(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 14



(a) The Tzenu'os would prepare a third Eid means that, although it is permitted to use the same Eid before the next Tashmish as the one that she used before the previous Tashmish, the Tzenu'os would prepare a third Eid to use before the next Tashmish.

(b)&(c) If blood is found on his Eid, then it can only have come from her body at the time of Tashmish, no matter when he examines it. Consequently, blood on *his* Eid always means that they are Tamei. Not so on hers, where, unless the Bedikah takes place immediately after Tashmish, the blood may well have come only after Tashmish, and is therefore, at most, a Safek Tum'ah.

(d) If a bloodstain is found on his Eid, or on her's - immediately after the Tashmish, then they are both Tamei for seven days - she, because she is a Nidah, and he, because he was Bo'eil a Nidah.

(a) A bloodstain on her *Eid* has the Din of Vaday Tamei only if she already had the Eid in her hand at the end of Tashmish, and she then examined herself by wiping clean the outside of her body. That stage, is known as 'Osyum', which means immediately.

(b) After Osyum, is if she also inserts the Eid into her womb, and does a proper Bedikah. In that case, since it is possible that the blood came only in between the Tashmish and the Bedikah, they are only Tamei mi'Safek; they are not Chayav to bring a Korban (not even an Asham Taluy, as we shall see in the Gemara), and if they touch Terumah, it becomes Tamei, but is not burnt.

(a) Either we say that a louse will not go near the womb, because of the filth that gathers there, or because it cannot gain entry, because the womb is too tightly shut.

(b) According to the first explanation, even if one finds a squashed louse in the vicinity of the womb, we will not contend with the the blood of a louse; whereas according to the second explanation, the blood on the Eid may well be the blood of a louse, which the 'Amah' pushed in during Tashmish (see Tosfos d.h. 've'Leichush', as to whether the Gemara is asking that it should be a Safek and that they should at least be Patur from a Korban, or whether they should be completely Tahor).

(a) The Gemara concludes that if she wiped the cloth that had previously been examined, on her thigh, where she later discovered a bloodstain, she is Vaday Temei'ah. Why?
Because, since the cloth was previously examined, we can only assume that the blood came from her body.

(b) Rebbi Chiya later held that the cloth which had not been inspected, and on which she later found a bloodstain is not Vaday Tamei, but Safek, like that of a bloodstain.

(c) We know that this is what he held (in his younger years 'Tamei Vaday', and in his later years 'Safek'), because of the incident which the Gemara quotes, where Rebbi said 'Tamei', and Rebbi Chiya queried him and argued that it was Tamei because of Kesem (and not Tahor). And we presume that this argument took place when Rebbi Chiya was older, and therefore competent to argue with Rebbi - Consequently, in his younger years, he must have held 'Vaday Tamei'.

(d) Had the bloodstain been found, not on the cloth, but on the woman's thigh, then Rebbi Chiya (and probably even Rebbi) would have ruled that they were both Tahor. Why?
Because it would have been a double Safeik: Maybe the bloodstain did not come from the cloth at all, but from some external source, and even if it did, maybe it had already been there before Tashmish.




(a) Since Rebbi and Rebbi Chiya are arguing in a case when the cloth was not previously inspected, we have to contend with possibility that perhaps the blood which she found there was that of a louse. That is why Rebbi is Metamei them with a Din Vaday only if the bloodstain is more than the size of a Gris, to remove the possibility that perhaps it is the blood of a louse.

(b) When Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi asked Rebbi Chama bar Bisa whether he wanted to hear the ruling of Rebbi Yossi or of Rebbi regarding the above-mentioned Sha'aleh, he replied that he wanted to hear the ruling of Rebbi - which did not impress Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, because Rebbi Yossi was much greater and older than Rebbi - like a Rebbi to a Talmid.

(c) Rebbi Chama bar Bisa however, maintained, that Rebbi had the edge over Rebbi Yossi, because he was the Rosh Yeshivah (albeit of a later generation) and many Talmidei Chachamim would gather to his Beis Hamedrash, with the result that, through the power of the Rabim, they would arrive at the Halachah, in a way that Rebbi Yossi on his own, could not do.

(a) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi are arguing in a case of a woman who discovers blood in her urine. If she urinated in a sitting position, when the urine comes from its natural location - which does not coincide with that of the blood of Nidus - then even Rebbi Meir will agree that she is Tehorah.
However, if she urinated standing, Rebbi Meir contends that the urine, because of the difficulty it has in leaving her body, first flows back to the Mekor, the source of the blood of Nidus. Consequently, Rebbi Meir declares her Temei'ah - despite the fact that the blood may have come from the same source as the urine; (so too, does Rebbi declare her Temei'ah when she finds blood on the Eid that was not inspected, even though the blood may have been there earlier). Rebbi Yossi however, rules that they are Tahor in both cases (at least they are not Vaday Tamei - see Tosfos d.h. 've'Rebbi Yossi').

(b) The Gemara amends the statement of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina to read that Rebbi Meir is Metamei because of Nidah, and not because of Kesem.

(a) Our Tana does not mention the Chiyuv to bring an Asham Taluy in the case of Safek, in our Mishnah, because he holds that one only brings an Asham Taluy when there are two pieces, and he ate one of them. In our Mishnah, where there is only one piece, and not two, there is no Asham Taluy, even though it is a case of Safek Kares.

(b) Rav Chisda explains the Mishnah like this 'What is Achar Zeman'? (meaning 'Achar Achar') which the Chachamim do not even consider a Safek Tamei?
'When she descends from the bed before making her examination' (which is worse than just retrieving her Eid from under her cushion, which has the Din of a Safek Tum'ah). 'And that is the "Achar Kach" over which Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan argue'.

Rav Ashi however, maintains that the two above cases have the same Din. Consequently, he explains the Kashya 'What is the Achar Zeman - (which is a Safek Tum'ah)?'
And rhe Mishnah answers that it is one of two cases: either when the Eid is already in her hand, and she only needs to descend from the bed, or if she remains on the bed and only needs to retrieve the Eid from under her cushion. 've'Achar Kach' - But after this time, the Mishnah concludes, 'is a Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan'.

(c) The Gemara refutes Rav Ashi's explanation from a Beraisa, which describes the case of the woman descending from the bed as 'Achar Achar' (and is even less than a Safek) - like Rav Chisda, and not just as Achar (with the Din of a Safek), like Rav Ashi.

Had the Beraisa been referring exclusively to when she did not have the Eid in her hand either (in which case, even Rav Ashi would agree that it has a Din of 'Achar Achar'), then it should have specified so, in order that we should not think that, even if the Eid is already in her hand, the Rabbanan are Metaher.

Next daf


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