(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 56



(a) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon explains that it is logical to include the spittle in the Din of Tum'as Zov, and to exclude the blood (rather than vice-versa), because spittle gathers (similar to Zov) before coming out, unlike blood, which just flows freely.

(b) The milk of a Zavah does gather before it flows out, yet it is not Metamei, because, unlike spittle (which is the source from which we learn other fluids), it cannot be re-absorbed into the body.

(c) We prefer to learn the milk of a Zavah from her spittle than from the Zov of a Zav, because the Zov is different, since it renders the Zav Tamei.

(a) It is only *a part* of a Sheretz which is only Metamei wet and not dry; a whole Sheretz is Metamei even when it is dry.

(b) "Bahem" tells us that a whole Sheretz is Metamei, whereas "Meihem" tells us that even a part of one is Metamei. Chazal explain that "Bahem" speaks when the Sheretz is dry, and "Meihem" when it is wet.

(c) The Din of a burnt Sheretz (and even the source -"Bahem" and "Meihem") is exactly the same as a dry one: namely, that it is only Metamei when it is whole, but not once it has broken up.

(a) "Ror Besaro" - only as long as the Zov is still fit to flow, but not if it has dried.
"Ki Yarok ha'Zav" - only if the mouth excretions are wet, like the spittle from his mouth.
"be'Mosam" - As long as the Sheretz is fresh, like when it died, but not once it has dried up.
"Shichvas Zera" - It must be wet, like the Zera when it is discharged.
"Ki Yamus" - The Neveilah is only Metam'ah as long as it is still fresh like when it died.

(b) Whether, or not, the water must remain warm for the duration of the entire twenty-four hours, is a Machlokes Tena'im: Rebbi Yehudah ben Nekusa holds that it is not necessary, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that it is.

(c) The dry flesh of a corpse is not Metamei bi'Kezayis, like a piece of flesh from a corpse normally is; it is, however, Metamei like the Din of 'Rekev', the dust of a corpse, of which one (large) spoonful is Metamei.

(a) Both a Sheretz found in an alley-way, and a blood-stain found on a woman's garment, are Tamei retroactively, from the time that one either examined the street or the garment, or that one swept the street or washed the garment.

(b) Rebbi Shimon argues that if the Sheretz is wet, then it can only have arrived at its present location recently. Consequently, we can only go back in retrospect, to a day which would still allow the Sheretz to be wet now.




(a) The difference between whether the Chazakah is confined to the street being swept, and the garment being washed, or whether it means that they were also examined, is in a case when they expressly stated that they had swept the street (or washed the garment) but had not examined it. If the Chazakah tells us that the street was swept (and that the garment was washed) - and no more, then the Chazakah remains a Chazakah (since the fact that the street was swept (and that the garment was washed) is sufficient. But if the Sheretz was found in a hole (or if the blood-stain was found at the side of the garment), the Chazakah will not stand (since one does not tend to sweep out the holes (or wash the sides of the garment).

Whereas if the Chazakah is that when one sweeps (and washes), one automatically examines the streets and the garment, then when they state that they did not examine, there is obviously no Chazakah. On the other hand, if the Sheretz was found in a hole (or the blood-stain at the side of the garment), then whoever examined, will also have examined in the holes in the streets (and at the sides of the garment) too.

(b) Rebbi Meir gives the reason that a Sheretz found in a Mavuy is Metamei retroactively - up to the time that they inspected it or swept it (or in the case of a bloodstain, up to the time they washed it) because of the Chazakah that Yisrael inspect their alleyways when they sweep them (and the women inspect their garments when they wash them).

(c) Rebbi Acha maintains, that even if they did not inspect their garments whilst washing them, it is always possible to wash them again, and to inspect them then; because, if the stain becomes dimmer, then they will know that it only came after the first laundering - otherwise, the second washing would not have affected it.
Rebbi argues that one can tell whether the stain was there before the first laundering or not, even without washing them again. How is that? Because if it was, then the washing will cause it to become absorbed in the garment, whilst, if it only came afterwards, the stain will remain on the surface.

(a) Even if it would not be possible for the bloodstain to have appeared after the last washing and still remain wet, we would nevertheless have to contend with that. Why?
Because the stain may well be dry, and the reason that it is wet is only because some water fell on it.

(b) But by a Sheretz, had water fallen on it, it would have fallen to pieces.

(a) Bloodstains which come from Rekem are Tahor, according to the Tana Kama, because he considers the people who live there to be non-Jews.

(b) Bloodstains that come from Rekem are Tamei, according to Rebbi Yehudah, because, in his opinion, they are converts who have gone astray.

(c) To accept converts means that they are permitted to marry a Kasher Jewess - like a regular convert may.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan prohibits the acceptance of converts from Tarmud (i.e. a convert from Tarmud is forbidden to marry a Kasher Jewess), because they intermarried with the ten tribes, and Rebbi Yochanan holds that the child born to a Jewess from a slave or from a non-Jew is a Mamzer - and a Mamzer is forbidden to marry a Kasher Jewess?

(e) Although Rebbi Yochanan is often quoted as saying 'Halachah ki'Stam Mishnah', not everyone agrees that *that* is what he maintains. Whoever quoted his opinion in 7d, must hold that Rebbi Yochanan does not necessarily follow a Stam Mishnah.

(a) It is incorrect to give the Chachamim's reason for declaring the bloodstains of the Kutim Tahor, because they were not genuine converts. Why is that?
Because if so, why did they not give that reason in our Mishnah? Why did they write because the Kutim are not suspect on their stains, if that is not the real reason?

(b) The bloodstains found in the streets of Yisrael are Tahor, because Yisrael are not suspect on leaving their bloodstains in a public place.

(c) According to the Chachamim, bloodstains that come from the cities of the Kutim are Tamei, just like those that come from the cities of Yisrael, because they consider the Kutim to be true converts. And the stains that are found in the streets of Yisrael are Tahor, just like those of Yisrael, because they, like other Jewish women, are careful to hide their bloodstains.

(d) Rebbi Meir agrees with the Chachamim's first statement, and with its reason, but he disagrees with their second one. In his opinion, the Kuti women are not careful to hide their bloodstains.

(a) 'Beis ha'Temei'os' was a room designated for the women when they were Nidos, Obviously, any bloodstains found there had to be considered Tamei.

(b) A Beis ha'Temei'os of Kutim was Metamei be'Ohel, because the Kuti women tended to bury their miscarriages there.

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, they did not bury them, but rather threw them out into the street, where they would be dragged away by wild animals. In that case, their Batei ha'Temei'os would not be Tamei be'Ohel.

10) The Kutim were believed when they testified about something of which they were sure, but not about something to which a Safek was attached, which they tended to treat lightly - and Sechachos, Pera'os and Beis ha'Peras are all Sefeikos.

Next daf


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