(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 3



(a) The Rabbanan learn that the Torah considers a Sotah Vaday Temei'ah, from the fact that she is forbidden to her husband.

(b) A Sotah is permitted in a public domain, because, in order to become a Sotah, she has to have been with the man concerned, in a private place ("ve'Nistera ve'Hi Nitma'ah"), whereas, if a Mikveh does not contain forty Sa'ah, what is the difference whether it is in a private domain or in a public one?

(c) 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor' applies only in cases where there is only *one* shortcoming; In the case of Mikveh, where, as we explained earlier, there are *two*, it is like a Vaday Tum'ah, it is not feasible to be lenient in a public domain.

(a) Rebbi Shimon, on the other hand, maintains, that by Sotah, where there are strong pointers to say that she is Temei'ah (did she not ignore her husband's warning not to go with the man in the first place?), we declare her Vaday Temei'ah (in a private domain), whereas by Mikveh, it is a fifty-fifty chance that the Mikveh is Tamei - there are no pointers to say that the Mikveh is Tamei; consequently, the Mikveh is only Safek Tamei.

(b) Rebbi Shimon maintains that we *do* learn the end of Tum'ah from the beginning - in spite of the fact that, by the end of Tum'ah, the person has a Chezkas Tum'ah, whilst by the beginning , he has a Chezkas Taharah.

(a) Shamai holds that a woman is aware when blood flows from her body into the lower part of her womb. If she did not feel this happening, then it means that the blood dripped only now.
But Hillel maintains that, even if she did feel the flow of blood, she might have have mistaken it for urine.

(b) A woman who 'sees blood' in her sleep, will also be aware of this, and will wake up, just as she does when she has the urge to use the bathroom. And as for a Shotah, who is not fully aware of her circumstances, Shamai agrees that a Shotah is Temei'ah retroactively, according to this explanation.

(c) Shamai said 'Kol ha'Nashim' in order to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, who learns in a Mishnah later that it is only by four women that we say 'Dayah Sha'atah', so Shamai comes stress that we say it by *all* women!'

(d) No! The Mishnah which is Metamei bloodstains retroactively, does not argue with Shamai, who will agree by bloodstains. Why?
Because, considering that we always ascertain first that the woman did not do anything or go anywhere that might have made a stain on her garment, the only possible source of the blood is her own body, and that over-rides the Chazakah that she would have felt the blood had it dripped earlier.

(a) Hillel argues that it is possible for the blood to have been caught within the outer walls of the womb, which prevented it from emerging earlier.

(b) A Moch is a piece of cloth which a woman sometimes places into her womb, in order to collect the seed, to prevent her from falling pregnant. Abaye maintains that Shamai will have to agree that, a woman who uses a Moch, will be Tamei retroactively. Why?
Because, his argument that the blood would have emerged earlier is no longer applicable, since the Moch may have kept back the flow of blood.

(c) Rava argues that, even with a Moch, the blood would have oozed through the gaps in the Moch, and would have emerged, in spite of it.

(d) Rava does agree however, that a woman who squeezes the Moch in tightly, in such a way that the blood could not possibly seep through, is Temei'ah retroactively - even according to Shamai.

(a) According to the Gemara's first reason in Shamai (Chezkas Taharah), the discrepancies from Chavis, Mikveh and Mavuy are apparent, and need to be addressed, whereas according to the two other explanations, they present no problem.

(b) According to the third reason (that the blood would have dripped out earlier), we have to say that Shamai will agree by a Moch (like Abaye) or at least, by a tight Moch (like Rava).



6) Shamai agrees that the Taharos in the box (in which they found a Sheretz on the other side) is Tamei retroactively - meaning that the Taharos that had been in the box and had been removed, before the Sherertz was found - because the box had a base which held the Sheretz back, whereas in the case of the woman, there is nothing to hold the blood back.


(a) 'Bitul Piryah ve'Rivyah' means that, if we were to declare the woman Temei'ah retroactively, then her husband would refrain from being intimate with her.

(b) Shamai's initial reason is because of the Chazakah that if she had seen blood, then it would have emerged earlier.
However, Hillel queried him as to why he did not 'make a fence' around the Torah, and be more stringent, to which he replied that he did not wish to do so, if, making a fence, will cause a Bitul Piryah ve'Rivyah'.

(c) Hillel however, objected to that argument, because, he claimed, the Chumra of declaring the Nidah Temei'ah, retroactively, was confined to Taharos. It did not concern relations with her husband, who remained Tahor, as long as he refrained from being intimate with her after she saw blood.

(d) But Shamai is afraid that, in spite of that, once her husband sees that all Taharos which she touches are declared Tamei retroactively, he will always be afraid that perhaps his wife is Temei'ah, only the blood did not yet emerge.

(a) If Chizkiya and Rebbi Yochanan were arguing about a box which had no base at all, then would does Rebbi Yochanan argue and say that the Taharos were Temei'os retroactively? How can he deny that. when one lifted up one end of the box for the fruit to fall out, the Sheretz would have to fall out too?
Therefore we are forced to learn that the box had no base, but it did have a rim, in place of a base.

(b) According to Chizkiya, we can draw a distinction between a box of fruit (which includes grain) and a bucket of water: Water slides out of the vessel much easier than fruit out of a basket. Consequently, had there been a Sheretz inside the box of fruit, they would have found it, in spite of the rim at the base - because one needs to tip the box acutely, for all the fruit to fall out; whereas this is not necessary by a bucket, which only needs to be tilted slightly for the water to empty. It is possible therefore, that the bucket did in fact contain a Sheretz, but that it got caught in the rim of the bucket.
Alternatively, one would tilt a box further than one would a bucket, because one would usually be particular to remove all the fruit from the box, but one would not be fussy if some of the water remained in the bucket.

(c) In the second answer, where Chizkiyah concedes that a box which was not examined, is Tamei retroactively, even if it had a rim, he holds that, once he examined the box, it has a Chezkas Bedukah.
Whereas Rebbi Yochanan contends with the possibility that a Sheretz fell into the box the moment he finished his examination, so that the box had no Chazakah. (Their Machlokes is whether a Bedikah helps by a Safek Tum'ah in a Reshus ha'Yachid - see Tosfos).

Next daf


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