which was to follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讞讬讬讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖诪讜转讬 讛讜讗 讜住讘专 讗讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讗讞专谞讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they did not act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer during his lifetime? The Gemara answers: Because Rabbi Eliezer was a Shammuti, i.e., a follower of the rulings of Beit Shammai, and the halakha is generally in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in their disputes with Beit Shammai. And the Sages held that if we act in accordance with his opinion in one matter, people will act in accordance with his opinion in other matters.

讜诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 诪爪讬谞谉 诪讞讬谞谉 讘讛讜 诇讗讞专 驻讟讬专转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪爪讬谞讜 诪讞讬谞谉 讘讛讜 讛讞讝讬专 讗转 讛讚讘专 诇讬讜砖谞讜

And that would be a problem, as if so, then during his lifetime, due to the honor of Rabbi Eliezer, we will not be able to protest against them. But after Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 passing, when we are able to protest against those who act in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion in other matters, Rabbi Yehoshua returned the matter to its former custom of deciding the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in this matter.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗专讘注 讞讚讗 讚讗诪专谉

搂 The Gemara mentions other instances in which the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases. One is the halakha that we just mentioned, of the four women who transmit ritual impurity only from the time of their sighting and onward.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛诪拽砖讛 讻诪讛 转砖驻讛 讜转讛讗 讝讘讛 诪注转 诇注转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬讜

And another is taught in a baraita with regard to a woman who experiences labor pain as a result of which she sees a flow of blood. Her discharge is attributed to childbirth rather than zava blood. The baraita asks: For how long must she be relieved from pain in order to be considered a zava due to her flow of uterine blood? She must have relief for a twenty-four-hour period. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the halakha is in accordance with his statement.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 砖讘讚拽讜 注爪诪谉 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 讜砖讗专 讛讬诪讬诐 诇讗 讘讚拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讘诇讘讚

And another case in which the halakha follows Rabbi Eliezer is taught in a mishna (68b): A zav and a zava must observe seven days without a discharge in order to attain ritual purity. With regard to a zav or a zava who examined themselves on the first day and found themselves to be pure, and they examined themselves on the seventh day and found themselves to be pure, but on the rest of the intervening days they did not examine themselves, Rabbi Eliezer says: The presumptive status of the zav and the zava is one of ritual purity. Rabbi Yehoshua says: In that case, the zav and the zava have counted only the first day and the seventh day, two of the seven clean days, and they must count another five days to complete the tally.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 讘诇讘讚 讜转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讚讘专讬 讻讜诇谉 讗讘诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The mishna continues: Rabbi Akiva says: Since any impure discharge that they might have experienced in between the first and seventh days would negate their count and require them to restart the seven-day period, the zav and the zava have counted only the seventh day, and must count another six days to complete the tally. And with regard to this dispute, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosei say: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears more correct than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, and the statement of Rabbi Akiva appears more correct than the statement of all of them. But the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讗讬讚讱 讚转谞谉 讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讜讗讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讜驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉

And the other case in which the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 8:7): With regard to the exterior of vessels that contracted ritual impurity through contact with impure liquids, i.e., with liquids that had touched the carcass of a creeping animal, Rabbi Eliezer says, with regard to this impurity that applies by rabbinic law: These exteriors transmit impurity to liquids that come in contact with them, but they do not disqualify foods with which they come into contact. The mishna elaborates: They transmit impurity to other liquids, and even non-sacred liquids. And they do not disqualify foods, and even teruma. Rabbi Yehoshua says: These exteriors transmit impurity to liquids and they disqualify teruma foods, as well.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讛 讞讜诇讬谉 驻讜住诇 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬诐 砖诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖驻讜住诇 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛

Rabbi Yehoshua says: I derived my ruling via an a fortiori inference from the halakha of one who was ritually impure, who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed. And if one who immersed that day, who has second-degree ritual impurity status and therefore he does not transmit impurity to non-sacred liquids, nevertheless disqualifies teruma foods with which he comes into contact, then with regard to the exteriors of vessels, which do transmit impurity to non-sacred liquids, is it not logical that they should render teruma food disqualified?

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬诐 讚专讘谞谉 讜讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜专讘谞谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讜讗讬谉 诪砖拽讛 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, how does he refute this inference? The Gemara answers: He would counter that the halakha that the exterior of vessels are rendered impure through contact with impure foods or liquids is by rabbinic law, and the halakhot of one who immersed that day apply by Torah law. And there is a principle that one does not apply a fortiori inferences to derive conclusions by rabbinic law from cases that apply by Torah law. As by Torah law impure foods do not transmit impurity to vessels, and similarly, impure liquids do not transmit impurity to vessels.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝讜专 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪砖拽讬谉 讚讝讘 讜讝讘讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讚注诇讜诇讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚讗讬谉 注诇讜诇讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

The Gemara continues: And it was the Sages who issued a decree that the exterior of a vessel is rendered impure when it comes into contact with impure liquids, and they decreed that only liquids, not foods, are rendered impure when they come into contact with impure vessel exteriors. The reason for this is due to the liquids secreted by a zav or zava, e.g., their saliva and urine, which have a primary degree of ritual impurity and therefore transmit impurity to vessels. Consequently, with regard to liquids, which are apt to contract impurity, the Sages issued a decree that they contract impurity when they come in contact with these impure vessel exteriors. But with regard to foods, which are not as apt to contract impurity, as they must first be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid, the Sages did not issue such a decree with regard to them.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬诐 讚谞拽讟 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讬诇讬 讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讗讞讜专讬讜 讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 讗讝谞讜 讗讜讙谞讜 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 讻讜诇讜 讟诪讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Rabbi Eliezer agrees that if the interior of a vessel is rendered impure by contact with impure liquids, it renders impure any teruma foods that come into contact with it. But what is different about the exterior of vessels, that Rabbi Eliezer cited them as having a more lenient status? The Gemara answers: This is due to the fact that their halakhot are more lenient than those of the other parts of the vessel. As we learned in a mishna (Kelim 25:6): With regard to a vessel whose exterior was rendered impure by contact with impure liquids, its exterior is impure, while its others parts, such as its interior, its ear, i.e., its looped handle, its rim, the edge of the vessel that protrudes outward, and its handles, are pure. But if its interior was rendered impure, it is all impure.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜诇讛讜 转谞谉 讛诇讻转讗

These are the four cases with regard to which Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: What is Shmuel teaching us? In all of these cases we learned explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 转谞谉 讜诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬诐 讗诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讗讬谉 诇诪讚讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诪驻讬 转诇诪讜讚

And if you would say that he is teaching us the halakha with regard to the exterior of vessels, whose halakha we did not learn from the mishna, let Shmuel simply state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the exterior of vessels. The Gemara explains: Rather, this is what Shmuel teaches us: That a final halakha may not be learned directly from the Talmud, i.e., from a statement of a mishna or baraita that the halakha is in accordance with a specific opinion, unless the ruling is confirmed by amora鈥檌m.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专

The Gemara asks: And is there nothing more that can be added to the list of cases in which the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? But isn鈥檛 there another case that we learned in a mishna (Yevamot 109a): Two brothers married two sisters, one an adult and the other a minor. If the husband of the adult dies, the Torah obligation of levirate marriage applies to the other brother, which is not abrogated by the rabbinic prohibition of the yevama as the sister of his minor wife. In such a case, Rabbi Eliezer says:

  • 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 Shlemah 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 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 7

讜讞诇转讛 转诇讜讬讛 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉 讘讗讬讝讛 住驻拽 讗诪专讜 讘住驻拽 讞诇讛 诪讗讬 住驻拽 讞诇讛

And as the 岣lla of this kneaded, untithed dough is in a state of uncertain purity, its status is suspended: It is neither eaten like ritually pure 岣lla, nor is it burned like impure 岣lla. With regard to which uncertainty did they state this halakha? With regard to 岣lla of uncertain status. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the concept of 岣lla of uncertain status? This apparently indicates a scenario of possible ritual impurity that applies specifically to 岣lla, not to non-sacred food.

讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 讘讛讜讻讞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 讻诪讜 砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讚讛转诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讙专讬讚讗 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讜

Abaye and Rava both say: One should not say that we learned this case of 岣lla of uncertain status among the cases of equal proofs, i.e., an unresolvable uncertainty, such as the case of two paths, where someone walked down one of two paths, one of which was ritually impure and the other ritually pure, and he does not remember which one he walked down. As there, even regular non-sacred food is also rendered ritually impure due to uncertainty.

讗诇讗 讘谞砖注谉 讚转谞谉 讝讘 讜讟讛讜专 砖讛讬讜 驻讜专拽讬谉 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专 讗讜 讟讜注谞讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖诪砖讗谉 讻讘讚 讟诪讗 诪砖讗谉 拽诇 讟讛讜专 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 诇讘谞讬 讛讻谞住转 讜讟诪讗讬谉 诇转专讜诪讛

Rather, the uncertainty referred to here is similar to the less likely case of leaning, as we learned in a mishna (Zavim 3:2): In a case of a zav and a ritually pure person who were unloading a package from a donkey or who were loading a package onto a donkey, when their package is heavy the pure person is rendered impure, as perhaps the zav leaned on him while they handled the package together. If their package is light, he remains pure. And in all those cases, he remains ritually pure even if he is one of the members of a synagogue whose congregants handle non-sacred food according to the standards of sacrificial food, as this is not a true case of a zav moving a pure person. But he is impure with regard to matters involving teruma, by rabbinic law.

讜讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗砖讛 砖讛讬讗 讟讘讜诇转 讬讜诐 诇砖讛 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讜拽讜爪讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讞诇转讛 讜诪谞讬讞转讛 讘讻驻讬砖讛 讗讜 讘讗谞讞讜转讗 讜诪拽驻转 讜拽讜专讗 诇讛 砖诐

The Gemara asks: And is non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to the obligation to separate 岣lla really considered like 岣lla to the extent that it is rendered impure even in a case of leaning? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, she may separate 岣lla: She may knead the dough, and separate its 岣lla from it, and place the separated dough into a wicker basket or a wooden board [be鈥檃n岣ta], and subsequently she may bring it near the rest of the dough, and she may then designate it 岣lla by name.

诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖诇讬砖讬 讟讛讜专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜 讛讗 讟诪讬转谞讛讜

The baraita continues: The reason that this is allowed, despite her impurity, is because the dough is impure by third-degree ritual impurity, and an item that has third-degree impurity is considered pure with regard to non-sacred food. The Gemara concludes its question: And if you say that non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to the obligation to separate 岣lla is considered like 岣lla, then she should render it impure with her touch, just as she would render actual 岣lla impure.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 砖讜讚讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讙讝专讜 注诇 住驻拽讜 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 讜讛讗讬 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讚讗讬 讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛

Abaye says: With regard to any item that when it is definitely impure renders non-sacred food impure, as in the case of the zav, the Sages issued a decree that its uncertain impurity should also render non-sacred food items impure, due to its status as non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to 岣lla. But with regard to this case of one who immersed that day, since even when she is definitely impure she does not render non-sacred food impure, they did not issue a decree that she should render that dough impure due to its status as non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to 岣lla.

讜讛讗 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 讚讜讚讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇 住驻拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛

The Gemara asks: But what about the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman? As a definitely impure menstruating woman renders non-sacred food impure and nevertheless with regard to untithed dough the Sages did not issue a decree to treat her uncertain impurity as definite impurity due to the dough鈥檚 status as non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to 岣lla.

讚讗诪专 诪专 拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara cites its source for this claim: As the Master said: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k received from Rav Na岣an: The retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman transmits impurity to non-sacred food items that were prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, but not to non-sacred food items that were prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma. It is assumed that the level of purity required for non-sacred food items prepared according to the standards required of teruma is the same as that of dough from which 岣lla has not been separated, i.e., it is not treated as real 岣lla, which is rendered impure by her retroactive twenty-four-hour period of impurity.

讛转诐 诇讗 驻转讬讻讗 讘讛讜 转专讜诪讛 讛讻讗 驻转讬讻讗 讘讛讜 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara answers: The level of purity required for non-sacred food items that were prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma is actually lower than the level required for dough from which 岣lla has not been separated. The reason is that there, in the case of non-sacred food items, there is no actual teruma mixed in it. By contrast, here, in the case of untithed dough, there is teruma, i.e., 岣lla, mixed in it, which will eventually be separated from this dough.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讞 诪注转 诇注转 讚专讘谞谉

If you wish, say instead: Leave aside the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman, as it applies by rabbinic law. One cannot raise a difficulty against the principle that untithed dough is treated with the same level of purity as 岣lla from the case of the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman, since that retroactive impurity is a rabbinic decree, and therefore there is more room for leniency.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注 谞砖讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讘转讜诇讛 诪注讜讘专转 诪谞讬拽讛 讜讝拽讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗谞讬 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 讘转讜诇讛

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: Unlike the women with regard to whom it was taught that they transmit impurity retroactively, there are four women who discern menstrual blood and their time is sufficient, i.e., they transmit impurity only from the moment that they saw the blood: A virgin, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, and an elderly woman. Rabbi Yehoshua says: I heard this halakha from my teachers only with regard to a virgin,

讗讘诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

but the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讘转讜诇讛 讻诇 砖诇讗 专讗转讛 讚诐 诪讬诪讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞砖讜讗讛 诪注讜讘专转 诪砖讬讜讚注 注讜讘专讛 诪谞讬拽讛 注讚 砖转讙诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讛 谞转谞讛 讘谞讛 诇诪谞讬拽讛 讙诪诇转讜 讗讜 诪转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

Who is the woman characterized as a virgin in this context? It is any woman who has not seen the flow of menstrual blood in all her days, even if she was married and has experienced bleeding as a result of intercourse consummating her marriage. The time of a pregnant woman is from the point in her pregnancy when the existence of her fetus is known to all who see her. The time of a nursing woman is until she weans her child from nursing. If she stopped nursing, e.g., she gave her child to a wet nurse, weaned him from nursing, or her child died, and she saw menstrual blood, Rabbi Meir says: She transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from her most recent examination. And the Rabbis say: Even in those cases, her time is sufficient.

讗讬讝讜讛讬 讝拽谞讛 讻诇 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 住诪讜讱 诇讝拽谞转讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗砖讛 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛谉 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉

Who is the woman characterized as an elderly woman in this context? It is any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed during which she saw no menstrual blood, at a stage of her life close to her old age. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles passed during which she saw no menstrual blood, if she then experiences bleeding, her time is sufficient. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if they then saw blood, their time is sufficient.

讜讘诪讛 讗诪专 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讘专讗讬讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜讗诐 专讗转讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讗讜谞住 讗祝 讛砖谞讬讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

And in the above cases, with regard to what did the tanna say her time is sufficient? It is with regard to the first sighting of blood, but with regard to the second sighting, her status is like that of any other woman, and she transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from her most recent examination. And if she saw the first sighting as a result of unnatural circumstances, even with regard to the second sighting, the halakha is that her time is sufficient.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗转讛 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗谞讬 砖诪注转讬 讗转讛 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讗谞讬 砖诪注转讬 讛专讘讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Eliezer teaches in the mishna that there are four women who transmit impurity only from the moment that they saw menstrual blood, not retroactively. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard this halakha from my teachers only with regard to a virgin. The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: You did not hear, but I did hear it. In other words, you may not have received a tradition from your teachers with regard to any other woman, but I did receive such a tradition. Furthermore, you heard a halakhic ruling with regard to only one woman, and I heard rulings with regard to many women.

讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇诪讬 砖诇讗 专讗讛 讗转 讛讞讚砖 讬讘讗 讜讬注讬讚 讗诇讗 诇诪讬 砖专讗讛讜 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗讞专 驻讟讬专转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讞讝讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗转 讛讚讘专 诇讬讜砖谞讜

Rabbi Eliezer continued his rebuttal with a metaphor from the practice of sanctifying the new moon, which required the testimony of witnesses: We do not say to one who had not seen the new moon to come and testify. Rather we give such an instruction only to he who saw it. Similarly, my opinion is weightier with regard to this issue, as I heard many rulings about the matter, whereas you did not. The Gemara reports: All the days of the life of Rabbi Eliezer, they would practice in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, i.e., only a virgin would be exempt from retroactive impurity. After Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 passing, Rabbi Yehoshua returned the matter to its former custom, which was to follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讞讬讬讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖诪讜转讬 讛讜讗 讜住讘专 讗讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讗讞专谞讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they did not act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer during his lifetime? The Gemara answers: Because Rabbi Eliezer was a Shammuti, i.e., a follower of the rulings of Beit Shammai, and the halakha is generally in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in their disputes with Beit Shammai. And the Sages held that if we act in accordance with his opinion in one matter, people will act in accordance with his opinion in other matters.

讜诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 诪爪讬谞谉 诪讞讬谞谉 讘讛讜 诇讗讞专 驻讟讬专转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪爪讬谞讜 诪讞讬谞谉 讘讛讜 讛讞讝讬专 讗转 讛讚讘专 诇讬讜砖谞讜

And that would be a problem, as if so, then during his lifetime, due to the honor of Rabbi Eliezer, we will not be able to protest against them. But after Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 passing, when we are able to protest against those who act in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion in other matters, Rabbi Yehoshua returned the matter to its former custom of deciding the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in this matter.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗专讘注 讞讚讗 讚讗诪专谉

搂 The Gemara mentions other instances in which the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases. One is the halakha that we just mentioned, of the four women who transmit ritual impurity only from the time of their sighting and onward.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛诪拽砖讛 讻诪讛 转砖驻讛 讜转讛讗 讝讘讛 诪注转 诇注转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬讜

And another is taught in a baraita with regard to a woman who experiences labor pain as a result of which she sees a flow of blood. Her discharge is attributed to childbirth rather than zava blood. The baraita asks: For how long must she be relieved from pain in order to be considered a zava due to her flow of uterine blood? She must have relief for a twenty-four-hour period. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the halakha is in accordance with his statement.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 砖讘讚拽讜 注爪诪谉 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 讜砖讗专 讛讬诪讬诐 诇讗 讘讚拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讘诇讘讚

And another case in which the halakha follows Rabbi Eliezer is taught in a mishna (68b): A zav and a zava must observe seven days without a discharge in order to attain ritual purity. With regard to a zav or a zava who examined themselves on the first day and found themselves to be pure, and they examined themselves on the seventh day and found themselves to be pure, but on the rest of the intervening days they did not examine themselves, Rabbi Eliezer says: The presumptive status of the zav and the zava is one of ritual purity. Rabbi Yehoshua says: In that case, the zav and the zava have counted only the first day and the seventh day, two of the seven clean days, and they must count another five days to complete the tally.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 讘诇讘讚 讜转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讚讘专讬 讻讜诇谉 讗讘诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The mishna continues: Rabbi Akiva says: Since any impure discharge that they might have experienced in between the first and seventh days would negate their count and require them to restart the seven-day period, the zav and the zava have counted only the seventh day, and must count another six days to complete the tally. And with regard to this dispute, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosei say: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears more correct than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, and the statement of Rabbi Akiva appears more correct than the statement of all of them. But the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讗讬讚讱 讚转谞谉 讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讜讗讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛诪砖拽讬谉 讜驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉

And the other case in which the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 8:7): With regard to the exterior of vessels that contracted ritual impurity through contact with impure liquids, i.e., with liquids that had touched the carcass of a creeping animal, Rabbi Eliezer says, with regard to this impurity that applies by rabbinic law: These exteriors transmit impurity to liquids that come in contact with them, but they do not disqualify foods with which they come into contact. The mishna elaborates: They transmit impurity to other liquids, and even non-sacred liquids. And they do not disqualify foods, and even teruma. Rabbi Yehoshua says: These exteriors transmit impurity to liquids and they disqualify teruma foods, as well.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讛 讞讜诇讬谉 驻讜住诇 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬诐 砖诪讟诪讗 诪砖拽讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖驻讜住诇 讗讜讻诇讬 转专讜诪讛

Rabbi Yehoshua says: I derived my ruling via an a fortiori inference from the halakha of one who was ritually impure, who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed. And if one who immersed that day, who has second-degree ritual impurity status and therefore he does not transmit impurity to non-sacred liquids, nevertheless disqualifies teruma foods with which he comes into contact, then with regard to the exteriors of vessels, which do transmit impurity to non-sacred liquids, is it not logical that they should render teruma food disqualified?

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬诐 讚专讘谞谉 讜讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜专讘谞谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讜讗讬谉 诪砖拽讛 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, how does he refute this inference? The Gemara answers: He would counter that the halakha that the exterior of vessels are rendered impure through contact with impure foods or liquids is by rabbinic law, and the halakhot of one who immersed that day apply by Torah law. And there is a principle that one does not apply a fortiori inferences to derive conclusions by rabbinic law from cases that apply by Torah law. As by Torah law impure foods do not transmit impurity to vessels, and similarly, impure liquids do not transmit impurity to vessels.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝讜专 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪砖拽讬谉 讚讝讘 讜讝讘讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讚注诇讜诇讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚讗讬谉 注诇讜诇讬谉 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

The Gemara continues: And it was the Sages who issued a decree that the exterior of a vessel is rendered impure when it comes into contact with impure liquids, and they decreed that only liquids, not foods, are rendered impure when they come into contact with impure vessel exteriors. The reason for this is due to the liquids secreted by a zav or zava, e.g., their saliva and urine, which have a primary degree of ritual impurity and therefore transmit impurity to vessels. Consequently, with regard to liquids, which are apt to contract impurity, the Sages issued a decree that they contract impurity when they come in contact with these impure vessel exteriors. But with regard to foods, which are not as apt to contract impurity, as they must first be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid, the Sages did not issue such a decree with regard to them.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬诐 讚谞拽讟 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讬诇讬 讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 砖谞讟诪讗 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讗讞讜专讬讜 讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 讗讝谞讜 讗讜讙谞讜 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞讟诪讗 转讜讻讜 讻讜诇讜 讟诪讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Rabbi Eliezer agrees that if the interior of a vessel is rendered impure by contact with impure liquids, it renders impure any teruma foods that come into contact with it. But what is different about the exterior of vessels, that Rabbi Eliezer cited them as having a more lenient status? The Gemara answers: This is due to the fact that their halakhot are more lenient than those of the other parts of the vessel. As we learned in a mishna (Kelim 25:6): With regard to a vessel whose exterior was rendered impure by contact with impure liquids, its exterior is impure, while its others parts, such as its interior, its ear, i.e., its looped handle, its rim, the edge of the vessel that protrudes outward, and its handles, are pure. But if its interior was rendered impure, it is all impure.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜诇讛讜 转谞谉 讛诇讻转讗

These are the four cases with regard to which Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: What is Shmuel teaching us? In all of these cases we learned explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 转谞谉 讜诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬诐 讗诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讗讬谉 诇诪讚讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诪驻讬 转诇诪讜讚

And if you would say that he is teaching us the halakha with regard to the exterior of vessels, whose halakha we did not learn from the mishna, let Shmuel simply state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the exterior of vessels. The Gemara explains: Rather, this is what Shmuel teaches us: That a final halakha may not be learned directly from the Talmud, i.e., from a statement of a mishna or baraita that the halakha is in accordance with a specific opinion, unless the ruling is confirmed by amora鈥檌m.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专

The Gemara asks: And is there nothing more that can be added to the list of cases in which the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? But isn鈥檛 there another case that we learned in a mishna (Yevamot 109a): Two brothers married two sisters, one an adult and the other a minor. If the husband of the adult dies, the Torah obligation of levirate marriage applies to the other brother, which is not abrogated by the rabbinic prohibition of the yevama as the sister of his minor wife. In such a case, Rabbi Eliezer says:

Scroll To Top