(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 28


(a) What is the Din of a woman who miscarries a cut leg or a cut foot?

(b) Why may we have said otherwise?

(c) Why do we not give her the days of Taharah?

The Beraisa say 'ha'Mapeles, ve'Ein Yadu'a Mah Hipilah, Teishev le'Zachar ve'li'Nekeivah'.
(d) According to the above, why does the Beraisa not add 'u'le'Nidah'?
(a) If a baby sticks out its hand from the womb and withdraws it, is the mother Temei'ah Leidah, and from where do we know that?

(b) How do we reconcile this with the Beraisa, which writes that, if a baby sticks out its hand, we do not contend with it at all?

(c) What is the problem with this answer, and what does the Gemara subsequently answer?

(d) But Rav Huna quoted a Pasuk, so how can he then say that she is Temei'ah only mi'de'Rabbanan?

3) A woman who gives birth to a Tumtum or an Androginus must sit the fourteen days of Tum'ah of a female, and the thirty-three days of Taharah of a male?
(a) Why does the Tana need to repeat this Din in a case where she gave birth to a Tumtum or an Androginus in addition to a male?

(b) What does she sit, if she gives birth to a Tumtum or an Androginus in addition to a female, and why?

(c) According to the Din of the Mishnah, what is the difference between a baby that emerges cut up or feet first, and one that is born whole and that emerges head first?

(d) Which part of the head determines his status of 'born'.

4) A Tumtum or an Androginus who see Loven and Odem, are not Chayav to bring a Korban for entering the Beis Hamikdash, yet Terumah which touched them must be burnt.
Why the difference, according to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav?

Answers to questions


5) Alternatively, the above statement (quoted in 4) could go according to Rebbi Eliezer, but not according to Rebbi Akiva.

(a) What does that mean?

(b) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, why does one not also exempt Terumah from being burnt, since the Torah writes "ve'ha'Zov es Zovo, la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah"? - What do we learn from "le'Zachar ve'La'Nekeivah"?

(c) Why can we not also say that we need "mi'Zachar ve'Ad Nekeivah Teshaleichu" to exempt earthenware vessels from being sent out of the Azarah?

(d) Why can we not say that, had the Torah written "Adam", we would have also excluded *metal* vessels from being sent out?

(a) Finally, how do we know from "mi'Zachar ve'Ad Nekeivah" etc., to preclude earthenware vessels from needing to be sent out of the Azarah; maybe the Pasuk comes to teach us Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's Din exclusively?

(b) And how do we know that the Derashah is confined to a Zav or Keri? Why do we not say that a Tumtum, for example, who became Tamei Meis and then entered the Azarah, is not Patur?

7) How is it, according to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, that when it comes to Erchin, we do not preclude a Tumtum and an Androginus from "Zachar" and "Nekeivah", only from "*ha*'Zachar" and from "*ve'Im* Nekeivah"?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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