ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf
Nidah 5
Questions
1)
(a) The Kesem of one of the four women about whom Chazal said Dayan
Sha'atan, is Metamei from the time that it is found, because since the Din
of seeing retroactively does not apply to the woman with regard to actually
seeing blood, they did not want to make the Din of a Kesem more stringent
in this regard than that of the actual sighting of blood (bearing in mind
that Kesamim are only mi'de'Rabbanan).
But the Kesem of a woman who *does* have periods of Mei'es Le'es, is
Metamei retroactively (even at a time when she has a Veses, and 'Dayah
Sha'atah' applies).
(b) Rebbi Meir says that even the Kesamim of the four women, are Metamei
retroactively.
(c) The Kesem of a girl who has not reached the age of seeing blood, is not
Metamei at all.
(d) The age of seeing blood is 'Yemei Ne'urim' (twelve).
2)
Once a girl reaches the age of twelve, she is Temei'ah, even through a
Kesem.
3)
(a) Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel that one cannot rely on an Eid
before Tashmish, to detract from the twenty-four hours or from the time of
the last examination, because she is too excited to examine properly.
(b) 'ha'Meshameshes be'Eidim' (in the plural), refers, not to the Eidim
before and after Tashmish, but to the man's and the woman's Eid - both
before Tashmish.
(c) The Chidush in 'Eidim' is not that the Eid before Tashmish helps to
detract from Mei'es Le'es, but that she is obligated to examine herself
before Tashmish.
The text therefore, must be changed from 'ha'Meshameshes be'Eidim' to
'Meshameshes be'Eidim'.
4)
Logically speaking, if 'Eidim' can detract from a period of twenty-four
hours (Mei'es Le'es), then it should certainly detract from a period of
twelve hours (mi'Pekidah li'Pekidah). Nevertheless, the Mishnah saw fit to
tell us this, because we may have thought that the Rabbanan relied on
'Eidim' in this context only in order to avoid having to throw away
Taharos. Consequently, for a period of twenty-four hours in retrospect, but
not for such a short period as twelve hours.
5b---------------------------------------5b
Questions
5)
(a) The Mishnah mentions the bed by the case of Dayah Sha'atah, so that we
should infer that only by a woman by whom we say 'Dayah Sha'atah' is the
bed Tahor; But by a woman who is Temei'ah Mei'es Le'es, the bed too, is
Tamei Mishkav - to render Tamei, even people - to be Metamei the clothes
that they are wearing, which is precisely what Zeiri said.
(b) At first, the Gemara thought that our Mishnah must be speaking in a
case when the woman's friends were carrying her on the bed, and it is, of
course, possible to ask the women whether she was Tamei or not.
But the Gemara concludes that it is not necessary to say this, because
Rebbi Yochanan has already taught us that any Safek Tum'ah which was caused
by a human being - even if he was not actually dealing with the object that
is Tamei, is included in the category of something which has the knowledge
to ask, whose Safek is Tamei in the Reshus ha'Yachid.
(c) An example of something which cannot ask, and which is therefore Tahor,
even in a Reshus ha'Yachid, is a dead Sheretz which is lying on the ground,
next to Tahor vessels, and we do not know whether the Sheretz touched the
vessels before it died, or not.
6)
(a) The case of the Beraisa which deals with the person putting on his
cloak next to a Sheretz etc., speaks specifically in a Reshus ha'Rabim,
which is why they are Tahor; in a Reshus ha'Yachid, they would indeed be
Tamei, just like Rebbi Yochanan said.
(b) When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that we tell the man 'Shanei'!, he
meant to say that we tell him to put on his cloak again, and see whether he
touches the Taharos or the Sheretz this time; if it does, then we assume
that it did so last time as well, and if not, then we assume that it did
not.
(c) The Rabbanan maintain that making him put on his cloak again proves
nothing, because, even if it did touch this time, it does not necessarily
mean that it touched the first time, or vice-versa.
7)
(a) When the Beraisa says 'Mei'es Le'es she'be'Nidah, Mishkavah u'Moshavah
*ke'Maga'ah*', 'ke'Maga'ah' means like someone who touches her - just like
someone who touches her becomes Tamei, even to make Tamei the clothes that
he is wearing, so too, will the bed that she lies on (and the chair that
she sits on), be Metamei retroactively within twenty-four hours, to be
Metamei the person who lies (or sits) on it, to be Metamei the clothes that
he is wearing.
(b) 'ke'Maga'ah' cannot mean, as we at first thought it did, like something
(an object) which she touched - which *is not* Metamei a person. Why not?
Because if sealed earthenware vessels, which are spared from Tum'ah if
they are under the same roof as a corpse, are not spared from the Din of
'Mei'es le'es she'be'Nidah', beds and chairs (etc.), which are not spared
from Tum'ah when they are under the same roof as a corpse, should certainly
not be spared from the Din of Mei'es Le'es she'be'Nidah'.
Next daf
|