(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 59



(a) According to Rebbi Chanina, any bloodstain larger than a ki'Geris is Temei'ah, irrespective of whether there is a louse or not.

(b) But, in the opinion of Rebbi Yanai, a stain larger than a ki'Geris is Temei'ah only when there is no louse, but when there is a crushed louse adjoining it, we *do* connect (some of) the blood (at least), to the dead louse, since it obvious that *that* is the source of the blood; then as far as the remainder of the blood (which totals less than a ki'Geris plus) is concerned, we can rely on a second louse.

(c) If a woman was dealing with a bird whose total blood amounted to a ki'Geris, and she found more than a ki'Geris, Rebbi Chanina might agree that we will connect the blood that is more than a ki'Geris to the bird, because she was actually working with it, and which will consequently be Tehorah.
Whereas Rebbi Yanai might agree that we do not connect the extra blood to the bird, because there is no louse attached to it, like there was in the case where he was lenient, and consequently, she will be Temei'ah.

(d) The Beraisa could be coming to teach us the Din when there are *two* ki'Gerisin plus (but if there was only *one* ki'Geris plus, like in the above case, the woman would indeed be Tehorah).
The Chidush will be, that she is Temei'ah, although we may have said that she is Tehorah, because we take the blood of the bird, and place it in the middle, leaving one ki'Geris on one side and a Mashehu on the other, each of which is sufficiently small to ascribe to a louse.

(a) What Rava means is that, if a woman finds stains that resemble medicine stains or sap from a wild fig-tree, then if she later finds other stains that are not similar to the original ones that she discovered, she can rely on the first stains and say that, in the same way as those stains appeared on the garment, so too did others, and that they are therefore not bloodstains.

(b) The case in 1(c) speaks when she was working with the blood of one species. Why then should we assume that other species - with which she did not work, also came on the garment. But Rava is speaking in a case when she was not working with the species which she originally found on the garment.

(c) Rava could have been referring to a woman who was dealing with a chicken, which tends to leave different kinds of stains. If she discovers first a kind of chicken-stain which she recognizes, and subsequently another kind of stain which she does not, she can rely that the second stain came from the chicken, too.

(a) 'The Chachamim do not come to be lenient, only strict', is a reference to bloodstains, which is itself, a Chumra, since min ha'Torah, bloodstains, which the woman does not feel leaving the Mekor, are Tahor.
However, when there is a query on a bloodstain, we take the lenient view, precisely because they are purely mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) Now who is the author of the Beraisa? It cannot be Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok, because according to him, an elongated stain is Tamei even if it is only a 'Kol Shehu' (i.e. the size of a mustard-seed); so why should it need to combine with anything else? Consequently, the author must be the Rabbanan, from which we have a proof that the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok.

(c) When Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok ruled in our Mishnah that an elongated stain found on a woman's Eid is Temei'ah, that is because it came from her body, and even a Kol Shehu of blood that comes from the body is Tamei. By a Kesem however, Chazal required a ki'Geris plus (not just a Kol Shehu). Consequently, the author of the Beraisa, which is talking about a Kesem, could well be Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok, and not the Rabbanan.

(d) Rev Yehudah quoting Shmuel, rules like Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok, which will only be necessary if the Rabbanan disagree with him.

Hadran Alach, 'ha'Ro'eh Kesem'!




(a) The case of the woman urinating whilst sitting, speaks when the urine came out in a flow (which is not possible when she is standing), so that the urine cannot possibly have gone back to the Mekor to collect blood.

(b) Nor can the blood have come afterwards - when the woman had finished urinating - because it speaks when she was sitting on the edge of the bowl, in which case the blood would have appeared on the edge of the bowl, and not inside it together with the urine. (Consequently, the only alternative is for the blood to have come from a wound somewhere along the urinal passage, which is why Chazal declare her Tehorah).

(c) Rebbi Yossi holds that a woman who discovers blood in the bowl after urinating, is Tehorah even if she urinated standing.

(d) Rebbi Shimon disregards the possibility that the blood may have come from the man, because it is usually a woman who emits blood, not a man.

(a) Resh Lakish takes for granted that Rebbi Meir agrees with Rebbi Yossi there where a man urinated into the bowl as well (because it constitutes a double-Safek). What makes him say that?
Because otherwise, why does he not argue with him in the Seifa?

(b) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi argue in the Reisha rather than in the Seifa, in order to teach us the power of Rebbi Yossi (how far he goes) - that even when there is only *one* Safek, he declares the woman Tehorah. To have argued in the Seifa, would have meant a bigger Chidush according to Rebbi Meir (that even by a double-Safek he declares her Temei'ah), but 'Ko'ach de'Hetera Adif'('the power of leniency is greater').

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Meir agrees with Rebbi Yossi in the Seifa, where there is a double-Safek.

(d) The Tana inserts Rebbi Yossi's Din in the Seifa, in order to teach us that, not only does Rebbi Yossi permit the Taharos with which she dealt Bedieved, but he even permits her Lechatchilah, to deal with them. In other words, she is completely Tehorah - according to Rebbi Yossi - and is permitted to go and work with Taharos.

(a) Rebbi Shimon is strict even in the Reisha of the Mishnah too. In his opinion, if a woman, after urinating whilst sitting, finds blood in the bowl, she cannot rely on the blood coming from a wound, but is Temei'ah.

(b) Rebbi Shimon's opinion, we have just discussed. According to Rebbi Yossi, we rely on the blood coming from a wound even if she urinates standing. Whereas according to Rebbi Meir, if she urinated sitting, we rely on the blood as having come from a wound, and if she urinated standing, we do not, and she is Temei'ah.

(c) Since Rebbi Shimon maintains that blood comes from the woman, and not from the man, it will make no difference whether the woman was sitting or standing, there is only *one* Safek, and she is Temei'ah.

(a) If a woman discovers a bloodstain on the vest that she lent to a gentile woman (who is always considered Temei'ah), or to a Jewish woman who was a Nidah, she can rely on the stain as having come from them, and she therefore remains Tehorah.

(b) In the equivalent case, when the borrower was a Jewess who was not a Nidah, she is unable to rely on the stain as having come from her, and both women will be Temei'os from doubt.
The reason for the difference is that, we only rely on the bloodstain having come from another woman, if she is Temei'ah anyway, but not when she is Tehorah and by attributing the bloodstain to her, we render her Temei'ah.

(c) If three women sat on a wooden bench, on which a bloodstain was subsequently found, then all three are declared Temei'os.

(d) The Rabbanan do not differentiate between a wooden bench and a stone. Rebbi Nechemyah however, does. According to him, the Rabbanan did not decree Tum'ah on bloodstains on any surface which itself, cannot receive Tum'ah - such as stone.

Next daf


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