ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 32
(a) Rebbi Meir concedes that, we do not follow the minority when it is very
small ('a Mi'uta de'Mi'uta').
Ordinary Jews conform with the Derashah of "ve'Ishah", from which we
derived earlier that a woman is Temeiah Nidah the moment that she is born,
so it is not necessary to treat the babies of ordinary Jews as Nidos from
(b) No! Tum'as Chutz la'Aretz only applies to the categories of Tum'ah
which come from a person's body, but not to those which one contracts
through physical contact.
(c) Rav Yosef required the baby girl to Tovel, not in order to eat Terumah,
but in order to be anointed with it, since we rule 'Sichah ki'Shesiyah'-
anointing (as far as Terumah is concerned) is like drinking.
(d) "ve'Lo Yechalalu es Kodshei Benei Yisrael" - is a warning to guard
Terumah against Tum'ah; and "Asher Yarimu la'Hashem" is superfluous, to
teach us that anointing is like drinking (since we already know that
drinking is like eating).
It is only the daughters of the Kutim where this is necessary, because they
do not adhere to the Derashos of Chazal, and that includes "ve'Ishah".
(a) The minimum age of Bi'ah for a girl is three, but Nidus from the moment
they are born.
(b) The 'Vav' of "ve'Ishah" comes to include a baby of even one day, since
where is three years hinted there? Consequently, the three years regarding
the age of Bi'ah can only be an Asmachta, not really learnt from that
Pasuk, as the Gemara originally thought.
(c) No! the three years of Bi'ah for a girl are not mi'de'Rabbanan
(although that is what is normally implied by 'Asmachta'). But not here,
since they are actually from a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
(a) We now learn from "ve'Ishah" (in Pasuk 18) to preclude a man from
becoming Tamei when he sees red (in other words, seeing red is a Tum'ah
confined to women).
(b) A girl of less than ten days old cannot become a Zavah, since she first
has to have been a Nidah (seven days), after which she only becomes a Zavah
after seeing blood for three consecutive days.
(c) We cannot learn that a baby is Metamei Zivus after it is born from
Nidus, because Nidus has a stringency, that does not pertain to Zivus;
namely, that a Nidah is Tamei for seven days the first time she sees,
whereas a Zavah, only from the third time.
(a) Once we know that a baby girl can become a Zavah just after she is
born, it follows immediately that she can also become a Nidah. Why?
Because a Zavah only becomes a Zavah after she has been a Nidah, as we
(b) From the superfluous 'Vav' of "ve'Ishah", we again preclude a man from
becoming Tamei when he sees Odem.
(c) From the one Pasuk we exclude blood, and from the other, red Keri.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Ish, Ish" that a baby boy is Metamei
be'Zivus the moment he is born.
We need independent Derashos to teach us that Tum'as Zivah applies to a
baby boy, and that Nidus and Zivus apply to a baby girl. We cannot learn
one from the other, because each one has a Chumra over the other: We could
not learn a girl from a boy, because a man becomes a Zav whenever he sees
three time, even within three days, whereas a woman only becomes a Zavah if
she sees on three consecutive days.
(b) As we said earlier by a girl, that the Bi'ah of a nine-year old boy is
considered a Bi'ah, is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai - the Pasuk is no more
than an Asmachta.
(c) From the 'Vav' of "ve'Ish", we preclude a woman from Tum'ah if she sees
(d) Rebbi Yishmael Be'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah learns from
"la'Zachar ve'La'Nekeivah" that a boy and a girl respectively, are subject
to Zivus from the day they are born.
From "Ish Ish" he derives nothing, because, he maintains, Dibrah Torah
ki'Leshon Benei Adam.
Nor can we learn a boy from a girl, because women are Metam'ah even be'Ones
(due to something that they did), whereas a man is not.
(a) We would not require a Mishnah to tell us that what is underneath a
Bo'eil Nidah - even ten sheets - becomes Tamei. That is obvious, since
whatever a Zav leans his weight on, is Tamei Medras.
(b) 'Tachton ke'Elyon' therefore has to mean that what is underneath a
Bo'eil Nidah' has the same Din as what is on top of a Zav - i.e. to be
Metamei only food and drink, but not people and vessels.
(c) We learn this out from the Pasuk "ve'Chol ha'Nogei'a be'Chol Asher
Yihye Tachtav, Yitma".
In fact, we invert the Pasuk to read "ha'Nogei'a be'Chol Asher Yihye
(ha'Zav) Tachtav" ('whatever the Zav is under', instead of 'whatever is
under the Zav'). The Torah has removed the covers of a Zav from the regular
stringencies of Zivus, to be Metamei food and drink, but not people and
(d) The word "Yitma" implies a very light Tum'ah, so we take the leniency
to its extreme.