(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 69



(a) The Gemara asks whether Rebbi Eliezer insists on the last of the clean days, as well as the first, in order to establish Zavah as being Tehorah, or whether the first day alone suffice to render her Tehorah at the end of the seven days?

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua will agree with Rebbi Akiva when she sees on the first day, and (not on the seventh day, but) on the eighth. Why?
Because, Rebbi Yehoshua only counts the first and the seventh days as two, since they are both included in the clean days; whereas here, where the eighth day is not included, he will not count the first day in the seven clean days - only the eighth.

(c) Rav agrees with the first side of the Sha'aleh, that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, a Bedikah on the first of the seven clean days will suffice (at least Bedieved) to render her Tehorah when the seven days terminate. The Gemara thought that, when the Beraisa writes 've'Shavin be'Zav ... she'Ein Lahem Ela Shemini Bilevad', 've'Shavin' refers to Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua, who argue with Rebbi Akiva regarding counting the first plus the seventh days. In that case, we see that Rebbi Eliezer too, holds that if she counted the first and the eighth days, she only has the eighth day, and not the seven clean days, as Rav maintains.

(d) The Gemara answers that 've'Shavin' refers to Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Akiva, who argue by a woman who counted the first and the seventh days, to tell us that they both agree that, when she counted the first and the eighth days, she only has the eighth.

(a) Since when does a Nidah require seven clean days, asks the Gemara on the wording of the original statement quoted in Rav's name?
Consequently, we must change the wording to Zavah, instead of Nidah.

(b) Nevertheless, Rav's statement remains difficult, asks the Gemara, because it is the Tzedokim who permit the day of Hefresh be'Taharah to be counted in the seven clean days. And how can Rav hold like the Tzedokim?

(c) The Gemara therefore explains that Rav in fact, only permits the days *after* the third day of Zivus (on which she separated be'Taharah), but not the third day itself. He is speaking when the woman only examined herself on the seventh clean day, but not before. Above (at the end of 68b), he taught us that counting the first day even when she did not count the last, is sufficient to render her Tehorah. Whereas here, he adds that the opposite is also true; namely, that if she counted the last day but not the first, she is Tehorah - because we would otherwise have thought that counting the *first* day only at least gives her a Chezkas Taharah for the entire period of seven days, but not counting the *seventh*.

(d) Hafrashah be'Taharah is essential in order to counter the Chazakah of 'Ma'ayanah Pasu'ach' - to establish that it has now closed.

(a) Why do we not make the woman who came back empty, Tovel on each of the first seven days, in case she gave birth be'Zov, if not because the Rabbanan hold that there is no point in Toveling then - since she had not counted the previous seven days? From here we can learn that the Rabbanan too, hold that the seven clean days must be positively counted?

(b) Who says that *that* Beraisa holds like the Rabbanan? Did we not already establish it like Rebbi Akiva, who, we know already, holds that the seven clean days must be counted?

(a) The woman must have arrived during the day, as we shall see shortly, and she Tovels nine Tevilos; seven for Nidus and two for Zivus. She Tovels the night after she arrives (in case today is the seventh day of her Nidus), tomorrow night (in case today is the sixth day) and so on - until the night following the seventh day after her arrival (e.g. if she arrived on Friday, she Tovels until Thursday night - in case she saw on the day that she arrived). And in case she saw Zivus the day before she arrived (on Thursday), she needs to Tovel (like a Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom) on the day she arrives, and again on the following day (in case she saw Zivus the day that she arrived).

(b) Had she arrived the night after that (Friday night), she would have required another Tevilah on Friday night (in case she saw Nidus on the night that she arrived) - We shall see later, why the Beraisa then says nine Tevilos, and not ten).

(c) If she arrived Bein ha'Shemashos, she requires two more Tevilos: one for Nidus (like in the previous question) since we have now to contend with the possibility of her having seen either on Friday or on Shabbos.
And because Bein ha'Shamashos contains those two possibilities, she also needs to Tovel three times because of Zivus: 1. Maybe she saw Zivus on the Thursday, and needs to Tovel on Friday, the day that she arrives, as a Shomeres Yom etc.; 2. Maybe she saw on Friday (in case Bein ha'Shemashos in this case, was by day), in which case she is obligated to Tovel on the Shabbos; 3. Maybe she saw on Shabbos (in case ha'Shemashos was night), and will also need to Tovel on Sunday.

(a) In Galchi, someone who owned an ox, had to look after the towns' oxen for one day; someone who did not, would have to look after them for *two* days.

(b) A certain orphan , who owned no oxen, was ordered to guard the towns' oxen for two days. What did he do?
He slaughtered the oxen, and announced that all those who owned oxen should come and collect one skin, whereas those who did not, could take two!

(c) Surely, Rava meant to ask, it is no less obvious that a woman who does *not* see blood cannot be more strict than a woman who *does*, than that someone who does not own oxen should not have a stronger obligation to look after the towns' oxen, than someone who does.

(d) The last case in the Beraisa must therefore read 'Ra'isi, ve'Eini Yoda'as Kama Ra'isi; Iy bi'Yemei Nidah Ra'isi, O bi'Yemei Zivah Ra'isi' - and that is the case, where she has to make fifteen Tevilos.




(a) In this last case too, the woman requires seven Tevilos for her Nidus, just like before, since any of the subsequent seven nights could be the seventh night after her sighting of Nidus. However, since in this case, she does not know how many times she saw, we must also contend with the possibility that she became a Zavah on any of the previous six days, and that consequently, the day that she arrives, as well as any of the following seven days, could be the seventh of the clean days.

(b) Had she arrived on the following night, she would require not seven, but eight Tevilos for her Nidus, as we explained earlier - making a total of sixteen. The Beraisa mentions only fifteen, because it is only conserned with rhose Tevilos which are certain - and the sixteenth day is only a doubt, depending upon when she arrives.

(a) This Beraisa requires the woman to Tovel, despite the fact that she has not counted the seven clean days positively. Is this not a proof that the Rabbanan do not require the seven clean days to be actually counted, like Rav said earlier?

(b) Not so, says the Gemara! Since we have already made textual changes in the Beraisa, who is to say that we should not go further and make another one, to say that, not only does she claim that she saw blood, but also that she began counting some days, although which days and how many she cannot recall.

(c) But if she claims to have begun counting, then she must have counted at least *one* day, in which case, she ought not to have to count on the seventh day (on Shabbos) for Zivus?
So the Gemara concludes that she must also have said that she does not recall whether she counted at all or not, and if she did, how many days she counted, nor whether they were during the days of Nidus or Zivus.

(a) A Zav, a Zavah, a Nidah , Yoledes and a Metzora are all Metamei be'Masa even after their death.

(b) This cannot be referring literally to Tum'as Masa, since *every corpse* is Metamei be Masa. It must therefore be referring to the Tum'ah of Even Mesama.

(c) The above five are Metamei until the body starts to decay. This is due to the reason for this decree, which is because one might otherwise confuse a Zav who has fainted and appears dead with a dead one (to say that he is notMrtamei either). That is why they decreed Tum'as Even Mesamei on a dead Zav etc.
Consequently, as soon as it is no longer possible to confuse a live Zav with a dead one (i.e. as soon as decay sets in), the decree will no longer apply.

(d) A dead gentile is not Metamei through Even Mesama - even mi'de'Rabbanan - since, even when he is alive, his Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan. Whereas the Tum'ah of the other five is d'Oraysa.

(a) If we consider every woman who dies to be a Nidah, it means that the clothes that she was wearing shortly before she died (even though she was not wearing them at the time of death), require Tevilah.

(b) The reason for the decree has already been answered above (in 8c).

(c) 'Even Mesama' (according to its source in the Pasuk in Daniel) means 'a stone that is made to place', and not to carry.

(a) On the one hand, a woman whose husband re-married her after she had been married to another man, would appear to be more stringent than a Kohen Gadol who marries a widow (since, unlike the latter, it applies to Yisraelim and Kohanim alike; on the other hand, a Kohen Gadol who marries a widow, renders her a Chalalah (profaned from the Kehunah), which is not the case by a man who re-marries his divorcee after she has been married to somebody else. According to this, a Kohen Gadol who marries a widow appears to be the more stringent of the two.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua answered them from the Pasuk, which says (with regard to our case of a man re-marrying his divorced wife) "*Hi* To'eivah", *she* is abominable, the Torah stresses, but not her daughter.

Next daf


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