ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Introduction to NidahNidah 2
(a) 'Kol ha Nashim, Dayan Sha'atan' means that when a woman sees blood she
is Temei'ah from that moment and onwards - and not retroactively.
(b) Hillel holds that the woman is Temei'ah retroactively since her last
examination - as far as Terumah and Taharos is concerned.
(c) According to the Chachamim, she is Temei'ah retroactively, but only
going back twenty-four hours, unless she examined herself within that time,
in which case they agree with Hillel, that she is only Temei'ah from then
(a) A woman with a Veses means that her period arrives at regular
intervals, in which case, everyone agrees that Dayah Sha'atah.
Hillel disagrees with the theory of Chezkas Taharah in this case, because,
since the Tum'ah comes from her body at regylar intervals - i.e. she is
bound to see from time to time, we cannot place her on a Chazakah of being
(b) 'Eidim' is the name given to the cloths a woman uses to examine herself
before and after Tashmish.
A woman who used 'Eidim' has the same Din as one who made a regular
examination, and it detracts from the twenty-four hours that she would
otherwise be Temei'ah retroactively.
(c) Even in the cases when the woman is Temei'ah retroactively, her period
of Nidus nevertheless begins only from the time that she sees blood.
(a) In a case of Vaday Tum'ah, one burns the Terumah that has been touched
by the Tum'ah, whereas in a case of Safek Tum'ah, one declares it Tamei,
but does not burn it.
(b) We know that the Mishnah of Mikveh means Vaday Tamei, since it rules
that the Taharos are Tamei, even in a public domain - (had it been only
Safek Tamei, we would have applied the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus
(c) The difference between a Nidah who sees blood and a Mikveh which is
found to be short of water, is that the Mikveh has *two* shortcomings (the
Mikveh, which is now short of water, and the person or the vessels which
had a Chezkas Tum'ah at the time when they were Toveled), which explains
why it is Vaday Tamei according to both Hillel and Shamai; whilst in the
case of the Nidah, there is only *one* (that there is now blood in front of
us), and that is why Shamai considers her to be Tehorah and Hillel only
(a) If he discovers that his barrel of wine became sour, then for the first
three days after his last examination we assume it to have still been good
wine; but, from then on, it is Safek vinegar (and he can not rely on the
Ma'asros that he separated during that period) - according to Rebbi
Yehoshua ben Levi, the three days prior to his discovery, the wine is
considered to have been definite vinegar, but before then, it is only a
(b) Whatever the case, this seems to clash with Shamai, in whose opinion we
should place the wine on a Chazakah, and say that it only turned into
vinegar now, when he discovered that it was sour.
(c) The Gemara resolves the problem as it did earlier, by differentiating
between the case of the barrel of wine, where there are two shortcomings
(the fact that it is now vinegar, and the fact that the Tevel which he is
attempting to rectify with the contents of the barrel, has a Chezkas
Tevel). Whereas in the case of our Mishnah, there is only one shortcoming;
that explains why, according to Shamai, we are stringent by the barrel of
Terumah, and lenient by the Nidah.
(d) And the reason that we consider the barrel to be only a Safek Tevel
retroactively, whereas in the case of Mikveh, all the Taharos are Vaday
Tamei, despite the fact that in both cases, there are two shortcomings, is
no discrepancy either, because the author of the Mishnah concerning the
barrel of Terumah is Rebbi Shimon, who learns, even in the case of Mikveh,
that it is only Safek Tamei.