QUESTION: The Beraisa states that camel riders are all Resha'im, and sailors are all Tzadikim. Of donkey drivers, some are Resha'im and some are Tzadikim. RASHI explains that camel riders are Resha'im because they constantly arouse themselves with the flesh of the camel and cause themselves to sin.

The Gemara continues and gives two explanations for why some donkey drivers are Resha'im and some are Tzadikim. According to one explanation, the donkey drivers who ride with a wooden saddle are Tzadikim, because they do not warm their flesh with the flesh of the donkeys and thereby avoid mishaps. Another explanation is that the drivers who ride with both legs on one side of the donkey are Tzadikim.

TOSFOS (DH Rochvei Gemalim #2) asks that the Gemara here contradicts the Gemara in Kidushin (82a). The Gemara there states that camel drivers are mostly upright Jews, while donkey drivers are mostly thieves.

Moreover, the RAMBAN asks that the Beraisa seems to be discussing whether certain types of riders are prone to be Motzi Zera. What do sailors have to do with being Motzi Zera? Why does the Beraisa mention them at all?

(a) TOSFOS answers his question by saying that the Gemara in Kidushin is discussing a different type of camel rider from the Gemara here. The Gemara here is discussing camel riders who are prone to be Motzi Zera due to immoral thoughts, and therefore they are considered Resha'im. The Gemara in Kidushin is discussing camel leaders -- merchants who transport their merchandise by loading it onto a camel. They do not use their camels for personal transportation, but rather they walk great distances in dangerous places while leading their camels towards their next point of sale. Such people, the Gemara in Kidushin says, are mostly good, G-d-fearing Jews. When the Gemara in Kidushin says that donkey drivers are mostly evil, it refers to those notorious for their immoral business ethics, such as cheating people during business transactions. The TOSFEI HA'ROSH says a similar answer to that of Tosfos, adding that the camel leader is considered G-d-fearing because of the dangerous nature of his trips, while the donkey drivers traveled only short distances and thus did not have the same degree of Yir'as Shamayim.

(b) The RASHBA and RAMBAN answer the question of Tosfos by saying that both Gemaras are discussing the same type of camel riders. While the Gemara in Kidushin is correct in stating that they are mostly Tzadikim, the Gemara here means that with regard to this specific Isur (not to be Motzi Zera l'Vatalah) they are Resha'im.

The Ramban answers his question by saying that the Beraisa's mention of sailors indeed is unrelated to the topic of those who tend to be Motzi Zera. However, since the Beraisa is discussing groups of people who are Resha'im and Tzadikim, it also mentions that sailors are Tzadikim.

(c) Perhaps we may suggest that there is another reason for why the Beraisa mentions sailors. If the Beraisa would list only Jewish merchants who are either all Resha'im or half Resha'im without listing any who are generally Tzadikim, this would give the working class of Jews an unfavorable reputation. The Beraisa balances its statement by adding the sailors, showing that there are also fields of business whose workers are Tzadikim. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a case in which a woman examined herself after relations with a cloth that had been examined (Ed Baduk), which she then wiped on her thigh (in a place which blood flowing from her body could not reach). The next morning she noticed blood on her thigh. She is deemed to be Tamei, since the blood may have come from the cloth with which she examined herself.

Why does the Gemara not suggest that she check the cloth itself to see if there is blood on it?

(a) TOSFOS (DH ul'Machar) answers that the Gemara is discussing a case in which the Bedikah cloth was lost.

(b) Tosfos suggests further that even if the cloth would be found to be blood-stained, it would not serve as conclusive proof that the woman is Tamei. It could be argued that the cloth became soiled with blood that was on her thigh. (Tosfos points out that according to this suggestion, the Gemara's question applies only if the blood stain is larger than the size of a Gris. If it is smaller than a Gris, then we assume that it came from a bug that happened to be on her thigh.)

(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 4:19) and RABEINU CHANANEL (cited by Tosfos) explain that blood was found on the cloth (and not on the thigh, as Rashi explains). The Gemara is discussing a case in which the stain was less than the size of a Gris, because a stain larger than a Gris certainly would be Tamei, like any other Kesem. The question of the Gemara is whether we may assume that the blood did not come from the Bedikah but from a bug on the thigh on which the cloth was wiped. (The Rambam rules that the woman is Tamei.)

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a case in which a woman examined herself with an unchecked cloth (that is, she did not ensure that there were no stains on it before she performed the Bedikah). The cloth was then put into a box, and blood was found on it in the morning. Rebbi rules that the woman is certainly Tamei. Rebbi Chiya disagrees and rules that she is Tamei only out of doubt (Safek Tamei).

Why does Rebbi rule that she is certainly Tamei? Since the cloth was not checked before she used it, there certainly exists the possibility that the blood came from some other source!

(a) TOSFOS (DH b'Ed) and the RITVA explain that the Gemara is discussing a case of a cloth that was checked recently and then stored in a somewhat protected place. Had it been stored in a very protected place, it would have had the status of a checked cloth when the woman used it. However, since it was stored only in a somewhat protected place, it is considered an unchecked cloth. A woman would not be Tamei after performing a Bedikah with a cloth taken from a dirty place, or with one that was never checked, because in such a case we assume that the blood was on the cloth before the Bedikah.

(b) The RASHBA (DH u'Peirush) strongly disagrees with the ruling of Tosfos and the Ritva. The Rashba rules that if a cloth was once checked, it does not lose its status of a checked cloth ("Ed Baduk") by merely being left unattended unless there are grounds to assume that something soiled it.

The Rashba explains that the Gemara is discussing a cloth that was specifically designated to be used as a Bedikah cloth, but was never checked. The Gemara discusses the question of whether it is assumed to be clean since it was specifically put aside in a safe place for the purpose of Bedikah, or whether there still might be a concern that it was soiled (since it was not checked immediately before the Bedikah) and, therefore, the woman is Tehorah.

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses a case in which a woman examined herself with an unchecked cloth (that is, she did not ensure that there were no stains on it before she performed the Bedikah). The cloth was then put into a box, and blood was found on it in the morning. Rebbi rules that the woman is certainly Tamei. Rebbi Chiya disagrees and rules that she is Tamei only out of doubt (Safek Tamei).

The Gemara equates this with a case in which a woman urinated and blood was found in the urine. Rebbi Meir rules that if she urinated while standing, she is Tamei, but if she urinated while sitting, she is Tahor. Rebbi Yosi rules that she is Tahor in both cases, because it is possible that the blood came from a Tahor source.

Since the Halachah follows Rebbi Yosi in that case, the Halachah should be that a woman who examines herself with an unchecked cloth is Tahor. Is this indeed the Halachah?

(a) The RASHBA, based on the Gemara's comparison, rules that a woman is Tahor if she examines herself with an unchecked cloth and finds blood on it the next morning, since the Halachah follows Rebbi Yosi in the case of blood found in urine. Accordingly, the Halachah follows neither Rebbi, who rules that she is certainly Tamei, nor Rebbi Chiya, who rules that she is Safek Tamei.

(b) RABEINU CHANANEL (cited by TOSFOS DH v'Rebbi) explains that Rebbi Yosi does not rule that the woman is Tahor when blood was found in her urine. Rather, he rules that she is Safek Tamei. Accordingly, the rulings of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Chiya are consistent with each other, and in both cases the woman is Tamei out of doubt.

(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 5:17) rules like Rebbi Yosi who says that a woman is Tahor when blood was found in her urine. However, the Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 4:19) also rules like Rebbi, that a woman is certainly Tamei if she examines herself with an unchecked cloth. How are the Rambam's two apparently contradictory rulings to be understood?

The MAGID MISHNEH explains that although Rebbi Zeira equates these two Halachos, the Rambam understands that according to the Gemara's conclusion, the two are not necessarily comparable.