NIDAH 65 - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Lily (Leah bas Pinchas) Kornfeld, who passed away on 8 Av 5765, by their daughter Shifra and family.

1)

TOSFOS DH v'Chi Teima Batzir Hu d'Leika Ha Tfei Ika

úåñôåú ã"ä åëé úéîà áöéø äåà ãìéëà äà èôé àéëà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends our text.)

áîñëú ÷ãåùéï (ãó òè.) ôøù''é ãìà âøñé' ìéä (áìáã) ãáìàå áìáã ðîé îùîò (äâäú äøù"ù) åìà éåúø

(a)

Question: In Kidushin (79a), Rashi explained that the text does not say so, for even without "only", it connotes that there are no more [than six months between Na'arus and Bagrus]!

îéäå ðøàä ãàé ìàå áìáã îöéðå ìôøåùé äëé àéï ùéòåø ä÷èï ùáéï ðòøåú ìáâøåú àìà å' çãùéí åäåä îùîò ùôéø ãàéëà èôé

(b)

Answer: If not for "only", we could have explained that the minimal time between Na'arus and Bagrus is six months, which would properly connote that it can be more.

2)

TOSFOS DH Ela d'Yahiv Lah Achas bi'Yemei Katnus u'Shtayim bi'Yemei Na'arus v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ãéäéá ìä àçú áéîé ÷èðåú åùúéí áéîé ðòøåú ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the spacing of the Bi'os.)

îãîñé÷ ì÷îï îé ñáøú ãëì úìúà éøçé çãà òåðä îëìì ãëê äéä ñáåø îúçìä

(a)

Inference: Below, we conclude "do you think that there was one Onah every three months?" This implies that initially he held so.

åò''ë àå äøàùåðä ùá÷èðåú øçå÷ä îï äùðéä å' çãùéí åäùàø â' â' àå äøáéòéú øçå÷ä å' çãùéí îäùìéùéú åäùàø â' â'

(b)

Consequence: You are forced to say that either the first of Katnus (while she was a minor) was six months before the second, and the rest were three months apart, or the fourth was six months after the third, and the others were three months apart.

ùàí ìà ëï ìà äéå îúåê é''á çãù

(c)

Proof: If not, they were not amidst 12 months. (If each was three months after the previous, they spanned only nine months!)

åà''ë ëé îñé÷ úìúà áéîé ðòøåú åëì úøé éøçé çãà òåðä ìà äéä öøéê ìùðåú ñãø äòåðåú àìà ëì úìúà éøçé çãà òåðä

(d)

Question: If so, when we conclude that there were three in Na'arus, and there was one Onah every two months, there was no need to change the order of Onos. Rather, there was one Onah every three months;

äøàùåðä ìôðé äðòøåú åäùðéä áúçìú ðòøåú åäùìéùéú áàîöò ðòøåú â' éøçéí àçøéä (äâäú äøù"ù) åäøáéòéú áñåó ðòøåú

1.

The first was before Na'arus, the second was at the beginning of Na'arus, the third was in the middle of Na'arus, three months after it, and the fourth was at the end of Na'arus!

åéù ìåîø ãðéçà ìéä ìäù''ñ ìäùååú äôñ÷åú äáéàåú æå îæå ëîå ùäåà éëåì

(e)

Answer: The Gemara prefers to equate the intervals between Bi'os as much as it can.

åàò''â ãáéàú ÷èðåú öøéê ùúäà å' çãùéí ìôðé ðòøåú ãàí ìà ëï ìà äéå é''á çãù

(f)

Implied question: The Bi'ah of Katnus must be six months before Na'arus. If not, they did not span 12 months!

î''î ðøàä ãìàå ãå÷à áùìà áòì àìà å' çãùéí ìôðé ðòøåú ãäà àôéìå áòì ëì éîé îùê ÷èðåú ÷àîø ãàéðå àìà áòéìä àçú

(g)

Answer: In any case, it seems that it is not precise that he had Bi'ah only six months before Na'arus, for even if he had Bi'ah the entire time of Katnus, it says that it [counts] only like one Bi'ah. (Indeed, the first Bi'ah was six months before Na'arus, just there are other Bi'os during Katnus that are not counted among the four.)

äéìëê àé ëì çãà úìúà éøçé úäéä äùðéä ùáúçìú ðòøåú ñîåê ìáéàä àçøåðä ùì ÷èðåú îù''ä ÷àîø ëì úøé éøçé çãà òåðä

1.

Therefore, if each was three months apart, the second [Bi'ah counted, i.e.] at the beginning of Na'arus would be close to the last Bi'ah of Katnus. Therefore, it says that every two months was one Onah;

äùðéä úäéä áñåó á' çãùéí ùì ðòøåú øçå÷ îñåó ÷èðåú åäùìéùéú ìñåó ã' çãùéí åäøáéòéú ìñåó å' çãùéí åøéçå÷í ùåä úøé úøé éøçé

2.

The second will be at the end of two months of Na'arus, [two months] distanced from the end of Katnus. The third was the end of four months [of Na'arus], and the fourth was at the end of six months. The distances were the same - two months in between.

åëï ëã÷ñ''ã îòé÷øà áëì úìúà éøçé çãà òåðä äéà ùåä áæä äòðéï

(h)

Explanation: Also in the initial Havah Amina that every three months is one Onah, they were equal in this way;

â' çãùéí ìôðé ñåó (äâäú ôúçé ðãä) ÷èðåú åðîùëåú äáéàåú òã ñåó ÷èðåú ãàéðä àìà áéàä àçú åîùí ìâ' çãùéí áàîöò ðòøåú åîùí ìâ' çãùéí áñåó ðòøåú åøáéòéú â' çãùéí ááâøåú

1.

[The first Bi'ah was three months] before the end of Katnus. The Bi'os [of Katnus] continued until the end of Katnus; they are counted like only one Bi'ah. From there, [the next was] after three months, in the middle of Na'arus, and from there three months until the end of Na'arus, and the fourth was three months into Bagrus;

àå øàùåðä áñåó ÷èðåú åùðéä áàîöò ðòøåú åùìéùéú áñåó ðòøåú åøáéòéú å' (äâäú îäøù"à) çãùéí ááâøåú

2.

Alternatively, the first was at the end of Katnus. The second was in the middle of Na'arus, the third was at the end of Na'arus, and the fourth was six months into Bagrus.

3)

TOSFOS DH Savar Lemevad Uvda Kevasei d'Rav v'Afilu Ro'osah

úåñôåú ã"ä ñáø ìîòáã òåáãà ëååúéä ãøá åàôéìå øàúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the problem of Minyamin's intent.)

åà''ú åäà àôéìå àé ìà äåä îôìéâ áéï øàúä ììà øàúä î''î ìà ä''ì ìîòáã ëøá ãäà îñ÷éðï ì÷îï øá åùîåàì ãàîøé úøåééäå äìëä áåòì áòéìú îöåä åôåøù

(a)

Question: Even if [Minyamin Saksana'ah] did not distinguish between one who saw and one who did not see, in any case he may not rule like Rav, for we conclude below (65b) that Rav and Shmuel both say that the Halachah is that he has Bi'as Mitzvah and separates!

åé''ì ãàé ìà òáéã ëäê ãì÷îï ìà äåä î÷ôéã ùîåàì ãî''î äåä òáéã ëîúðé'

(b)

Answer: If Minyamin would rule unlike the teaching below [of Rav and Shmuel], Shmuel would not be adamant, for in any case [Minyamin] rules like our Mishnah;

àáì áäê ùäéä øåöä ìòùåú îä ùìà àîø øá îòåìí áæä äéä î÷ôéã ùîåàì

1.

However, Minyamin wanted to rule like something that Rav never said. Shmuel was adamant about this.

4)

TOSFOS DH ha'Dapin veha'Lulavim veha'Adashin

úåñôåú ã"ä äãôéï åäìåìáéí åäòãùéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Avodah Zarah.)

äòãùéï ô''ä æå äéà äâú òöîä ùäòðáéí ðúåðéí áä

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Adashin is the winepress itself, in which the grapes are put.

åáñ''ô áúøà ãîñëú ò''æ (ãó òä.) ÷àîø áòå îéðéä îø' àáäå äðé âåøâé ãòåáãé ëåëáéí îäå

(b)

Citation (Avodah Zarah 75a) Question (to R. Avahu): What is the law of Gorgei of Nochrim?

ôøù''é åëï áòøåê âåøâé ò÷ìéí åôùéè ìéä îäà îúðé' ãäãôéï åäìåìáéï åëå' ãò÷ìéí îðâáï

1.

Rashi and the Aruch explained that Gorgei are Akalim (nets of poles tied around grapes or olives being pressed). [R. Avahu] resolved this from our Beraisa of ha'Dapin veha'Lulavim... one dries the Akalim.

åôøù''é äúí ãîãôùéè îäê îúðé' ù''î ãòé÷ø äéà äéìëê ñîëéðï òìä ìîùøé âú áäãçä

(c)

Pesak: Rashi explained there that since he resolved from this Beraisa, this shows that it is primary. Therefore, we rely on it to permit a winepress through rinsing it;

åìà ñîëéðï àáøééúà ãìòéì äâú åäîçõ ã÷úðé ùì òõ åùì àáï îðâáï åäï èäåøéï

1.

We do not rely on the Beraisa above (Avodah Zarah 74b) of a winepress and Machatz (a Kli used to draw wine from the pit, to put it in barrels), which says that if they are of wood or stone, he dries them and they are Tehorim.

åæäå úéîä àé îééúé ääéà áøééúà ãäãôéï ìâáé ò÷ìéï ãìéëà ãôìéâ òì æä (äâäú äá"ç) âáé ùàø ãáøéí ãôìéâ àéãê áøééúà òìä åìéëà èòîà ìîñîê òìéä

(d)

Objection #1: This is astounding, if he brings the Beraisa of Dapin regarding Akalim, which no one argues about, [to teach how we rule] about other matters, about which the other Beraisa disagrees! There is no reason to rely on [the Beraisa of Akalim]!

åîéäå îèòí ãáùì ñåôøéí äìê àçø äîé÷ì äåä îöé ôñé÷ ëååúéä

(e)

Defense (of Rashi's Pesak): However, because we follow the lenient opinion in mid'Rabanan laws, we can rule like [the Beraisa of Akalim].

åòåã ãáúåñôúà ãèäøåú âøñéðï äãôéï åäìåìáéï åäòãùéï îðâáï åäï èäåøéï

(f)

Objection #2: Also, in the Tosefta of Taharos (11:16), the text [of the Beraisa cited here] says "ha'Dapin veha'Lulavim veha'Adashin, one dries them and they are Tehorim." (This shows that rinsing does not suffice for a winepress!)

åîéäå àåîø ø''é ãàôé' àé âøñéðï îãéçï ëâéøñú äñôøéí ì''÷ ìáøééúà ãìòéì ãòãùéï ìàå âú òöîä äåà àìà òéâåì ùì èéè ùîëáéã òì òðáéí ùáâú ìãåøëï

(g)

Explanation #2 (Ri): Even if the text [of the Tosefta] says "one rinses them", like the text of Seforim, this is not difficult for the Beraisa above (74b, which says that one must dry a winepress). Adashin is not the winepress itself, rather, a ring of mud that weighs on the grapes in the pit to press them.

åëï ôé' áòøåê áòøê èìôç åäåà éí ãàîø áô' äîåëø äáéú (á''á ãó ñæ:) îàé éí èìôçà

(h)

Support: The Aruch (Erech Talfach) explained like this. It is the Yam (tub), for it says in Bava Basra (67b) "what is the Yam? It is Talfacha."

åìôé ùäåà òâåì ÷øåé òãùéí åèìôçà åð÷øà éí òì ùí ùäòðáéí ðòöøéí òì éãå åîúîìàú ééï ëîéí éëñå òì éí

1.

Because it is round (like lentils), it is called Adashim and Talfacha (lentils, in Hebrew and Arame'ic). It is called Yam, for grapes are pressed through it, and it fills with wine like water covers the sea.

åîä ùìà ùðä äëà ãéï âú

(i)

Implied question: Why didn't it teach the law of the winepress here (in our Beraisa, i.e. the Tosefta)?

äééðå îùåí ùäéà ëáãä åàéðä îèìèìú ëì ëê åîùúîøú éåúø îèåîàä îëì ëìé äâú ùéã äëì îîùîùéï áäï

(j)

Answer: This is because it is heavy and it is not moved so much, and it is guarded from Tum'ah more than all Kelim of the winepress, which everyone touches them.

åëï áäîåëø äáéú ìà äåöøê ìùðåú áã ëé ôùéèà ùîëø àú áã (äâäú îäøù"à) òöîå

(k)

Support: Similarly, in Bava Basra there was no need to teach the law of the olivepress (regarding what is sold with an olivepress), for it is obvious that he sold the olivepress itself.

åîëø àú äé÷áéí ã÷úðé áâîøà ìàå äééðå áã (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä) ëôøùá''í

(l)

Implied question: The Gemara there taught [that if one sold an olivepress,] he sold the Yekavim. This is the olivepress, like the Rashbam explained!

àìà ëîå ùôéøù äòøåê ñìéí ùîáéàéï áäï æéúéí ìáéú äáã

(m)

Answer: No, it is like the Aruch explained. It is baskets in which they bring olives to the olivepress.

åø''ú îôøù ãäê îúðé' áëìé áéú äáã àééøé ëãàîø áàéæäå ðùê (á''î ãó òã.) âáé îòèï ùì æéúéí åäà îçñø îëîø åòéåìé ìáé ãôé

(n)

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): This Beraisa (in our Sugya) discusses Kelim of the olivepress (not of a winepress), like it says in Bava Metzi'a (74a) regarding Ma'atan (a container of olives) "[the olives] must be warmed, brought to the Bei Dapi..." (I.e. Dapin mentioned here are for olives.)

åâáé òáéè ùì òðáéí ð÷è åòéåìé ìáé îòöøúà

1.

Regarding a container of grapes, it says that they must be brought to the Bei Ma'atzarta (winepress).

åëï òãùéï ãôø÷ äîåëø àú äáéú (á''á ãó ñæ:) ÷àîø ìäå âáé áéú äáã ã÷àîø äîåëø àú áéú äáã îëø àú äéí åîôøù îàé éí èìôçà åäééðå òãùéï ãäëà

2.

Similarly, Adashin in Bava Basra (67b) is mentioned regarding the olivepress, for it says that one who sold an olivepress, he sold the Yam, and it explains that Yam is Talfacha, i.e. Adashin mentioned here.

åëï ò÷ìéí îöéðå ááã áôø÷ æä áåøø (ñðäãøéï ëå.) ìò÷ì áéú äáã àðé öøéê åáäâåæì áúøà (á''÷ ÷èå:) ëùò÷ì áéú äáã ëøåê òìéä

3.

Similarly, we find Akalim in an olivepress, in Sanhedrin (26a) [that one who takes branches from his vineyard in Shemitah can say] "I need it for Ekel of the olivepress", and in Bava Kama (115b) it says "when Ekel of the olivepress is wrapped around [the barrel]."

åàò''â ãôúç áúøúé âúéå åáéú áãéå èîàéí

(o)

Implied question: [The Beraisa here] initially mentioned a Tamei winepress and olivepress! (Why does it explain only Kelim of the olivepress?)

âú ùééøéä ëã÷àîø áäçåìõ (éáîåú ãó ìç:) ëúåáä ìá''ù ùééøä

(p)

Answer: It omitted [explaining] a winepress, like it says in Yevamos (38b) that Beis Shamai [asked what is the law of] the Kesuvah, but then omitted [explaining it].

åîéäå ÷ùä ãìà ãîé àé äúí ùééø ìá''ù î''î úðé ìá''ä àáì äëà àîàé úðà âú ëìì àé ìàå ìàùîåòéðï áäå îéãé

(q)

Question #1: These are different! There, even though Beis Shamai omitted [explaining the law of the Kesuvah], Beis Hillel taught it. Here, why was a winepress mentioned at all, if not to teach something about it?

àìà ò''ë îùîéòðå ááã åîéðä ùîòéðï ãâú ëéåöà áå

(r)

Answer: Rather, you must say that it teaches about an olivepress, and we learn that the same applies to a winepress.

åò''÷ àé ìà îééøé àìà ááã äéëé ôùéè ãâåøâé ãòåáãé ëåëáéí ãäééðå ò÷ìéï ãâáé âú ãìòðéï ééï ðñê îò÷ìéï ãáøééúà ãàééøé áëìé áã

(s)

Question #2: If we discuss only an olivepress, how did [R. Avahu, in Avodah Zarah 75a] resolve the law of Gorgi of Nochrim, i.e. Ekalin of a winepress regarding Yayin Nesech, from Ekalin of the Beraisa, which discusses Kelim of the olivepress?

àìà ò''ë ö''ì ãúðà áã åîéðéä ðùîò âú åëéåöà áå

(t)

Answer: Rather, you must say that it teaches about an olivepress, and from it we learn about a winepress and similar matters.

åøùá''â ðîé ÷àîø îâú ìâú åîáã ìáã ããéðí ùåä

(u)

Support: Also R. Shimon ben Gamliel said that [one must wait] from one season of pressing grapes until the next, and from one season of pressing olives until the next, for their laws are the same.

åòåã àåîø ø''é ãàôéìå ìôéøù''é ãôé' ãòãùéï äééðå âú åìâéøñú äñôøéí ãâøñé' îãéçï ìà ôìéâ àáøééúà ãâú åîçõ ã÷úðé îðâáï åäï èäåøéï

(v)

Observation (Ri): Even according to Rashi, who explains that Adashin is the winepress, and according to the text of Seforim, which says [in the Beraisa here] "he rinses them", it does not argue with the Beraisa of a winepress and Machatz, which says that he dries them and they are Tehorim;

ãäúí áùì òåáãé ëåëáéí îééøé ìôéëê îçîøéðï ìðâá àò''â ãàéðï îæåôôéï ëã÷úðé àí äéå îæåôôéï àñåøéï

1.

There (that Beraisa) discusses of Nochrim. Therefore, we are stringent to dry them, even though they are not coated with pitch, like it teaches there "if they are coated with pitch, they are forbidden";

åäê ãäëà àééøé áùì éùøàì åðâò áäï òåáã ëåëáéí ëã÷úðé îé ùäéå âúéå åáéú áãéå èîàéï åîù''ä ñâé áäãçä

2.

[The Beraisa cited] here discusses of Yisrael, and a Nochri touched them, like it says "one whose winepress or olivepress was Tamei", therefore rinsing suffices.

åëï ö''ì ìøáà ãàîø äúí ì''ù ôéøåù ãáòé ðéâåá àìà ùæôúä àáì ãøê áä áìà æôéúä ìà

(w)

Support: We must say so according to Rava, who said there [in Avodah Zarah] "we learned", i.e. that he must dry them, "only if he coated them with pitch, but not if he pressed without coating with pitch";

åáäê áøééúà ÷úðé ùì òõ åùì àáï îðâáï åäí èäåøéï åàí äéå îæåôôéï àñåøéï àìîà áìà æôéúä ðîé áòé ðéðåá

1.

Contradiction: In this Beraisa, it teaches "if they are of wood or stone, he dries them and they are Tehorim. If they were coated them with pitch, they are forbidden." This shows that drying is needed even if they were not coated with pitch!

àìà îúðéúà àééøé áùì òåáã ëåëáéí

2.

Resolution: The Beraisa [there] discusses of Nochrim.

åîéäå ÷ùä ãäéëé ôùéè âåøâé ãòåáãé ëåëáéí îò÷ìéï ãáøééúà ãùîòúéï ãìîà ãòåáãé ëåëáéí çîéøé

(x)

Question: How did [R. Avahu] resolve the law of Gorgei (Akalim) of Nochrim from the law of Akalim in the Beraisa of our Sugya? Perhaps we are more stringent about those of Nochrim!

åé''ì ãàò''â ãáâú îôìâéðï áéï ùì éùøàì ìùì òåáãé ëåëáéí éù ãáøéí ãìà ùééê ìàôìåâé áäå ëîå âáé ðåãåú åâáé ãáø ùîëðéñå ì÷éåí ãàôé' ìôé ùòä âæøå áäå øáðï ì''ù ãéùøàì ì''ù ãòåáãé ëåëáéí

(y)

Answer #1: Even though in a winepress we distinguish between of Yisrael and of Nochrim, there are matters in which it is not feasible to distinguish, e.g. flasks and something in which [wine] is kept for a long time. Chachamim decreed even [if it was stored] for a short time, whether it is a Yisrael's or a Nochri's;

åîù''ä îééúé øàééä ùôéø îò÷ìéí

1.

Therefore, [R. Avahu] properly brought a proof from Akalim.

à"ð (äâäú äá"ç) áâåøâé ùì ùéôà åùì âîé àééøé åîééúé øàéä ãàôé' áùì éùøàì îééùðä ùðéí òùø çãù:

(z)

Answer #2: [R. Avahu was asked about] Gorgei of kinds of Shifa or Gemi (kinds of reeds). He brought a proof that even of Yisrael, he dries them for 12 months.

65b----------------------------------------65b

5)

TOSFOS DH Hainu Tana Kama

úåñôåú ã"ä äééðå ú''÷

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

åà''ú èåáà àéëà áéðééäå ãäà ú''÷ îöøéê é''á çãù åøùá''â ÷àîø ãëùðèîà áæä äâú éùúîù áäï áâú äáàä à''ë äåà îñåó âú ìúçìú âú åçñø îùðä ëì éîé îùê äâú

(a)

Question: There is a great difference between them! The first Tana requires 12 months, and R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that when it became Tamei in this pressing season, he uses it in the next pressing season. If so, [the delay] is from the end of [this] pressing season until the beginning of the [next] pressing season. The entire duration of the pressing season is lacking from a year!

åé''ì ãñ''ì ãú''÷ ìà îçîéø èôé îé''á çãùé ìáðä åáéùåì ôéøåú äåìê àçø äçîä àí ëï îñåó âú ìúçìú âú àéëà é''á çãùé ìáðä

(b)

Answer #1: [The Makshan] holds that the first Tana is not stringent [to require] more than 12 lunar months. Peros ripen according to [the year of] the sun. If so, from the end of [this] pressing season until the beginning of the [next] pressing season are 12 lunar months. (This assumes that the pressing season lasts 11 days.)

åîùðé àéëà áéðééäå çøôé åàôìé ëìåîø àùú÷ã äåå àôìé åòëùéå çøôé åàéëà ôçåú îé''á çãùé ìáðä îâú ìâú

1.

[The Tartzan] answers that they argue about Peros that ripen early or late. I.e. last year they were late and this year they were early, and there are less than 12 lunar months from pressing season to pressing season.

à''ð ôùéèà ìéä ãú''÷ ìà ÷àîø é''á çãù îùðúøå÷ðä äâú ãà''ë ëìå éîé áöéø åìà éëåì ìäùúîù òã ë''ã çåãù åäéà âú àçøú

(c)

Answer #2: It is obvious to [the Makshan] that the first Tana did not mean 12 months from when the winepress is emptied, for if so the harvest [of next year] is finished, and he cannot use it until 24 months, and that is another pressing season!

àìà é''á çãù ã÷àîø ú''÷ òí æîï ùäééï áå åäééðå ëøùá''â ãàîø ìâú äáàä

1.

Rather, the 12 months that the first Tana said is with the time that the wine is inside, i.e. like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says until the coming pressing season.

åîùðé àéëà áéðééäå çøôé åàôìé ëãôéøù øù''é çøôé ùîîäø äáöéø ùì ùðä æå îùì àùú÷ã øùá''â îé÷ì ãìéëà é''á çãù

2.

[The Tartzan] answers that they argue about Peros that ripen early or late, like Rashi explained. 'Early" is when this year's harvest is before last year's. R. Shimon ben Gamliel is lenient, for there are not 12 months.

åàôìé ùîàçø äáöéø ùì ùðä æå îùì àùú÷ã øùá''â îçîéø àáì ú''÷ îåãä ðîé ãëì æîï ùéù áå é''á çãù òí æîï ùäééï áâú ãé áëê åæå äéà ÷åìà

3.

"Late" is when this year's harvest is after last year's. R. Shimon ben Gamliel is stringent, but the first Tana also admits that as long as there are 12 months, including the time that the wine is in the winepress, this suffices. This is a leniency.

6)

TOSFOS DH v'Chulan she'Shof'os u'Va'os mi'Toch Dalet Leilos...

úåñôåú ã"ä åëåìï ùùåôòåú åáàåú îúåê ã' ìéìåú ìàçø ã' ìéìåú...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when and why she must check.)

àåø''é ãìàå ãå÷à ëùùìîå ëì ã' ìéìåú ãä''ä îëì ìéìä îúåê ã' ìéìåú ìéåí ùì àçøé ëï ãäà àí øàúä áéåí èîàä ììåé ãàîø ã' òåðåú

(a)

Explanation (Ri): This is not only when four nights finished. The same applies from every night among the four to the next day, for if she saw during the day, she is Temei'ah according to Levi, who said four Onos;

åàôéìå ìøá ãàîø ìà äôñéãä ìéìåú î''î îåãä ãàí ðùúðå úäà øàééä èîàä äéìëê öøéëä ìáãå÷ àåìé ðùúðä

1.

And even according to Rav, who says that she did not lose nights, in any case he admits that if [the appearance] changed, the sighting is Temei'ah. Therefore, she must check, lest it changed.

àò''â ãáìéìä ðîé àí ðùúðä èîàä

(b)

Implied question: Also at night, if it changed she is Temei'ah!

î''î ìà áòéà áãé÷ä àáì áéåí áòé' áãé÷ä åìà ñîëéðï ìîéîø äåàéì åùåôòú ãí áúåìéí äåà (äâäú äá"ç)

(c)

Answer: Even so, she need not check at night, but during the day she must check. We do not rely to say that since she spurts, it is Dam Besulim.

åäê (äâäú ôúçé ðãä, åëï ðøàä ëååðú äâäú äá"ç) áãé÷ä àôéìå ìøáðï ãôìéâé ì÷îï òìéä ãø''î åàîøé (äâäú àéæäå î÷åîï) ëì îøàä ãîéí àçú äï

(d)

Observation: This Bedikah is even according to Rabanan who argue below R. Meir, who say that all blood has the same appearance.

ãåãàé àéú ìäå äà ãñô''÷ (ìòéì éà.) àí ðùúðå îøàä ãîéí ùìä èîàä

(e)

Source #1: Surely they hold like was taught above (11a) if the appearance of her blood changed, she is Temei'ah.

åì÷îï ìà ôìéâé áðùúðä äãí îáúçìä àìà àí áéï æä åáéï äøàùåï ãåîä ìãí ðãä

(f)

Source #2: Below they do not argue when the blood changed from its initial appearance, only if both this [what was found now] and the first resemble Dam Nidah.

åä''ô åáëåìï ø''î îçîéø ëá''ù áëì îçìå÷ú ùáéï á''ù åá''ä (åá''ä) ãîúðéúéï îçîéø (äâää áâìéåï, îäîäøù"ì)

(g)

Explanation: R. Meir is stringent about all of them like Beis Shamai. In every argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in our Mishnah, he is stringent;

åãå÷à áàåúï ã' ìéìåú ìúéðå÷ú ùìà äâéò æîðä ìøàåú åáìéìä ìúéðå÷ú ùäâéò æîðä îèäø ø''î àôéìå ãåîä ìãí ðãä úìéðï ìéä áãí áúåìéí

1.

Only in those four nights of a girl whose time to see did not arrive, and in the night of a girl whose time to see arrived, R. Meir is Metaher. Even if it resembles Dam Nidah, we attribute it to Dam Besulim;

åùàø øàéåú ùáéï á''ù åá''ä ëâåï îã' ìéìåú åòã ùúçéä äîëä ìúéðå÷ú ùìà äâéò æîðä åëâåï îìéìä äøàùåðä ìã' ìéìåú áäâéò æîðä

2.

Other sightings about which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel differ, e.g. from four nights until the wound heals for a girl whose time to see did not arrive, or from the first night until four nights if her time to see arrived...

ãìá''ù ìà úìéðï ëìì áãí áúåìéí åìá''ä úìéðï ááúåìéí àôé' ãåîä ìãí ðãä

i.

According to Beis Shamai we do not attribute at all to Dam Besulim. According to Beis Hillel, we attribute to Besulim, even if it resembles Dam Nidah;

äúí îçì÷ ø''î ùàí ãåîä ìãí ðãä èîàä àò''ô ùáúåê ã' (äâäú áàøåú äîéí) äìéìåú àå äìéìä äééðå úåìéï áãí áúåìéí òëùéå ìà ðúìä

ii.

There, R. Meir distinguishes. If it resembles Dam Nidah, she is Temei'ah. Even though during the four nights or night we would have attributed to Dam Besulim, now we do not attribute;

åàí ãåîä ëì äãí ùàçøé äã' ìéìåú àå äìéìä ìãí áúåìéí èäåø

iii.

If all the blood after the four nights or night resembles Dam Besulim, it is Tahor.

åçë''à ëì îøàä ãîéí àçú äï åñáéøà ìäå ìâîøé ëá''ä åìòåìí úìéðï áãí áúåìéí òã ùúçéä äîëä àå òã ã' ìéìåú ø÷ ùìà éùúðä äãí îëîåú ùäéä

3.

Chachamim say that all blood has the same appearance. They hold totally like Beis Hillel. We always attribute to Dam Besulim until the wound heals or until four nights, as long as the blood does not change from how it was.

åùôéø ñáéøà ìäå ìøáðï äê ãñô''÷ ãàí ðùúðå îëîåú ùäéå îøàä ãîéí ùìä èîàä åãìà ëôéøù''é ùôéøù ãàôé' ðùúðå îëîåú ùäéå îøàä ãîéí èäåøä ìøáðï

4.

Chachamim properly hold like was taught above (11a), that if the appearance of her blood changed, she is Temei'ah. This is unlike Rashi, who says that even if it changed from what the appearance of her blood was, she is Tehorah according to Rabanan.

åà''ú îàé ÷î''ì áäê áãé÷ä åäà àôé' áúåê æîï úìééú ãí áúåìéí ëîå áìà äâéò æîðä ìøàåú ìá''ä ãúìéðï áãí áúåìéí òã ùúçéä äîëä àîø áô''÷ (ìòéì éà:) ãáúåìä áåã÷ú ùçøéú åòøáéú ùîà ðùúðå îøàä ãîéä

(h)

Question: What is the Chidush of this Bedikah? Even if during the time that we attribute to Dam Besulim, e.g. if her time to see did not arrive, according to Beis Hillel we attribute to Dam Besulim until the wound heals, it says above (11b) that a Besulah checks morning and evening, lest the appearance of her blood changed;

ë''ù ìàçø ùòáø æîï úìééúä ááúåìéí ùöøéëä ìáãå÷ ãäê áãé÷ä ùçøéú äéà

1.

All the more so after the time that we attribute to Dam Besulim passed, she must check, for this Bedikah [of the Beraisa] is in the morning!

åëé úéîà îùåí ùåôòú ð÷è ãëéåï ãùåôòú àéëà ìîúìé ááúåìéí çåõ ìæîðä ëîå úåê äæîï

2.

Suggestion: It mentioned it because she is spurting. Since she is spurting, we should attribute to Dam Besulim past the time like during the time.

àãøáä ëéåï ãàôéìå áùàéðä îøâùú áùåí øàééä öøéëä ìáãå÷ ë''ù ëùîøâùú áøàééä

3.

Rejection: Just the contrary! Since even when she does not feel any sighting, she must check, all the more so when she feels a sighting!

åé''ì ãáãé÷ä ãìòéì ùçøéú åòøáéú àå÷îéðï ìèäøåú àáì ìáòìä ìà áòéà áãé÷ä åäëà àééøé ìáòìä ãáòéà áãé÷ä

(i)

Answer #1: We establish the Bedikah above, morning and evening, for Taharos, but for her husband, she does not require Bedikah.

à''ð äê áãé÷ä äåéà áùôåôøú àí áà îî÷åø àå îï äöããéí åëï îùîò áúåñôúà

(j)

Answer #2: This Bedikah is with a tube, [to see] if the blood came from the Makor or [the walls on] the sides. The Tosefta connotes like this.

åðéçà ãîùåí äëé ÷úðé áñéôà ãí ðãä áà îï äî÷åø:

(k)

Support: This is why the Seifa teaches that Dam Nidah comes from the Makor.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF