ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 18
SHEVUOS 16-18 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) Both the Chiyuv of entry and that of withdrawal (with regard to Nidah),
says Rava, are Mishnahs.
1. Our Mishnah rules that if a woman whilst being intimate with her husband,
declares 'Nitmeisi'! - and the man withdraws immediately, he is Chayav to
bring a Chatas.
(b) Initially, Rava establishes the Mishnah in Nidah by entry (and not by
withdrawal) - because we already know the Din of withdrawal from *our*
Mishnah (so what is the point of repeating it?)
2. The Mishnah in Nidah rules in a case where, after Bi'ah, the man finds
blood on the cloth with which he wiped himself - that they are both Tamei
for seven days, and are both Chayav to bring a Chatas.
(c) It will make not the least difference whether he finds the blood on his
cloth immediately after Bi'ah or a while later, as we shall see.
(a) Rav Ada bar Masna tries to refute Rava's proof from the Mishnah in
Nidah, by establishing it by withdrawal. Nevertheless, in spite of having
already learned it in Shevuos, Rebbi did not hesitate to repeat it in
Nidah - because he needed to insert the Din of where the blood is found on
*her* cloth (and it would be natural to add the case of where it was found
on *his*, even though we know it already).
(b) In the case where the blood is found on *her* cloth - the Din will be
the same as when it is found on his, but only if she cleaned herself
immediately after the Bi'ah. If there is a time lapse, they will both be
Safek Tamei and Patur from a Korban, seeing as she may have become a Nidah
only after the Bi'ah.
(c) Ravina refutes Rav Ada's interpretation of the Mishnah - on the grounds
that the Mishnah speaks about 'Nimtza', implying that the man did not know
during the course of the Bi'ah that his wife had become Tamei.
(d) When Rava told Rav Ada to take note of Ravina's comment, he quoted a
Beraisa (with reference to that very Mishnah) - which concludes 'Zu Hi
Mitzvas Asei she'be'Nidah' (which refers to the withdrawal, as we explained
in our Mishnah), in support of his interpretation.
(a) To reconcile the Beraisa with the Mishnah, whilst at the same time
vindicating his own interpretation of the Mishnah, Rava amends the Beraisa
to read - 'Zu Hi Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh she'be'Nidah ... . Hayah Meshamesh im
ha'Tehorah, ve'Amrah Lo Nitmeisi u'Piresh Miyad, Zu Hi Mitzvas Asei
(b) In the event that the woman becomes Tamei during Bi'ah, Rav Huna Amar
Rav obligates one - to lift oneself onto one's fingertips and wait for the
Eiver ha'Milah to go limp before withdrawing.
(c) 've'Tuveih' means - 'and good for him'.
(a) Rava tries to prove from here that 'ha'Meshamesh Meis ba'Arayos Patur' -
meaning that one s Patur for committing incest or adultery with a limp Eiver
(otherwise, why would he be Patur for withdrawing after that).
(b) Abaye disagrees. In his opinion, even if 'Meshamesh Meis ba'Arayos is
Chayav', he will be Patur in our case - because he is an O'nes.
(c) Nevertheless, one is Chayav for withdrawing immediately - because he
could have waited and withdrawn with minimal pleasure.
(d) Rabah bar Chanan asked Abaye why in that case, the Mishnah confines
'Aruchah u'Ketzarah' to Bi'as Mikdash, seeing as by Nidah too, we have the
same distinction (seeing as if he withdraws immediately he is Chayav,
whereas if he waits he is Patur). Abaye replied - that this is because
'Aruchah' (Patur) and 'Ketzarah' (Chayav) by Nidah, works in the reverse
order than it does by Bi'as Mikdash (where Aruchah is Chayav and Ketzarah is
(a) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Nasan presents a contradiction in Abaye. According
to what Abaye just said, our Mishnah must be speaking when the Bi'ah took
place not Samuch le'Vestah - because otherwise, Abaye would not refer to the
man who waited before withdrawing as an 'O'nes' (since to begin with, he was
(b) We reconcile this with Abaye's own statement 'Chayav Shetayim', which we
established by Samuch le'Vestah - by establishing Abaye's statement as an
independant one, unconnected with our Mishnah.
(c) When Rebbi Yonasan ben Yossi ben Lekunya asked his brother Rebbi Shimon
to quote the Azharah for Bo'el Nidah - he picked up a piece of earth in
disgust and threw it at him ...
(d) ... seeing as the obvious source for this is the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'El
Ishah be'Nidas Tum'asah Lo Sikrav".
(a) What Rebbi Yonasan really meant to ask his brother was - the source for
the Azharah obligating withdrawal, should one's wife become a Nidah in the
middle of Bi'ah.
(b) Rebbi Yonasan was not satisfied when Rebbi Shimon quoted him the Pasuk
"Va'tehi Nidasah Alav" - because that is an Asei, and he wanted the La'av.
(c) Rav Papa quoted the same Pasuk that Rebbi Shimon ben ... Lekunya quoted
earlier "ve'El Ishah be'Nidas Tum'asah Lo Sikrav" - since "Lo Sikrav" can
also mean 'Do not go away' (like we find in the Pasuk in Yeshayah "ha'Omrim
K'rav Eilecha Al Tigash Bi"), and which therefore also serves as a warning
not to withdraw (yet).
(d) Rebbi Yashiyah learns from the Pasuk "Ve'hizartem es B'nei Yisrael
mi'Tum'asam" - the obligation to separate from one's wife from the beginning
of the Onah (the current twelve hour period, as we learned above) during
which she is due to see.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai declares - that if
someone does not separate from his wife 'Samuch le'Vestah', even if he has
children like the sons of Aharon, they will all die.
(b) His source for this is the fact - that the Parshah which follows that of
"Ve'hizartem es B'nei Yisrael ... ve'ha'Davah be'Nidasah" is that of
"Acharei-Mos Sh'nei B'nei Aharon".
(a) And ...
1. ... Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the juxtaposition
of the Pesukim "Lehavdil Bein ha'Tahor u'Vein ha'Tamei" and "Ishah Ki
Sazri'a, ve'Yaldah Zachar" - that someone who *does* separate will merit
(b) ... to which Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi adds - that he will have sons who
are fit to issue rulings.
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns from the juxtaposition of the Pesukim
"Lehavdil ... " and "Lehoros es B'nei Yisrael" - that she will merit sons
who are fit to issue rulings.
3. ... Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the juxtaposition
of the same two Pesukim, but based on the Pasuk "Lehavdil Bein ha'Chodesh
u'Vein ha'Chol" - that someone who meticulously makes Havdalah over wine on
Motza'ei Shabbos (bearing in mind that the Parshah is speaking about a Kohen
desisting from wine when performing the Avodah), will merit to have sons ...
(c) Rebbi Binyamin bar Yefes Amar Rebbi Elazar learns from the juxtaposition
of "Ve'hiskadishtem Vi'heyisem Kedoshim" and "Ishah Ki Sazri'a" - that
someone who sanctifies himself (i.e. behaves modestly) during Tashmish, will
(a) In our Mishnah, Rebbi Eliezer precluded He'elam Mikdash ve'Kodashav from
"ha'Sheretz Ve'ne'elam ... ", and Rebbi Akiva from "Ve'ne'elam Mimenu ve'Hu
Tamei". Chizkiyah explains the difference between them as - whether, for
example, someone who is Tamei Sheretz needs to remember that he is Tamei
Sheretz (and not Tamei Neveilah or vice-versa [Rebbi Eliezer]) or not (Rebbi
Akiva), before he becomes Chayav to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.
(b) Ula queries Rebbi Eliezer's statement from another statement of his.
Based on the Pasuk "O Hoda Eilav Chataso ... ", Rebbi Eliezer says that one
is Chayav a Chatas, even if he cannot remember whether he ate Cheilev or
Nosar, or whether he desecrated Shabbos or Yom Kipur (seeing as either way,
he will require a Chatas).
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua told him that " ... Asher Chata Bah" - implies that he
must know exactly what his sin was before bringing a Chatas.
(d) From Ula's Kashya we have proved - that Ula agrees with Chizkiyah's
interpretation of Rebbi Eliezer (that he argues with Rebbi Akiva regarding
'Sheretz and Neveilah').
(a) Ula answers his own Kashya on Rebbi Eliezer by differentiating between
the two Pesukim concerned. He learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Asher Chata Ve'heivi" - that as long as he knows that he sinned, he
is Chayav to bring a Chatas (even if he is unable to pinpoint the sin).
(b) According to Rebbi Akiva however, since the Torah had to write 'Beheimah
and Chayah' - to include Tum'as Kodesh (in addition to Tum'as Mikdash [like
Rebbi learned in the first Perek]), it also wrote 'Sheretz'.
2. ... "be'Chol Davar Tamei, O be'Nivlas Sheretz Tamei" - (bearing in mind
that the latter phrase is redundant) that the sinner must know whether he is
a Tamei Sheretz or a Tamei Neveilah before he can bring a Korban Oleh
(c) It is indeed justifiable for the Torah to insert something that is not
needed on account of something that is - like Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael,
who states this in the form of a principle.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer learns from the word "Bah" - to preclude 'Misasek' from a
(a) 'Mis'asek' - is where one intended to do something that was permitted,
such as to cut something on Shabbos that was detached and by mistake, he cut
something that was attached; or where he meant to be intimate with his wife,
and was intimate with his sister (who was in the same bed) by mistake.
(b) One would be Chayav - if in the first case, he cut something that was
attached, thinking that it was detached, or if he was intimate with his
sister, thinking that she was his wife.