(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 28



(a) If a woman miscarries a cut leg or hand, she is Temei'ah Leidah.

(b) Otherwise, we may have said that it comes from a cut-up body, in which case she is Tehorah.

(c) We cannot give her the days of Taharah, because we do not know when she miscarried the body, so we do not really know when to begin counting them.

(d) Had the Beraisa added 'u'le'Nidah', we would have thought that we actually contend with a possible Nidus. This would mean that the Leidah is no more than a Safeik Leidah, and that her Korban is consequently not eaten - which is not the case.

(a) If a baby sticks out its hand from its mother's womb, the mother is Temei'ah Leidah, even if it subsequently withdraws it. And we learn it from the Pasuk by Tamar "va'Yehi be'Lidtah, va'Yitein Yad".

(b) When the Beraisa writes that we do not contend with it at all, it means Vaday, but not Safek. Practically, that means the mother only keeps the days of Tum'ah, but not of Taharah.

(c) How can we possibly say that the Beraisa means Vaday, but not Safek, when it explicitly writes that 'we do not contend with it at all'. So what the Beraisa must mean is that we do not contend with the hand regarding Tum'as Leidah d'Oraysa', and Rav Huna, who says that the mother is Temei'ah, is speaking de'Rabbanan.

(d) The Pasuk quoted by Rav Huna is only an Asmachta.

(a) Since Rav Yitzchak said that the sex of the child is determined by which parent 'sows' first (a boy if it was the mother, and a girl if it was the father), we might have thought that if the one child is a boy, it means that the mother 'sowed' first, and that we can therefore assume the other child to be a boy, too. Therefore, the Tana found it necessary to tell us that, even if the one child is a boy, we must still suspect the Androginus to be a girl. Why is that?
Because maybe both parents sowed simultaneously.

(b) If the mother gives birth to a female and a Tumtum or an Androginus, she must sit fourteen days of Tum'ah and sixty-six days of Taharah of a girl. Why?
Because, even if the Tumtum and the Androginus turn out to be a male, all the days of Tum'ah and Taharah of a boy are absorbed in those of the girl.

(c) According to the Din of the Mishnah, if the baby emerges cut up or feet first, the mother is Temei'ah Leidah only when the majority of the baby has emerged; whereas if it emerges whole, head first, she is Temei'ah as soon as the head emerges.

(d) It is the forehead that causes the baby to be called 'born'.

4) If a Tumtum or an Androginus sees Loven and Odem (not necessarily at the same time), he is Tamei Vaday 'Mimah Nafshach' (either way). That is why. if he touches Terumah, it must be burnt.
The reason that he is Patur from bringing a Korban if he then enters the Beis Hamikdash, according to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, is because the Torah writes "*mi'Zachar ve'Ad Nekeivah* Teshaleichu" (when it could just as well have written "Adam", as we shall see later), inferring that only a *definite male* or a *definite female* must be sent out of the Azarah when they are Tamei, but not a Safek.




(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, we learn from "O be'Nivlas Sheretz ... ve'Ne'elam Mimenu", that it is the specific Tum'ah (the Sheretz that he touched) that he must have forgotten, but not the Mikdash, in order to be Chayav a Korban. Consequently, if what he forgot was not specific - meaning for example, a Tumtum who saw Odem and Loven, who does not know through which one he is Tamei, he is not obligated to bring a Korban for entering the Azarah.
But according to Rebbi Akiva, he is exempt from bringing a Korban if he entered the Azarah with He'elam Mikdash, because of the Pasuk "ve'Ne'elam Mimenu ve'Hu Tamei", not because of "be'Nivlas Sheretz". According to him, therefore, there is no Pasuk that requires him to pinpoint the Tum'ah - as long as he knows that he is Tamei, he will be Chayav.

(b) We need the Pasuk "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo, *le'Zachar* *ve'la'Nekeivah*", to include all the 'fountains' of a Zav and of a Zavah respectively.

(c) From Adam, we would not have included metal vessels in the leniency, since the Torah writes "*mi'Kol Tamei* la'Nefesh", to include even metal vessels which became Tamei in the prohibition of remaining in the Azarah - in spite of "Adam".

(a) We learn from "mi'Zachar ve'Ad Nekeivah Teshaleichu" that everything that is subject to the Din of Mikveh - like a man and a woman - must be sent out of the Azarah, and that includes metal vessels (preventing us from including them in "Adam" - which excludes earthenware vessels from the prohibition).

(b) And from "mi'Zachar" we learn that the exclusion of a Tumtum and an Androginus from being sent out of the Azarah is confined to the Tum'ah that comes from the man's body - namely, Zivus, but not to other Tum'os, such as a Tumtum or an Androginus who touched a corpse; *they* are obligated to leave the Azarah immediately and to bring a Korban, if they did not.

7) We cannot, in similar fashion, learn from "Zachar" and "Nekeivah" by Erchin, and preclude a Tumtum and an Androginus from the Din of Erchin, because we need "Zachar" and "Nekeivah" to make a distinction between the Erech of a man and that of a woman.

Next daf


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