(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 43



(a) Tum'as Heset is another name for Tum'as Masa, though it also refers sometimes to moving something indirectly, like on a see-sew.

(b) If a Tahor person carries a Zav or the Mishkav and Moshav of a Zav, he becomes Tamei, even if he carried them via a stick which he held under his arm-pit.
Whereas, if the Zav carried the Tahor person in this way, the latter would remain Tahor, because 'Tum'as Beis ha'S'tarim' of a Zav is not Metamei.

(c) We learn this from the Pasuk "ve'Chol Asher Yiga Bo ha'Zav, ve'Yadav" etc., which is not needed for touching, since we already know from another Pasuk that a Zav is Metamei through touching; Consequently, we use it , 'Im Eino Inyan' to teach us that a Zav is Metamei the Tahor person whom he carries only if he carries him openly - like his hands, not via a 'Beis ha'S'tarim'.
Since the Torah uses the word "Yiga", we learn that 'Tum'as Beis ha'S'tarim' is not Tamei through touching, even if one touches a Zav.

(a) Shmuel learns from "Shichvas Zera" that Keri is only Metamei if it physically affects his entire body.

(b) The Beraisa is not speaking when he only dreams the thoughts, but when he actually dreamt that he had Tashmish with a woman, in which case it is inevitable that his entire body should not be affected.

(c) According to the first version in Shmuel, as long as he is affected by the Zera, even if it is only when it first moved from its source, it is Metamei; whereas according to the second version, the Zera is not gauged by the time it first moves, but by the time that it leaves the body; it is then that it must shoot like an arrow (which is equivalent to affecting his entire body as it comes out).

(a) If a Ba'al Keri becomes Tamei as soon as he urinates (through a drop which did not leave his body like an arrow), does that not prove that the Zera does not need to leave the body like an arrow, but that it is sufficient for it to have affected his body when it first moved from its source"?

(b) The Gemara rejects this proof however, on the grounds that at the time when he urinates, most of the Zera had already shot out like an arrow (and at the time, his body was indeed affected). So since this remaining drop is part of the Zera that was Metamei, it is Metamei, as well.

(c) In the third version, Shmuel learns from "Ki Yihye Becha Ish Asher Lo Yihye Tahor Mikreh" that even by just seeing Keri, one becomes Tamei, whether he is affected by it or not.

(a) If a non-Jew had thoughts before converting, according to the first version of Shmuel, perhaps we will also say that, since, at the time when he was affected when the Zera first moved, he was a gentile, he will remain Tahor, and we will not contend with the Zera when it came out (after his conversion).
Or maybe we will say that Shmuel only made his statement le'Chumra (to teach us that, even though the Zera emerged without force, he is nevertheless Tamei), but not le'Kula, like in this case.

(b) Perhaps Shmuel said his Din only by Keri, which one cannot hold back (that is why he contends with the time that it first moved. But with regard to urine, which one can hold back, Shmuel may agree that we do not contend with the moment that it first moves, only with the moment that it leaves the body. Consequently, a Zavah who had the urge to urinate, and Toveled without having done so, will be Tehorah; or maybe, we will not differentiate between Zera and urine, so that the same Sha'aleh will pertain equally to urine.

(c) The urine of a Zavah is d'Oraysa, and perhaps that is why we might assume her to be Temei'ah in the previous Sha'aleh; whereas the urine of a gentile is Tamei only mi'de'Rabbanan. So it could be that if a gentile held back her urine before converting, she will remain Tehorah, since by a Tuma'h de'Rabbanan, they were not so stringent, to declare her Temei'ah as soon as the urine moves.




(a) Shmuel learns that the Zov must cover the mouth of the Amah in order to be Metamei, from the Pasuk "O Hechtim Besaro mi'Zovo".

(b) According to the Rabbanan, the Zov has no Shiur. They learn from this Pasuk that it has to be wet in order to be Metamei.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael learns that the Zov must be wet from "Rar Besaro".

(a) The Rabbanan learn from the three 'words': "be'Zovo", "Rar Besaro", and "es Zovo" that a Zav is obligated to bring a Korban after three sightings. And from "O Hechtim Besaro *mi'Zovo*" they learn that he is already a Zav regarding all other Dinim after seeing just two times.

(b) The Rabbanan learn from "Ish Ki Yihye Zav mi'Besaro" that he is only Tamei if the Zov flows by itself, but not because of an O'nes.
And from "Zovo Tamei, they (as well as Rebbi Yishmael) learn that the drop of Zivus itself is also Tamei (and Metamei).

(a) We learn that the Shiur of Keri that is Metamei through touching is the volume of a lentil, from "O Ish " written by Sheretz.

(b) A Sheretz is more stringent than Shichvas Zera, inasmuch as it is Metamei, irrespective of the size or age of the Sheretz; whereas the Keri of a Gadol is Metamei, but that of a Katan, is not.

(c) To explain that a Sheretz is stricter, because there is no distinction drawn between the Sheratzim - e.g. a mouse is Metamei, whatever kind of mouse it is, whereas with Shichvas Zera the Torah distinguishes between the Zera of a Jew (which is Metamei) and that of a gentile (which is not), would be incorrect. Why is that?
Because a distinction *is* drawn by the Sheratzim, too. How?
The Sheratzim of the land are Tamei, whilst the sea-Sheratzim are Tahor.

(d) The Gemara understands that when the Beraisa writes 'she'ha'Shichvas Zera Metamei be'Chol Shehu, Mah she'Ein Kein be'Sheretz', it is obviously striking a contrast between the touching of Zera and that of a Sheretz. So we see, that Shichvas Zera does not have a Shiur, in contrast to Rav Chanilai's statement?

The Gemara answers that we are not contrasting touching and touching, but Sheretz, which never has the Shiur of a Mashehu, and Shichvas Zera, which sometimes does - when it comes to making the person who has an emission, Tamei.

8) When the Mishnah gives the Shiur Tum'ah of a Sheretz as even less than a lentil-volume, it is referring to a whole limb, which does not require a Shiur, because the significance of the limb gives it the importance of a lentil-volume. And the proof for this is that, if even a little of the limb were missing, it would not be Metamei.


(a) Some Tena'im hold that once we learn something from a certain source, we learn, not only the Limud that the Torah sets out to teach us, but also other things connected to the main Limud ('Don Mi'nah. u'Minah'). Hence, when the Torah writes "O Ish Asher Yiga be'Sheretz" etc., from which we learn that just like Sheretz is Metamei by touching, so too is Shichvas Zera, we carry this further and say that just as only a lentil-volume Sheretz is Metamei, so too is Shichvas Zera Metamei only when there is a lentil-volume.

Other Tena'im however, hold that 'Don Minah, ve'Ukei be'Asrah' (Learn what you need to from the Limud, but no more).
Consequently, we will learn from the 'Hekesh' of Zera to Sheretz, what we need to - that Zera is Metamei through touching, but we do not extend this to the the Shiur of touching. That, we will preferably learn from the initial Din of a Ba'al Keri who sees Zera, and who is Tame even when he sees no more than a Mashehu.

(b) If the Beraisa is speaking about the Pasuk "O Ish, Asher Teitzei Mimenu Shichvas Zera" etc., then we are not learning Keri from anywhere else, but Keri from Keri, in which case, the question of 'Don Mi'nah u'Minah' or'Don minah ve'Ukei be'Asra' is not applicable. In fact, here we can only apply 'Don Minah u'Minah', and everyone will agree with that.

Next daf


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