(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 6



(a) A bloodstained garment is Metamei retroactively up to the last time it was washed.

(b) Tum'as 'Heset' is just another name for Tum'as 'Masa' - carrying, or moving. 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 Zivus begin.
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).

2) 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 examination, retroactively.

3) 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 the Moshav).


(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 come.




(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 offering.

(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).

Next daf


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