NIDAH 4 (4 Sivan) - Dedicated by Rabbi Kornfeld's father, Mr. David Kornfeld, in memory of the members of his family who perished at the hands of the Nazi murderers in the Holocaust, Hashem Yikom Damam: His mother (Mirel bas Yakov Mordechai), brothers (Shraga Feivel, Aryeh Leib and Yisachar Dov sons of Mordechai), grandfather (Reb Yakov Mordechai ben Reb David Shpira) and aunt (Charne bas Yakov Mordechai, the wife of Reb Moshe Aryeh Cohen zt'l). Their Yahrzeit is observed on 4 Sivan.

1)

TOSFOS DH Ki Pligi Chizkiyah v'R. Yochanan b'Kupah Bedukah

úåñôåú ã"ä ëé ôìéâé çæ÷éä åø' éåçðï á÷åôä áãå÷ä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that they argue about a box in Reshus ha'Yachid.)

åà''ú ãáðâò áàçã áìéìä àîøå çëîéí àí øàåäå çé îáòøá èäåø ùñô÷ èåîàä áøä''ø ñô÷å èäåø

(a)

Question: When one touched someone at night, Chachamim said that if he saw him alive the previous day, he is Tahor, for Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor;

îùîò ãáøä''é àôéìå øàåäå çé èîà

1.

Inference: In Reshus ha'Yachid, even if he saw him alive the previous day, he is Tamei.

åäùúà äê ÷åôä äéëé ãîéà àå áøä''ø îàé èòîà ãøáé éåçðï ãîèîà åàé áøä''é î''è ãçæ÷éä ãîèäø

2.

What is the case of the box? If it is in Reshus ha'Rabim, why is R. Yochanan Metamei? If it is in Reshus ha'Yachid, why is Chizkiyah Metaher?

åé''ì ãáøä''é àééøé åçæ÷éä éôøù äáøééúà ãáøàåäå çé îáòøá èäåø àôéìå áøä''é

(b)

Answer: It is in Reshus ha'Yachid. Chizkiyah explains the Beraisa of when he saw him alive the previous day, he is Tahor, even in Reshus ha'Yachid.

åñô÷ èåîàä áøä''ø èäåø ã÷àîø

(c)

Implied question: The Beraisa says "Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor"!

äééðå ãäåé ëàéìå äåà ñô÷ èåîàä áøä''ø ëéåï ùäéà áãå÷ä úçìä

(d)

Answer: It means that it is like Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim, since it was checked initially;

åàâá ãáøéùà ð÷è äàé ìéùðà áîéìúéä ãø''î äéëà ãìà øàåäå çé îáòøá îúçìä ã÷úðé áúåñôúà ø''î îèäø áøä''ø ð÷è ðîé áîéìúééäå ãçëîéí áñéôà øä''ø

1.

Since the Reisha used these words in the opinion of R. Meir, when he did not see him alive the previous day, i.e. the Tosefta teaches "R. Meir is Metaher in Reshus ha'Rabim", for parallel structure, it used these words in Chachamim's opinion in the Seifa.

2)

TOSFOS DH v'Ha Ishah Mechusah Hi

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà àùä îëåñä äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this unlike Rashi.)

ôé' øù''é ãìà ðôì áä ãí îòìîà

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Blood did not fall on her from elsewhere.

å÷ùä ãë''ù ùäéà èîàä ãàéï ìúìåú áãí àçø àìà áà îâåôä

(b)

Question: If so, all the more so she is Temei'ah, for we cannot attribute to other blood. Rather, it came from her body!

ìëê é''ì îëåñä äéà ùäî÷åø (äâäú äøù"ù) ñúåí åëùäãí éåöà ðôúç åäéä ìä ìäøâéù

(c)

Explanation #2: She is covered, i.e. the Makor (source of menstrual blood) is closed, and when blood leaves it, it opens, and she should have felt it.

åà''ú åäà á÷åôä áãå÷ä ôìéâé ãàé ìàå äëé îàé îåòéì ëùäéà îëåñä

(d)

Question: They argue about a checked box. If not, what does it help that it is covered?

åà''ë îàé ôøéê åäà àùä îëåñä îàé îåòéì ëñåé ëéåï ãìàå ëáãå÷ä ãîéà

1.

If so, what is the question "a woman is covered"? What does a cover help, since it is not as if she is checked?

åé''ì ùøåöä ìééùá àôé' àé çùéá ìä ëáãå÷ä

(e)

Answer: He wants to resolve even if she is considered like checked.

3)

TOSFOS DH she'Kol ha'Tum'os k'Sha'as Metzi'asan

úåñôåú ã"ä ùëì äèîàåú ëùòú îöéàúï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is only for Kodshim, and it is due to Chazakah.)

ìòéì ôé' ãäééðå ãå÷à ì÷ãùéí

(a)

Reference: Above (2a DH me'Es), I explained that this is only for Kodshim.

åäà ãîçè ùðîöàú îìàä çìåãä ãèäåøä ãëì äèîàåú ëùòú îöéàúï àôéìå ìä÷ì ìàå îùåí ãäåé ëùòú îöéàúï ãàåøééúà

(b)

Suggestion: A needle that was found full of rust, it is Tahor, because all Tum'os are [assumed to be] like they are at the time they are found, even to be lenient. This is mid'Oraisa!

àìà îùåí ãîå÷é äèäøåú àçæ÷úééäå

(c)

Rejection: No. Rather, it is because we establish the Taharos in their Chazakah.

åà''ú îàé ôøéê îëëø äðúåðä òì âáé ãó ãìîà áëëø ùì çåìéï àééøé

(d)

Question: What was the question from a loaf on a board? Perhaps it is a Chulin loaf!

åé''ì ãàôéìå áçåìéï ìà äéä ìðå ìòùåú ëì ëê ìúìåú áàãí èäåø ùäðôéìä ðøàéú éåúø

(e)

Answer: Even for Chulin, we should not go so far to attribute to a Tahor person, since it seems more likely that it fell;

åäéä ìðå ìèîà îî÷åí ìî÷åí ëéåï ãìà àôùø ìéôåì àìà àí ëï ðâò àé áùåí î÷åí àðå îçîéøéï àôéìå á÷ãùéí

1.

We should be Metamei from place to place, since it cannot fall unless it touched, if in any place we are stringent, even [if that place is] in Kodshim.

4)

TOSFOS DH u'Mi Talinan v'Ha Anan Tanan v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åîé úìéðï åäà àðï úðï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

åà''ú åäéà äðåúðú îùåí ãàæìéðï áúø ùòú îöéàúä ìâîøé àôéìå îî÷åí ìî÷åí ìúìåú ìëê îçè ùðîöàú îìàä çìåãä èäåøä ìâîøé

(a)

Question: Hi ha'Nosenes (for this reason we should say so! It is Tahor) because we totally follow the time it is found, even to attribute from place to place, therefore a needle found full of rust is totally Tahor!

åàò''â ãîöéðï ìîéîø ãäééðå ã÷àîø åë''ú ëùòú îöéàúï ìâîøé áéï ì÷åìà áéï ìçåîøà

(b)

Answer: We can say that this is what [the Beraisa says] "they are totally like at the time they are found", whether to be lenient or stringent!

î''î îàé ñ''ã ãî÷ùä

(c)

Question: Still, what did the Makshan think?

åé''ì ãñ''ã ëéåï ãîçîéø ëì ëê áèåîàä ìúìåú àôé' îî÷åí ìî÷åí [ò''ë àéðå èòí âîåø ããå÷à á÷ãùéí äåà åîùåí çåîøà]

(d)

Answer: He thought that since [R. Yochanan] is so stringent to attribute even from place to place, you are forced to say that it is not a proper reason. It is only for Kodshim, and due to a stringency;

à''ë áîçè ìà äéä ìå ìèäø ìâîøé îùåí ùòú îöéàúä àìà äåä ìéä ìîéîø äùúà äåà ãòìúä çìåãä

1.

If so, regarding a needle he should not be Metaher totally due to the time it was found. Rather, he should say that now it rusted!

5)

TOSFOS DH Kikar ha'Nesunah Al Gabei Daf

úåñôåú ã"ä ëëø äðúåðä òì âáé ãó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies learning from a case of Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol.)

åà''ú ùàðé äúí ùàéï áå ãòú ìéùàì ëãàîø áñîåê

(a)

Question: There is different, for Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol, like it says below!

åé''ì ãôøéê àé áùåí î÷åí àðå îçîéøéï îî÷åí ìî÷åí àôéìå á÷ãùéí ìà äéä ìðå ìòùåú ñô÷ åìúìåú áàãí èäåø ãéåúø éù ìúìåú áðôéìä

(b)

Answer: We ask that if in any place we are stringent from place to place, even for Kodshim, we should not make a Safek and attribute to a Tahor person, for it is more reasonable to attribute to falling.

6)

TOSFOS DH she'Ani Omer Adam Tahor

úåñôåú ã"ä ùàðé àåîø àãí èäåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why elsewhere we attribute to a Tamei person.)

åà''ú ãäëà úìéðï áàãí èäåø åáô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó è:) âáé öìåçéú ùäðéçä îëåñä åáà åîöàä îâåìä úìéðï áàãí èîà åëï ô''÷ ãôñçéí (ãó é:) âáé ÷åøãåí

(a)

Question: Here we attribute to a Tahor person. In Chulin (9b), regarding a plate that one left covered, and he came and found it exposed, we attribute to a Tamei person! Similarly, in Pesachim (10b) regarding an axe [lost in the house, we assume that a Tamei person moved it]!

åúéøõ ø''ú ãâáé ëìéí äðîöàéï ãåå÷à âæøéðï èåîàä îùåí ãàéú ìäå èäøä áî÷åä åìéëà ôñéãà

(b)

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Only regarding Kelim that are found, we decree Tum'ah, because they can become Tahor through a Mikveh, and there is no loss;

àáì áàåëìéï ãàéëà ôñéãà ãìéú ìäå èäøä áî÷åä ìà äçîéøå

1.

However, regarding food, there is a loss, for it cannot become Tahor through a Mikveh, so they were not stringent.

àé ðîé äëà îåëçà îéìúà ãàãí èäåø äñéøä áëååðä ëãé ùìà úôåì òì îãó èîà àáì áòìîà èîàéï áéï áàåëìéï áéï áëìéí ãìéëà ìîéîø àãí áëååðä òùä ìú÷ðúà

(c)

Answer #2: Here it is proven that a Tahor person removed it intentionally, lest it fall on the Tamei garment. However, elsewhere it is Tamei, both regarding food and Kelim, for we cannot say that a person did so to fix matters.

7)

TOSFOS DH Hacha Nami Neima Orev Asa v'Shada (pertains to Amud B)

úåñôåú ã"ä äëà ðîé ðéîà òåøá àúà åùãà (ùééê ìòîåã á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we suggest to be lenient.)

àó òì âá ãàãí ùðùúîù á÷åôä éù áå ãòú ìéùàì

(a)

Implied question: A person who used the box is Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol!

îëì î÷åí ôøéê ëéåï ãòì éãé úìééú àãí èäåø àéï àúä çåùáå ñô÷ àó òì âá ùäðôéìä ðøàä éåúø àí ëï äøáä îöåé äåà ùàãí èäåø áà ìùí

(b)

Answer: In any case we ask that since through attributing to a Tahor person you do not consider it a Safek, even though falling seems more reasonable, if so it is very common that a Tahor person came there;

äëà ðîé ðéîà àúà òåøá åùãà åìà äåé ñô÷:

1.

Also here, we should say that a raven came and cast [the Sheretz], and it is not a Safek!

8)

TOSFOS DH Lo Nitzrecha Ela l'Mekom Madron

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ðöøëä àìà ìî÷åí îãøåï.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is a Chidush only if it is on an incline.)

ôéøåù ëùäîãó áî÷åí îãøåï ãàôéìå ðôì äëëø òì âáé îãó ìà ðùàø ìùí

(a)

Explanation: The garment is in an inclined place. Even if the loaf fell on the garment, it would not remain there;

àáì àí äîãó á÷ø÷ò ùåä ôùéèà ãèäåø:

1.

However, if the garment is on level ground, obviously [the loaf did not fall on it, so] is Tahor!

4b----------------------------------------4b

9)

TOSFOS DH v'Iba'is Eima b'Tum'ah mid'Rabanan

úåñôåú ã"ä åàéáòéú àéîà áèåîàä ãøáðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we give another answer.)

ìà áà ìúøõ ãàôéìå àé äåé ãáø ùéù áå ãòú ìéùàì ãàúé ùôéø

(a)

Suggestion: He comes to answer that even if it is Davar she'Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol, it is fine.

ãîä ìå ìúøõ æä ëéåï ãàîú äåà ãëëø åîãó àéï áäí ãòú ìéùàì

(b)

Rejection: Why should he answer this, since in truth, a loaf and a garment is Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol!

àìà îúøõ àôé' àéï ìúìåú áàãí èäåø ëîå áðôéìä ìôé ùäðôéìä ÷øåáä ìåãàé ëîå ùñåáø äî÷ùä àúé ùôéø ãàééøé áèåîàä ãøáðï åàééøé ááâãé òí äàøõ ìôøåùéí

(c)

Explanation #1: Rather, he explains that even if we cannot attribute to a Tahor person as much as on falling, for it is almost Vadai that it fell, like the Makshan holds, it is fine, for we discuss a Tum'ah mid'Rabanan. We discuss Bigdei Am ha'Aretz [which are considered Tamei mid'Rabanan] to Perushim (stringent people).

åøù''é ãôé' ááâãé ôøåùéí ãäåé îãøñ ìàåëìé úøåîä

(d)

Explanation #2 (Rashi): Garments of Perushim are Midras (Tamei) to people who eat Terumah.

ðøàä ùñåáø ùòúä áà ìúøõ àôé' áùéù áå ãòú ìéùàì åìëê ìà øöä ìôøù ááâãé ò''ä ìôøåùéí îùåí ãäúí ìà äééðå î÷éìéï

(e)

Inference: He holds that now we come to answer even if it is Davar she'Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol. This is why he did not explain Bigdei Am ha'Aretz to Perushim, for there we would not be lenient;

ëãàîøéðï áùáú ô''÷ (ãó èå:) ãòì å' ñôé÷åú ùåøôéï àú äúøåîä åçùéá áâãé ò''ä ãòì åãàé îâòï ùåøôéï åòì ñô÷ îâòï úåìéï (åçùéá áâãé ò''ä)

1.

Source: It says in Shabbos (15b) that there are six Sefekos for which we burn Terumah, and it lists Bigdei Am ha'Aretz among them, for Vadai touching them. For Safek touching them, we are Toleh.

åìôé ùéèúå äéä éëåì ìôøù ãñ"ã ãî÷ùä ãîãó äééðå áâãé òí äàøõ

(f)

Comment - Implied question: According to this opinion, he could have explained that the Makshan thought that Madaf is Bigdei Am ha'Aretz!

åùîà ìà ôéøù ëï îùåí ãáú"ë àé÷øé îãó òìéåðå ùì æá åëï áîñëú æáéï ô"ä [î"á] åáòãéåú ô"å [î"á].

(g)

Answer: Perhaps he did not explain so, for in Toras Kohanim, Elyono Shel Zav (a Kli on top of a Zav) is called Madaf, and also in Maseches Zavin (5:2) and Eduyos (6:2).

10)

TOSFOS DH Kol Ishah she'Yesh Lah Veses Dayah Shaitah

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì àùä ùéù ìä åñú ãéä ùòúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah did not explain this immediately.)

úéîä ìîä äôñé÷ åùðä äîùîùú áòãéí ä''ì ìîéúðé îéã ëéöã ãéä ùòúä

(a)

Question: Why did it interrupt and teach one who has Bi'ah with Edim (Bedikah cloths)? It should have taught immediately "what is the case of Dayah Shaitah?"!

åé''ì ã÷î''ì àò''â ãéù ìä åñú öøéëä ìùîù áòãéí ëãàîø áâîøà

(b)

Answer: The Chidush is that even though she has a Veses, she must have Bi'ah with Edim, like it says in the Gemara.

àò''â ãúðï ì÷îï (ãó éà.) àò''â ùàîøå ãéä ùòúä öøéëä áåã÷ú

(c)

Implied question: (We need not teach this here.) A Mishnah below (11a) teaches that even though they said that she is Dayah Shaitah, she must check!

äëà úðà ìéä ìàùîåòéðï ãàåúä áãé÷ä çùåáä äéà ìîòè îòú ìòú ãäåé çãåù ëãàîøé' áâîøà åãì÷îï äééðå áã' ðùéí ããééï ùòúï

(d)

Answer: Here it taught it to teach that that Bedikah is important, to diminish (retroactive Tum'ah) from me'Es la'Es, which is a Chidush, like we say in the Gemara. Below it discusses the four women who are Dayan Shaitan.

åäà ãîùîò äëà ãàôé' àåúï ããééï ùòúï öøéëéï áãé÷ä åáùéìäé áðåú ëåúéí (ì÷îï ãó ìç:) úðï ãëì é''à ùáéï ðãä ìðãä äøé äéà áçæ÷ú èäøä åîôøù áâîøà ãàéðä öøéëä áãé÷ä åàô''ä ÷àîø äúí ãîèîà îòì''ò

(e)

Implied question: Here it connotes that even those women who are Dayan Shaitan require Bedikah, and below (38b) a Mishnah teaches that all 11 days between Nidah and Nidah (i.e. the days of Zivah), she has Chezkas Taharah. The Gemara explains that she does not need Bedikah, and even so, it says there that she is Metamei me'Es la'Es!

áò''ä àôøù ìùí:

(f)

Reference: With Hash-m's help I will explain there (39a DH veha'Yoledes. A woman with a Veses must check, for Oreach bi'Zmanah Ba. If Besulas Damim, or a pregnant or nursing woman would get used to not checking for a long time, they might continue not checking even when they cease to be Mesulekes Damim.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF