(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 41



(a) Rebbi Shimon cannot be referring to a Yotzei Dofen of Bechor, because we know already, from "Peter Rechem" that it is not subject to Bechor, so why would we need to learn it again from "Zos"?

(b) Kodshim is different! *There* we need two Pesukim: we need the Gezeirah Shavah of "Imo" "Imo", to teach us that a Yotzei Dofen of *Chulin* cannot become Kadosh, and we need "Zos" to teach us that a Yotzei Dofen *Hekdesh* animal has the Din of Kodshim which were preceded by a Mum, and which must therefore come down from the Mizbei'ach.

(c) It is logical to establish the Beraisa by animals which are already Hekdesh, because otherwise, why would we need "Zos" to preclude animals whose Pesul preceded their Kedushah (such as Rovei'a and Nirva)? Have we not already precluded all of these from Pesukim such as "Min ha'Beheimah", "Min ha'Bakar" and "Min ha'Tzon" etc.?

(a) An animal which raped a human or which was raped by a human, cannot become Hekdesh. Our Beraisa is speaking about a case where the animal was Kadosh first and raped or was raped, only afterwards.

(b) Muktzeh and Ne'evad are speaking by Kodshim Kalim - according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, in whose opinion Kodshim Kalim are the property of the owner.

(c) The case of Esnan and Mechir speaks when the man gave them to the woman or to the seller when they were still in the stomach of the mother (Rashi writes of *Kodshim Kalim*, but it is not clear why - see Maharsha), and this Tana will have to hold that babies of Kodshim become Kadosh only *after* they are born.

3) A Nogei'ach, a Rovei'a and a Nirva are permitted to a Hedyot when there is only one witness, or even if the owner himself was the one to testify, because then, the animal is not killed.

4) 'Kil'ayim' is the child of two different animals (e.g. a sheep and a goat), and resembles one of them; whereas a 'Nidmeh' is where the cild is of a different species that the parents (who are of the same species - goats, shall we say, and the child is a lamb).


(a) Rebbi Shimon holds that a Yoledes via the Dofen, be'Zov - is Tehorah if she has pains for three days prior to the birth (just like by an ordinary birth). But according to the Rabbanan, who do not consider a Yotzei Dofen to be a birth, she will be a Zavah.

(b) Rebbi Shimon maintains that a baby born via the Dofen is a regular birth. Why then, in the Seifa, if the blood emerged from the same place as the baby (as would appear from the wording) should he consider the blood Tahor? On the contrary, it should be Tamei? (And the same Kashya but in the reverse, will apply to the Chachamim).

(c) Ravina tries to answer that the Seifa speaks when the baby was born from a cut, but the blood emerged from the womb be'Koshi (three days with pain during the days of Zivus). Rebbi Shimon declares her Tahor, because she is a Yoledes be'Koshi, and the Rabbanan render her a Zavah, since it is not a Leidah.

(d) Rav Yosef rejects Ravina's explanation for two reasons: Firstly, that is exactly the same as their Machlokes in the Reisha? And secondly, 've'Dam ha'Yotzei *Misham*' implies that the blood emerged from the cut, and not from the womb?
Rav Yosef therefore, learns the Machlokes when the blood emerged from the cut together with the baby, in which case, everyone agrees that, since it did not emerge from the womb, it is not Metamei because of a sighting. They argue however, over whether the blood which touched the womb is Metamei (for one day) because it touched the womb, or not. The Rabbanan hold that it is, whereas Rebbi Shimon maintains that it is not.




(a) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that, although the blood that emerges with the Yotzei Dofen is Tamei - according to the Rabbanan - the woman remains Tehorah.
And he derives it from the Pasuk "ve'Ish Asher Yishkav es Ishah *Davah, es Mekorah* He'erah.", which teaches us that a woman is Temei'ah only when the blood emerges directly from the womb.

(b) If even a part of the womb falls onto the ground, whoever touches it is Temei'ah (presumably this is according to the Chachamim quoted earlier, in whose opinion the womb is Metamei even blood which, after touching it from the inside, emerged through a cut). And the same applies to two drops of white, liquid blood found on the womb, which render the woman Temei'ah - two, but not one, because one drop may have come from somewhere else, and not from the womb.

(c) The former Din is learnt from a Pasuk which regards the womb as an Ervah, even after it has fallen out, and the latter, because it touched the womb before it emerged, (presumably) to become a Rishon le'Tum'ah.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the part of the womb that shows when a little girl sits is considered open (and not a Beis ha'Starim) - so much so, that, even if a Sheretz were to touch her there, she would be Temei'ah.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Bein ha'Shinayim itself is considered to be inside the womb.

(c) 'Mekom Dishah' means as far as the Eiver penetrates, and that is all included in the Beis ha'Chitzon.

(a) From "Zovah bi'Vesarah", we learn that also the blood of a Zavah is Metamei before it has emerged.

(b) And from "Yihye", that the same applies to the Zera of a man which the woman is Poletes.

(a) Rebbi Shimon himself learns from "ve'Rachatzu ba'Mayim" etc., that the Zera of a man is Metamei inside a woman, despite the fact that, inside the man, it is considered 'Tum'as Beis ha'S'tarim' - from which we see, that Rebbi Shimon does not hold of 'Dayah ke'Bo'alah'?

(b) The Gezeiras ha'Kasuv of "ve'Rachatzu" etc., applies to a Meshameshes (a woman who had Tashmish), but not to one who is only Poletes.

(c) Of course every Poletes is Temei'ah on account ofTashmish, es well; but that is *before* Tevilah! Rebbi Shimon is speaking of a Poletes who has already Toveled, and it is she who, Rebbi Shimon argues, should be Tahor - ke'Bo'alah!

(d) Rava is speaking about a woman who turned round on the bed, which was cause her to be exude Zera; whereas Rebbi Shimon (and the Rabbanan) are speaking about a woman who remained in bed and who was subsequently Toveled together with the bed. In that case, it is *not* inevitable for her to have been Poletes, and her Tevilah will therefore enable her to eat Terumah the night after she Tovels..

(a) If the woman would have walked after Tashmish, then she might have exuded the Zera before she Toveled, and the Tevilah will be effective, because Rava's statement (that she is bound to exude within three days) is no longer effective).

(b) However, even if she remained in bed, the Tevilah will be effective if they Tovel her together with the bed, provided she has not turned over, as we explained earlier.

(c) Rava is referring to the Pasuk which writes "ve'Rachatzu ba'Mayim, ve'Tam'u ad ha'Erev", implying that she can Tovel on the same day, and eat Terumah that night. And it is that Pasuk which Rava came to qualify, when he said that that only applies provided she does not turn over in bed. Alternatively, Rashi explains that Rava speaks when she turned over during Tashmish, in which case the Zera will not take root properly, and it is then that Rava makes his statement (that it is impossible for the Zera not to exude for the entire three-day period); whereas if she does not turn over during Tashmish, the Zera will take root, and will continue to exude on an ongoing basis.

Next daf


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