ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 62
(a) *Rok Tapal* is spittle that comes from someone who has not eaten all
day; *Mei Gerisin* is the juice from a type of split bean which one chewed
in one's mouth; *Mei Ragliyim* is urine which was left and 'soured';
*Neser* is a kind of soil; "Buris*, *Kemunya* and *Ashlag* are different
species of herbs.
(b) If washing the bloodstain in all of the above fails to remove it, then
we assume the stain to be paint, and not blood (Not that it is definitely
dye, as is clear from the coming Sugya, but that, since it *could* now be a
dye, we rely on this and treat it leniently - see Tosfos d.h. 'Hitbilo').
(c) If after Toveling the garment with the bloodstain, he washes it with
the seven Samemanim and it comes out, or even just becomes fainter, then it
cannot be paint. It must therefore be a bloodstain. The woman is Temei'ah
retroactively, and the Taharos which she dealt with are Temei'os.
(d) Yes! It is imperative that the seven Samemanim are applied in the order
in which they are listed in the Mishnah, and not even simultaneously, if
the test is to be effective. Otherwise, the woman will be Temei'ah.
(a) 'Basar Tapal' means raw or untreated meat; similarly, 'Rok Tapal' means
spittle where the mouth has been untreated - i.e. from a person who has not
eaten that day.
(b) 'Gerisin shel Pul Chalukas Nefesh' means 'the juice of beans that split
(c) Each of the seven Samemanim must be rubbed three times for the trial to
(d) The soil has to be Neser Aleksandris.
(a) *Buris* cannot possibly be sulfur, because it is also listed in a
Mishnah in Shabbos concerning the Dinim of Shevi'is, and we have learnt in
another Mishnah (also in Shabbos) that Shemitah only applies to plants that
have roots, and sulfur, which is a type of earth, has no roots.
(b) If *Buris* is Ahala, as the Gemara concludes, we will have to explain
that there are two species of Ahala, one which is called Ahala, and the
(c) *Ashlag* is found inside the holes of the oyster. One removes it by
using a metal prong - presumably to prise it open.
(a) If the bloodstain failed to come out with the seven Samemanim, but soap
*did* remove it, then maybe it is paint, which also comes out with soap? So
why does the Beraisa declare the garment Tamei?
(b) Qonsequently, the Gemara amends the Beraisa to read 'He'evir Alav
*Shishah* Samemanim, ve'Lo Avar' etc.
(c) Rebbi Zeira learns that the Beraisa (which declares the Taharos which
he dealt with if the stain only came out after the *second* washing), is
only referring to the Taharos which he dealt with between the two washings;
But the Taharos that he dealt with *after* the garment was washed the
second time are Tamei. Why is that?
Because, since he was Makpid, his Kepeida is effective (provided the blood
was removed - See Tosfos d.h. 'she'Harei") to give what came out a Din of
Because after the first washing, the blood became Bateil in the garment
(see Tosfos Amud Beis d.h. 'Amar'), but his current Kepeida, now nullifies
(d) Indeed, says Rav Ashi, the Din of a bloodstain depends very much on
Kepeida, as we see from the reverse case, where, according to Rebbi Chiya,
who quotes a Beraisa which says that, even Vaday Dam ha'Nidah becomes
Bateil once he has washed it with the seven Samemanim, even if the stain
did not come out. So we see, that Bitul helps to remove the Din Tum'ah,
even when it is Vaday Tamei; Similarly it will help to make it Tamei in a
case of Safek Tum'ah.
(a) The reason that the oven becomes Tamei immediately, is because the
liquids are destined to emerge - eventually (when the oven heats up).
(b) Resh Lakish qualifies the above Mishnah. According to him, it is only
those liquids of a Zav which are only a Rishon le'Tum'ah - mi'de'Rabbanan
(such as his tears and blood from his wound, or the urine of a Tamei Meis),
but as far as the Ma'ayanos of a Zav is concerned, *they* will render the
oven Tamei, even if it has *not* been heated, and they are not destined to
come out of the pieces of earthenware.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan holds that Tum'ah Belu'ah is not Metamei, whereas
according to Resh Lakish, it is.
(a) Resh Lakish agrees that Tum'ah Belu'ah is not Metamei in the case of
bloodstains, which are purely mi'de'Rabbanan.
(b) If Rebbi gave no hint in the Mishnah that Tum'ah Belu'ah should not be
Metamei, from where did Rebbi Chiya know to say otherwise. Consequently,
the Beraisa must have been learnt erroneously (see Tosfos d.h. 'Rebbi
(c) Vessels which were in the house before the blood sunk into the ground
are Tamei, whereas vessels which were brought in only afterwards, remain
(d) Resh Lakish concedes that Tum'ah Belu'ah is Tahor in the case of Dam
Tevusah - which is a Revi'is of blood that came from a person who was
dying, and we do not know whether most of it emerged when he was still
alive (and it is Tahor) or after he had already died (and it is Tamei). In
such a case, even if the blood would not have sunk into the ground, it
would only be a case of Safek Tum'ah, and would be Metamei only
mi'de'Rabbanan - *before* it sinks into the ground. Once it has sunk, the
Rabbanan did not forbid it at all. (It is not clear to me what makes it
Tamei mi'de'Rabbanan - as the Gemara calls it - and not a Safek Isur
d'Oraysa, as Rashi explains).
(a) The obvious deduction from 'Kol she'Eino *Yachol* la'Tzeis' etc., is
that any Tum'ah Belu'a which *can* come out of the garment is Tamei, even
though it did not do so. But according to Rebbi Yochanan, Tumah that is not
destined to come out should be Tahor?
(b) Rav Papa therefore concludes, that whenever the Tum'ah cannot come out
of the garment through washing, nor is the owner Makpid should it remain
there, everyone agrees that it is not Tamei. If it *can* come out through
washing, and the owner is Makpid, everyone agrees that it is Tamei.
Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue (in the case of the pieces of
earthenware), when the Tum'ah *can* come out, but the owner is *not*
Makpid; Resh Lakish holds that it is Tamei, but Rebbi Yochanan holds that
it is Tahor.