(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) What did the Kutim Darshen from the Pasuk in Devarim "Lo Sasig Gevul Rishonim Asher Gavlu Rishonim, be'Nachalascha"...?


(a) Considering that the Kutim were not concerned with the La'av of "Lifnei Iver" etc. (misleading others into sinning), how could the Chachamim trust them, when they testified that a Nefel was not buried at a certain spot?

(b) How did they know that the Kohen was himself not Tamei (see Tosfos ha'Rosh d.h. 'be'Kohen Tamei'.), and how did they know that the Terumah was not Temei'ah?

(c) So what is the Chidush?

3) We learnt in our Mishnah that the Kutim were also believed to testify that the animal which gave birth did, or did not, have a baby before.
(a) But how could the Chachamim believe them, as we asked earlier?

(b) Then what is the Chidush?

They were also believed to testify that, at a certain location, there was no marker to mark a grave (a Tzi'un), with the result that one was permitted to work there with Taharos.
(c) What is the Chidush?
(a) What is the difference between Sechachos and Pera'os?

(b) What is a Beis ha'Peras, and what does the word mean? What distance does a Beis ha'Peras take up?

(c) When does a Beis ha'Peras become Tahor?

(a) When was a Kuti believed to testify that 'this field is not a Beis ha'Peras', and why?

(b) What is then the Chidush?

(c) What does 'Zeh ha'Kelal' in our Mishnah come to include?

(d) Why was a Kuti not believed in those two cases?

Hadran Alach, 'Dam ha'Nidah'

Answers to questions



(a) Is a woman Temei'ah if she sees a bloodstain on the front or on the back of her calf, on the outside of her foot or on her small toes? Why is that?

(b) Where would the bloodstain principally need to be for her to be Temei'ah?

(c) When will she be Temei'ah, if she finds blood on her vest?

(d) Is she Temei'ah if she finds blood on the sleeve?

(e) When is she always Temei'ah after finding blood on her vest, wherever she finds the bloodstain?

(a) Why does Shmuel (according to the Gemara's initial interpretation of his statement) say, that a woman who sits down (even after examining the ground and finding it Tahor) and finds blood on the ground, is Tehorah?
We learn from "bi'Vesar.." that even though the blood is still inside, she is still Temei'ah.
(b) Which two things do we learn from "bi'Vesa*rah*."
'A woman who emits blood whilst urinating, is Temei'ah if she urinated standing, Tehorah, if she was sitting'.
(c) Bearing in mind Shmuel's statement, is this Beraisa speaking when she felt the movement of blood, or not? Either way, why is there a difference between 'standing' and 'sitting'?
'If she finds a round bloodstain on the Eid which she had under her cushion, she is Tehorah; whereas if it is elongated, she is Temei'ah.
(d) Bearing in mind Shmuel's statement, is this Beraisa speaking when she felt the movement of blood, or not? Either way, why should the shape of the bloodstain make any difference?
8) 'If they found a bloodstain on the man's Eid, they are both Tamei, and both must bring a Korban. If it is found on the woman's Eid, then if it is found immediately, they are Tamei, and must bring a Korban which is eaten. But if it is found only later, then they are Tamei, but are Patur from bringing a Korban'.
(a) Like we asked in the previous question, according to Shmuel, does this Beraisa speak when she felt the blood moving, or not?

(b) Then why are they Patur from a Korban, if she only found the stain later?

There are three Dinim regarding Safek: On the woman's flesh, on her vest, and regarding things which she touched or moved.
(c) What is the Din in the first two cases?
In the third case, the Beraisa says that we go after the majority.
(d) According to Shmuel, what does that mean, and how do we then understand the Beraisa?
9) We said earlier, that if she discovered the (Safek) blood-stain on her flesh, she is Temei'ah, but if it was on her vest, she is Tehorah.
(a) Why does this, initially, pose a problem?
The Gemara answers that the Beraisa could either be speaking when she found the stain above the belt-line or below.
(b) How would we explain the Beraisa if the stain was below the belt?

(c) And how would we explain the Beraisa, if it the bloodstain was found above the belt?

(d) According to Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti, how will Shmuel explain the Beraisa, which renders her Temei'ah if she finds blood on her flesh, even though she did not feel the blood moving?

10) Rav Ashi interprets Shmuel's reasoning differently. According to *his* explanation, all the questions that we asked above on Shmuel fall away.
(a) How does *he* explain Shmuel?

(b) According to Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti's original interpretation of Shmuel, why does he say that the woman sat on the ground, when he might just as well have said that she saw the bloodstain on her garment?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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