(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 72



(a) Beis Hillel hold that a woman who sees blood on the eleventh day of Zivus and Tovels that night, together her Bo'eil, are not Chayav a Korban if they have Tashmish. This is because, in their opinion, the eleventh day does not require Shimur (watching); consequently, the moment she Tovels, she is Tehorah.

(b) Nevertheless, they do not say 'Tehorim', because they agree that the Rabbanan decreed Tum'ah on the eleventh day, because of the equivalent case during the eleven days, when she *does* require Shimur.

(c) If she did make Shimur at the beginning of the eleventh day, and then, after Toveling, she had Tashmish and saw blood, min ha'Torah she, and her Bo'eil, are Tehorah, since her latest sighting is one of Nidus, which does not combine with the previous sighting; in that case, ar the time of Tashmish, she was Tehorah.

(a) However, Beis Shamai decree Tum'ah in the previous case (because of the equivalent case during the eleven days), with the result that both she and her Bo'eil are Metamei Mishkav and Moshav; they do not however, bring a Korban, even if she sees later, as we explained above.

(b) Beis Hillel holds that she is a 'Gargeran' (greedy) for not waiting on the twelfth day, though this is not because of any intrinsic Isur, but rather because she might become accustomed to doing the same thing on the other days of Zivus, when she will be taking a big risk - because she may see after Tashmish, and become Temei'ah retroactively. On the eleventh day itself, there is no reason per se, as to why she should need to wait.

(c) If she had Tashmish the night after seeing, during the eleven days of Zivus, it makes no difference whether she Toveled or not, or whether she saw the next day or not, she is Temei'ah mi'd'Oraysa, and she and her Bo'eil are Chayav Chatas. Why is that?
Because before she has made Shimur on the following day, she is a Zavah Ketanah.

(d) 'Harei Zeh Tarbus Ra'ah' means that this is a bad thing to do, because she might see afterwards and become Temei'ah retroactively.

(a) A woman who saw during the eleven days, and did not make Shimur on the following day, is Temei'ah mi'd'Oraysa - and therefore Chayav a Korban, too - because sighting on that day is fit to combine with the next day. Tevilah therefore, before Shimur, is ineffective.

(b) Whereas one who saw on the eleventh day, is not Temei'ah d'Oraysa (after going to Mikveh that night), since that sighting is not fit to combine with the sighting of the next day (which will be the sighting of Nidus).
Beis Hillel agree in the latter case, that she is Temei'ah, mi'de'Rabbanan - le'Chumra. But the Rabbanan would hardly decree that she and her Bo'eil should bring a Korban, as this would be a Kula (of Chulin la'Azarah).

(c) Beis Shamai asked Beis Hillel why, in the case of the night after the eleventh, if they are both Tamei, then why should they not also bring a Korban. Well, the same Kashya applies to Beis Shamai himself, who says that if she saw on the eleventh, and then Toveled on the following day and had Tashmish, they are both Metamei Mishkav and Moshav, but are exempt from bringing a Korban.

(a) Rav Huna holds that, according to Beis Shamai, the Mishkav and Moshav of a Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom who Toveled is Metamei (mi'de'Rabbanan) even if she does not subsequently see blood.

(b) Rav Yosef brings a proof for Rav Huna from our Mishnah, where Beis Shamai say that, if she saw on the eleventh, Toveled the next day, had Tashmish and then saw again, she and her Bo'eil are Metamei Mishkav and Moshav. Rav Yosef maintains that this is simply a decree of the eleventh because of the other days of Zivus, when, under the same circumstances, she would be Metamei. In similar fashion, Beis Shamai will decree even when she *did not* see, because of when she *did*.
Rav Yosef thought that when Beis Shamai said in our Mishnah 've'Achar Kach Ra'asah', he mentioned it just en passant, but not that it was really the reason that she and her Bo'eil were Metamei Mishkav and Moshav. Why is that?
Because that sighting, which took place on the twelfth, was not even a sighting of Zivus, but of Nidus; so how can that sighting possibly invalidate the Tevilah of the morning?

(c) Abaye explains Rav Kahana's objection like this: It only makes sense for Beis Shamai to decree a sighting of Nidus (to invalidate the Tevilah of that morning) because a similar sighting during the eleven days would indeed invalidate the Tevilah that she performed earlier in the day. But if we are to ignore the sighting of Nidus, as Rav Yosef suggests, then there will be no reason to invalidate the Tevilah, since nobody will confuse a woman who did not see, with one who did.




(a) In the same way as someone who sees Keri is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheini, so too, will someone who sees the first sighting of a Zav.

(b) If the first sighting of a Zav has the same Din as a Shomeres Yom etc., and we know that a Zav has a Din Safek, then so does a Shomeres Yom. This in turn, indicates that, should she not see blood, she is Tehorah - not like Rav Huna!

(c) The Gemara however, refutes this, by amending 'ke'Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom' in the Beraisa, to 'ke'Bo'eil Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom'.
The Bo'eil hangs in abeyance as far as his Mishkav u'Moshav is concerned - but not the woman herself, who is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav whether she sees blood or not - like Rav Huna.

(a) Beis Shamai is more stringent by the Mishkav and Moshav of the woman who she did not see after Tashmish, than by those of her Bo'eil, since the blood, which is the source of the Bo'eil's Tum'ah as well as of the woman, is not commonly found on him, only on her.

(b) And likewise, they decreed Tum'ah on the *Mishkav u'Moshav* of a Shomeres Yom etc., (who did not see after Tevilah the next day) because she deals with them frequently, but not on her *Bo'eil*, which is uncommonly found by a Zavah.
The answers in both a and b conform with the principle often quoted in Shas - that 'Chazal did not issue a decree on something which is uncommon'.)

(c) According to Rav Huna, the author of the Beraisa, which gives a Shomeres Yom a Din Safek and not a Din Vaday must be Beis Hillel.

(d) When Beis Shamai said to Beis Hillel "Do you only call this 'Tarbus Ra'ah'? Did he not deliberately have Bi'ah with a Nidah"? He cannot have meant a Nidah, nor even a Zavah. What he must have said was a 'Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom'.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan holds, that if a woman sees blood on the tenth day of the days of Zivus, it is as if she would have seen on the ninth, and she is obligated to watch the eleventh.
Whereas, according to Resh Lakish, it is as if she would have seen on the eleventh day, and, we have already learnt, that according to Beis Hillel, the eleventh day does not require Shimur.

(b) Resh Lakish holds that, since the tenth day cannot lead to Zivus (since a woman does not become a Zavah with less than three sightings, and this woman's third sighting will take place on the twelfth day, which is in the days of Nidus), it does not require Shimur.
Whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, it is only the eleventh day which does not need watching, because the twelfth day, which is the day that she would need to watch, is a day of Nidus. But if she saw on the tenth day, why should she not watch the eleventh day (which is a day of Zivus)? (See Tosfos, d.h. 'Rebbi Yochanan').

(a) Rebbi Akiva learns from the two superfluous words "ba'Shemen" "ba'Shemen" that instead of bringing one Log (six egg-volumes) as was brought by most other flour-offerings, the Todah required only half a Log. (This is derived from the extra "ba'Shemen", because of the principle that when one 'Ribuy' [inclusion] follows another, it actually comes to exclude).

(b) Although Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya agrees with Rebbi Akiva in principle, he maintains that it is not from Pesukim that we derive it but from a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(c) The third thing included in this group of Halachos le'Moshe mi'Sinai is the eleven days between one period of Nidus and the next.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the eleventh day differs from the other days in one point only; namely, that it does not need Shimur on the twelfth day. It does however, serve as a Shimur for the woman if she saw on her tenth - just like all the other days.

(b) Resh Lakish however, maintains, that the eleventh day is also different from the other days inasmuch as it does not serve as a Shimur for the tenth day. Why not?
Because the tenth day, like the eleventh, does not require Shimur.

Next daf


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