ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 6
(a) A bloodstained garment is Metamei retroactively up to the last time it
According to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva, a woman is not Metamei the man
with whom she had relations within twenty-four hours, or since her last
(b) Tum'as 'Heset' is just another name for Tum'as 'Masa' - carrying, or
It is not possible to be Metamei a sealed earthenware vessel by touching
it, because the outside of an earthenware vessel cannot become Tamei - only
the inside; and the inside cannot receive Tum'ah when it is sealed.
(c) If a woman sees blood, then, in spite of the fact that we consider her
Temei'ah retroactively twenty-four hours, her calculation begins from the
moment that she sees: She counts seven days of Nidus (whether she sees
blood during that time or not) from that day, after which eleven days of
But when she finds a bloodstain on her clothes, she does not know when the
stain appeared, so her calculation is upset - she will not know exactly
which days she is in (Nidus or Zivus) until she has counted seventeen clean
days, when she begins her days of Nidus again, as we learnt in Erchin.
(d) Even though her calculations are spoilt, she only counts her seven days
and follows this by going to the Mikveh, from the day that she subsequently
sees blood (even if this is only a day or two later), and not from the day
that she discovered the bloodstain (see Tosfos).
Even though we assume that Rava knew the Beraisa (otherwise how would he
have known that an earthenware vessel is Mekabeil Tum'ah retroactively from
a Nidah), he nevertheless saw the need to learn Mishkav and Moshav from a
Kal va'Chomer (and was not satisfied to learn them too, from the Beraisa),
because from the Beraisa it is not clear that they are Metamei a person to
be Metamei the clothes that he is wearing; The Beraisa could mean that they
are Metamei the person, and they are Metamei his clothes as well, but not
that they are Metamei the person to be Metamei the clothes that he is
wearing (even though the clothes themselves did not touch the Mishkav or
(a) The Mishnah in Chomer ba'Kodesh deals only with cases where there is a
source of Tum'ah. A Mei'es Le'es she'be'Nidah, which she only saw now, does
not fall into the same category, since there is no real source , and is
therefore no more than a Chumra.
(b) Rav Huna will not learn the Mishnah later like Rav Chisda (who explains
that Rebbi Yehudah is concerned that the remains of the Terumah which she
ate, should not become Tamei retroactively - from which it is clear that
Mei'es Le'es she'be'Nidah concerns Terumah, too).
According to Rav Huna, Rebbi Yehudah is concerned with burning the remains
of the Terumah that she has just eaten, and has nothing to do with Mei'es
Le'es she'be'Nidah. He therefore changes the expression from 'Lo Nitzrecha
Ela *le'Saken* Shirayim *she'be'Faneha*' (to rectify - retroactively - the
leftovers of Terumah) - (used by Rav Chisda to explain Rebbi Yehudah), to
*'li'Serof* Shirayim *she'be'Yadeha*' - (to burn the remains of Terumah
that are in her hands.)
(a) When Rebbi said that Rebbi Eliezer is sufficiently competent that we
can rely on him in case of emergency, he could not have meant to say that
in reality, the Halachah is like the Chachamim, but we can nevertheless
rely on Rebbi Eliezer etc., because who gave Rebbi the authority to
overturn the existing ruling?
What he must therefore have meant is that, for some reason or other, the
Halachah had not been decided, and that therefore, although he really ought
to follow the majority opinion, Rebbi Eliezer was sufficiently competent to
rely on his opinion, in case of an emergency.
(b) The emergency was based on the current draught, which caused a shortage
of food, and for which reason Rebbi was looking not to be Metamei Taharos.
(c) This appears at first, to clash with Rav Huna, who stated that Mei'es
Le'es she'be'Nidah affects only Kodshim, but not Terumah. Now Terumah was
eaten in the times of Rebbi, but since when was Kodshim eaten then - many
years after the Churban Beis Hamikdash?
It appears that the Tena'im who lived in the Galil (and this includes
Rebbi, who lived in the Gallil, too), used to be Metaher their wine (for
the Nesachim) and oil (for the Menachos) and treat it like Kodesh - to be
ready to use for the Menachos and the Nesachim, in case the Mashi'ach would
(a) Rabban Gamliel's maidservant asked Rabban Gamliel whether, if, after
she had baked Terumah loaves, she discovered that she was Temei'ah, all the
loaves were Tamei or not. She did not accept his initial answer, because,
after baking each loaf, she had washed her hands and examined herself - to
which he replied that in that case, only the last loaf was Tamei (because
of 'Bein Pekidah li'Pekidah'), but the others were Tahor.
(b) The loaves concerned (according to the current contention) were not
really Terumah at all, but the 'Terumah' (the loaves that were separated)
from the Lachmei Todah.
(c) Normally, one would bake forty loaves, from which four, one from each
group of ten (three different types of Matzah loaves and one of Chameitz)
and present it to the Kohen - in the Beis Hamikdash, as part of the Todah
(d) Rabban Gamliel's maidservant however, followed a procedure which is
only Kasher Be'dieved: namely, to prepare and bake the dough for the Matzah
loaves in one dough, and the Chameitz loaves in another, and to separate
the equivalent amount of dough for the Kohen's loaves before baking them.
(a) Rabban Gamliel's maidservant did not ask a second time - because it was
a different maidservant who posed the second Sha'alah?
(b) Rav Huna proves that there is no difference between Hekdesh and
Terumah, because it is not mentioned in the Mishnah in Chomer ba'Kodesh,
among the Ma'alos of Hekdesh over Terumah.
(c) When the Beraysa writes 'le'Kodesh ve'Lo li'Terumah, it means that the
Chumra of 'Mei'es Le'es' applies only to 'Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas
Kodesh', but not to 'Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah'. It does
however, apply to Terumah.
(a) Before the dough has been kneaded, it is not yet eligible for Chalah -
i.e. it is plain Chulin, and there is no prohibition in causing Chulin in
Eretz Yisrael to become Tamei. Whereas after the kneading, the dough is now
Tavul le'Chalah, and it is forbidden to cause Chalah to become Tamei.
(b) The Torah writes, with regards to Terumah (a term which incorporates
Chalah) "Es Mishmeres Terumo*sai*" - in the plural, to teach us that there
are two kinds of Terumah which need to be guarded; Terumah Tehorah and
Terumah Teluyah (Safek Terumah).