(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI

prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nidah 4

1) In the second answer (to resolve the Kashya on Chizkiyah from Hillel and Shamai), the Gemara differentiates between a box that was examined and one that was not.

(a) What is now the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Chizkiyah?

(b) How can we establish the Machlokes between Shamai and Hillel by a box that was not examined, when the Beraisa compares it to a Nidah, who tends to examines herself every evening and every morning?

The Gemara then gives a third interpretation of their Machlokes: If the box is not covered, even Chizkiyah will concede that the Taharos that were in the box are Tamei retroactively - even if the box *was* examined. When *does* he declare the Taharos Tahor retroactively? When the box also had a cover.
(c) What then does Rebbi Yochanan hold, and what is his reasoning?
2) The fourth and final interpretation of Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan's dispute is that as far as the corner of the box goes, Chizkiyah agrees that it is Tamei retroactively - in all cases. *Their* Machlokes concerns, not from one corner of the box to another, but from one corner of the house to another.

What exactly, is their Machlokes?

3)

(a) What does the Gemara ask on Rebbi Yochanan from the Mishnah "Naga be'Echad ba'Laylah".

(b) How does the Gemara's answer this (Lisrof and Lislos), and how does the Gemara reconcile it with various Mishnahs which emphatically follows the present time (without contending with the past, even Lislos)?

(c) How do we then reconcile Rebbi Yochanan with the Beraisa in Taharos, which declares a loaf lying on a board jutting out of a wall, despite the fact that underneath it (placed in such a way that the loaf is bound to fall on it) is a Tamei garment. Is it not evident from here that we *do* establish Tum'ah from one place to another?

(d) How can the loaf possibly have moved from the garment to the ground without someone putting it there (otherwise it would be obvious that someone must have picked it up and put it where it is now, and there would be no Chidush)?

(e) Why do we not also say by the box that perhaps a raven came and dropped the Sheretz in the box (so why does Rebbi Yochanan say that it is Tamei retroactively)?

Answers to questions

4b---------------------------------------4b

4) With regard to the loaf on the board, how can we contend with a person who may or who not have placed it where it is. Surely this is a classical case of 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid' (did the loaf touch the Tamei garment or did it not?), which, on principle, is Tamei? (two answers) - How does the Gemara prove its second answer from the fact that the Beraisa uses an example of Madaf?

5) What is the Chachamim's Chidush in telling us that 'mi'Pekidah li'Pekidah Mema'etes mi'Me'es le'Es'? Is that not obvious?

6) Raba suggested to Abaye that the reason that the Rabbanan only go back retroactively twenty-four hours, is because a woman is always aware when she sees blood (like one of the explanations in Shamai).

(a) What is wrong with that explanation?

(b) Then why did Raba make such a suggestion?

The real reason of the Rabbanan is that, on account of her laxness in keeping the Takanas Chachamim (by not examining herself every morning and evening), they penalized her to lose one Onah (twelve-hour period).
(c) But surely 'Mei'es Le'es' is two Onos, not one?
The Gemara asks that sometimes it works out to three Onos, not two.
(d) What is the Gemara's Kashya, and what is the answer?
7)
(a) What is the Gemara's second answer to the above question?

(b) What is the difference between the two answers?

8) Rebbi Dosa maintains that we say Dayah Sha'atah by every woman who has a Veses.
(a) What do the Rabbanan (Rebbi Eliezer) say?

(b) Is it possible to reconcile the Rabbanan with our Mishnah, which rules that every woman has a Veses?

9) The Beraisa writes even a woman who has a Veses, is Temei'ah retroactively, if she sees a bloodstain.
(a) Why?

(b) Is it possible to reconcile this Beraisa with Rebbi Dosa?

(c) Why is it not possible to accept both this explanation and that of 8b.?

(d) Why did the Gemara retract from its original contention in b., preferring to accept the contention in d.?

Answers to questions

Next daf

Index

For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il