POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Shevuos 18
SHEVUOS 16-18 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) WITHDRAWING FROM A NIDAH (cont.)
(a) Answer: It was not shortly before her Vest.
(b) Question: Does her husband know the laws?
1. If he does - he should not bring any sacrifices!
(c) Answer (Rava): Really, it was shortly before her Vest; he
knows that relations are forbidden then, he does not know
that it is forbidden to withdraw an erect Ever.
i. He is Ones (blameless) for relations, and he
intentionally sinned by withdrawing.
2. If he does not know the laws, he only brings one
i. He is exempt for relations (it was Ones), he is
liable for withdrawing (he sinned
(d) (Rava): Mishnayos teach the obligation to bring a
sacrifice for relations and withdrawing!
1. Withdrawing - (Mishnah): If a woman told her husband
during relations that she became Nidah, if he
withdraws immediately he is liable.
(e) Question (against Rav Ada - Ravina): You cannot establish
the Mishnah not just before her Vest, and the liability
is for withdrawing;
2. Relations - (Mishnah): If a man found blood on the
cloth he used to clean his Ever after relations, he
and his wife are Teme'im (she is Nidah, he had
relations with a Nidah), and each must bring a
3. Suggestion: The case is, they had relations shortly
before her Vest, they are liable for relations.
4. Rejection (Rav Ada bar Masnah): No, it was not
shortly before her Vest, they are liable for
5. Question: Why should a second Mishnah teach
liability for withdrawing?
6. Answer: The latter Mishnah is needed to teach the
law when she found blood on the cloth she used to
clean herself (shortly but not immediately) after
i. Then, he is doubtfully Tamei, and they do not
bring a sacrifice (perhaps she became Nidah
ii. Once it teaches the law when she finds blood on
her cloth, it also teaches about when he finds
blood on his.
1. It says that blood *was found* on his cloth,
implying that before this, they did not know that
she became Nidah!
(f) (Rava): Ravina is correct!
2. If liability is for withdrawing, they must have
known that she became Nidah!
(g) Objection (Rav Ada - Beraisa): This (the case of the
Mishnah) is the Mitzvas Ase of Nidah to which the
sacrifices for a mistaken ruling apply.
1. According to Ravina (they are liable for relations),
it should say, this is the *Lav*...!
(h) Answer (Rava): If there is such a Beraisa, it is
abbreviated, it means as follows: This (the case of the
Mishnah) is the Lav of Nidah to which the sacrifices for
a mistaken ruling apply;
1. If a woman told her husband during relations that
she became Nidah, if he withdraws immediately he is
liable; this is the Mitzvas Ase of Nidah to which
the sacrifices for a mistaken ruling apply.
(i) (Mishnah): If he withdraws immediately he is liable.
(j) Question: What should he do?
(k) Answer (Rav Huna): He should stick his nails in the
ground (and not move the Ever) until the erection ceases,
(l) Inference (Rava): We may infer that if one has forbidden
relations with a limp Ever, he is exempt.
1. If he would be liable, we would have to say that he
is exempt (in our case) because he was Ones;
(m) Rejection (Abaye): Really, if one has forbidden relations
with a limp Ever, he is liable;
2. If so, he would be exempt even if he withdrew
1. One is exempt (in our case) he was Ones;
(n) Question (Rabah bar Chanan): If indeed relations with a
limp Ever are considered relations, and there is an
exemption for withdrawing after time but not immediately,
the Mishnah should have taught this along with the
exemption for leaving the Mikdash (on the shortest path,
not on a longer one)!
2. He must withdraw with minimal pleasure; if he
withdraws immediately, he is liable for getting
(o) Answer (Abaye): The Mishnah did not teach both because
they are contrary to each other!
2) KEDUSHAH OF RELATIONS
1. In the Mikdash, the exemption is for the shortest
path, not a longer one;
(p) Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): If Abaye exempts
him on account of Ones, it was not shortly before her
2. The exemption for withdrawing from a Nidah is if he
delays, not if he withdraws immediately!
1. But Abaye said (17B) that he brings two sacrifices,
it must have been shortly before her Vest!
(q) Answer: That teaching of Abaye did not refers to the case
of the Mishnah.
(a) Question (R. Yonason ben Yosi): What is the Lav
forbidding relations with a Nidah?
3) MUST ONE KNOW HOW HE BECAME "TAMEI"?
(b) Objection (R. Shimon ben Yosi): This is obvious -
"B'Nidas Tum'asah Lo Sikrav"!
(c) Correction: Rather, if a woman told her husband during
relations that she became Nidah, what forbids him to
(d) Answer (Chizkiyah): "U'Sehi Nidasah Alav".
(e) Question: That is an Ase - what is the Lav?
(f) Answer (Rav Papa): (The above verse) "Lo Sikrav";
1. "Sikrav" can also mean to separate, as we find
"Kerav Elecha Al Tigash Bi".
(g) (Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "V'Hizartem...mi'Tum'asam" -
this forbids a man to his wife shortly before her Vest.
(h) Question: How much in advance must he separate?
(i) Answer (Rabah): The night or day when she is due to
(j) (R. Yochanan): Anyone who do not separate from his wife
shortly before her Vest, even if his sons are like
Aharon's sons, they will die prematurely;
1. Right after "V'Hizartem...", it speaks of the death
of Aharon's sons.
(k) (R. Chiya bar Aba): Anyone who separates from his wife
shortly before her Vest, he will merit to have sons;
1. Just after "Lehavdil Bein ha'Tamei u'vein ha'Tahor",
it says "V'Yaldah Zachar".
(l) (R. Binyamin bar Yefes): Anyone who has relations
modestly, he will merit to have sons - it says
"V'Hiskadishtem vi'Hyisem Kedoshim", and (soon
afterwards) "V'Yaldah Zachar".
2. (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Such a person merits that
his children will be fit to give Halachic rulings -
(it says earlier, Vayikra 10:10-one)
3. (R. Chiya bar Aba): Anyone who makes Havdalah over
wine after Shabbos, he will merit to have sons - it
says (Vayikra 10:10) "Lehavdil Bein ha'Kodesh u'vein
ha'Chol", similar to "Lehavdil Bein ha'Tamei u'vein
ha'Tahor", which is followed by "V'Yaldah Zachar".
(a) (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): "Sheretz Tamei v'Nelam"...
(b) Question: R. Akiva agrees that he brings a sacrifice only
if he forgot the Tum'ah, about what do they argue?
(c) Answer #1 (Chizkiyah): Whether or not he must know what
made him Tamei.
1. R. Eliezer holds that he only brings a sacrifice if
he knows how he became Tamei, e.g. through a rodent
or a Neveilah; R. Akiva says, it suffices that he
knew that he became Tamei.
(d) Ula agrees with Chizkiyah.
(e) Question (Ula): Here, R. Eliezer says that he only brings
a sacrifice if he knows how he became Tamei;
1. Contradiction (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If a person
ate Chelev or Nosar (and is unsure which), either
way he must bring a Chatas! Likewise, if he did
Melachah on Shabbos or Yom Kipur, if he had
relations with a Nidah (his wife) or his sister (and
is unsure which), he brings a Chatas.
(f) Answer (Ula): Regarding (the Chatas of a commoner), it
says "Chata v'Havi" - he brings a Chatas whenever he
knows that he sinned (even if he does not know which sin
of Kares it was);
2. R. Yehoshua says "Hoda Elav Chataso Asher Chata Bah"
- he must know what he transgressed.
1. Regarding Tum'ah, it already said "B'Chol Davar
Tamei" - "O b'Nivlas Sheretz Tamei" is extra!
i. This teaches that he only brings a sacrifice if
he knows how he became Tamei (through a Sheretz
2. R. Akiva argues - since the verse had to mention
Behemah and Chayah to teach Rebbi's Gezeirah Shavah
(to reveal that the verse speaks of Tum'ah of the
Mikdash or Kodshim), it also mentioned Sheretz.
i. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): Any Parshah
in the Torah that was repeated, it is possible
that it only teaches one Chidush (we need not
expound every repeated word).