ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 60
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa says that one relies on the bloodstain of
a gentile woman (no mention is made of her having to have ever seen blood
before), and even Rebbi Meir, who maintains that, at least she must be fit
to see, does not require her to have actually seen. So how can Rav hold of
a stringency with which neither of the Tena'im of the Beraisa agrees?
(b) According to the initial wording of the Beraisa, it transpires that
Rebbi Meir, who at least requires the gentile woman to be fit to see blood,
is more stringent than the Tana Kama, who requires nothing. But it is clear
from another Beraisa, that Rebbi Meir is more lenient than the Tana Kama,
and not more strict? Therefore we are forced to change the wording of the
Tana Kama to read that we only rely on the gentile woman, if we actually
know that she has seen blood; On which Rebbi Meir argues that it is not
necessary for the gentile her to have actually seen blood, but it is
sufficient for her to have reached the age that she could see.
(a) The reason that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel relies on a 'Shomeres Yom
ke'Neged Yom' on her second day, is because she has a Chazakah that her
Ma'ayan is open (even though she did not yet see on that day, and even
though she will need to watch again tomorrow, on account of this sighting);
and the same reason applies to a woman who is counting her seven clean days
(even though this sighting will obligate her to start counting all over
(b) Rebbi maintains that we can only ascribe the bloodstain to a woman to
whom it makes no difference one way or the other (either because she is
Temei'ah anyway, or because she will remain Tehorah anyway, but not in the
above cases, where ascribing the bloodstain to them affects them adversely,
as we explained above).
(c) Even Rebbi will agree that we ascribe the stain to a woman who is a
'Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom' on her *first* day, because she is Temei'ah
anyway, and this sighting will not affect her.
(d) Rebbi will also agree that we ascribe the bloodstain to a Yoledes
during her days of Tohar, and by a virgin who has not yet seen blood.
(a) Is it not obvious, that if we ascribe the bloodstain to another woman,
she is Tehorah and the first woman is Temei'ah? So why the 'Lefichach'?
(b) In fact, *he* only says 'Lefichach', because *Rebbi* says 'Lefichach'.
(c) We might have thought that, since we do not ascribe the bloodstain to
the other woman, the woman by whom the bloodstain is found should be
Temei'ah, and the other woman should remain Tehorah. Therefore Rebbi needs
to add 'Lefichach, Sheteihen Mekulkalos'.
(a) The same as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ascribes the Tum'ah to the
Temei'ah (the 'Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom'), so too, will he assume that it
was the Tamei man who walked down the Tamei path; and the same as Rebbi
does not rely on that by the woman, so too, will he not rely on it by the
two paths either.
(b) Rav Ada argues on the grounds that we wrote earlier: because, he says,
Rebbi only fails to ascribe the Tum'ah by the case of the Shomeres Yom,
because both women are really Tehoros (even though the second woman's
Ma'ayan is open, and she requires Tevilah - she may however, Tovel whenever
she likes). Consequently, why should we ascribe the Tum'ah to the second
woman any more than to the first one? Whereas in the case of the two paths,
why should we *not* ascribe the Tum'ah to the man who is Tamei anyway, and
to whom it therefore makes no difference?
(c) Rav Chisda argues that also the 'Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom' requires
Tevilah - in other words, she is Temei'ah - so if Rebbi does not want to
attribute the Tum'ah to her there, why should he attribute the Tum'ah to
the Tamei man in the case of the two paths?
(d) According to Rav Ada, if a Tahor person and someone who is Safek Tamei
went down two paths, one of which was Tamei, we will assume that it is the
Safek (who is anyway Tamei mi'Safek) who walked down the Tamei path, just
as we would have done had he been Tamei Vaday.
(a) According to Rebbi, we do not even ascribe the bloodstain to the woman
who saw blood from her *body* on the previous day (a *Shomeres Yom* etc.,
on her second day), so how much more so will we not ascribe it to her
(b) The Gemara asks, whether, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, we
will also ascribe the bloodstain to the woman who became Temei'ah through a
bloodstain, or whether, Rabban Shimon only ascribes it to a woman who
actually saw blood from her body.
(c) The Gemara rules categorically that even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel
will only ascribe a bloodstain to a woman who actually saw blood, but not
to one who only became Temei'ah through a bloodstain.
(a) The author of both Beraisos could also be Rebbi, but the first Beraisa
which does ascribe the bloodstain to the other womn, speaks when the second
woman wore the vest on the first day after seeing the bloodstain on her own
garment, whereas the second Beraisa speaks when she wore it on the second
day (See Maharshal, who explains that the Gemara's Kashya is not valid
according to this answer, only according to the other two).
Or the author of both Beraisos could also be Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; And
the Beraisa which *does* ascribe the bloodstain to the second woman, (to
render the first one Tehorah) speaks retroactively; but as far as the
future is concerned, we do not ascribe the stain to the second woman, and
both women are Temei'os.
(b) In any event, we see, at least according to two of the answers, that
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel *does* ascribe the bloodstain to the second
woman, despite the fact that she became Temei'ah only through a bloodstain?
(c) The Gemara amends the Beraisa to read 'Hish'ilah Chalukah le'Nochris O
le'Yosheves Al Dam Tohar', Ba'alas Kesem Tolah Bah'.
(a) Rebbi Nechemyah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Niksa la'Aretz Teishev", that
a woman who finds blood on the ground where she is sitting is Tehorah,
because the groung itself is not Mekabeil Tum'ah.
(b) We might well have said that the Rabbanan would decree Tum'ah on a
bloodstain found on the back of an earthenware vessel, because if the
bloodstain appeared inside it, it would be Tamei, so Chazal could have
decreed the one because of the other, as they often do. The Chidush of
Rebbi Chanina is, that according to Rebbi Nechemyah, no such decree was
(c) If bloodstains are found on patches of less than three finger-breadths
by three finger-breadths, Rebbi Nechemyah holds that the woman will not be
(a) If blood is found underneath the innermost woman who is working by the
hand-mill, we will declare both women Temei'os, since the woman working on
the outside tends to come as close as she can, so that the blood could have
come from her. But since the reverse is not true - i.e. the woman closest
to the mill, does not move away from it, if blood is found under the outer
woman, it must have come from her, and only she will be Temei'ah.
(b) An olive-leaf is not Mekabeil Tum'ah, yet the Tena'im of this Beraisa
ruled that the women are Temei'os. So how can Rav rule like Rebbi
Nechemyah, when clearly, the Tena'im of this Beraisa, do not follow his
(c) The Gemara however, cites another Beraisa, which explicitly states that
the Rabbanan ruled like Rebbi Nechemyah, and that is obviously opinion
which Rav follows.
(a) If blood is found underneath one of three women who are all sleeping in
the same bed, then all three are Temei'os.
(b) By 've'Tolos Zu be'Zu', the Mishnah means, that if one of the women was
pregnant, or feeding, or old, or a virgin, then we ascribe the blood to
(c) If all the women were all of the same status e.g. they were all
pregnant, or feeding etc., then they are all Temei'os.
(a) If one of the women examined herself and found that she is Temei'ah,
then we ascribe the blood to her, and the other two are Tehoros.
(b) Bar Pada holds that when the man is Chayav Chatas (i.e. the blood was
discovered on the Eid immediately), the Taharos with which she was dealing
are Temei'os (retroactively, and have to be burnt); but when the man is
only Chayav an Asham Taluy, then the Taharos are only Safek Tamei.
Consequently, our Mishnah, which is speaking with regard to Taharos (to
declare the Taharos which the woman who found herself to be Temei'ah,
Temei'os), must be speaking when she examined herself immediately.
(c) Rebbi Oshaya maintains that, even if her husband is Chayav a Chatas,
her Taharos are only a Safek (and nevertheless, we ascribe the blood to
The reason for the difference is that when she is with her husband, as long
as the woman finds the blood immediately, he is Chayav Chatas. Nor does the
fact that the blood was not discharged during Tashmish is no proof that she
was Tehorah at the time of Tashmish. Why not?
Because the Eiver Tashmish prevented the blood from flowing out.
Whereas in our Mishnah, even if the woman examined herself immediately and
discovered that she was Temei'ah, that does not ascertain with certainty,
that she is the woman from whom the blood was discharged. Why not? Because
if she is, then why was the blood that she found now, not discharged
earlier? What prevented it from coming out then? Consequently, she is only
a Safek Temei'ah (Nevertheless, since the Tum'ah of 'Mei'es Le'es'
regarding Taharos is only mi'de'Rabbanan, we ascribe this Safek to her, and
the other women are Tehoros).
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah compares Rebbi Oshaya's Din to a youth who is
accompanying an old man on a journey. As long as they have not reached the
town, the youth is forced to go at the pace of the old man. The moment
however, they reach the town, the youth hurries home, whilst the old man
continues at his slow pace. So too, as long as the Eiver Tashmish is
present, the blood takes its time in emerging; but the moment the Eiver
Tashmish is removed, the blood flows freely.
(b) Abaye compares it to someone who sticks his finger in his eye. As long
as the finger is there, the tears cannot flow. As soon as he removes his
finger, the tears flow freely.