(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 42



(a) If the Tum'ah of Poletes is due to seeing, then it will break the seven clean days of a Zavah, its Tum'ah requires no Shiur, and it will be Metamei inside the womb - from the ha'Chitzon outwards - no less than outside; Whereas if it is Metamei because of touching, none of these Chumros will apply.

(b) We learnt a Beraisa earlier, where the Rabbanan maintain that a Poletes is Metam'ah even when the Zera is still inside, but, according to Rebbi Shimon, it is Metamei only once it has emerged from the body - like by her Bo'eil.
Now surely, asks the Gemara, our Sha'aleh is a Machlokes Tena'im: According to the Rabbanan, a Poletes is Temei'ah because of seeing, and according to Rebbi Shimon, she is Temei'ah because of touching.

(c) The Gemara initially thinks that, logically, a Poletes must be Temei'ah because she *touched* the Zera, not because she *saw*, since the Tum'ah was not a product of her womb, but was placed there by an external source.

(d) Really, Rav Shmuel bar Bisna, who posed the Sha'aleh, was aware of the Machlokes Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan, and he had no doubts that the Rabbanan, who maintain that a Poletes is Temei'ah inside as well, has a Din of seeing, and not just touching. After all, they do learn the Din of Poletes from "Yihye Zovo", so it is clear that Torah gives her the Din of a Zavah.

It is according to Rebbi Shimon that he posed his Sha'aleh: Does Rebbi Shimon hold that a Poletes is no stricter than her Bo'eil only as regards the Keri inside the womb is concerned - the first of the three ramifications referred to in a., however when it comes to the other Dinim of Keri, she is not considered just a Noga'as, but a Ro'ah, no less than the Bo'eil himself, who is Tamei if even the smallest amount emerges, and by whom seeing Zera breaks the seven days, even if it is for only one day. Or do we say that, by restricting a Poletes to being Temei'ah only once the Tum'ah emerges from her body, Rebbi Shimon in fact confines her to the Din of someone who touches Keri (in all regards) and not like one who sees?

(a) According to the second version of the Sha'aleh, Rav Shmuel bar Bisna did not know about the Machlokes Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan. His Sha'aleh was based on the Din of Poletes at Har Sinai, where the Torah was strict, warning the men "Al Tigeshu el Ishah" three days before the Torah was given, because their wives might exude the Zera before Matan Torah. Clearly, the Torah considers a Poletes a Ro'ah, and not just a Noga'as (This Lashon disagrees with the original contention of the Gemara, which logically considers a Poletes to be a Noga'as.)

(b) The Gemara concludes simply that she is a Ro'ah.

(a) Either the Yoledes gave birth during her days of Nidus or during her days of Zivus, both of which have already been mentioned in the Beraisa, so why repeat them in the form of a Yoledes? (Once she gives birth, of course, she is Temei'ah as a Yoledes, whether she sees blood or not).

(b) A Nidah and a Zavah are Temei'os even by Tum'ah Belu'ah, because of a 'Gezeiras Hakasuv' ("bi've'Sarah" and "Zovah" respectively).
In our case, where she has already Toveled, she is no longer Temei'ah because of Ro'ah Dam (since she is now holding in the days of Tohar), but because of Noga'as. Consequently, the Gemara is justified in asking why she should be Temei'ah through touching blood ina place which is Beis ha'S'tarim.

(a) A Nivlas Of Tahor is Metamei the person who eats it, together with the clothes that he is wearing - in spite of the fact that it is 'Tum'ah Belu'ah' (Incidentally, this Sugya holds like Abaye on Amud Beis, who considers the Beis ha'Beliyah to be 'Tum'ah Belu'ah', and not like Rava, in whose opinion it is 'Tum'as Beis ha'S'tarim', and not 'Tum'ah Belu'ah' - see Tosfos d.h. 'Amai'.)
And 'they' gave a Yoledes whose blood moved to the Beis ha'Chitzon during her days of Tum'ah, the same stringency as that of a Nivlas Of Tamei. Consequently, even after she has Toveled, the blood is Metamei her again - although it is 'Tum'ah Belu'ah'.

(b) The Gemara does not like this comparison, because a Nivlas Of Tahor would not be Metamei, were he to cough it out of his mouth; The Gezeiras Hakasuv confines its Tum'ah exclusively to the throat. Whereas the blood of a Nidah (with the Din of a Ro'ah, as in our case) stands to be Metamei when it emerges, so why should it also be Tamei even when it is Belu'ah?

(c) The Chidush is, that although the Tevilah was effective to be Metaher the blood that had not yet reached the Beis ha'Chitzon (according to Beis Hillel, who holds that the days of Tohar together with the Tevilah, render the blood Tahor), it was not effective to be Metaher the blood that had already moved to the Beis ha'Chitzon (even though we might have thought that there is a 'Migu'!)




(a) Our Beraisa speaks in a case of a dry birth, where the Yoledes saw no blood.

(b) Nevertheless, she is Temei'ah, not because of the blood which is inside, but because of the baby's head which is there. And the Beraisa conforms with the opinion of Rav Oshayah, who rules that, if a midwife who sticks her hand inside the woman's womb and touches the baby which is in the Perozdor, she is Temei'ah - a decree, because she might do the same when the baby has left the Perozdor, and is in the Beis ha'Chitzon (where she will be Temei'ah d'Oraysa, because there, the baby is considered born). In our case too, the baby's head is now in the Beis ha'Chitzon, which is why the mother is Temei'ah (d'Oraysa) 'inside just like outside'.

(c) The story with Rava was that the father heard the baby crying on Friday, though it was only (technically) born on Shabbos. Rava ruled that it was already considered (halachically) born on Friday. Why? Because they could not possibly have heard the baby crying, unless its head had at least reached the Beis ha'Chitzon, and, once it reaches the Beis ha'Chitzon, it is considered born.

(a) 'Tum'ah Belu'ah' is not Metamei at all (because it is as if the Tum'ah was non-existent), whereas 'Tum'as Beis ha'S'tarim' may not be Metamei through touching, it is nevertheless Metamei through carrying.

(b) Abaye learns that when the Beraisa refers to the womb as 'Tum'as Beis ha'S'tarim', it means to say that, first of all, it is 'Tum'ah Belu'ah'; but that even if were not, it would certainly at least be 'Tum'as Beis ha'S'tarim' (in other words, although he Beraisa maintains that the womb *is* a 'Tum'ah Belu'ah', it concedes that this is not so obvious at all).

7) The difference whether the throat is considered a 'Mekom Belu'ah' or a 'Beis ha'S'tarim' will be in a case where someone sticks a piece of Neveilah into someone else's throat; if it is a 'Mekom Belu'ah', then he will be Tahor, but if is it only a 'Beis ha'S'tarim', then he will be Tamei because he has carried Neveilah.


(a) When the Torah writes "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochal le'Tam'ah Bah", to be Metamei a Nivlas Of Tahor, it speaks about something whose only Tum'ah is the one with which we are currently dealing - but not by touching. It would not therefore include a Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah, which is also Metamei by touching.

(b) After citing the Kal va'Chomer, the Gemara explains that the Beraisa precludes Nivlas Of Tahor, not from the implication of the words, as the Gemara thought, but from the word "le'Tam'ah *Bah*", which serves as a positive Mi'ut, to exclude a Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah from the Tum'ah of a Nivlas Of Taho, and which refutes the Kal va'Chomer.

(c) The reason that the Torah writes "ve'ha'Ochel es Nivlasah"( despite the fact that eating the Neveilah is not Metamei, as we just explained), is to teach us that the Shiur for the Tum'ah of touching and carrying is the same as that of eating; namely, a Kezayis.

(d) In any event, the Beraisa precludes a piece of a Neveilah from an animal, from the Tuma'h (of both touching and carrying) in the Beis ha'Beli'ah. So it is evident that the Beis ha'Beli'ah is considered a Tum'ah Belu'ah, and not just a Beis ha'S'tarim. (See Tosfos, d.h. 'Yatzesah', who explains how Rava explains the Beraisa).

(a) Under a person's armpit or in his folded elbow is not Metamei by touching, because Tum'as Beis ha'S'tarim is not a place where one usually touches. It is however, Metamei through carrying (a Sheretz is only subject to Tum'as Maga, whereas a Neveilah is subject to Tum'as Masa, too).

(b) We may have thought that, if someone sticks his folded elbow containing a Sheretz, into an oven, the oven would remain Tahor, because it is considered 'Toch Tocho', and 'Toch Tocho' does not render the oven Tamei. Therefore we need the Beraisa to inform us that it is Tamei, because this is not considered 'Toch Tocho'.

(c) 'Toch Tocho' would be if one were to place into the oven, a receptacle whose opening extended higher than that of the oven, and which contained a piece of corpse. In that case, the oven would remain Tahor.

Next daf


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