(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 57


1) The Kutim did not usually bury their Nefalim because they learned from "Lo Sasug Gevul Rishonim ... be'Nachalascha Asher Sinchal", that whoever has no inheritence (i.e. a Nefel), has no border (burial place).


(a)&(b) The Kutim were believed to testify about the burial of Nefalim only if 1. a Kohen Kuti was there; 2. he was holding Terumah, so they knew that he was himself not Tamei; and 3. he was actually eating it, so that they knew that the Terumah was not Tamei either.

(c) The Chidush is that a Kuti was believed to testify that a Nefel was not buried there, and that we do not say that in reality, a Nefel *was* buried there, only the Kutim were not expert in the formation of a baby; they believed that it was a baby of *less* than forty days old which had not yet formed, when really it was *more*.

(a) A Kuti was only believed to testify that a certain animal already gave birth before, and that this new-born baby was therefore not a Bechor, if he himself sheared its wool or worked with it.

(b) The Chidush is, that they did not suspect that the mother may have previously gave birth to something which resembled 'Tinuf' (a sort of blood-clot), which did not really qualify as Tinuf, but which the Kuti thought did (in other words, Chazal did not suspect the Kutim of non- experts in the Dinim of Tinuf).

(c) And the Chidush by a Tzi'un is that although a Tzi'un is only mi'de'Rabbanan (and most de'Rabbanan's they did not take seriously, for which reason they were not believed), they were nevertheless believed in this case. Why is that?
Because the Pasuk in Yechezkel mentions a Tzi'un; Consequently, they tended to take it seriously.

(a) Sechachos are the overhanging branches of a tree, which grows next to the road running alongside a Beis ha'Kevaros, and under which they would sometimes bury a Meis - if it was late in the evening. If the branches were spaced far apart, and a Meis was known to be buried underneath one of the branches, but they did not known which one, then a Kuti was not believed to identify the branch under which the Meis was buried.
The case of Pera'os is similar to that of Sechachos, but instead of branches well spaced out, it comprises large stones jutting out from a wall.

(b) A 'Beis ha'Peras' is a field which contains a grave, and which was ploughed up. It is not now known exactly what happened to all the bones, which the plough must have dragged around the field. So, for fear of people passing through the field and becoming inadvertently Tamei, Chazal decreed Tum'ah on the entire area. The word means 'broken' (a 'Perusah' is a piece of something), and they decreed up to an area of one hundred Amos square (one furrow-length, or four Sa'ah), and according to Rebbi Yossi, it is *five* Sa'ah.

(c) A Beis ha'Peras becomes Tahor, if it has been well-trodden.

(a) A Kuti was believed to testify that there was no grave in this field, only if he walked around the entire area in question, leaving no room for doubt. Our Mishnah, which does not believe him, speaks when he did not do this, in which case we cannot believe him, since he will rely on the grave being on the side where he did not walk, even though he is not certain.

(b) The Chidush is that, if he did walk the entire length and breadth of the field, the Chachamim believed him, and did not suspect that perhaps there was an additional strip of land jutting from the field, which was part of the field, and on which the Kuti - fully aware of its existence - relied (that maybe the grave was situated *there*).

(c) 'Zeh ha'Kelal' comes to include 'Techumin' (that they would not believe the Kuti when he identified 'the borders of Techum Shabbos), and 'Yayin Nesech' (when he testified that a non-Jew did not touch a Jew's wine); the former case, because Techumin is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and as we learnt earlier, a Kuti was not believed in a de'Rabbanan, and the latter, because he couldn't really care less if a non-Jew touches the wine.

Hadran Alach, 'Dam ha'Nidah'!




(a) If a woman sees a bloodstain on the front or back of her calf, the outside of her foot, or on her toes (with the exception of her big toe), she remains Tehorah, because these places are not in line with the womb, and one must therefore assume that the blood arrived there from a wound or from some other source.

(b) For the bloodstain to render her Temei'ah, it would need to be in line with the womb, such as next to the actual womb, on her heel on her big toe on on her inner-legs.

(c) A bloodstain on her vest will render a woman Temei'ah if it is below the belt.

(d) Should she find blood on the lower part of the sleeve, which sometimes passes in the vicinity of womb, she is Temei'ah, but not if the blood is found on the upper part of the sleeve.

(e) If the woman removes the vest and uses as a blanket, then, seeing as the blanket tends to move around whilst she sleeps, she will be Temei'ah wherever she finds the stain.

(a) According to the original interpretation (that of Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti, mentioned only later in the Sugya), a woman who finds a bloodstain on the ground where she was sitting, is Tehorah (even if she examined the ground first and found no bloodstain there), because she is Temei'ah only when she actually feels the blood moving inside her body.

(b) We learn from "bi'Vesa*rah*" ... 1. that she is only Temei'ah if she sees blood on her flesh, but not if she sees it inside either a fetus or a piece of flesh ... 2. that she is Temei'ah only if she feels the blood moving from her body, but not if it comes out when she is unaware of it.

(c) According to Shmuel, the Beraisa can only be speaking when she felt the blood moving; In spite of this, if she urinated sitting, she remains Tehorah, since the blood of Nidus does not emerge from the same location as the urine - what she therefore must have felt, was the movement of the urine. Nevertheless, if she urinated standing, the pressure will have caused some of the urine to go back to the womb, and to collect some blood and bring it out with the urine - which is what she felt.

(d) This Beraisa too, according to Shmuel, can only be speaking when she felt the movement of the blood.
Bloodstains that emerge from the womb, are normally elongated; thereofre we can safely assume, that what she actually felt, was the movement of blood, and she is Temei'ah. They do not as a rule, emerge round, in which case, we would have to assume that what she felt, was in fact, the Eid making the Bedikah.

(a)&(b) Here too (where blood is found only later on the woman's Eid), the Beraisa must be speaking when she felt the blood moving. Nevertheless, if the stains were found only later, it remains a Safek, and as for her the sensation which she felt, we suspect that what she really felt, was the man's Eiver Tashmish, and not the movement of blood at all.

(c) A Safek bloodstain found on the woman's flesh renders her Temei'ah, whereas if it is found on her vest, she is Tehorah.

(d) The majority, according to Shmuel, means that most of her days, she tends to see blood - and feels it too.
If this case of Safek then touches or carries something which is Tahor, she will make it Tamei, because we will assume that she probably saw blood, and felt it too, but she failed to realise it.

(a) Initially, the Gemara finds the distinction between a Safek bloodstain on her flesh and one on her vest problematic. Why?
Because if the Beraisa is speaking below the belt, then why is she Tehorah when she finds a stain on her vest? Whereas if it speaks above the belt, then why is she Temei'ah when she finds the stain on her body?

(b) If the stain was below the belt, we establish that the Beraisa speaks when she walked past a street of butchers, which makes it more than likely that the bloodstain came from there. However, that only applies to a stain that is found on the garment, but a stain that is found on her flesh, is more likely to have come from her body. Why is that?
Because had it come from the butchers, then the stain would have appeared on her clothes, and not on her flesh.

(c) If the bloodstain was found above the belt, we will establish that it speaks when she leaned over backwards, creating the likelihood that the stain should appear even above the belt, which is why she is Temei'ah if it is discovered on her flesh. Nonetheless, she will be Tehorah if she finds the stain on her clothes, because, had it come from her body, it should have been found on her flesh, and not on her clothes.

(d) According to Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti, Shmuel agrees that, even though she did not feel the blood moving, she is nevertheless Temei'ah mi'de'Rabbanan. Whereras in all of the above cases, the Beraisa is speaking min ha'Torah.

(a) According to Rav Ashi, Shmuel's reason is not because a woman who does not feel the movement of blood is not Temei'ah min ha'Torah, but because a bloodstain is Temei'ah only when it is found on something which is itself Tamei (e.g. a cloth), but not when it is found on the ground, which is not subject to Tum'ah.

(b) The reason that (according to Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti) Shmuel mentions the ground, when he might just as well have mentioned a garment, is because otherwise, we would have said, that it is only garment, which she perhaps did not inspect properly, which is Tehorah, because we will assume the stain to have already been there before, but that she failed to notice it. But if she were to examine the ground (which is easier to examine thoroughly), then we will presume the stain which subsequently appeared have come from her body, and she will be Temei'ah. Therefore, Shmuel mentioned the ground, to inform us that, even if the stain is found *there*, she is Tehorah.

Next daf


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