(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

1) If a woman finds on her vest, a bloodstain of more than a ki'Geris, plus a louse squashed on it, Rebbi Chanina holds that she is Temei'ah.

(a) Why is that?

(b) What does Rebbi Yanai hold, and what is his reason?

A woman who is dealing with a ki'Geris volume of the blood of a bird, finds more than a ki'Geris.
(c) Why might Rebbi Chanina agree that she is Tehorah, and why might Rebbi Yanai agree that she is Temei'ah?
The Beraisa says that a woman who was dealing with red blood and discovers black blood-stains on her garment, or one who was working with a small quantity of blood, and finds a large quantity, cannot connect the stains to the blood she was working with, and she is Temeiah.
(d) Now if this does not come to issue a ruling in the case quoted in (c), then what *does* it come to teach us - and what will be the Chidush?
2) Rava says that, if a woman finds a stain on her garment, she can later connect other stains to the one that she found.
(a) What does he mean?

(b) Why does this not contradict the first case quoted earlier in 1(c)?

(c) How can we reconcile Rava with the Beraisa even if Rava too, is speaking when the woman was dealing with a kind of blood?

3) Our Mishnah quotes the story of Rebbi Akiva, who issued a lenient ruling to the woman who had a wound that was healing.
(a) How do we reconcile this with the Beraisa, which says that the Chachamim do not come to be lenient, only to be strict?
Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok rules that an elongated stain on the woman's Eid is Tamei, whereas a round one is Tahor. The Gemara asks whether the Rabbanan argue with him or not.
(b) What proof does the Gemara attempt to bring from the Beraisa, which says that an elongated stain will combine to make up a ki'Geris plus?

(c) How does the Gemara refute this proof?

(d) How does the Gemara finally resolve the Sha'aleh from a statement made by Rav Yehudah quoting Shmuel?

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

Answers to questions


4) Our Mishnah differentiates between a woman who sees blood whilst urinating standing and urinating sitting.

(a) Why do we not suspect, even by a woman who urinated sitting, that maybe the urine flowed back and brought with it blood from the Mekor (like we do when she urinated standing)?

(b) And why do we not suspect at least, that the blood came afterwards from the Mekor, and not together with the urine at all?

(c) What is Rebbi Yossi's opinion regarding a woman who discovered blood whilst urinating?

If a man and a woman both urinated into one bowl, Rebbi Yossi will certainly be Metaher, because it is a double-Safek.
(d) What does Rebbi Shimon (who obviously follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir in the Reisha) hold in this case, and why?
5) Resh Lakish maintains that, according to Rebbi Meir, who is strict as regards blood found in a bowl into which a woman had urinated (the Reisha of the Mishnah), the Din will be the same if a man had also urinated into the same bowl, and there is a double-Safek.
(a) How does he know that?

(b) In that case, why do Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi argue in the Reisha, rather than in the Seifa?

Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Resh Lakish.
(c) What, in his opinion, does Rebbi Meir hold in the Seifa?

(d) Why then (if not to inform us that, even *there*, Rebbi Meir disagrees with him), does the Tana need to tell us what Rebbi Yossi holds in the Seifa? Is it not a Kal va'Chomer from the Reisha?

6) Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah is strict even if a man, as well as a woman, urinated into the bowl.
(a) What does Rebbi Shimon hold in the Reisha of our Mishnah, when the woman alone urinated into the bowl whilst sitting?

(b) What now, are the three opinion in the Reisha of the Mishnah?

(c) Is Rebbi Shimon's Din in the Seifa confined to when the woman urinated sitting (but had she been standing, he would agree that, if a man urinated too, she would be Tehorah); or does he not differentiate?

(a) What will be the Din, if a woman lends her vest to a non-Jewish woman or to a Jewish woman who is a Nidah, and then, after she gets it back, she wears it and discovers a bloodstain?

(b) And what will be the Din in the equivalent case, if the borrower is a Jewess who, as far as we know, was Tehorah? Why the difference?

(c) If three women sat on a wooden bench, on which they subsequently found blood, what is the Din?

(d) How, and why would the Din have been different, according to Rebbi Nechemyah, had the bench been made of stone?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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