________________________________________________________
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
THE MIREL BAS YAKOV MORDECHAI KORNFELD
MASECHES NIDAH
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
daf@dafyomi.co.il, www.dafyomi.co.il
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
________________________________________________________
 Previous |
NIDAH 36 |  Next |
 Ask the Kollel |
(a) We learned in the first Perek that a Me'uberes or a Menikah who skips three Onos, is subject to the Din of Dayah Sha'atah. In a case where she skipped part of the three Onos during the days of pregnancy (without a sighting) and the rest whilst she was feeding, or vice-versa, the Tana rules - that they combine to make up the three Onos.
(b) We ask why, according to Levi - she should require not seeing blood during the days of Taharah (as we asked in the previous Kashya)?
(c) And we answer, like we answered there - that she only requires not actually seeing blood for a minimal amount of time, and the remainder of the time combines with the days of pregnancy, whether she saw blood or not.
(a) The Tana rules that should a woman who has a sighting after Dam Tohar - both Shamai and Hillel agree that we apply 'Dayah Sha'atah'.
(b) On the assumption that the Tana is speaking even after a number of days have elapsed since the termination of the days of Tohar (that she saw on the eighty-fourth day, say), this creates a problem with Rav - according to whom this is not the first sighting from this source, in which case she ought to be declared Tamei me'Es le'Es.
(c) There is no problem with Levi - seeing as this is the first sighting from this source (since before the birth).
(d) To solve the problem, we establish the case - where she saw immediately on the forty-first or eighty-first day (when me'Es le'Es is not applicable ...
(e) ... and wherever me'Es le'Es is not applicable - we do not apply mi'Pekidah li'Pekidah' either.
(a) On the previous Amud, we cited the Beraisa, which explains that, in a case of Yoledes be'Zov, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel follow their previous rulings (with regard to whether it is Metamei only Lach [Beis Shamai] or Lach and Yavesh [Beis Hillel]). According to Levi - seeing as the Yoledes has already counted seven clean days, what she now sees after that is from a source of Taharah. So why do Beis Hillel declare her Tamei mi'd'Oraysa?
(b) Levi will reply - that he holds like the Tana (that we cited a little earlier) 've'Shavin be'Ro'eh achar Dam Tohar she'Dayah Sha'tah', which Levi establishes even when there was a time lag between the end of the days of Taharah and her sighting (and which argues with the Beraisa from which we are querying him).
(a) Alternatively, we establish the Beraisa by Shofa'as (where she had one long sighting that lasted from the days of Tum'ah into the days of Taharah). True, the Tana says 'Safrah', and it is not possible to have counted seven clean days, if she did not stop seeing. However - we establish the Beraisa in the case of a woman who gave birth to a girl, and who saw blood during the second week, but not during the first ...
(b) ... and this Tana holds - that not seeing blood during the first seven days of Tumah counts as the seven clean days.
(c) What forces us to establish the Beraisa by a Yoledes Nekeivah, and not a Yoledes Zachar - is that in the latter case, it would be impossible to incorporate seven clean days and Shofa'as from the days of Tum'ah into the days of Taharah at one and the same time.
(a) Ravina told Rav Ashi that when Rav Sh'man from Sichra visited his town, he ruled like both Rav and Levi le'Chumra. Rav Ashi however - ruled like Rav, both le'Chumra and le'Kula ...
(b) ... as did Mereimar ...
(c) ... and that is the Halachah
(d) By ...
1. ... le'Chumra, we are referring to - where she sees from the days of Tum'ah into the days of Taharah, and by ...
2. ... le'Kula - where she sees from the days of Taharah into the days that follow (as we already explained).
36b----------------------------------------36b
(a) Our Mishnah rules that a woman who has pains before childbirth and who has one sighting - is a Nidah (this will be discussed further in the Sugya).
(b) A woman who has pains for three consecutive days (during the period of Zivus), and who also sees blood throughout, before giving birth, is considered a Yoledes be'Zov - provided she had relief from her pain for the twenty-four hours preceding the birth.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer gives the time period of the relief as twenty-four hours (me'Es le'Es). Rebbi Yehoshua requires - a complete day (a night followed by a day [like that of Shabbos).
(d) If she experiences the relief from the pain but not from the sighting of blood - she is nevertheless Tahor from Zivus.
(a) According to Rebbi Meir, even if the consecutive days of pain begin already forty or fifty days prior to the birth, she does not become a Zavah. Rebbi Yehudah - requires them to begin in the ninth month (but not before).
(b) If, according to the latter) they began already three days in the eighth month - he will consider her a Yoledes be'Zov (even if she has no relief).
(c) Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon are the most stringent of all. According to them, to absolve her from Tum'ah - the days of pain must begin within two weeks of the birth, and not before.
(a) The problem with our Mishnah's opening words 'ha'Makshah Nidah' is - that it implies that every woman who has pain before childbirth is a Nidah, which is obviously not the case.
(b) Rav explains 'Nidah le'Yoma', by which he means - that a woman in pain before childbirth who has one sighting during the days of Zivus, is Tamei for one day, as if she was a Nidah.
(c) According to Shmuel, she is also obligated to keep one day of Taharah (Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom [mi'de'Rabbanan]) ...
(d) ... in case she has relief from her pain, and turns out to be a Zavah Ketanah retroactively, rendering her husband (and herself) Chayav Kareis for being intimate with her.
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak says 'ha'Makshah Einah K'lum', which obviously cannot be taken literally. Rava therefore interprets it to mean - that if she has pains during the days of Nidus, she is Tamei (come what may).
(b) In support of his second statement 'bi'Yemei Zivah, Tehorah', we cite a Beraisa 'Kashsah Echad ve'Shafsah Shenayim', or vice-versa is considered Leidah be'Zov - and the same applies to 'Shafsah, Kashsah ve'Shafsah'.
(c) The Tana rules rules that she is Tahor - if Shafsah Echad, ve'Kashsah Shenayim (or vice versa) and 'Kashsah, ve'Shafsah ve'Kashsah.
(d) The principle that determines whether she is Yoledes be'Zov or Tahor - is what happens on the third day; whether she gives birth still in pain (Tahor), or following a period of relief (Yoledes be'Zov).
(e) 'K'lalo shel Davar ... ' comes to include the statement of Chananya the nephew of Rebbi Yehoshua, who rules - that if she felt pain on the eve of the third day, then, even though she felt relief throughout the following day, she is not a Yoledes be'Zov.
(a) We learn from ...
1. ... the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Ishah ki Yazuv es Zov (Damah)" - that a Zavah is Tamei even be'Oneis.
2. ... the word "Damah" - that she is only Tamei because of Zivus as long as she sees blood because of the Zivus, but not if it is on account of the baby that is about to be born.
(b) The reason that we are stringent by Oneis, and lenient by V'lad is - because sighting through an Oneis is not followed by a period of Taharah, like seeing on account of birth is.
(c) We refute the suggestion that on the contrary, we should Darshen leniently by Oneis, since Oneis is Tahor by a man - because we are talking about a woman, and not a man.
(d) Alternatively, we refute the suggestion to be lenient by Oneis and stringent by V'lad - since V'lad itself is also an Oneis.
(a) From the Pasuk (in connection with a Nidah) "ve'Ishah ki Sih'yeh Zavah" - we learn that a woman becomes a Nidah even be'Oneis.
(b) We ask from the word "Zovah" (in the Pasuk "Dam Yih'yeh Zovah mi'Besarah"), from which we ought then to learn - that she is Tahor even by Nidus Machmas V'lad (which is not the case, as we just learned).
(c) So Resh Lakish tries to preclude Koshi Machmas V'lad from Zivus from the word "Teishev" (in the Pasuk "Teishev bi'D'mei Taharah") - which teaches us that there is another Yeshivah like this one (of Leidah) which is Tahor (namely, that of Koshi bi'Yemei Zivus.
(d) We refute his proof however, on the grounds that the Pasuk might just as well be referring to Koshi Machmas Nidus.
(a) Avuhah di'Shmuel therefore learns it from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'Tam'ah Shevu'ayim ke'Nidasah" - "ke'Nidasah", 've'Lo ke'Zivasah' (to preclude Koshi Machmas Zivah from Tum'ah.
(b) We nevertheless need the D'rashah from "Damah" - to restrict the Miy'ut to where she gives birth whilst still in pain, but not if she first experienced relief.
(a) Shilo bar Avina issued a ruling like Rav (declaring a Makshah Leiled who sees blood on the first day of Zivus, Nidah for that day only). Just before Rav died, he commanded Rav Asi to remove that ruling from circulation, and to try to convince Shilo bar Avina to retract (in a nice convincing way ['Gar'reih']).
(b) When Rav Asi told Shilo bar Avina that Rav had retracted (and that he should rule like Shmuel) - he responded by stating that if Rav had retracted he would have told him so (since he was Rav's Talmid).
(c) Thinking that Rav had said 'Gad'deih' (which implies placing him in Cherem [see also Tosfos DH 'Gadyeih']), Rav Asi subsequently did precisely that.
(d) Shilo bar Avina's reaction to that was - to ask Rav Asi whether he was not afraid of being burned by his fire (see Pirkei Avos 2:15).
(a) When Rav Asi ...
1. ... cited him a host of names 'Isi ben Yehudah ... Isi ben Gur Aryeh ... Isi ben Gamliel ... and Isi ben Mahalalel - he was comparing himself to a Tana who was in fact called by all those names (See Tosfos DH 'Isi').
2. ... stated that he was a copper mortar (Asisa) which does not rot - he was playing on his name 'Asi', which is similar to 'Asisa' as well to the name 'Isi' that we just discussed.
(b) Shilo bar Avina retorted - that he was the iron pestle that breaks the copper mortar.
(c) Rav Asi subsequently became ill, contracting some sort of fever which caused him to go from hot to cold and from cold to hot, until he died.
(a) Shilo bar Avina, instructed his wife to prepare shrouds for him ...
(b) ... and he died.
(c) He did that - because he was afraid that Rav Asi would give a bad report about him to Rav.
(d) The myrtle twig that they used to place on a coffin - jumped from the grave of Shilo bar Avina to that of Rav Asi and back ...
(e) ... from which they understood that they had made peace.
Index to Review Questions and Answers
for Maseches Nidah
D.A.F. Homepage
OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF | ||||||||||||||||||||
the Daf | • | to the Daf | • | Point | • | Outlines | • | Charts |
||||||||||||
l'Daf | • | Quiz | • | Charts | • | Da'as | • | on the Daf | • | Masechta | • | Lectures |
|
Other Masechtos
• Join Mailing Lists
• Ask the Kollel Dafyomi Calendar • חומר בעברית Donations • Feedback • Links |