ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 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.
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.
(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
(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.
'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
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 -
(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.