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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nidah 5



(a) The Kesem of one of the four women about whom Chazal said Dayan Sha'atan, is Metamei from the time that it is found, because since the Din of seeing retroactively does not apply to the woman with regard to actually seeing blood, they did not want to make the Din of a Kesem more stringent in this regard than that of the actual sighting of blood (bearing in mind that Kesamim are only mi'de'Rabbanan).
But the Kesem of a woman who *does* have periods of Mei'es Le'es, is Metamei retroactively (even at a time when she has a Veses, and 'Dayah Sha'atah' applies).

(b) Rebbi Meir says that even the Kesamim of the four women, are Metamei retroactively.

(c) The Kesem of a girl who has not reached the age of seeing blood, is not Metamei at all.

(d) The age of seeing blood is 'Yemei Ne'urim' (twelve).

2) Once a girl reaches the age of twelve, she is Temei'ah, even through a Kesem.


(a) Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel that one cannot rely on an Eid before Tashmish, to detract from the twenty-four hours or from the time of the last examination, because she is too excited to examine properly.

(b) 'ha'Meshameshes be'Eidim' (in the plural), refers, not to the Eidim before and after Tashmish, but to the man's and the woman's Eid - both before Tashmish.

(c) The Chidush in 'Eidim' is not that the Eid before Tashmish helps to detract from Mei'es Le'es, but that she is obligated to examine herself before Tashmish.
The text therefore, must be changed from 'ha'Meshameshes be'Eidim' to 'Meshameshes be'Eidim'.

4) Logically speaking, if 'Eidim' can detract from a period of twenty-four hours (Mei'es Le'es), then it should certainly detract from a period of twelve hours (mi'Pekidah li'Pekidah). Nevertheless, the Mishnah saw fit to tell us this, because we may have thought that the Rabbanan relied on 'Eidim' in this context only in order to avoid having to throw away Taharos. Consequently, for a period of twenty-four hours in retrospect, but not for such a short period as twelve hours.




(a) The Mishnah mentions the bed by the case of Dayah Sha'atah, so that we should infer that only by a woman by whom we say 'Dayah Sha'atah' is the bed Tahor; But by a woman who is Temei'ah Mei'es Le'es, the bed too, is Tamei Mishkav - to render Tamei, even people - to be Metamei the clothes that they are wearing, which is precisely what Zeiri said.

(b) At first, the Gemara thought that our Mishnah must be speaking in a case when the woman's friends were carrying her on the bed, and it is, of course, possible to ask the women whether she was Tamei or not. But the Gemara concludes that it is not necessary to say this, because Rebbi Yochanan has already taught us that any Safek Tum'ah which was caused by a human being - even if he was not actually dealing with the object that is Tamei, is included in the category of something which has the knowledge to ask, whose Safek is Tamei in the Reshus ha'Yachid.

(c) An example of something which cannot ask, and which is therefore Tahor, even in a Reshus ha'Yachid, is a dead Sheretz which is lying on the ground, next to Tahor vessels, and we do not know whether the Sheretz touched the vessels before it died, or not.

(a) The case of the Beraisa which deals with the person putting on his cloak next to a Sheretz etc., speaks specifically in a Reshus ha'Rabim, which is why they are Tahor; in a Reshus ha'Yachid, they would indeed be Tamei, just like Rebbi Yochanan said.

(b) When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that we tell the man 'Shanei'!, he meant to say that we tell him to put on his cloak again, and see whether he touches the Taharos or the Sheretz this time; if it does, then we assume that it did so last time as well, and if not, then we assume that it did not.

(c) The Rabbanan maintain that making him put on his cloak again proves nothing, because, even if it did touch this time, it does not necessarily mean that it touched the first time, or vice-versa.

(a) When the Beraisa says 'Mei'es Le'es she'be'Nidah, Mishkavah u'Moshavah *ke'Maga'ah*', 'ke'Maga'ah' means like someone who touches her - just like someone who touches her becomes Tamei, even to make Tamei the clothes that he is wearing, so too, will the bed that she lies on (and the chair that she sits on), be Metamei retroactively within twenty-four hours, to be Metamei the person who lies (or sits) on it, to be Metamei the clothes that he is wearing.

(b) 'ke'Maga'ah' cannot mean, as we at first thought it did, like something (an object) which she touched - which *is not* Metamei a person. Why not? Because if sealed earthenware vessels, which are spared from Tum'ah if they are under the same roof as a corpse, are not spared from the Din of 'Mei'es le'es she'be'Nidah', beds and chairs (etc.), which are not spared from Tum'ah when they are under the same roof as a corpse, should certainly not be spared from the Din of Mei'es Le'es she'be'Nidah'.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,