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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 31, 2019 | 讘壮 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Chagigah is lovingly sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family, who are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas!

Niddah 8

Shmuel and Rabbi Elazar hold like Rabbi Eliezer in four cases. However the gemara raises questions on this as it seems there are other cases where they also hold like Rabbi Eliezer. What is the definition of a virgin in the mishna? Why is聽that definition not mentioned as one of the three types of virgins listed in a braita.

诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 砖转诪讗谉 讘讜 讜讗诪专 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 讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗专讘注讛 讘住讚专 讟讛专讜转 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 住讚专讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讟讜讘讗

We instruct the minor, i.e., the surviving brother鈥檚 wife, to refuse to continue to stay married to him so that her marriage is dissolved, and he may then enter into levirate marriage with her adult sister, the widow of his childless brother. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara explains: When Shmuel says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases, what he meant was four cases within Seder Teharot in the Mishna, the order that deals with ritual purity. But in the other orders, there are many instances where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛专讜讚讛 讜谞讜转谉 诇住诇 讛住诇 诪爪专驻谉 诇讞诇讛 讜讗诪专 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 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara adds: This too stands to reason, as we learned in a mishna in the order of Zera鈥檌m (岣lla 2:4) that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even with regard to one who removes loaves of bread from an oven and places them in a basket, the basket serves to combine them to reach the quantity from which one is required to separate 岣lla, despite the fact that each of the loaves does not contain the necessary measure for 岣lla on its own. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Conclude from this that Shmuel鈥檚 general statement applies only to Seder Teharot.

讜诪讗讬 讗讜诇诪讬讛 讚讛讗讬 诪讛讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讜转讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The case of 岣lla was cited as proof that there is an exception to Shmuel鈥檚 principle that there are only four cases where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, after a difficulty was raised from the case of levirate marriage with the sister of one鈥檚 minor wife. But in what way is this case of 岣lla greater proof than that case of the levirate marriage? Neither case appears in Seder Teharot. The Gemara answers: The case of the levirate marriage is different, as there Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 砖转诪讗谉 讘讜

As we learned in the mishna (Yevamot 111b): A yavam may perform levirate marriage with only one of his deceased brother鈥檚 wives. Once he does so, the other wives are forbidden to him, because they had been married to his brother. If a deceased brother had two wives, an adult and a minor, and the yavam engaged in sexual intercourse with the minor and then engaged in intercourse with the adult, the Rabbis maintain that he disqualifies the minor from staying married to him, as her levirate bond is uncertain, and the adult wife is also prohibited to him, because the levirate marriage with the minor is considered effective by rabbinic law. Rabbi Elazar says: The court instructs the minor to refuse him, thereby annulling her marriage retroactively, and he may then perform levirate marriage with the adult. Accordingly, the case of 岣lla is a stronger example, as there the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer exclusively, as his opinion is not supported by another tanna.

讜诪讬 拽讗讬 讜讛讗 讗爪专讻讜 诪爪专讻讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 讚诪讬讬谉 诇讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讻讜转讬讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Elazar in fact hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? But doesn鈥檛 the Gemara (Yevamot 111b) explain that both the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar are necessary, as they apply to different cases, and therefore they are not comparable to each other? The Gemara suggests a new answer: Rather, the ruling with regard to levirate marriage is a weaker example of a case where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer because Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with his opinion.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讛注讬讚 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖诪诪讗谞讬诐 讗转 讛拽讟谞讜转

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified about five matters of halakha: Normally, marriage refusals of girls married off by their mother or brothers are discouraged. Yet, in specific instances where it is clear that if the marriage were to remain in effect it would engender problems related to levirate marriage and 岣litza, the court persuades minor girls to refuse to continue living with their husbands, thereby resolving the complications involved in the case.

讜砖诪砖讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛讗砖讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讜砖谞住拽诇 转专谞讙讜诇 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注诇 砖讛专讙 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讜注诇 讬讬谉 讘谉 讗专讘注讬诐 讬讜诐 砖谞转谞住讱 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜注诇 转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 砖拽专讘 讘讗专讘注 砖注讜转

And he also testified that one may allow a woman who seeks to remarry after hearing of her husband鈥檚 death to marry based on the testimony of one witness, as opposed to the two witnesses required for other matters of testimony. And he further testified that a rooster was stoned to death in Jerusalem for killing a person, in order to teach that the Torah law requiring the stoning of an ox that killed a person (see Exodus 21:28) applies to other animals as well. And he testified about forty-day-old wine that was used for libation on the altar. And finally, he testified about the daily morning offering that was sacrificed at four hours of the day.

诪讗讬 拽讟谞讜转 诇讗讜 讞讚讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讚 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讟谞讜转 拽讟谞讜转 讚注诇诪讗

The Gemara concludes its proof: When the baraita teaches that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified that the court persuades minor girls to refuse to continue living with their husbands, what is the significance of the reference to minor girls in the plural? Is this not referring to the one minor girl who is the subject of the ruling of Rabbi Elazar and the other one that is the subject of the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer? Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the minor鈥檚 refusal. If so, this ruling is a weaker proof that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in cases outside of Seder Teharot. The Gemara answers: No, what is meant by the plural: Minor girls? It means minor girls in general, i.e., all minor girls in such cases where the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 谞转谞讬 谞砖讬诐 讜谞讬诪讗 谞砖讬诐 讚注诇诪讗 讗诇讗 诪讚讛讻讗 拽转谞讬 讗砖讛 讜讛讻讗 拽转谞讬 拽讟谞讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讜拽讗 拽转谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara challenges: If so, with regard to the halakha listed in the baraita that one may allow a woman to marry based on the testimony of one witness, let it also teach: Women, in the plural, and we will say that it is referring to women in general. Rather, from the fact that here it teaches: A woman, and yet here it teaches: Minor girls, conclude from this discrepancy that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava is teaching his ruling specifically about two minor girls: The one who is the subject of Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 ruling and the one who is the subject of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling. The Gemara comments: Indeed, conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗专讘注讛 讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 砖转诪讗谉 讘讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗专讘注讛 讘住讚专 讟讛专讜转 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 住讚专讬 讗讬讻讗 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗

And similarly, Rabbi Elazar says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases. The Gemara asks: And are there no more? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: The court instructs the minor to refuse to stay married to him, and Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? The Gemara adds: And if you would say that when Rabbi Elazar said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases, he meant four cases within Seder Teharot, but in the other orders of the Mishna there are many cases, are there really other such cases?

讜讛转谞谉 讛讜专讚 讜讛讻讜驻专 讜讛诇讟讜诐 讜讛拽讟祝 讬砖 诇讛谉 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讚诪讬讛谉 砖讘讬注讬转 讬砖 诇讛谉 讘讬注讜专 讜诇讚诪讬讛谉 讘讬注讜专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽讟驻讗 驻讬专讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 7:6) that the halakha of the following fragrant plants: The rose, the henna, the rockrose, and the balsam, is that they have the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, and money exchanged for them has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Additionally, they have the halakha of eradication and money exchanged for them has the halakha of eradication. And with regard to this mishna, Rabbi Pedat said: Who is the tanna who taught that balsam has the status of a fruit, and is not merely sap, and therefore it has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year? It is Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讞讝讬 讚诪讬谞讱 讜诪讗讘讜讱 拽砖专讬转讜 拽讟驻讗 诇注诇诪讗 讗转 讗诪专转 诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽讟驻讗 驻讬专讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗讘讜讱 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗专讘注讛

The Gemara continues: And Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Pedat: One can see that from you and from your father, i.e., between the two of you, you have permitted balsam to the world, since the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer is certainly not accepted. As you said: Who is the tanna who taught that balsam has the status of a fruit? It is Rabbi Eliezer. And your father, Rabbi Elazar, said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in only four cases.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗专讘注讛 讘住讚专 讟讛专讜转 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 住讚专讬 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara explains the difficulty: And if it is so, that Rabbi Elazar was referring only to Seder Teharot, then let Rabbi Pedat say to Rabbi Zeira: When my father said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases, he meant only four cases within Seder Teharot, but in the other orders there are other such cases. From the fact that Rabbi Pedat did not reply in this manner, evidently there are no cases in the other orders of the Mishna where, according to Rabbi Elazar, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讜转讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬诐 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 砖转诪讗谉 讘讜

The Gemara asks: But that case, where the amora Rabbi Elazar said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to persuading a minor to refuse to stay married to her husband, is difficult. This apparently conflicts with the statement that there are only four cases in which Rabbi Elazar rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara answers: There the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer only because the tanna Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with his opinion. As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Elazar says: The court instructs the minor to refuse to stay married to him, thereby annulling her marriage retroactively.

讜诪讬 拽讗讬 讜讛讗 讗爪专讜讻讬 诪爪专讻讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 讚诪讬讬谉 诇讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Elazar hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case of the minor? But doesn鈥檛 the Gemara in Yevamot explain that both the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar are necessary, and therefore they are not comparable to each other? Rather, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case because Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with his opinion, as explained earlier.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专讛 讘专讻讛 专讘讬注讬转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专讛 讘讛讜讚讗讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara asks: And are there no more cases in which Rabbi Elazar maintains that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Berakhot 33a): One recites the prayer of distinction between the holy and the profane [havdala], said in the evening prayer following Shabbat and festivals, in the fourth blessing of the Amida prayer: Who graciously grants knowledge. Rabbi Akiva says: One recites havdala as a fourth blessing by itself. Rabbi Eliezer says that one recites it in the blessing of thanksgiving. And with regard to this dispute, Rabbi Elazar says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专讛 讘专讻讛 专讘讬注讬转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专讛 讘讛讜讚讗讛

Rabbi Abba said, in explanation: That case is different, as that is not the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer himself. Rather, he stated that ruling in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: One recites havdala as a fourth blessing by itself; Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel says: One recites it in the blessing of thanksgiving.

讜讛讗 拽砖讬砖 诪讬谞讬讛 讟讜讘讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘砖讬讟转讬讛

The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer much older than Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel? How could Rabbi Eliezer have cited the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel? The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason Rabbi Elazar ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case was because Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel held in accordance with his opinion.

讜诪讬 拽讗讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讜专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 砖讞专讬转 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 诪讜住祝 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 诪谞讞讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 讘谞注讬诇讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 讘注专讘讬转 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 诪注讬谉 砖诪谞讛 注砖专讛

And does Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel really hold in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: On the night of Yom Kippur, one prays seven blessings in the Amida prayer and confesses; in the morning prayer, one prays seven blessings and confesses; in the additional prayer, one prays seven blessings and confesses; in the afternoon prayer, one prays seven blessings and confesses; and in the ne鈥檌la prayer, one also prays seven blessings and confesses. For the evening prayer at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one prays seven blessings in an abridged version of the eighteen blessings of the weekday Amida prayer. One recites the first three blessings, the final three, and a middle blessing that includes an abbreviated form of the other weekday blessings.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讗讜诪专 诪转驻诇诇 砖诪谞讛 注砖专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讛讘讚诇讛 讘讞讜谞谉 讛讚注转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel says in the name of his forefathers: One recites the complete eighteen blessings, due to the fact that he is required to recite havdala in the fourth blessing of the Amida: Who graciously grants knowledge. Havdala cannot be inserted into the abridged version. Evidently, Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel does not agree with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling that one recites havdala in the blessing of thanksgiving, one of the final three blessings of the Amida prayer. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says in explanation: Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel said this opinion in the name of his forefathers, but he himself does not hold accordingly.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讚诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽讟驻讗 驻讬专讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛诪注诪讬讚 讘砖专祝 注专诇讛 讗住讜专

搂 Earlier, Rabbi Zeira questioned the claim of Rabbi Pedat, son of Rabbi Eliezer, that the Sage who holds that balsam is considered to be fruit and therefore has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And you? Do you not hold that the tanna who taught that balsam sap has the status of fruit is Rabbi Eliezer? As, didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Orla 1:7) that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to one who curdles cheese in the sap of orla, the cheese is prohibited, as the sap is considered to be fruit of the tree.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讘拽讟驻讗 讚讙讜讜讝讗 讗讘诇 讘拽讟驻讗 讚驻讬专讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖讛诪注诪讬讚 讘砖专祝 讛注诇讬谉 讘砖专祝 讛注讬拽专讬谉 诪讜转专 讘砖专祝 讛驻讙讬谉 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻专讬

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna that deals with balsam is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to the sap of the tree, but in the case of the sap of the fruit they agree with him. As we learned in a mishna (Orla 1:7) that Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard explicitly that in the case of one who curdles cheese in the sap of the leaves or the sap of the roots of an orla tree, the cheese is permitted. But if it is curdled in the sap of unripe figs it is prohibited, because that sap is considered to be fruit.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗讬诇谉 讛注讜砖讛 驻讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讘讗讬诇谉 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 驻讬专讜转 诪讜讚讜 讚拽讟驻讜 讝讛讜 驻专讬讜 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇拽讟祝 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 诇拽讟祝 砖讘讬注讬转 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讟驻讜 讝讛讜 驻专讬讜

And if you wish, say instead: When the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, it is with regard to a tree that bears fruit. But in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit, they agree that its sap is considered to be its fruit. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 7:6) that Rabbi Shimon says: The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not apply to sap. And the Rabbis say: The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does apply to sap, because its sap is its fruit.

诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽讟驻讜 讝讛讜 驻专讬讜

The Gemara explains the proof: Who are these Rabbis? Are they not the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer? If so, this demonstrates that they agree in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit. The Gemara rejects this proof: A certain elder said to Rabbi Zeira that this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Who are the Rabbis in this mishna? It is Rabbi Eliezer, who said that its sap is considered to be its fruit.

讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗讬诇谉 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 驻专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬诇谉 讛注讜砖讛 驻专讬 拽讟驻讜 讝讛讜 驻专讬讜 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬诇谉 讛注讜砖讛 驻讬专讜转 谞诪讬 拽讟驻讜 讝讛讜 驻专讬讜 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讘讗讬诇谉 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 驻讬专讜转 讚拽讟驻讜 讝讛讜 驻专讬讜 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara asks: If it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, why are they specifically discussing the case of a tree that does not bear fruit? Even in the case of a tree that does bear fruit, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that its sap is like its fruit. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer stated his opinion to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis themselves, as follows: According to my opinion, even with regard to a tree that bears fruit, its sap is also considered to be its fruit. But according to your opinion, you should at least agree with me in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit, that its sap is considered to be its fruit. And the Rabbis said in response to Rabbi Eliezer: It is no different. Sap is not considered fruit whether it comes from a fruit-bearing tree or a barren tree.

讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讘转讜诇讛 讻诇 砖诇讗 专讗转讛 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讗转 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 诪讞诪转 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讬诇讚讛 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 诪讞诪转 诇讬讚讛 注讚讬讬谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 诇讛 讘转讜诇讛 砖讛专讬 讘转讜诇讛 砖讗诪专讜 讘转讜诇转 讚诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘转讜诇转 讘转讜诇讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches: Who is the woman characterized as a virgin in this context? It is any woman who did not see the flow of menstrual blood in all her days, even if she was married and experienced bleeding resulting from intercourse consummating her marriage. The Sages taught: If she was married and she saw a flow of blood due to her marriage, i.e., blood resulting from the tearing of her hymen; or if she gave birth and saw blood due to the birth, I still call her a virgin in this context. The reason is that when they said: Virgin here, they meant a menstrual blood virgin, i.e., one who did not yet see a menstrual flow, and not a hymen-blood virgin, i.e., one who did not experience bleeding from a torn hymen.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 转谞讗 砖诇砖 讘转讜诇讜转 讛谉 讘转讜诇转 讗讚诐 讘转讜诇转 拽专拽注 讘转讜诇转 砖拽诪讛 讘转讜诇转 讗讚诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Kahana say that a Sage taught: There are three types of virgins: A virgin human, virgin ground, and a virgin sycamore. A virgin human is a woman for as long as she has not engaged in intercourse. The relevance of this designation is that only a virgin is permitted to marry a High Priest (see Leviticus 21:13鈥14). Alternatively, the relevance is that her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, instead of the one hundred dinars in the marriage contract of a non-virgin.

讘转讜诇转 拽专拽注 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 谞注讘讚讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇谞讞诇 讗讬转谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

Virgin ground is ground for as long as it has not been worked. The relevance of this designation is with regard to the rough dried-up stream mentioned in the Torah. When the corpse of a murder victim is found between two towns and the murderer is unknown, the Torah states that a heifer鈥檚 neck is broken in a place that was not worked. Alternatively, the relevance is with regard to buying and selling. If one stipulates that he is buying virgin land, it is defined as land that has never been worked.

讘转讜诇转 砖拽诪讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 谞拽爪爪讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇诪拽爪爪讛 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讻讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 拽讜爪爪讬谉 讘转讜诇转 砖拽诪讛 讘砖讘讬注讬转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 讛讗

Finally, a virgin sycamore is a sycamore for as long as it has not been felled, i.e., cut to promote growth. The relevance of this designation is with regard to buying and selling. If one stipulates that he is buying virgin sycamore, it is defined as one that has never been felled. Alternatively, the relevance is with regard to the prohibition against felling it in the Sabbatical Year, as we learned in a mishna: (Shevi鈥檌t 4:5): One may not fell a virgin sycamore in the Sabbatical Year, because it is considered work, as this promotes the growth of the tree. The Gemara explains its question: And if it is so, that there is a concept of a virgin from menstrual blood, let the tanna of this baraita also teach this type of virgin.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖诐 诇讜讜讬 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖诐 诇讜讜讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚转诇讬 讘诪注砖讛 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 转诇讬 讘诪注砖讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara cites several answers. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that does not have a modifier, but he does not teach an item that has a modifier. A virgin human, virgin land, and a virgin sycamore can be referred to without another modifier. Conversely, a virgin with regard to menstrual blood cannot be referred to simply by the unmodified term: Virgin. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that is dependent upon an outside action, e.g., intercourse in the case of a human virgin or felling in the case of a virgin sycamore. But he does not teach an item that is not dependent upon an outside action, such as a woman鈥檚 menstrual flow.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讛讚专 诇讘专讬讬转讜 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讚专 诇讘专讬讬转讜 诇讗 拽转谞讬 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

Rabbi 岣nina, son of Rav Ika says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that will not later revert to its original state. But he does not teach an item that will later revert to its original state, such as a woman鈥檚 menstrual flow that ceases when she reaches old age. Ravina says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item about which a buyer is particular, such as one who purchases a virgin sycamore tree. But he does not teach an item about which a buyer is not particular, e.g., a woman鈥檚 menstrual blood.

讜诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖讛砖讗讜专 讬驻讛 诇注讬住讛 讻讱 讚诪讬诐 讬驻讬谉 诇讗砖讛 讜转谞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 讗砖讛 砖讚诪讬讛 诪专讜讘讬谉 讘谞讬讛 诪专讜讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚拽驻讬抓 注诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽驻讬抓 注诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: And is a buyer, i.e., a potential husband, not particular about her menstrual blood? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi 岣yya says: Just as leaven is fortuitous for dough, so too, blood is fortuitous for a woman; and it is taught in another baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: Any woman whose blood is plentiful, her children are plentiful? A potential husband would certainly be particular about this factor. The Gemara provides an alternative answer: Rather, when the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that buyers are eager to purchase. But he does not teach an item that buyers are not eager to purchase, e.g., a woman without menstrual blood.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讜讛讬 讘转讜诇转 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖诪注诇讛 专砖讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注驻专讛 转讬讞讜讞 谞诪爪讗 讘讛 讞专住 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞注讘讚讛 爪讜谞诪讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘转讜诇转 拽专拽注

The Sages taught in a baraita: What is virgin ground? It is any ground that raises up hard clumps of earth and whose dirt is not loose. If one finds a shard of earthenware in the earth, it is thereby known that it was once worked and is not virgin ground. If one finds hard rock, it is virgin ground.

诪注讜讘专转 诪砖讬讜讚注 注讜讘专讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讻专转 讛注讜讘专 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讻诪砖诇砖 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讙讜诪专

搂 The mishna teaches: The time of a pregnant woman is sufficient from the point in her pregnancy when the existence of her fetus is known to all who see her. The Gemara asks: And how much time must pass for the fetus to be known? Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Three months. And although there is no explicit proof for the matter, that a fetus is discernable after three months of pregnancy, there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd it came to pass about three months after, that it was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot鈥 (Genesis 38:24).

讝讻专 诇讚讘专 拽专讗 讻转讬讘 讜专讗讬讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讬诇讚讛 诇转砖注讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讬诇讚讛 诇砖讘注讛

The Gemara asks: Why does Rabbi Meir call this a mere allusion to the matter? An explicit verse is written, and that is a significant proof. The Gemara answers: It is only an allusion because there are some women who give birth after nine months and there are others who give birth after seven months. Although the verse indicates that a fetus is known to all after three months, it is possible that this applies only to a nine-month pregnancy. Since in the case of a nine-month pregnancy the fetus is recognizable after a third of the full term, with regard to a seven-month pregnancy, the fetus would likewise be noticeable after a third of the full pregnancy, i.e., at two and one-third months. Therefore, Rabbi Meir teaches that in all cases the fetus is known only after three months.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讬 砖讛讬转讛 讘讞讝拽转 诪注讜讘专转 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻讬诇讛 专讜讞 讗讜 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘讞讝拽转讛 讜讚讬讛 砖注转讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who had a presumptive status that she was pregnant and she saw blood, and afterward she miscarried air, or anything that is not a viable fetus, she retains her presumptive status, and therefore her time is sufficient from that flow of blood, i.e., it renders her impure only from then on, not retroactively, as even a non-viable fetus gives her full pregnancy status.

讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讛专讬谞讜 讞诇谞讜 讻诪讜 讬诇讚谞讜 专讜讞 诪讗讬 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 讛专讬 专讗讬讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讝讻专讬诐 讻转讬讘

And even though there is no explicit proof for this matter, that even a pregnancy that ends in a miscarriage is like a full-fledged pregnancy, there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: 鈥淲e have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind鈥 (Isaiah 26:18). This verse indicates that even one who miscarries wind is considered as having been with child. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that this is called a mere allusion to the matter? This explicit verse is a significant proof. The Gemara answers: When that verse was written, it was written with regard to males as bearing children. The allusion to child-bearing in the verse is symbolic, so halakhic inferences may not be drawn from it.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 拽砖转讛 砖谞讬诐 讜诇砖诇讬砖讬 讛驻讬诇讛 专讜讞 讗讜 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讬讜诇讚转 讘讝讜讘 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬讚讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If a woman experienced labor pain for two days, during which she saw a discharge of blood, and on the third day she miscarried air or anything that is not a viable fetus, that woman gives birth as a zava, and the blood is treated as blood of a zava in all regards. The Gemara explains the contradiction: And if you say that miscarrying a non-viable fetus is considered a proper birth, this is problematic,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Chagigah is lovingly sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family, who are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas!

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 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 8

诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 砖转诪讗谉 讘讜 讜讗诪专 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 讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗专讘注讛 讘住讚专 讟讛专讜转 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 住讚专讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讟讜讘讗

We instruct the minor, i.e., the surviving brother鈥檚 wife, to refuse to continue to stay married to him so that her marriage is dissolved, and he may then enter into levirate marriage with her adult sister, the widow of his childless brother. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara explains: When Shmuel says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases, what he meant was four cases within Seder Teharot in the Mishna, the order that deals with ritual purity. But in the other orders, there are many instances where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛专讜讚讛 讜谞讜转谉 诇住诇 讛住诇 诪爪专驻谉 诇讞诇讛 讜讗诪专 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 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara adds: This too stands to reason, as we learned in a mishna in the order of Zera鈥檌m (岣lla 2:4) that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even with regard to one who removes loaves of bread from an oven and places them in a basket, the basket serves to combine them to reach the quantity from which one is required to separate 岣lla, despite the fact that each of the loaves does not contain the necessary measure for 岣lla on its own. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Conclude from this that Shmuel鈥檚 general statement applies only to Seder Teharot.

讜诪讗讬 讗讜诇诪讬讛 讚讛讗讬 诪讛讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讜转讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The case of 岣lla was cited as proof that there is an exception to Shmuel鈥檚 principle that there are only four cases where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, after a difficulty was raised from the case of levirate marriage with the sister of one鈥檚 minor wife. But in what way is this case of 岣lla greater proof than that case of the levirate marriage? Neither case appears in Seder Teharot. The Gemara answers: The case of the levirate marriage is different, as there Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 砖转诪讗谉 讘讜

As we learned in the mishna (Yevamot 111b): A yavam may perform levirate marriage with only one of his deceased brother鈥檚 wives. Once he does so, the other wives are forbidden to him, because they had been married to his brother. If a deceased brother had two wives, an adult and a minor, and the yavam engaged in sexual intercourse with the minor and then engaged in intercourse with the adult, the Rabbis maintain that he disqualifies the minor from staying married to him, as her levirate bond is uncertain, and the adult wife is also prohibited to him, because the levirate marriage with the minor is considered effective by rabbinic law. Rabbi Elazar says: The court instructs the minor to refuse him, thereby annulling her marriage retroactively, and he may then perform levirate marriage with the adult. Accordingly, the case of 岣lla is a stronger example, as there the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer exclusively, as his opinion is not supported by another tanna.

讜诪讬 拽讗讬 讜讛讗 讗爪专讻讜 诪爪专讻讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 讚诪讬讬谉 诇讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讻讜转讬讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Elazar in fact hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? But doesn鈥檛 the Gemara (Yevamot 111b) explain that both the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar are necessary, as they apply to different cases, and therefore they are not comparable to each other? The Gemara suggests a new answer: Rather, the ruling with regard to levirate marriage is a weaker example of a case where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer because Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with his opinion.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讛注讬讚 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖诪诪讗谞讬诐 讗转 讛拽讟谞讜转

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified about five matters of halakha: Normally, marriage refusals of girls married off by their mother or brothers are discouraged. Yet, in specific instances where it is clear that if the marriage were to remain in effect it would engender problems related to levirate marriage and 岣litza, the court persuades minor girls to refuse to continue living with their husbands, thereby resolving the complications involved in the case.

讜砖诪砖讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛讗砖讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讜砖谞住拽诇 转专谞讙讜诇 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注诇 砖讛专讙 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讜注诇 讬讬谉 讘谉 讗专讘注讬诐 讬讜诐 砖谞转谞住讱 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜注诇 转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 砖拽专讘 讘讗专讘注 砖注讜转

And he also testified that one may allow a woman who seeks to remarry after hearing of her husband鈥檚 death to marry based on the testimony of one witness, as opposed to the two witnesses required for other matters of testimony. And he further testified that a rooster was stoned to death in Jerusalem for killing a person, in order to teach that the Torah law requiring the stoning of an ox that killed a person (see Exodus 21:28) applies to other animals as well. And he testified about forty-day-old wine that was used for libation on the altar. And finally, he testified about the daily morning offering that was sacrificed at four hours of the day.

诪讗讬 拽讟谞讜转 诇讗讜 讞讚讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讚 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讟谞讜转 拽讟谞讜转 讚注诇诪讗

The Gemara concludes its proof: When the baraita teaches that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified that the court persuades minor girls to refuse to continue living with their husbands, what is the significance of the reference to minor girls in the plural? Is this not referring to the one minor girl who is the subject of the ruling of Rabbi Elazar and the other one that is the subject of the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer? Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the minor鈥檚 refusal. If so, this ruling is a weaker proof that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in cases outside of Seder Teharot. The Gemara answers: No, what is meant by the plural: Minor girls? It means minor girls in general, i.e., all minor girls in such cases where the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 谞转谞讬 谞砖讬诐 讜谞讬诪讗 谞砖讬诐 讚注诇诪讗 讗诇讗 诪讚讛讻讗 拽转谞讬 讗砖讛 讜讛讻讗 拽转谞讬 拽讟谞讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讜拽讗 拽转谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara challenges: If so, with regard to the halakha listed in the baraita that one may allow a woman to marry based on the testimony of one witness, let it also teach: Women, in the plural, and we will say that it is referring to women in general. Rather, from the fact that here it teaches: A woman, and yet here it teaches: Minor girls, conclude from this discrepancy that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava is teaching his ruling specifically about two minor girls: The one who is the subject of Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 ruling and the one who is the subject of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling. The Gemara comments: Indeed, conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗专讘注讛 讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 砖转诪讗谉 讘讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗专讘注讛 讘住讚专 讟讛专讜转 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 住讚专讬 讗讬讻讗 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗

And similarly, Rabbi Elazar says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases. The Gemara asks: And are there no more? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: The court instructs the minor to refuse to stay married to him, and Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? The Gemara adds: And if you would say that when Rabbi Elazar said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases, he meant four cases within Seder Teharot, but in the other orders of the Mishna there are many cases, are there really other such cases?

讜讛转谞谉 讛讜专讚 讜讛讻讜驻专 讜讛诇讟讜诐 讜讛拽讟祝 讬砖 诇讛谉 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讚诪讬讛谉 砖讘讬注讬转 讬砖 诇讛谉 讘讬注讜专 讜诇讚诪讬讛谉 讘讬注讜专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽讟驻讗 驻讬专讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 7:6) that the halakha of the following fragrant plants: The rose, the henna, the rockrose, and the balsam, is that they have the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, and money exchanged for them has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Additionally, they have the halakha of eradication and money exchanged for them has the halakha of eradication. And with regard to this mishna, Rabbi Pedat said: Who is the tanna who taught that balsam has the status of a fruit, and is not merely sap, and therefore it has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year? It is Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讞讝讬 讚诪讬谞讱 讜诪讗讘讜讱 拽砖专讬转讜 拽讟驻讗 诇注诇诪讗 讗转 讗诪专转 诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽讟驻讗 驻讬专讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗讘讜讱 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗专讘注讛

The Gemara continues: And Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Pedat: One can see that from you and from your father, i.e., between the two of you, you have permitted balsam to the world, since the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer is certainly not accepted. As you said: Who is the tanna who taught that balsam has the status of a fruit? It is Rabbi Eliezer. And your father, Rabbi Elazar, said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in only four cases.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗专讘注讛 讘住讚专 讟讛专讜转 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 住讚专讬 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara explains the difficulty: And if it is so, that Rabbi Elazar was referring only to Seder Teharot, then let Rabbi Pedat say to Rabbi Zeira: When my father said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases, he meant only four cases within Seder Teharot, but in the other orders there are other such cases. From the fact that Rabbi Pedat did not reply in this manner, evidently there are no cases in the other orders of the Mishna where, according to Rabbi Elazar, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讜转讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诇诪讚讬诐 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 砖转诪讗谉 讘讜

The Gemara asks: But that case, where the amora Rabbi Elazar said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to persuading a minor to refuse to stay married to her husband, is difficult. This apparently conflicts with the statement that there are only four cases in which Rabbi Elazar rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara answers: There the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer only because the tanna Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with his opinion. As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Elazar says: The court instructs the minor to refuse to stay married to him, thereby annulling her marriage retroactively.

讜诪讬 拽讗讬 讜讛讗 讗爪专讜讻讬 诪爪专讻讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 讚诪讬讬谉 诇讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Elazar hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case of the minor? But doesn鈥檛 the Gemara in Yevamot explain that both the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar are necessary, and therefore they are not comparable to each other? Rather, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case because Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with his opinion, as explained earlier.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专讛 讘专讻讛 专讘讬注讬转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专讛 讘讛讜讚讗讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara asks: And are there no more cases in which Rabbi Elazar maintains that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Berakhot 33a): One recites the prayer of distinction between the holy and the profane [havdala], said in the evening prayer following Shabbat and festivals, in the fourth blessing of the Amida prayer: Who graciously grants knowledge. Rabbi Akiva says: One recites havdala as a fourth blessing by itself. Rabbi Eliezer says that one recites it in the blessing of thanksgiving. And with regard to this dispute, Rabbi Elazar says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专讛 讘专讻讛 专讘讬注讬转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专讛 讘讛讜讚讗讛

Rabbi Abba said, in explanation: That case is different, as that is not the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer himself. Rather, he stated that ruling in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: One recites havdala as a fourth blessing by itself; Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel says: One recites it in the blessing of thanksgiving.

讜讛讗 拽砖讬砖 诪讬谞讬讛 讟讜讘讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘砖讬讟转讬讛

The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer much older than Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel? How could Rabbi Eliezer have cited the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel? The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason Rabbi Elazar ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case was because Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel held in accordance with his opinion.

讜诪讬 拽讗讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讜专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 砖讞专讬转 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 诪讜住祝 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 诪谞讞讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 讘谞注讬诇讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜诪转讜讚讛 讘注专讘讬转 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 诪注讬谉 砖诪谞讛 注砖专讛

And does Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel really hold in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: On the night of Yom Kippur, one prays seven blessings in the Amida prayer and confesses; in the morning prayer, one prays seven blessings and confesses; in the additional prayer, one prays seven blessings and confesses; in the afternoon prayer, one prays seven blessings and confesses; and in the ne鈥檌la prayer, one also prays seven blessings and confesses. For the evening prayer at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one prays seven blessings in an abridged version of the eighteen blessings of the weekday Amida prayer. One recites the first three blessings, the final three, and a middle blessing that includes an abbreviated form of the other weekday blessings.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讗讜诪专 诪转驻诇诇 砖诪谞讛 注砖专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讛讘讚诇讛 讘讞讜谞谉 讛讚注转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel says in the name of his forefathers: One recites the complete eighteen blessings, due to the fact that he is required to recite havdala in the fourth blessing of the Amida: Who graciously grants knowledge. Havdala cannot be inserted into the abridged version. Evidently, Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel does not agree with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling that one recites havdala in the blessing of thanksgiving, one of the final three blessings of the Amida prayer. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says in explanation: Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel said this opinion in the name of his forefathers, but he himself does not hold accordingly.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讚诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽讟驻讗 驻讬专讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛诪注诪讬讚 讘砖专祝 注专诇讛 讗住讜专

搂 Earlier, Rabbi Zeira questioned the claim of Rabbi Pedat, son of Rabbi Eliezer, that the Sage who holds that balsam is considered to be fruit and therefore has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And you? Do you not hold that the tanna who taught that balsam sap has the status of fruit is Rabbi Eliezer? As, didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Orla 1:7) that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to one who curdles cheese in the sap of orla, the cheese is prohibited, as the sap is considered to be fruit of the tree.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讘拽讟驻讗 讚讙讜讜讝讗 讗讘诇 讘拽讟驻讗 讚驻讬专讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖讛诪注诪讬讚 讘砖专祝 讛注诇讬谉 讘砖专祝 讛注讬拽专讬谉 诪讜转专 讘砖专祝 讛驻讙讬谉 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻专讬

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna that deals with balsam is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to the sap of the tree, but in the case of the sap of the fruit they agree with him. As we learned in a mishna (Orla 1:7) that Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard explicitly that in the case of one who curdles cheese in the sap of the leaves or the sap of the roots of an orla tree, the cheese is permitted. But if it is curdled in the sap of unripe figs it is prohibited, because that sap is considered to be fruit.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讗讬诇谉 讛注讜砖讛 驻讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讘讗讬诇谉 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 驻讬专讜转 诪讜讚讜 讚拽讟驻讜 讝讛讜 驻专讬讜 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇拽讟祝 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 诇拽讟祝 砖讘讬注讬转 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讟驻讜 讝讛讜 驻专讬讜

And if you wish, say instead: When the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, it is with regard to a tree that bears fruit. But in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit, they agree that its sap is considered to be its fruit. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 7:6) that Rabbi Shimon says: The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not apply to sap. And the Rabbis say: The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does apply to sap, because its sap is its fruit.

诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽讟驻讜 讝讛讜 驻专讬讜

The Gemara explains the proof: Who are these Rabbis? Are they not the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer? If so, this demonstrates that they agree in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit. The Gemara rejects this proof: A certain elder said to Rabbi Zeira that this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Who are the Rabbis in this mishna? It is Rabbi Eliezer, who said that its sap is considered to be its fruit.

讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗讬诇谉 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 驻专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬诇谉 讛注讜砖讛 驻专讬 拽讟驻讜 讝讛讜 驻专讬讜 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬诇谉 讛注讜砖讛 驻讬专讜转 谞诪讬 拽讟驻讜 讝讛讜 驻专讬讜 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讘讗讬诇谉 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 驻讬专讜转 讚拽讟驻讜 讝讛讜 驻专讬讜 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara asks: If it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, why are they specifically discussing the case of a tree that does not bear fruit? Even in the case of a tree that does bear fruit, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that its sap is like its fruit. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer stated his opinion to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis themselves, as follows: According to my opinion, even with regard to a tree that bears fruit, its sap is also considered to be its fruit. But according to your opinion, you should at least agree with me in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit, that its sap is considered to be its fruit. And the Rabbis said in response to Rabbi Eliezer: It is no different. Sap is not considered fruit whether it comes from a fruit-bearing tree or a barren tree.

讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讘转讜诇讛 讻诇 砖诇讗 专讗转讛 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讗转 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 诪讞诪转 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讬诇讚讛 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 诪讞诪转 诇讬讚讛 注讚讬讬谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 诇讛 讘转讜诇讛 砖讛专讬 讘转讜诇讛 砖讗诪专讜 讘转讜诇转 讚诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘转讜诇转 讘转讜诇讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches: Who is the woman characterized as a virgin in this context? It is any woman who did not see the flow of menstrual blood in all her days, even if she was married and experienced bleeding resulting from intercourse consummating her marriage. The Sages taught: If she was married and she saw a flow of blood due to her marriage, i.e., blood resulting from the tearing of her hymen; or if she gave birth and saw blood due to the birth, I still call her a virgin in this context. The reason is that when they said: Virgin here, they meant a menstrual blood virgin, i.e., one who did not yet see a menstrual flow, and not a hymen-blood virgin, i.e., one who did not experience bleeding from a torn hymen.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 转谞讗 砖诇砖 讘转讜诇讜转 讛谉 讘转讜诇转 讗讚诐 讘转讜诇转 拽专拽注 讘转讜诇转 砖拽诪讛 讘转讜诇转 讗讚诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Kahana say that a Sage taught: There are three types of virgins: A virgin human, virgin ground, and a virgin sycamore. A virgin human is a woman for as long as she has not engaged in intercourse. The relevance of this designation is that only a virgin is permitted to marry a High Priest (see Leviticus 21:13鈥14). Alternatively, the relevance is that her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, instead of the one hundred dinars in the marriage contract of a non-virgin.

讘转讜诇转 拽专拽注 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 谞注讘讚讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇谞讞诇 讗讬转谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

Virgin ground is ground for as long as it has not been worked. The relevance of this designation is with regard to the rough dried-up stream mentioned in the Torah. When the corpse of a murder victim is found between two towns and the murderer is unknown, the Torah states that a heifer鈥檚 neck is broken in a place that was not worked. Alternatively, the relevance is with regard to buying and selling. If one stipulates that he is buying virgin land, it is defined as land that has never been worked.

讘转讜诇转 砖拽诪讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 谞拽爪爪讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇诪拽爪爪讛 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讻讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 拽讜爪爪讬谉 讘转讜诇转 砖拽诪讛 讘砖讘讬注讬转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 讛讗

Finally, a virgin sycamore is a sycamore for as long as it has not been felled, i.e., cut to promote growth. The relevance of this designation is with regard to buying and selling. If one stipulates that he is buying virgin sycamore, it is defined as one that has never been felled. Alternatively, the relevance is with regard to the prohibition against felling it in the Sabbatical Year, as we learned in a mishna: (Shevi鈥檌t 4:5): One may not fell a virgin sycamore in the Sabbatical Year, because it is considered work, as this promotes the growth of the tree. The Gemara explains its question: And if it is so, that there is a concept of a virgin from menstrual blood, let the tanna of this baraita also teach this type of virgin.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖诐 诇讜讜讬 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖诐 诇讜讜讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚转诇讬 讘诪注砖讛 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 转诇讬 讘诪注砖讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara cites several answers. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that does not have a modifier, but he does not teach an item that has a modifier. A virgin human, virgin land, and a virgin sycamore can be referred to without another modifier. Conversely, a virgin with regard to menstrual blood cannot be referred to simply by the unmodified term: Virgin. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that is dependent upon an outside action, e.g., intercourse in the case of a human virgin or felling in the case of a virgin sycamore. But he does not teach an item that is not dependent upon an outside action, such as a woman鈥檚 menstrual flow.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讛讚专 诇讘专讬讬转讜 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讚专 诇讘专讬讬转讜 诇讗 拽转谞讬 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

Rabbi 岣nina, son of Rav Ika says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that will not later revert to its original state. But he does not teach an item that will later revert to its original state, such as a woman鈥檚 menstrual flow that ceases when she reaches old age. Ravina says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item about which a buyer is particular, such as one who purchases a virgin sycamore tree. But he does not teach an item about which a buyer is not particular, e.g., a woman鈥檚 menstrual blood.

讜诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖讛砖讗讜专 讬驻讛 诇注讬住讛 讻讱 讚诪讬诐 讬驻讬谉 诇讗砖讛 讜转谞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 讗砖讛 砖讚诪讬讛 诪专讜讘讬谉 讘谞讬讛 诪专讜讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚拽驻讬抓 注诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽驻讬抓 注诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: And is a buyer, i.e., a potential husband, not particular about her menstrual blood? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi 岣yya says: Just as leaven is fortuitous for dough, so too, blood is fortuitous for a woman; and it is taught in another baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: Any woman whose blood is plentiful, her children are plentiful? A potential husband would certainly be particular about this factor. The Gemara provides an alternative answer: Rather, when the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that buyers are eager to purchase. But he does not teach an item that buyers are not eager to purchase, e.g., a woman without menstrual blood.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讜讛讬 讘转讜诇转 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖诪注诇讛 专砖讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注驻专讛 转讬讞讜讞 谞诪爪讗 讘讛 讞专住 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞注讘讚讛 爪讜谞诪讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘转讜诇转 拽专拽注

The Sages taught in a baraita: What is virgin ground? It is any ground that raises up hard clumps of earth and whose dirt is not loose. If one finds a shard of earthenware in the earth, it is thereby known that it was once worked and is not virgin ground. If one finds hard rock, it is virgin ground.

诪注讜讘专转 诪砖讬讜讚注 注讜讘专讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讻专转 讛注讜讘专 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讻诪砖诇砖 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讙讜诪专

搂 The mishna teaches: The time of a pregnant woman is sufficient from the point in her pregnancy when the existence of her fetus is known to all who see her. The Gemara asks: And how much time must pass for the fetus to be known? Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Three months. And although there is no explicit proof for the matter, that a fetus is discernable after three months of pregnancy, there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd it came to pass about three months after, that it was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot鈥 (Genesis 38:24).

讝讻专 诇讚讘专 拽专讗 讻转讬讘 讜专讗讬讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讬诇讚讛 诇转砖注讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讬诇讚讛 诇砖讘注讛

The Gemara asks: Why does Rabbi Meir call this a mere allusion to the matter? An explicit verse is written, and that is a significant proof. The Gemara answers: It is only an allusion because there are some women who give birth after nine months and there are others who give birth after seven months. Although the verse indicates that a fetus is known to all after three months, it is possible that this applies only to a nine-month pregnancy. Since in the case of a nine-month pregnancy the fetus is recognizable after a third of the full term, with regard to a seven-month pregnancy, the fetus would likewise be noticeable after a third of the full pregnancy, i.e., at two and one-third months. Therefore, Rabbi Meir teaches that in all cases the fetus is known only after three months.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讬 砖讛讬转讛 讘讞讝拽转 诪注讜讘专转 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻讬诇讛 专讜讞 讗讜 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘讞讝拽转讛 讜讚讬讛 砖注转讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who had a presumptive status that she was pregnant and she saw blood, and afterward she miscarried air, or anything that is not a viable fetus, she retains her presumptive status, and therefore her time is sufficient from that flow of blood, i.e., it renders her impure only from then on, not retroactively, as even a non-viable fetus gives her full pregnancy status.

讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讛专讬谞讜 讞诇谞讜 讻诪讜 讬诇讚谞讜 专讜讞 诪讗讬 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 讛专讬 专讗讬讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讝讻专讬诐 讻转讬讘

And even though there is no explicit proof for this matter, that even a pregnancy that ends in a miscarriage is like a full-fledged pregnancy, there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: 鈥淲e have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind鈥 (Isaiah 26:18). This verse indicates that even one who miscarries wind is considered as having been with child. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that this is called a mere allusion to the matter? This explicit verse is a significant proof. The Gemara answers: When that verse was written, it was written with regard to males as bearing children. The allusion to child-bearing in the verse is symbolic, so halakhic inferences may not be drawn from it.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 拽砖转讛 砖谞讬诐 讜诇砖诇讬砖讬 讛驻讬诇讛 专讜讞 讗讜 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讬讜诇讚转 讘讝讜讘 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬讚讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If a woman experienced labor pain for two days, during which she saw a discharge of blood, and on the third day she miscarried air or anything that is not a viable fetus, that woman gives birth as a zava, and the blood is treated as blood of a zava in all regards. The Gemara explains the contradiction: And if you say that miscarrying a non-viable fetus is considered a proper birth, this is problematic,

Scroll To Top