ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 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
(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
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
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
(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
(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.
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.
(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).
(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.