(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 34



(a) Chazal deliberately left the blood of the gentiles Tahor to serve as a a reminder that the Tum'ah of gentiles is only de'Rabbanan, etc., as we explained earlier.

(b) When it comes to a Metzora'as, we are speaking about a d'Oraysa, not a de'Rabbanan. The definition of a Ma'ayan of a Metzora is when the liquid gathers and rolls out - blood, which flows, is therefore not included in the Ma'ayanos.

(c) Beis Hillel hold that both the blood of a gentile, and that of a Metzora'as are Metamei (one mi'd'Oraysa, and the other de'Rabbanan), when it is wet, but not when it is dry, just like their spittle and urine.
The mere fact that the blood of a gentile woman is Metamei only when it is wet (unlike the blood of a Jew, which is Metamei even when it is dry), serves as the required reminder.
And with regard to the blood of the Dam Taharah of a Metzora'as, even though blood is not a Ma'ayan, as we explained earlier, nevertheless, the Torah included her blood, to give it the Din of a Ma'ayan.

(a) According to Beis Shamai, the blood after seven days, but before she has Toveled, is Tahor mi'd'Oraysa (because Dam Tohar is determined by days, and not by Tevilah). The Rabbanan however, decreed Tum'ah, not entirely, like during the seven days, but when it is wet, as a reminder not to burn Terumah and Kodshim.

(b) Beis Hillel maintain that before a woman has Toveled, she is Temei'ah mi'd'Oraysa, even after seven days, because Dam Tohar, according to them, is determined by Tevilah, as well as by days. Consequently, her blood is Metamei even when it is dry, in the same way as it is during the seven days.

(a) Chazal decreed Tum'as Zavin on all gentiles so as to avoid Jewish children having contact with them - simce that might lead to homosexuality.

(b) Chazal figured that, if they were to decree on the blood of gentiles when it is wet, then people might do likewise to the blood of a Jewish woman, to say that it is Tamei only when it is wet, but not when it is dry - and that would be wrong.

(c) Since they arranged the reminder by a gentile women's blood, it was no longer necessary to do so by her spittle and urine as well.

(a) The Keri of a gentile is Tahor even according to Beis Hillel, as a reminder that his Tum'ah is only de'Rabbanan, which is why his Zivus is Tamei even according to Beis Shamai, because they made the reminder by his Keri.

(b) Chazal made the reminder by Keri, because it comes through his acts, unlike Zivus, which comes automatically.

(c) The Gemara tries to prove that Chazal did not decree Tum'ah by a gentile's Keri, from the Beraisa, which states that the Keri of a gentile inside a Jewess is Tahor.
However, the proof is inadequate, since the Beraisa could well mean Tahor d'Oraysa, but Tamei de'Rabbanan.

(d) But the proof from the second Beraysa is conclusive, because after writing that the Zera of a gentile is Tahor everywhere etc., it adds 'except for his urine. Now the urine of a gentile is only Metamei de'Rabbanan, so we will have to learn that his Zera is even Tahor mi'de'Rabbanan too.




(a) The Beraisa, which declares the Zera of a Jew Tamei even when it is inside a gentile woman, is speaking within three days, where even Rav Papa agrees that it is Tamei. *He* is speaking about the Zera that emerges *after* three days, which is Tahor by a Jewess.

(b ) Do we say that it is inside the body of a Jewess, whose body becomes hot from the worry of the Mitzvos, that the Zera becomes putrid, but not inside the body of a gentile? Or perhaps the Zera becomes putrid even inside the body of a gentile woman, because her body becomes hot from the insects etc., that she eats.

(a) Beis Hillel learn from "la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah" written by Metzora, to include the Ma'ayanos of a Metzora and a Metzora'as respectively.

(b) The Ma'ayanos of the Metzara'as cannot be referring to her spittle and urine, because we would know them from a Metzora.

(c) Beis Shamai maintains that we cannot learn the Ma'ayanos of a Metzora'as from those of a Metzora, because we find a Chumra by a Metzora (that he is obligated to tear his clothes and to let his hair grow long, and also that, during one period of his Tzara'as, he is forbidden to be with his wife. Neither of these applies to a Metzora'as.
Consequently, we need "ve'la'Nekeivah" to teach us that her spittle and the urine are Metamei, and we have no Pasuk for her blood.

(d) Beis Hillel therefore explain that it is not the Ma'ayanos of a Metzora'as which we learn from those of a Metzora; on the contrary, we learn the Ma'ayanos of a Metzora from those of a Metzora'as (with a Kal va'Chomer, since a man has stricter Dinim, as we explained earlier). And it is "la'Zachar" which is superfluous, and from which we now learn 'Im Eino Inyan' to teach us those liquids of a Zavah which are not included in her Ma'ayanos - i.e. her blood.

(a) Beis Shamai argue that we cannot learn even a Metzora from a Metzora'as, because a woman is more stringent regarding the Din of Zivus, where she is Metam'ah by Ones, whereas a man is not.
Beis Hillel contends that we cannot use the Chumros of a Zav to refute a Kal va'Chomer by Metzora, but according to Beis Shamai, as long as it is a Chumra connected with Tum'ah, we can use it.

(b) Beis Shamai learn from "la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah" that Tzara'as applies even to a Katan or a Ketanah, respectively (much in the same way as Rebbi Yishmael Be'no shel Yochanan ben Berokah by Zav above on Daf 33b).

(c) Beis Hillel learn that from "Zos Toras ha'Zav".

(a)"Zos Toras ha'Zav" etc. seems to compare the sighting of a Zav to that of a Ba'al Keri.

Consequently, Resh Lakish asks whether a Katan will be Metamei with the first sighting of Zivus from this Hekesh or not. On the one hand, he is not Metamei if he sees Keri; on the other, should he see another sighting of Zivus, the first sighting will combine retroactively with it, to make him a Zav. So perhaps that first sighting should be Metamei as soon as he sees (like a Ba'al Keri, and not like a Zav).

(b) This Sha'aleh will not apply to a Gadol, whose Keri is also Metamei, so that the Hekesh certainly teaches us to compare the first sighting of a Zav to a sighting of Keri.

(c) The Beraisa says 'Zos Toras ha'Zav, Bein Katan Bein Gadol'.

Next daf


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