ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 7
(a) If someone walked down one of two paths, one of which is Tamei (because
it was built over a grave), and if he does not remember which one, he is
That cannot be the case referred to in the Beraisa of 'Chalasah Teluyah',
because even if he touched pure Chulin, it would be Tamei mi'Safek, so why
would the Beraisa need to tell us this by Chalah?
(b) 'Nish'an' (a Mishnah in Zavin) is when a Zav and a Tahor person are
unloading or loading a heavy load from or onto a donkey. We suspect that,
perhaps, due to the weight of the load, the one leaned against the other,
so that the Tahor person became Tamei be'Heset. Since this is only a
suspicion, it remains no more than a Chumra, which applies to Terumah, but
not to Chulin.
The Chidush in the Beraisa is that 'Chulin ha'Tavul le'Chalah' is
(a) A Tevul Yom, although a source of Tum'ah, is no more than a Sheini
(b) Chazal only forbade a case of Safek Tum'ah by 'Chulin ha'Tevulin
le'Chalah', where at least if it was Vaday Tamei, it would be Metamei
Chulin. Since a Tevul Yom is not Metamei Chulin (because a Sheini makes a
Shelishi, and there is no Shelishi by Chulin), Chazal were not strict by
'Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah' either.
(c) 'Mei'es Le'es she'be'Nidah' is not Metamei 'Chulin she'Na'asu Al
Taharas Terumah', because it contains no real Terumah or Chalah. But this
does not include 'Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah' which does.
Alternatively, we could say that, even if 'Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah'
*is* considered Chalah, Chazal did not decree by 'Mei'es Le'es
she'be'Nidah', because the whole institution of 'Mei'es Le'es she'be'Nidah'
is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and they confined their decree to *real* Terumah
and Chalah, not to 'Chulin she'Na'asu', and not even to 'Chulin ha'Tevulin
(a) Rebbi Eliezer says Dayah Sha'atah by a Besulah, a woman who is
pregnant, one who is feeding and by an old woman.
(b) A Besulah in this regard, is one who has never seen blood, even if she
is married - even if she saw blood because of marriage or birth.
(c) A woman is called pregnant in this regard, as soon as it is noticeable
that she is pregnant; and she is called a feeding mother - according to the
Mishnah - until she weans her baby.
(d) The Chachamim say Dayah Sha'atah up to twenty-four months (which
everyone agrees is the normal feeding period), whether she feeds the baby
(a) An old woman, according to the Mishnah, is a combination of old age and
when she has stopped seeing blood for three Onos (nine months).
(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer, we will say Dayah Sha'atah by any woman who
does not see blood for nine months.
(c) Rebbi Yossi holds three Onos by a pregnant and a feeding woman, unlike
Rebbi Eliezer and the Tana Kama, who agree that in the case of a pregnant
and a feeding woman, we say Dayah Sha'atah anyway.
(d) If a Besulah, pregnant woman, or an old woman see blood again for a
second time, after not seeing for three Onos, then she will be Metamei
Mei'es Le'es once more.
(e) This Chumra will not apply if she saw through something which happened
(through jumping , or because she was afraid or on account of something
which she ate), in which case we will still say Dayah Sha'atah; the next
time that she sees blood however, she will be Metamei retroactively, Mei'es
(a) Rebbi Eliezer did not understand how Rebbi Yehoshua could present as an
argument, the fact that he had only heard that we say Dayah Sha'atah by a
How can anyone anybody bring as a proof that what he did not hear? Whom do
we ask to come and testify in Beis-Din that they have seen the new moon-
someone who *has* seen it, or someone who hasn't? So surely, Rebbi Eliezer
maintained, since he had heard, and Rebbi Yehoshua had not, the Halachah
had to be like the one who *did* hear.
(b) Although Rebbi Yehoshua had already conceded in his (Rebbi Eliezer)'s
lifetime, that Rebbi Eliezer was right, he nevertheless did not want to
retract whilst he was still alive, for fear that if he did, people might
otherwise follow Rebbi Eliezer in other issues too - and, in deference to
Rebbi Eliezer, it would be difficult to stop them.
Now that Rebbi Eliezer was no longer alive, it would no longer be a problem
in telling the people that the Halachah was not like Rebbi Eliezer in other
matters (should they take their cue from the fact that Rebbi Yehoshua now
ruled like him in this matter).
In principle, the Halachah is not like Rebbi Eliezer, because he was a
Shamuti (in Cheirem. According to Tosfos, because he was from the school of
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua learnt from a Kal va'Chomer from a Tevul Yom, which is
not Metamei liquids, yet it is Metamei food, so the backs of vessels, which
*are* Metamei liquids, should certainly be Metamei foods.
To which Rebbi Eliezer replied that a Tevul-Yom is Metamei food Min
ha'Torah, whereas the back of a vessel is Metamei liquid only
mi'de'Rabbanan - and we cannot learn a de'Rabbanan from a d'Oraysa.
In spite of the fact that most of the Mishnahs themselves specifically
rule like Rebbi Eliezer, Shmuel found it necessary to issue this ruling,
because we do not necessarily abide by the rulings in the Mishnah. This is
because the Tana'im tended to pass on the Halachos that they received from
their Rebbes without scrutinizing them too carefully, whereas the Amora'im
- whose function it is to clarify the Mishnahs - were more meticulous in
(b) The reason for Chazal's decree that liquid should be Metamei vessels,
is a Gezeirah because of the liquids of a Zav and a Zavah (which are
Metamei vessels min ha'Torah).
(c) They restricted their decree to liquids, which are susceptible to
Tum'ah, inasmuch as they do not require Hechsher to become Tamei, whereas
(d) Even though Tamei liquid is Metamei the inside of a vessel only
mi'de'Rabbanan, Chazal were nevertheless lenient here with regard to a
vessel which became Tamei only via its back through a liquid ( i.e.not to
be Metamei food), but not via its inside. This is because we have a
precedent to be lenient when the vessel becomes Tamei via its back: namely
the Mishnah in Keilim, which rules that a vessel which became Tamei through
liquid via its back; its inside, its ear (by which it is hung on the wall
or in a cupboard), its rim and its handle all remain Tahor; whereas if its
inside became Tamei through liquid, the entire vessel is Tamei.