What are the laws that are unique to Cutim – Shomronim – regarding nidda and those who have intercourse with a woman who is a nidda? What are laws regarding newborn infants who see blood? The gemara brings various drashot on the letter vav or from some other extra word that includes children under the age of mitzvot for various laws like nidda, zav, etc. The gemara compares the various drashot – why do they not all relate to the same age? Why is there a need for all of them?
Niddah 32
11.24.2019 | כ״ו בחשון תש״פ
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Niddah 32
רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: קָטָן וּקְטַנָּה לֹא חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The Gemara responds: It is Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: A minor boy and a minor girl may not perform the ritual through which a yavam frees a yevama of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza], nor may they enter into levirate marriage. In other words, a minor boy whose brother died childless may not perform ḥalitza with his brother’s widow, nor may he enter into levirate marriage with her, even if she is an adult. Likewise, a minor girl whose husband died childless may not perform ḥalitza with her husband’s brother, nor may she enter into levirate marriage with him, even if he is an adult. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: יָפֶה אָמַרְתָּ שֶׁאֵין חוֹלְצִין, ״אִישׁ״ כָּתוּב בַּפָּרָשָׁה, וּמַקְּשִׁינַן אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ. וּמָה טַעַם אֵין מְיַבְּמִין?
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: You have aptly stated that they may not perform ḥalitza, since “man” is written in the passage of the Torah discussing ḥalitza (Deuteronomy 25:7), and we compare a woman to a man, as the aforementioned verse states: “And if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife.” Consequently, neither a minor boy nor a minor girl may perform ḥalitza. But what is the reason that they may not enter into levirate marriage?
אָמַר לָהֶן: קָטָן — שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצֵא סָרִיס, קְטַנָּה — שֶׁמָּא תִּמָּצֵא אַיְלוֹנִית, וְנִמְצְאוּ פּוֹגְעִין בְּעֶרְוָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה.
Rabbi Meir said to them: A minor boy may not enter into levirate marriage lest, once he is older, he be found to be a sexually underdeveloped man, who is incapable of fathering children. Likewise, a minor girl may not enter into levirate marriage lest, once she is older, she be found to be a sexually underdeveloped woman. And if a sexually underdeveloped boy or girl enters into levirate marriage they will be found to be infringing upon prohibitions against forbidden sexual intercourse where no mitzva applies, as the entire purpose of levirate marriage is to bear children in the name of the deceased.
וְרַבָּנַן? זִיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דִּקְטַנִּים, וְרוֹב קְטַנִּים לָאו סָרִיסִים נִינְהוּ; זִיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דִּקְטַנּוֹת, וְרוֹב קְטַנּוֹת לָאו אַיְלוֹנִיּוֹת נִינְהוּ.
The Gemara notes: And the Rabbis maintain that one follows the majority of minor boys, and most minor boys are not going to be sexually underdeveloped men; likewise, one follows the majority of minor girls, and most minor girls are not going to be sexually underdeveloped women. In any event, the baraita indicates that Rabbi Meir is concerned for the minority.
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִיעוּטָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ, אֲבָל מִיעוּטָא דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ — מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?
The Gemara objects: You can say that you heard that Rabbi Meir is concerned for a common minority, e.g., the minority of sexually underdeveloped men and sexually underdeveloped women. But did you hear him say that one is concerned for an uncommon minority, such as the minority of young girls who menstruate?
הָא נָמֵי מִיעוּטָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּעֵין בּוּל וְהִטְבִּילוּהָ קוֹדֶם לְאִמָּהּ, וְאָמַר רַבִּי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֵית שְׁעָרִים וְהִטְבִּילוּהָ קוֹדֶם לְאִמָּהּ. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא וְהִטְבִּילוּהָ קוֹדֶם לְאִמָּהּ.
The Gemara explains: This minority of young girls who menstruate is also a common minority. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident in the town of Ein Bul where they immersed a baby girl in a ritual bath before her mother. In other words, the baby girl experienced bleeding so soon after birth that her immersion in a ritual bath occurred before her mother immersed fourteen days after giving birth. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi likewise said: There was an incident in Beit She’arim where they immersed a baby girl before her mother. And Rav Yosef said: There was an incident in Pumbedita where they immersed a baby girl before her mother.
בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וּדְרַבִּי — מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמַת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְמָה לִי? וְהָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין תְּרוּמַת חוּץ לָאָרֶץ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁטּוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה מִגּוּפוֹ, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בַּאֲכִילָה, אֲבָל בִּנְגִיעָה לָא!
The Gemara asks: Granted, the immersions reported by Rabbi Yosei and by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi are understandable, due to the teruma of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., these incidents occurred in Eretz Yisrael, where the touch of a menstruating girl disqualifies teruma. But in the incident reported by Rav Yosef, which occurred in Babylonia, why do I need to immerse the baby girl? But doesn’t Shmuel say: The teruma of outside of Eretz Yisrael is prohibited only to one whose impurity is due to an emission from his body, e.g., a menstruating woman, or one who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]. And this statement applies only with regard to eating teruma, but with regard to touching teruma, there is no prohibition. Since the touch of a menstruating woman does not disqualify teruma outside Eretz Yisrael, why was it necessary to immerse the baby girl in the incident reported by Rav Yosef?
אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְסוּכָהּ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה׳״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסָּךְ וְאֶת הַשּׁוֹתֶה.
Mar Zutra says: That immersion was necessary only for smearing oil of teruma of outside of Eretz Yisrael. Since smearing is equivalent to eating, it would have been prohibited to smear such oil on the baby girl, were it not for her immersion in a ritual bath. And from where is it derived that smearing is like eating with regard to teruma? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse discussing the prohibition against consuming teruma in a state of ritual impurity states: “And they shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they set apart for the Lord” (Leviticus 22:15). The verse serves to include in this prohibition one who smears and one who drinks.
שׁוֹתָה לְמָה לִי קְרָא? שְׁתִיָּה בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה! אֶלָּא, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסָּךְ כַּשּׁוֹתֶה. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״וַתָּבֹא כַמַּיִם בְּקִרְבּוֹ וְכַשֶּׁמֶן בְּעַצְמוֹתָיו״.
Mar Zutra continues: Why do I need a verse to teach that one who drinks teruma in a state of impurity is liable? Isn’t drinking included in the category of eating? Rather, the baraita means that the verse serves to include one who smears, teaching that he is like one who drinks. And if you wish, say that one may derive that smearing is like drinking from here: “And it came into his innards like water, and like oil into his bones” (Psalms 109:18).
אִי הָכִי דִּידַן נָמֵי?
As it stands, the halakha that Samaritan girls are considered menstruating women from the time they lie in their cradle is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is concerned for the minority of young girls who menstruate. The Gemara objects: If so, let us be concerned for the same minority with regard to our girls as well.
אֲנַן, דְּדָרְשִׁינַן ״אִשָּׁה״ ״וְאִשָּׁה״, וְכִי חָזְיָין (מפרשי) [מַפְרְשִׁינַן] לְהוּ — לָא גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן. אִינְהוּ דְּלָא דָּרְשִׁי ״אִשָּׁה״ ״וְאִשָּׁה״, וְכִי חָזְיָין לָא מַפְרְשִׁי לְהוּ — גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן.
The Gemara explains: There is no need to be concerned with regard to our young girls, as we interpret the verse: “And if a woman has an issue” (Leviticus 15:19), and derive from the fact that the verse does not merely state: “A woman,” but: “And if a woman,” that even minor girls are included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman. And consequently, when our girls see menstrual blood, we separate them in the manner of all menstruating women. Therefore, the Sages did not decree with regard to them that all young Jewish girls assume the status of menstruating women. By contrast, with regard to them, Samaritans, who do not interpret the difference between “a woman” and “and if a woman,” when their girls see menstrual blood they do not separate them, and therefore the Sages decreed with regard to them that all Samaritan girls assume the status of menstruating women.
מַאי ״אִשָּׁה״ ״וְאִשָּׁה״? דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִשָּׁה״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה, תִּינוֹקֶת בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד לְנִדָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִשָּׁה״.
§ The Gemara asks: What is this interpretation of the difference between “a woman” and “and if a woman”? As it is taught in a baraita that from “a woman” I have derived only that the halakhot of menstruation apply to an adult woman. From where do I derive that the halakhot of a menstruating woman also apply to a one-day-old girl? The verse states: “And if a woman.”
אַלְמָא, כִּי מְרַבֵּי קְרָא בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד מְרַבֵּי, וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״אִשָּׁה״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה, תִּינוֹקֶת בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד לְבִיאָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִשָּׁה״!
The Gemara asks: Apparently, when the verse includes young girls through the word “and” it includes even a one-day-old. But you can raise a contradiction from another baraita, which discusses the verse: “And the woman with whom a man shall lie carnally, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:18). From the word “woman” I have derived only that the sexual intercourse of an adult woman is considered intercourse that renders her impure. From where do I derive that the sexual intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is also classified as intercourse? The verse states: And the woman. Evidently, the word “and” includes only a girl aged three years and one day.
אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא נִינְהוּ, וְאַסְמְכִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן אַקְּרָאֵי. הֵי קְרָא וְהֵי הִלְכְתָא? אִילֵּימָא בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד — הִלְכְתָא, בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — קְרָא, קְרָא סְתָמָא כְּתִיב!
Rava said: These are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages merely supported them with verses. There is therefore no contradiction. The Gemara asks: Which halakha is derived from a verse and which is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? If we say that the halakha that the status of a menstruating woman may apply to a one-day-old girl is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha that the intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is considered intercourse is derived from a verse, then one may object: But the verse is written in an unspecified manner; consequently, a one-day-old girl should be included by the verse in the same manner as a three-year-old girl.
אֶלָּא בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — הִלְכְתָא, בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד — קְרָא, וּמֵאַחַר דְּהִלְכְתָא, קְרָא לָמָּה לִי?
Rather, the halakha with regard to the intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, whereas the halakha with regard to the menstruation of a one-day-old girl is derived from a verse. The Gemara asks: And now that it has been established that the halakha with regard to the intercourse of a three-year-old girl is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why do I need a verse?
לְמַעוֹטֵי אִישׁ מֵאוֹדֶם.
The Gemara responds: The verse serves to exclude a man from contracting ritual impurity due to red semen.
וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: אִשָּׁה — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה, בַּת עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים לְזִיבָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְאִשָּׁה״. לְמָה לִי? לִיגְמַר מִנִּדָּה!
The Gemara objects: But what about that which is taught in a baraita with regard to a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava]: The verse states: “And if a woman has an issue of her blood many days” (Leviticus 15:25). From the word “woman” I have derived only that ziva applies to an adult woman. From where do I derive that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of ziva? The verse states: “And if a woman.” Why do I need the verse? Let one derive that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of ziva from the fact that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman, as a woman may become a zava only after seven days of menstruation and three subsequent days of experiencing uterine discharge.
צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּנִדָּה — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: נִדָּה, מִשּׁוּם דְּכִי חֲזַאי חַד יוֹמָא בָּעֲיָא לְמֵיתַב שִׁבְעָה; אֲבָל זָבָה, דְּאִי חֲזַאי חַד יוֹמָא — בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם סַגִּי לַהּ, אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the verse to teach that the halakhot of ziva apply to a ten-day-old girl. As, if the Merciful One had written only that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman, I would say: The halakhot of a menstruating woman apply to a one-day-old girl because of their stringency, as when a woman sees blood on only one day she is required to sit for the seven days of menstruation. But with regard to a zava, since the halakha is that if a woman sees blood on only one day she has the status of a lesser zava, and it is enough for her to observe a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge, one might say that the halakhot of ziva do not apply to a ten-day-old girl. It was therefore necessary for the verse to indicate otherwise.
וְלִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּזָבָה, וְלָא בָּעֵי בְּנִדָּה, וַאֲנָא יָדַעְנָא דְּאֵין זָבָה בְּלֹא נִדָּה. אִין הָכִי נָמֵי! וְאֶלָּא קְרָא לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי אִישׁ מֵאוֹדֶם.
The Gemara objects: And let the Merciful One write that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a zava, and it would not be required to write that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman, and I would know that as a girl cannot become a zava without first assuming the status of a menstruating woman, she must also be included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so; the fact that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman can be derived from the fact that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a zava. Rather, why do I need the verse: “And if a woman,” that is stated with regard to a menstruating woman? The verse serves to exclude a man from contracting ritual impurity due to red semen.
הָא מַיעֵטְתֵּיהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא? חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִשִּׁכְבַת זֶרַע, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִדָּם.
The Gemara objects: But the Torah already excluded this case on another occasion, as stated earlier. The Gemara explains: One verse serves to exclude a man from contracting ritual impurity due to red semen, and one verse serves to exclude a man from being rendered a zav due to blood that emanates from his penis.
וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן זְכָרִים. דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ — מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? לְרַבּוֹת תִּינוֹק בִּן יוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא בְּזִיבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
§ The Gemara discusses the halakha of ziva with regard to a male: And so with regard to males, the halakhot of a zav apply even to minor boys. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning a zav: “When any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue is impure” (Leviticus 15:2). What is the meaning when the verse states “any man”? The verse serves to include a one-day-old baby, teaching that even he is susceptible to impurity of ziva. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לַזָּכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה״ — ״לַזָּכָר״ כֹּל שֶׁהוּא זָכָר, בֵּין שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל בֵּין שֶׁהוּא קָטָן, ״וְלַנְּקֵבָה״ כֹּל שֶׁהִיא נְקֵבָה, בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: This derivation is not necessary, as the verse states: “And of them that have an issue, whether it be a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:33). “Whether it be a male” includes anyone who is a male, whether he is an adult or whether he is a minor; “or a female” includes anyone who is a female, whether she is an adult or whether she is a minor. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states “any man”? The Torah spoke in the language of people, and one is not meant to derive anything from this verse.
אַלְמָא, כִּי מְרַבֵּי קְרָא — בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד מְרַבֵּי. וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״אִישׁ״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ, בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִישׁ״.
The Gemara asks: Apparently, when the verse includes a minor boy it includes even a one-day-old. But raise a contradiction from another baraita, which addresses the verse: “And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water and be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:16). From the word “man” I have derived only that a man is rendered ritually impure through a seminal emission. From where do I derive that the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders him impure as well? The verse states: “And a man.” Evidently, the verse does not include a one-day-old boy.
אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא נִינְהוּ, וְאַסְמְכִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן אַקְּרָאֵי. הֵי הִלְכְתָא וְהֵי קְרָא? אִילֵּימָא בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד — הִלְכְתָא, וּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — קְרָא, קְרָא סְתָמָא כְּתִיב!
Rava said: These are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages merely supported them with verses. Therefore, there is no contradiction. The Gemara asks: Which is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and which halakha is derived from a verse? If we say that the halakha that a one-day-old boy is included in the halakhot of a zav is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha that the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders him impure is derived from a verse, then one may object: But the verse is written in an unspecified manner; consequently, even a one-day-old boy should be included in the verse.
אֶלָּא בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — הִלְכְתָא, וּבֶן יוֹם אֶחָד — קְרָא. וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּהִלְכְתָא הִיא, קְרָא לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי אִשָּׁה מִלּוֹבֶן.
Rather, the halakha with regard to the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha that a one-day-old boy is included in the halakhot of a zav is derived from a verse. The Gemara asks: And now that the halakha with regard to the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why do I need a verse? The Gemara answers: The verse serves to exclude a woman from contracting the impurity of a zava due to a white discharge.
לְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב בִּזְכָרִים, וּלְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב בִּנְקֵבוֹת?
The Gemara asks: Why do I need for the Merciful One to write that a one-day-old is included in the halakhot of ziva with regard to males, and why do I need for the Merciful One to write that a one-day-old is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman and a ten-day-old is included in the halakhot of ziva with regard to females?
צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בִּזְכָרִים — מִשּׁוּם דִּמְטַמּוּ בִּרְאִיּוֹת כִּבְיָמִים, אֲבָל נְקֵבוֹת דְּלָא מְטַמּוּ בִּרְאִיּוֹת כִּבְיָמִים — אֵימָא לָא.
The Gemara answers that both verses are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written only concerning males, one might say: A one-day-old boy is included in the halakhot of ziva because the halakha is more stringent with regard to males, as they are rendered impure through three sightings of ziva on one day just like through sightings on three consecutive days. But with regard to females, who are not rendered impure through three sightings on one day as they are through sightings on three consecutive days, one might say that the halakhot of ziva do not apply to ten-day-old girls.
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בִּנְקֵבוֹת — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָמְטַמּוּ בְּאוֹנֶס, אֲבָל זְכָרִים דְּלָא מְטַמּוּ בְּאוֹנֶס — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
And by contrast, if the Merciful One had written only with regard to females, one might say: The halakhot of ziva apply to ten-day-old girls, because of the fact that they are rendered impure even on account of sightings that occur due to circumstances beyond their control. But with regard to males, who are not rendered impure on account of sightings that occur due to circumstances beyond their control, one might say that one-day-old boys are not included in the halakhot of ziva. Therefore, both verses are necessary.
הַכּוּתִים מְטַמְּאִין מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כָּעֶלְיוֹן. מַאי ״מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כָּעֶלְיוֹן״? אִילֵּימָא דְּאִי אִיכָּא עֲשָׂרָה מַצָּעוֹת וְיָתֵיב עֲלַיְיהוּ (מְטַמּוּ) [מְטַמֵּי] לְהוּ, פְּשִׁיטָא! דְּהָא דָּרֵס לְהוּ.
§ The mishna teaches: And the Samaritan men impart ritual impurity to the lower bedding like the upper bedding. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the clause: The lower bedding like the upper bedding? If we say it means that if there are ten mattresses stacked one upon the other and a Samaritan man sat upon them, the lowest mattress, like the upper mattresses, is rendered impure, this halakha is obvious, since he presses on all of them when he sits on them. In other words, since Samaritan men impart impurity to the bedding beneath them because they are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, there is no reason to distinguish between the lowest mattress and the other mattresses above it.
אֶלָּא, שֶׁיְּהֵא תַּחְתּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה כְּעֶלְיוֹנוֹ שֶׁל זָב, מָה עֶלְיוֹנוֹ שֶׁל זָב אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא אוֹכְלִין וּמַשְׁקִין, אַף תַּחְתּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין.
Rather, the mishna means that the status of the lowest mattress beneath a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman is like that of the bedding above a zav, i.e., the bedding beneath a Samaritan man assumes first-degree ritual impurity and does not become a primary source of impurity like the bedding beneath a zav. That is, just as the upper bedding of a zav is not a primary source of impurity and imparts impurity only to food and drink but not people or vessels, so too, the bedding beneath a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman imparts ritual impurity only to food and drink.
עֶלְיוֹנוֹ שֶׁל זָב מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה תַחְתָּיו יִטְמָא״, מַאי ״תַּחְתָּיו״?
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the bedding above a zav imparts ritual impurity only to food and drink? As it is written with regard to a zav: “And whoever touches any thing that was under him shall be impure” (Leviticus 15:10). What is the meaning of the expression “under him”?
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
Niddah 32
רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: קָטָן וּקְטַנָּה לֹא חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The Gemara responds: It is Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: A minor boy and a minor girl may not perform the ritual through which a yavam frees a yevama of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza], nor may they enter into levirate marriage. In other words, a minor boy whose brother died childless may not perform ḥalitza with his brother’s widow, nor may he enter into levirate marriage with her, even if she is an adult. Likewise, a minor girl whose husband died childless may not perform ḥalitza with her husband’s brother, nor may she enter into levirate marriage with him, even if he is an adult. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: יָפֶה אָמַרְתָּ שֶׁאֵין חוֹלְצִין, ״אִישׁ״ כָּתוּב בַּפָּרָשָׁה, וּמַקְּשִׁינַן אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ. וּמָה טַעַם אֵין מְיַבְּמִין?
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: You have aptly stated that they may not perform ḥalitza, since “man” is written in the passage of the Torah discussing ḥalitza (Deuteronomy 25:7), and we compare a woman to a man, as the aforementioned verse states: “And if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife.” Consequently, neither a minor boy nor a minor girl may perform ḥalitza. But what is the reason that they may not enter into levirate marriage?
אָמַר לָהֶן: קָטָן — שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצֵא סָרִיס, קְטַנָּה — שֶׁמָּא תִּמָּצֵא אַיְלוֹנִית, וְנִמְצְאוּ פּוֹגְעִין בְּעֶרְוָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה.
Rabbi Meir said to them: A minor boy may not enter into levirate marriage lest, once he is older, he be found to be a sexually underdeveloped man, who is incapable of fathering children. Likewise, a minor girl may not enter into levirate marriage lest, once she is older, she be found to be a sexually underdeveloped woman. And if a sexually underdeveloped boy or girl enters into levirate marriage they will be found to be infringing upon prohibitions against forbidden sexual intercourse where no mitzva applies, as the entire purpose of levirate marriage is to bear children in the name of the deceased.
וְרַבָּנַן? זִיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דִּקְטַנִּים, וְרוֹב קְטַנִּים לָאו סָרִיסִים נִינְהוּ; זִיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דִּקְטַנּוֹת, וְרוֹב קְטַנּוֹת לָאו אַיְלוֹנִיּוֹת נִינְהוּ.
The Gemara notes: And the Rabbis maintain that one follows the majority of minor boys, and most minor boys are not going to be sexually underdeveloped men; likewise, one follows the majority of minor girls, and most minor girls are not going to be sexually underdeveloped women. In any event, the baraita indicates that Rabbi Meir is concerned for the minority.
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִיעוּטָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ, אֲבָל מִיעוּטָא דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ — מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?
The Gemara objects: You can say that you heard that Rabbi Meir is concerned for a common minority, e.g., the minority of sexually underdeveloped men and sexually underdeveloped women. But did you hear him say that one is concerned for an uncommon minority, such as the minority of young girls who menstruate?
הָא נָמֵי מִיעוּטָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּעֵין בּוּל וְהִטְבִּילוּהָ קוֹדֶם לְאִמָּהּ, וְאָמַר רַבִּי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֵית שְׁעָרִים וְהִטְבִּילוּהָ קוֹדֶם לְאִמָּהּ. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא וְהִטְבִּילוּהָ קוֹדֶם לְאִמָּהּ.
The Gemara explains: This minority of young girls who menstruate is also a common minority. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident in the town of Ein Bul where they immersed a baby girl in a ritual bath before her mother. In other words, the baby girl experienced bleeding so soon after birth that her immersion in a ritual bath occurred before her mother immersed fourteen days after giving birth. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi likewise said: There was an incident in Beit She’arim where they immersed a baby girl before her mother. And Rav Yosef said: There was an incident in Pumbedita where they immersed a baby girl before her mother.
בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וּדְרַבִּי — מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמַת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְמָה לִי? וְהָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין תְּרוּמַת חוּץ לָאָרֶץ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁטּוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה מִגּוּפוֹ, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בַּאֲכִילָה, אֲבָל בִּנְגִיעָה לָא!
The Gemara asks: Granted, the immersions reported by Rabbi Yosei and by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi are understandable, due to the teruma of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., these incidents occurred in Eretz Yisrael, where the touch of a menstruating girl disqualifies teruma. But in the incident reported by Rav Yosef, which occurred in Babylonia, why do I need to immerse the baby girl? But doesn’t Shmuel say: The teruma of outside of Eretz Yisrael is prohibited only to one whose impurity is due to an emission from his body, e.g., a menstruating woman, or one who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]. And this statement applies only with regard to eating teruma, but with regard to touching teruma, there is no prohibition. Since the touch of a menstruating woman does not disqualify teruma outside Eretz Yisrael, why was it necessary to immerse the baby girl in the incident reported by Rav Yosef?
אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְסוּכָהּ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה׳״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסָּךְ וְאֶת הַשּׁוֹתֶה.
Mar Zutra says: That immersion was necessary only for smearing oil of teruma of outside of Eretz Yisrael. Since smearing is equivalent to eating, it would have been prohibited to smear such oil on the baby girl, were it not for her immersion in a ritual bath. And from where is it derived that smearing is like eating with regard to teruma? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse discussing the prohibition against consuming teruma in a state of ritual impurity states: “And they shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they set apart for the Lord” (Leviticus 22:15). The verse serves to include in this prohibition one who smears and one who drinks.
שׁוֹתָה לְמָה לִי קְרָא? שְׁתִיָּה בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה! אֶלָּא, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסָּךְ כַּשּׁוֹתֶה. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״וַתָּבֹא כַמַּיִם בְּקִרְבּוֹ וְכַשֶּׁמֶן בְּעַצְמוֹתָיו״.
Mar Zutra continues: Why do I need a verse to teach that one who drinks teruma in a state of impurity is liable? Isn’t drinking included in the category of eating? Rather, the baraita means that the verse serves to include one who smears, teaching that he is like one who drinks. And if you wish, say that one may derive that smearing is like drinking from here: “And it came into his innards like water, and like oil into his bones” (Psalms 109:18).
אִי הָכִי דִּידַן נָמֵי?
As it stands, the halakha that Samaritan girls are considered menstruating women from the time they lie in their cradle is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is concerned for the minority of young girls who menstruate. The Gemara objects: If so, let us be concerned for the same minority with regard to our girls as well.
אֲנַן, דְּדָרְשִׁינַן ״אִשָּׁה״ ״וְאִשָּׁה״, וְכִי חָזְיָין (מפרשי) [מַפְרְשִׁינַן] לְהוּ — לָא גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן. אִינְהוּ דְּלָא דָּרְשִׁי ״אִשָּׁה״ ״וְאִשָּׁה״, וְכִי חָזְיָין לָא מַפְרְשִׁי לְהוּ — גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן.
The Gemara explains: There is no need to be concerned with regard to our young girls, as we interpret the verse: “And if a woman has an issue” (Leviticus 15:19), and derive from the fact that the verse does not merely state: “A woman,” but: “And if a woman,” that even minor girls are included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman. And consequently, when our girls see menstrual blood, we separate them in the manner of all menstruating women. Therefore, the Sages did not decree with regard to them that all young Jewish girls assume the status of menstruating women. By contrast, with regard to them, Samaritans, who do not interpret the difference between “a woman” and “and if a woman,” when their girls see menstrual blood they do not separate them, and therefore the Sages decreed with regard to them that all Samaritan girls assume the status of menstruating women.
מַאי ״אִשָּׁה״ ״וְאִשָּׁה״? דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִשָּׁה״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה, תִּינוֹקֶת בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד לְנִדָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִשָּׁה״.
§ The Gemara asks: What is this interpretation of the difference between “a woman” and “and if a woman”? As it is taught in a baraita that from “a woman” I have derived only that the halakhot of menstruation apply to an adult woman. From where do I derive that the halakhot of a menstruating woman also apply to a one-day-old girl? The verse states: “And if a woman.”
אַלְמָא, כִּי מְרַבֵּי קְרָא בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד מְרַבֵּי, וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״אִשָּׁה״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה, תִּינוֹקֶת בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד לְבִיאָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִשָּׁה״!
The Gemara asks: Apparently, when the verse includes young girls through the word “and” it includes even a one-day-old. But you can raise a contradiction from another baraita, which discusses the verse: “And the woman with whom a man shall lie carnally, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:18). From the word “woman” I have derived only that the sexual intercourse of an adult woman is considered intercourse that renders her impure. From where do I derive that the sexual intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is also classified as intercourse? The verse states: And the woman. Evidently, the word “and” includes only a girl aged three years and one day.
אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא נִינְהוּ, וְאַסְמְכִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן אַקְּרָאֵי. הֵי קְרָא וְהֵי הִלְכְתָא? אִילֵּימָא בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד — הִלְכְתָא, בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — קְרָא, קְרָא סְתָמָא כְּתִיב!
Rava said: These are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages merely supported them with verses. There is therefore no contradiction. The Gemara asks: Which halakha is derived from a verse and which is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? If we say that the halakha that the status of a menstruating woman may apply to a one-day-old girl is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha that the intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is considered intercourse is derived from a verse, then one may object: But the verse is written in an unspecified manner; consequently, a one-day-old girl should be included by the verse in the same manner as a three-year-old girl.
אֶלָּא בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — הִלְכְתָא, בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד — קְרָא, וּמֵאַחַר דְּהִלְכְתָא, קְרָא לָמָּה לִי?
Rather, the halakha with regard to the intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, whereas the halakha with regard to the menstruation of a one-day-old girl is derived from a verse. The Gemara asks: And now that it has been established that the halakha with regard to the intercourse of a three-year-old girl is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why do I need a verse?
לְמַעוֹטֵי אִישׁ מֵאוֹדֶם.
The Gemara responds: The verse serves to exclude a man from contracting ritual impurity due to red semen.
וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: אִשָּׁה — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה, בַּת עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים לְזִיבָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְאִשָּׁה״. לְמָה לִי? לִיגְמַר מִנִּדָּה!
The Gemara objects: But what about that which is taught in a baraita with regard to a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava]: The verse states: “And if a woman has an issue of her blood many days” (Leviticus 15:25). From the word “woman” I have derived only that ziva applies to an adult woman. From where do I derive that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of ziva? The verse states: “And if a woman.” Why do I need the verse? Let one derive that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of ziva from the fact that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman, as a woman may become a zava only after seven days of menstruation and three subsequent days of experiencing uterine discharge.
צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּנִדָּה — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: נִדָּה, מִשּׁוּם דְּכִי חֲזַאי חַד יוֹמָא בָּעֲיָא לְמֵיתַב שִׁבְעָה; אֲבָל זָבָה, דְּאִי חֲזַאי חַד יוֹמָא — בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם סַגִּי לַהּ, אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the verse to teach that the halakhot of ziva apply to a ten-day-old girl. As, if the Merciful One had written only that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman, I would say: The halakhot of a menstruating woman apply to a one-day-old girl because of their stringency, as when a woman sees blood on only one day she is required to sit for the seven days of menstruation. But with regard to a zava, since the halakha is that if a woman sees blood on only one day she has the status of a lesser zava, and it is enough for her to observe a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge, one might say that the halakhot of ziva do not apply to a ten-day-old girl. It was therefore necessary for the verse to indicate otherwise.
וְלִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּזָבָה, וְלָא בָּעֵי בְּנִדָּה, וַאֲנָא יָדַעְנָא דְּאֵין זָבָה בְּלֹא נִדָּה. אִין הָכִי נָמֵי! וְאֶלָּא קְרָא לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי אִישׁ מֵאוֹדֶם.
The Gemara objects: And let the Merciful One write that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a zava, and it would not be required to write that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman, and I would know that as a girl cannot become a zava without first assuming the status of a menstruating woman, she must also be included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so; the fact that a one-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman can be derived from the fact that a ten-day-old girl is included in the halakhot of a zava. Rather, why do I need the verse: “And if a woman,” that is stated with regard to a menstruating woman? The verse serves to exclude a man from contracting ritual impurity due to red semen.
הָא מַיעֵטְתֵּיהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא? חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִשִּׁכְבַת זֶרַע, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִדָּם.
The Gemara objects: But the Torah already excluded this case on another occasion, as stated earlier. The Gemara explains: One verse serves to exclude a man from contracting ritual impurity due to red semen, and one verse serves to exclude a man from being rendered a zav due to blood that emanates from his penis.
וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן זְכָרִים. דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ — מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? לְרַבּוֹת תִּינוֹק בִּן יוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא בְּזִיבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
§ The Gemara discusses the halakha of ziva with regard to a male: And so with regard to males, the halakhot of a zav apply even to minor boys. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning a zav: “When any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue is impure” (Leviticus 15:2). What is the meaning when the verse states “any man”? The verse serves to include a one-day-old baby, teaching that even he is susceptible to impurity of ziva. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לַזָּכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה״ — ״לַזָּכָר״ כֹּל שֶׁהוּא זָכָר, בֵּין שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל בֵּין שֶׁהוּא קָטָן, ״וְלַנְּקֵבָה״ כֹּל שֶׁהִיא נְקֵבָה, בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: This derivation is not necessary, as the verse states: “And of them that have an issue, whether it be a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:33). “Whether it be a male” includes anyone who is a male, whether he is an adult or whether he is a minor; “or a female” includes anyone who is a female, whether she is an adult or whether she is a minor. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states “any man”? The Torah spoke in the language of people, and one is not meant to derive anything from this verse.
אַלְמָא, כִּי מְרַבֵּי קְרָא — בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד מְרַבֵּי. וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״אִישׁ״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ, בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִישׁ״.
The Gemara asks: Apparently, when the verse includes a minor boy it includes even a one-day-old. But raise a contradiction from another baraita, which addresses the verse: “And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water and be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:16). From the word “man” I have derived only that a man is rendered ritually impure through a seminal emission. From where do I derive that the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders him impure as well? The verse states: “And a man.” Evidently, the verse does not include a one-day-old boy.
אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא נִינְהוּ, וְאַסְמְכִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן אַקְּרָאֵי. הֵי הִלְכְתָא וְהֵי קְרָא? אִילֵּימָא בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד — הִלְכְתָא, וּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — קְרָא, קְרָא סְתָמָא כְּתִיב!
Rava said: These are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages merely supported them with verses. Therefore, there is no contradiction. The Gemara asks: Which is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and which halakha is derived from a verse? If we say that the halakha that a one-day-old boy is included in the halakhot of a zav is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha that the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders him impure is derived from a verse, then one may object: But the verse is written in an unspecified manner; consequently, even a one-day-old boy should be included in the verse.
אֶלָּא בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — הִלְכְתָא, וּבֶן יוֹם אֶחָד — קְרָא. וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּהִלְכְתָא הִיא, קְרָא לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי אִשָּׁה מִלּוֹבֶן.
Rather, the halakha with regard to the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha that a one-day-old boy is included in the halakhot of a zav is derived from a verse. The Gemara asks: And now that the halakha with regard to the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why do I need a verse? The Gemara answers: The verse serves to exclude a woman from contracting the impurity of a zava due to a white discharge.
לְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב בִּזְכָרִים, וּלְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב בִּנְקֵבוֹת?
The Gemara asks: Why do I need for the Merciful One to write that a one-day-old is included in the halakhot of ziva with regard to males, and why do I need for the Merciful One to write that a one-day-old is included in the halakhot of a menstruating woman and a ten-day-old is included in the halakhot of ziva with regard to females?
צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בִּזְכָרִים — מִשּׁוּם דִּמְטַמּוּ בִּרְאִיּוֹת כִּבְיָמִים, אֲבָל נְקֵבוֹת דְּלָא מְטַמּוּ בִּרְאִיּוֹת כִּבְיָמִים — אֵימָא לָא.
The Gemara answers that both verses are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written only concerning males, one might say: A one-day-old boy is included in the halakhot of ziva because the halakha is more stringent with regard to males, as they are rendered impure through three sightings of ziva on one day just like through sightings on three consecutive days. But with regard to females, who are not rendered impure through three sightings on one day as they are through sightings on three consecutive days, one might say that the halakhot of ziva do not apply to ten-day-old girls.
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בִּנְקֵבוֹת — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָמְטַמּוּ בְּאוֹנֶס, אֲבָל זְכָרִים דְּלָא מְטַמּוּ בְּאוֹנֶס — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
And by contrast, if the Merciful One had written only with regard to females, one might say: The halakhot of ziva apply to ten-day-old girls, because of the fact that they are rendered impure even on account of sightings that occur due to circumstances beyond their control. But with regard to males, who are not rendered impure on account of sightings that occur due to circumstances beyond their control, one might say that one-day-old boys are not included in the halakhot of ziva. Therefore, both verses are necessary.
הַכּוּתִים מְטַמְּאִין מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כָּעֶלְיוֹן. מַאי ״מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כָּעֶלְיוֹן״? אִילֵּימָא דְּאִי אִיכָּא עֲשָׂרָה מַצָּעוֹת וְיָתֵיב עֲלַיְיהוּ (מְטַמּוּ) [מְטַמֵּי] לְהוּ, פְּשִׁיטָא! דְּהָא דָּרֵס לְהוּ.
§ The mishna teaches: And the Samaritan men impart ritual impurity to the lower bedding like the upper bedding. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the clause: The lower bedding like the upper bedding? If we say it means that if there are ten mattresses stacked one upon the other and a Samaritan man sat upon them, the lowest mattress, like the upper mattresses, is rendered impure, this halakha is obvious, since he presses on all of them when he sits on them. In other words, since Samaritan men impart impurity to the bedding beneath them because they are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, there is no reason to distinguish between the lowest mattress and the other mattresses above it.
אֶלָּא, שֶׁיְּהֵא תַּחְתּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה כְּעֶלְיוֹנוֹ שֶׁל זָב, מָה עֶלְיוֹנוֹ שֶׁל זָב אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא אוֹכְלִין וּמַשְׁקִין, אַף תַּחְתּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין.
Rather, the mishna means that the status of the lowest mattress beneath a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman is like that of the bedding above a zav, i.e., the bedding beneath a Samaritan man assumes first-degree ritual impurity and does not become a primary source of impurity like the bedding beneath a zav. That is, just as the upper bedding of a zav is not a primary source of impurity and imparts impurity only to food and drink but not people or vessels, so too, the bedding beneath a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman imparts ritual impurity only to food and drink.
עֶלְיוֹנוֹ שֶׁל זָב מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה תַחְתָּיו יִטְמָא״, מַאי ״תַּחְתָּיו״?
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the bedding above a zav imparts ritual impurity only to food and drink? As it is written with regard to a zav: “And whoever touches any thing that was under him shall be impure” (Leviticus 15:10). What is the meaning of the expression “under him”?
Follow
