(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 35



(a) The first sighting of a Zav is not Metamei be'Masa, because it is compared to Keri, which is never Metamei be'Masa.

(b) The second sighting of a Zav is Metamei anyway (from the Pasuk "Zovo Tamei Hu").

(c) The Sha'aleh of the Gemara is, whether the first sighting of Zivus of a Metzora is Metamei be'Masa or not. Is the Zivus of a Metzora considered a Ma'ayan of the Zav or not?

(a) We do not need "Zovo Tamei Hu" to teach us that regular Zivus is Metamei be'Masa. Why not?
Because if it causes the person who emitted it to be Metamei be'Masa, then it should certainly itself be Metamei be'Masa!

(b) The Sa'ir ha'Mishtalei'ach renders the one who carries it outside the camp Tamei, despite the fact that it itself, is not Tamei. So why should we not say in the same manner, that the Zivus is not Metamei be'Masa, despite the fact that it renders the person Tamei Masa without being Metamei Masa itself?

(c) According to Rav Yosef, the Torah teaches the Ma'ayanos of a Metzora and a Metzora'as from "la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah" (written by the second sighting of a Zav), in order to compare the first sighting (of Zivus) of a Metzora, from the second sighting of Zivus. So we see, that the Torah *does* consider the Makom Zivus of a Metzora to be a Ma'ayan ha'Zav. What then, is Rav Yosef's Sha'aleh?

(a) The second sighting of a Zav is not Tamei if it is seen be'Ones. The first sighting however, is, due to the fact that the Torah compares it to Keri, which always comes be'Ones.

(b) 'Bodkin Oso' therefore, which means that we examine the Zav to see whether the Zivus came through one of the seven kinds of Ones, is not in order to ascertain Tum'ah, since he is Tamei anyway; but to ascertain whether or not, to add the first sighting to the subsequent two, to obligate him to bring a Korban.

(c) 'Bodkin Oso' by the second sighting, cannot be referring to a Korban, since there is no Korban by a Zav until the third sighting.

(d) There is no reason why we should not say that the Seifa of the Beraisa (which deals with the second sighting) speaks about Tum'ah, and the Reisha (which speaks about the first sighting), about a Korban.

(a) The Rabbanan Darshen "ha'Zav" 1. "(es)Zovo" 2. "la'Zachar (ve'La'Nekeivah)" 3. - comparing a Zav to a Zavah from the third time and onwards; to teach us that from the third time and onwards a Zav has the Din of a Zavah, to be Metamei even be'Ones (to bring a Korban).
But Rebbi Eliezer Darshens the "Es" of "Es Zovo", to teach us that there is no Din Ones until the fourth sighting.

(b) Tum'ah was already effective from the second sighting, and Korban from the third, so the Chidush of the fourth sighting coming through an Ones, can only be teaching us that if he sees Zivus during the seven clean days, he must start counting all over again - no matter that he saw be'Ones.

(c) A Zav is more lenient than a Ba'al Keri, inasmuch as it is not Metamei be'Ones, like a Ba'al Keri is.
And his Din is stricter when it comes to Mishkav and Moshav, which is Metamei by a Zav, but not by a Ba'al Keri.
The Beraisa cannot be referring to the first sighting of a Zav, because the first sighting of a Zav is not Metamei Mishkav and Moshav.



5) Keri is emitted from a live limb, is cohesive, and resembles the white of an egg which is not fit to germinate.
Zivus, which looks like the water of a barley-dough, is emitted from a dead limb, and is runny.


(a) If a Nidah were to Tovel, she would still remain Temei'ah, which is why her blood is Temei'ah too. Whereas if a Yoledes after fourteen days were to Tovel, she would be Tehorah. That is why, according to Beis Shamai, we can declare the blood of the latter, Tehorah - even though she has not yet Toveled.

(b) Beis Shamai maintain that a Yoledes be'Zov is not a precedent, because there too (just like by a Yoledes), her blood is Tehorah, even though she did not yet Tovel.

(c) Beis Shamai agree with Beis Hillel, that the *blood* of a Yoledes be'Zov, is Temei'ah, when she failed to count seven clean days (*They* are speaking when she did).

(d) The Chidush of Beis Shamai is that, although by a regular Yoledes, her blood is Metamei only like her spittle and urine, to be Metamei wet, but not dry; the blood of a Yoledes be'Zov is Metamei both dry and wet.

(a) Levi holds that after the seven days of Tum'ah for a boy, or the fourteen days of Tum'ah for a girl, the Ma'ayan of Tum'ah close, and the Ma'ayan of Taharah opens.
According to Rav, should the woman continue to see from the period of Tum'ah into that of Taharah, she is Tehorah, since that is what the Torah decreed. But according to Levi, she will be Temei'ah, since the Ma'ayan of Tum'ah had not yet closed. And the same principle will apply at the end of the forty or eighty days of Taharah into the days of Nidus - according to Levi, her Ma'ayan of Taharah has not yet closed, whereas according to Rav, she will now become Temei'ah.

(b) If the Yoledes stopped seeing blood (as one would normally expect), after the days of Tum'ah, why, according to Levi, should she be Temei'ah - according to Beis Hillel, even if she did fail to Tovel - seeing as the Ma'ayan of Tum'ah has closed, and that of Taharah has opened?

(c) The Gemara answers that the Beraisa speaks in the unusual case when her Ma'ayan did not close, and she continued to see from the days of Tum'ah into the days of Taharah.

(a) Levi concedes that, according to Beis Shamai, there is only one Ma'ayan for the days of Tum'ah and the days of Taharah, and the Torah decrees that when the days of Taharah arrive, the woman is Tehorah - like Rav.

(b) According to Rav, Beis Hillel is Metamei the blood of a Yoledes who did not Tovel, despite the fact that there is only one Ma'ayan, because they hold that the Torah requires both days and Tevilah before the blood can become Tahor (whereas, according to Beis Shamai, it depends upon the days exclusively).

(c) Beis Shamai holds that, in the case of a Yoledes, *the days* of Tum'ah alone will suffice, since nothing more than the days is necessary for the Tum'ah to pass. A Yoledes be'Zov however, is different, because it also requires the counting of seven clean days. Therefore, the Beraisa needs to inform us that Beis Shamai concedes that, after the days of Tum'ah, a Yoledes be'Zov will be Temei'ah whenever she sees blood , until she has counted seven clean days.

(a) The Pasuk "Devosah" is speaking about a Yoledes, and it comes to teach us that 1. she is Metamei her Bo'eil like a Nidah; 2. she is Temei'ah for seven days and nights; 3. a Yoledes be'Zov, is obligated to count seven clean days.

(b) According to Levi, who holds that there are two Ma'ayanos, why should she require seven clean days? As soon as the days of Tum'ah terminate, she should not need more than a very short period to break between the days of Tum'ah and the days of Taharah?

(c) What the Beraisa means, answers the Gemara, is that she needs a slight break, and that will enable her to complete her seven clean days - even if she sees during that time, since what she sees will be Dam Tohar.

Next daf


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