(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 55



(a) If the flesh of a corpse is so dry that it can crumble, then, according to Resh Lakish, who includes dry flesh from "le'Chol Tum'aso", it will still be Metamei; but according to Rebbi Yochanan, who learns it from 'Adam Dumya de'Etzem', flesh that is ready to crumble will not be Metamei, since it is not similar to Etzem.

(b) According to Resh Lakish, the Beraisa which declared dry flesh Tahor, is speaking when the flesh has already turned into dust, in which case, even Resh Lakish will agree that it is no longer Metamei.

(c) Teeth are different. They are not Metamei, because they did were not created with the person, but only grew later.
On the other hand, the hair and the nails are not comparable to the flesh, which does not re-grow. The hair and the nails which have been cut, *do*, which is why they are Metamei.

(a) Rebbi Meir does not declare a Geludah (an animal that has lost all of its skin) a Treifah, because it will re-grow (even the Rabbanan agree with this in principle; the reason that they declare the animal a Treifah is because, by the time the skin re-grows, the air will have caused the animal to die.

(b) We just learnt above that whatever re-grows (such as hair and nails) is not Metamei; in that case, why does the Mishnah in Chulin declare human skin Tamei like the flesh?

(c) The Mishnah in Chulin is only Metamei human skin mi'de'Rabbanan, in case a person comes to use his parents' skin as a cover for his donkey.

(a) In the second Lashon, since human skin does not re-grow, why does Ula say that min ha'Torah, it is Tahor (and it is only mi'de'Rabbanan that it is Tamei? Why is it not Tamei min ha'Torah?

(b) Ula, the Gemara replies, is not referring to the Reisha of the Mishnah in Chulin (which declares the skin Tamei - even min ha'Torah). He is referring to the Seifa, which speaks about human skins which have been tanned, and which the Mishnah again declares Tamei. And it is here that Ula explains that this Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan (because min ha'Torah, tanned skins have become Bateil and are therefore Tahor).

(c) Human flesh, may well re-grow, but it does not re-grow properly, since it leaves scars. That is why it is Metamei, whereas the hair and the nails, which grow properly, are not.

(a) We have a precedent in the Sa'ir ha'Mishtalei'ach, which makes others (the one who takes it out) Tamei, even though it itself is not Tamei. So the same could apply to the Zov of a Zav.

(b) We do not need a Pasuk to teach us that the Zov is Metamei be'Maga, because why should it be any worse than semen, which is Tamei be'Maga. Therefore the Pasuk must be coming to add that it is also Metamei be'Masa (which semen is not).




(a) The Maga of a Neveilah is Metamei the person who carries it, but the clothes that he is wearing remain Tahor. Whereas if someone touches the Zov of a Zav, he becomes Tamei, and he is also Metamei the clothes that he is wearing.

(b) We learn from "ha'Zav es Zovo" etc., that no distinction is made between the Zav and his Zov. Just as (even the Mishkav and Moshav of a Zav, and Kal va'Chomer) the Zav (himself) is Metamei the person who touches him, to be Metamei the clothes that he is wearing (no less than they would be through Tum'as Masa), so too, is the Din by his Zov.

(c) We actually learn two Dinim from this Pasuk ("ve'ha'Zav es Zovo"); that a Zav is Metamei through two sightings, but not be'Ones; and that we compare the Zov to the Zav.

(d) If not for the Pasuk of "Zovo Tamei", we would have said that the Zov is not Metamei at all, just like the Sa'ir ha'Mishtalei'ach, which renders the person who takes it out Tamei, although itself, it remains Tahor.

(a) We learn from "ve'Chi Yarok ha'Zav" that the liquids from the throat and from the nose are also Metamei.

(b) If not for "ba'Tahor", we would have learnt "Rok" "Rok" from the spit of a Yevamah performing the Chalitzah ceremony (where the spit does not need to touch the Yavam), that by a Zav too, the spit is Metamei even if it does not touch the Tahor person or object.

(c) "ba'Tahor" implies that if the Zav spat into whatever is in the hand of the Tahor person, it renders that person Tamei, even though it did not actually touch him.

(d) Even though by Neveilah, says Hashem, I permitted the clothes (not to make them Tamei) of the person who touched a Neveilah, I did not do so by someone who touches the spittle of a Zav - *he* becomes Tamei to the extent that he also makes the clothes that he is wearing, Tamei, too.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, 'Mei ha'Af' refers to the actual mucus in the nose. In his opinion, the mucus in the nose is a Ma'ayan (a source of Tum'ah), whereas according to Rav, it is Metamei because it is inevitable that a little bit of spittle mixes with the mucus that comes out through the mouth.

(b)&(c) Rav says that someone who wishes to become blind, should allow a gentile to paint his eyes. He does not say 'to die' like Levi does (due to the fact the gentile sometimes adds poison to the eye-paint), because, in Rav's opinion, it is possible for the Jew to draw the poison into his mouth (like he does the mucus from the nose), and to spit it out.
The Gemara therefore asks why, according to this, the Beraisa did not include the tears, which one is able to draw into the mouth, and which, like the mucus, will inevitably mix with some spittle?
Naturally, there is nothing to ask on Levi, who maintains that it is impossible to draw the tears into one's mouth and who will therefore die, if his eyes are painted by a gentile.

(d) The Gemara replies that it is not the tears which one can draw into the mouth, but the poison in the eye-paint.

(a) The perspiration, the pus and the excrement of a Zav are Tahor; his tears, blood that flows from a wound and the milk of a Zavah are Tamei Tum'as Mashkin provided they contain at least a Revi'is; Whereas his Zov, his spittle and his urine are Metamei because of Zov.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, in whose opinion the mucus is also a Ma'ayan, why did the Beraisa omit it?

(c) Why did the Beraisa omit the other liquids from the mouth (Ki'cho ve'Ni'o) which are mentioned in the Beraisa above, and with which agrees, are Ma'ayanos?
So we are forced to say that they are included in spittle, because they derive from the same Pasuk ("ve'Chi"). In that case, we can say the same by mucus.

(d) We learn from "va'Tashkeimo bi'Dema'os Shalish" "ve'Dam Chalalim Yishteh" and "va'Tiftach es Nod he'Chalav va'Tashkeihu" respectively, that tears, blood of a wound and woman's milk (it is unclear where a woman's milk is hinted in the Pasuk "va'Tiftach " etc.) are called beverages, and are therefore Metamei Tum'as Mashkin bi'Revi'is.

9) We cannot learn urine from a Kal va'Chomer from spittle, which comes from a location which is Tahor etc., because we have a precedent in blood that comes from the Amah (a location of Tum'ah), and yet it is Tahor! Perhaps we will say the same by urine.

Next daf


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