Why are Cutim believed about some things and not about others? Since they understand “do not put a stumbling block before a blind person” literally, how can we trust them at all – maybe they are trying to get us to sin? The eighth charpter beginning with a sicussion of spots of blood found on a woman’s body or on her clothing and the significance of where it is found. Shmuel says that a woman only becomes impure if she has an internal sensation. The gemara brings several sources that seem to go against Shmuel’s opinion, including from our mishna. In the end they conclude that Shmuel meant on a Torah level, but by rabbinic law, she would be impure even without a sensation.
Niddah 57
12.19.2019 | כ״א בכסלו תש״פ
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Niddah 57
גְּמָ’ מַאי דְּרוּשׁ? ״לֹא תַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר גָּבְלוּ רִאשֹׁנִים בְּנַחֲלָתְךָ״.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the Samaritans do not observe burial customs for stillborn children. The Gemara asks: What verse did they interpret as a source for this practice? The Gemara replies that they interpreted the verse: “You shall not remove your fellow’s boundary marker, which was bounded by the first ones, in your inheritance that you shall inherit, in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it” (Deuteronomy 19:14).
כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ נַחֲלָה — יֵשׁ לוֹ גְּבוּל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ נַחֲלָה — אֵין לוֹ גְּבוּל.
The Gemara explains: The Sages derived from this verse that it is prohibited to sell one’s ancestral burial ground. In accordance with this interpretation of the verse, the Samaritans derived that any individual who has an inheritance, i.e., who stands to inherit land, has a boundary, i.e., a burial place, whereas any individual who does not have an inheritance in the land, e.g., a stillborn child, does not have a boundary, i.e., a burial place. The Samaritans therefore concluded that the mitzva of burial does not apply to stillborn children.
נֶאֱמָנִים לוֹמַר קָבַרְנוּ. וְהָא לֵית לְהוּ ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״! אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בְּכֹהֵן עוֹמֵד שָׁם.
The mishna teaches that Samaritans are deemed credible to state: We buried the stillborn children in a certain place, or to state that they did not bury the stillborn children there, and that place does not transmit ritual impurity. The Gemara objects: But the Samaritans do not accept the Sages’ interpretation of the verse: “And you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), that one may not cause another to sin. Since they are not concerned about misleading others, why is their testimony accepted? Rabbi Abbahu says: The mishna is referring to a case where a Samaritan priest is standing there, on that spot, which indicates that he genuinely maintains it is not impure with the impurity of a corpse.
וְדִילְמָא כֹּהֵן טָמֵא הוּא? דְּנָקֵיט תְּרוּמָה בִּידֵיהּ, וְדִילְמָא תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה הִיא? דְּקָאָכֵיל מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara objects: But perhaps he is an impure priest and therefore he does not refrain from standing in an impure place. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a situation where the priest is holding teruma in his hand, which indicates he is ritually pure. The Gemara further objects: But perhaps it is impure teruma. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case where the priest is partaking of the teruma, which indicates that it is not impure, as it is prohibited to consume impure teruma.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לָא בְּקִיאִי בִּיצִירָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if this is the circumstance, it is obvious that the Samaritan priest’s testimony can be accepted. Then what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the Samaritans are not knowledgeable with regard to the stages of the formation of an embryo, and they might bury a fetus believing that it is an unformed fetus that does not transmit impurity, when it is actually a forty-day-old fetus, which is impure. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, and their testimony is accepted.
נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְכוּ׳. וְהָא לֵית לְהוּ ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״! אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּגוֹזֵז וְעוֹבֵד.
The mishna teaches that the Samaritans are deemed credible to state with regard to an animal that it previously gave birth, and its subsequent offspring does not have the sacred status of a firstborn animal. The Gemara objects: But the Samaritans do not accept the Sages’ interpretation of the verse: “And you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind,” that one may not cause another to sin. Why, then, is their testimony accepted? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The mishna is referring to a case where the Samaritan is shearing and working the offspring of the animal. Since the Samaritans are meticulous with regard to Torah law, it is evident that it is not a firstborn.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לָא בְּקִיאִי בְּטִינּוּף, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if this is the circumstance, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the Samaritans are not knowledgeable with regard to a murky discharge emitted from the uterus, which is indicative of a fetus and exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn (see Bekhorot 21a). It is possible that the Samaritan mistakenly believes the animal previously emitted a murky discharge and therefore its offspring is not a firstborn. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, and their testimony is accepted.
נֶאֱמָנִין עַל צִיּוּן וְכוּ׳. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיבָא — מִזְהָר זְהִירִי בֵּיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרָאָה עֶצֶם אָדָם וּבָנָה אֶצְלוֹ צִיּוּן״.
The mishna further teaches that the Samaritans are deemed credible to testify with regard to the marking of graves, as the Samaritans mark their graves, and we rely on their marking as an indication that a corpse is buried there. Therefore, any place where there is no marking is considered ritually pure. The Gemara explains: Even though the marking of graves is required only by rabbinic law, and Samaritans generally do not observe rabbinic law, since it is written in the Bible, the Samaritans are meticulous with regard to it, as it is written: “And those that pass through shall pass through the land, and when one sees a human bone he shall set up a marking by it, until the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-gog” (Ezekiel 39:15).
אֲבָל אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לֹא עַל הַסְּכָכוֹת וְכוּ׳. סְכָכוֹת — דִּתְנַן: ״אֵלּוּ הֵן סְכָכוֹת — אִילָן הַמֵּיסֵךְ עַל הָאָרֶץ״. פְּרָעוֹת — דִּתְנַן: ״אֲבָנִים פְּרוּעוֹת הַיּוֹצְאוֹת מִן הַגָּדֵר״.
The mishna teaches: But with regard to the following cases in which the exact location of a grave is unknown, the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify: They are not deemed credible to testify about overhanging boughs, nor about the protrusions that jut out of stone fences. The Gemara explains these terms: The term overhanging boughs should be understood as we learned in a mishna (Oholot 8:2): These are overhanging boughs: A tree that hangs over the ground. The term protrusions should be understood as we learned in the Tosefta (Oholot 9:4): Protruding stones that jut out of a fence.
בֵּית הַפְּרָס. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל: מְנַפֵּחַ אָדָם בֵּית הַפְּרָס, וְהוֹלֵךְ.
§ The mishna teaches that the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas. With regard to a beit haperas, Rav Yehuda says that Rav Shmuel says: The reason the Sages deemed a beit haperas impure is due to the concern that the bones, but not the flesh of the corpse, were dispersed by the plow throughout the field. The halakha is that a bone transmits impurity by carrying or by contact, if it is at least the size of a barley grain, but it does not transmit impurity by means of a tent. Therefore, if a person is carrying ritually pure items, or if he wishes to remain ritually pure so that he may consume consecrated items, and yet he must pass through a beit haperas, he may blow on the earth of the beit haperas before each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it and avoid it. And in this manner he may walk across the area while remaining ritually pure, even though he might step over a bone.
רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אַמֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: בֵּית הַפְּרָס שֶׁנִּידַּשׁ טָהוֹר. וְתָנָא: הַחוֹרֵשׁ בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת — הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה בֵּית הַפְּרָס, וְעַד כַּמָּה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? מְלֹא מַעֲנָה, מֵאָה אַמָּה, בֵּית אַרְבַּעַת סְאִין. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: חָמֵשׁ.
Rav Yehuda bar Ami says in the name of Rav Yehuda: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot by many people is pure, as it may be assumed that any bone fragments at least as large as a barley grain that were on the surface were either broken or removed. And it was taught in a baraita: In the case of one who plows a graveyard, this individual thereby renders it a beit haperas. And to what extent does he render it a beit haperas, i.e., how far does the concern apply that bones might have been dispersed? The field is rendered a beit haperas to the extent of a full furrow [ma’ana], one hundred cubits by one hundred cubits, which is the area required for sowing four se’a of seed. Rabbi Yosei says: The area rendered a beit haperas is the area required for sowing five se’a of seed.
וְלָא מְהֵימְנִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: שָׂדֶה שֶׁאָבַד בָּהּ קֶבֶר, נֶאֱמָן כּוּתִי לוֹמַר ״אֵין שָׁם קֶבֶר״.
With regard to the ruling of the mishna that the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas, the Gemara asks: And aren’t they deemed credible? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a field in which a grave was lost, which has the status of a beit haperas, a Samaritan is deemed credible to say: There is no grave there?
לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵעִיד אֶלָּא עַל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל קֶבֶר. אִילָן שֶׁהוּא מֵיסֵךְ עַל הָאָרֶץ — נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר ״אֵין תַּחְתָּיו קֶבֶר״, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵעִיד אֶלָּא עַל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל קֶבֶר.
The baraita explains: This is due to the fact that he is not considered to be testifying about a case of uncertain impurity; rather, he is testifying about the location of the grave itself, which is a matter of Torah law, and the Samaritans are deemed credible with regard to a matter of Torah law. Likewise, in the case of a tree that is hanging over the ground, a Samaritan is deemed credible to say: There is no grave beneath it, as he is testifying only about the location of the grave itself. This indicates that the Samaritans are deemed credible with regard to overhanging boughs and protrusions.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּמְהַלֵּךְ וּבָא עַל פְּנֵי כּוּלָּהּ.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says in explanation: The baraita is referring to a case where the Samaritan is walking to and fro over the entire area, and therefore if there was a grave there he would certainly have become impure. Consequently, one may rely on his statement with regard to the purity of the place. By contrast, the mishna is speaking of a case where the Samaritan did not traverse the entire area, and therefore his testimony is not accepted, as they are not meticulous with regard to cases of uncertainty.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רְצוּעָה נָפְקָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: If so, it is obvious that his testimony is credible, and what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the baraita is necessary, lest you say that perhaps a narrow strip of land, which is called by the same name as this field, extends into a nearby field, and the Samaritan presumes the grave is located in that strip of land. If so, even if the Samaritan traversed the entire field his testimony cannot be accepted, as he traversed the field because he considered it merely a case of uncertain impurity. The baraita therefore teaches us that if the Samaritan traverses the entire field his testimony is accepted, as this concern is not an issue.
זֶה הַכְּלָל כּוּ׳. זֶה הַכְּלָל לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי תְּחוּמִין וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ.
The mishna teaches: This is the principle governing the credibility of Samaritans: In the case of any matter of halakha that they are suspected of not fulfilling, they are not deemed credible to testify about it. The Gemara asks: What is added by the term: This is the principle? The Gemara answers: It serves to add that Samaritans are not deemed credible with regard to Shabbat boundaries, i.e., to say that a Shabbat boundary extends until a certain point, as the halakha of Shabbat boundaries applies by rabbinic law. And likewise, the Samaritans are not deemed credible with regard to the status of wine used for a libation in idol worship, as the Samaritans do not refrain from drinking wine touched by a gentile.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ דַּם הַנִּדָּה.
MISHNA: A woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina [beit haturpa], i.e., a place where blood that originated in her vagina could be found, becomes ritually impure, as there is a concern that it originated in the uterus and is menstrual blood. And if it was discovered on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure, as it certainly did not originate in the uterus. If the stain was discovered on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, although it is not adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there.
מַתְנִי’ הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם עַל בְּשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה — טְמֵאָה, וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה — טְהוֹרָה. עַל עֲקֵבָהּ וְעַל רֹאשׁ גּוּדָלָהּ — טְמֵאָה.
In a case where the stain was discovered on her leg or on her feet, if it was on the inner side she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. If it was on the outer side she is ritually pure, and if it was on the sides, either from here, i.e., on the front of her leg or foot, or from there, i.e., on the back of her leg or foot, she is also ritually pure, as blood from the uterus could not have reached there.
עַל שׁוֹקָהּ וְעַל פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ — מִבִּפְנִים טְמֵאָה, מִבַּחוּץ טְהוֹרָה, וְעַל הַצְּדָדִין מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן טְהוֹרָה.
In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there; if it was from the belt and above she is ritually pure. In a case where she saw the stain on the end of the sleeve of the robe, if the sleeve can reach adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure; and if not, i.e., if the stain is in a place on the sleeve that does not reach adjacent to the vagina, she is ritually pure.
רָאֲתָה עַל חֲלוּקָהּ מִן הֶחָגוּר וּלְמַטָּה — טְמֵאָה, מִן הֶחָגוּר וּלְמַעְלָה — טְהוֹרָה. רָאֲתָה עַל בֵּית יָד שֶׁל חָלוּק, אִם מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה.
If it was a robe which she would remove and with which she would cover herself at night, wherever on the robe that the stain is found, the stain renders her ritually impure, due to the fact that the robe moves while the woman is asleep and therefore the blood could have originated in the uterus. And likewise with regard to a kerchief [bapoleyos], no matter where the blood is found on the kerchief, the woman is impure.
הָיְתָה פּוֹשַׁטְתּוֹ וּמִתְכַּסָּה בּוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה, כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בּוֹ כֶּתֶם — טְמֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חוֹזֵר, וְכֵן בַּפּוּלְיוֹס.
GEMARA: With regard to the cases discussed in the mishna concerning a blood stain found on a woman, Shmuel says: If a woman examined the ground beneath her to see if it was clean from blood and other substances, and she found nothing, and subsequently she sat upon it and then found blood on it, although it might be assumed that this blood came from her, she is ritually pure. The reason is as it is stated: “And her issue in her flesh shall be blood, she shall be in her menstrual state seven days” (Leviticus 15:19). This verse teaches that a woman does not become impure unless she senses, i.e., experiences some type of sensation, in her flesh that she emitted blood from her uterus. Since this woman did not sense an emission of blood, she is pure.
גְּמָ’ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בָּדְקָה קַרְקַע עוֹלָם, וְיָשְׁבָה עָלֶיהָ, וּמָצְאָה דָּם עָלֶיהָ — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ — עַד שֶׁתַּרְגִּישׁ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ.
The Gemara asks: How can Shmuel interpret the verse in this manner? After all, he requires this term: “In her flesh,” to teach a different halakha, that a woman becomes impure by finding blood inside her body just as by seeing blood outside her body, i.e., provided that the blood is uterine blood, even if it is currently situated inside her vaginal canal, she is impure. The Gemara answers: If so, if it serves to teach only that blood inside is like blood outside, let the verse say: In the flesh. What is the reason that the verse states: “In her flesh”? Conclude from this term that a woman does not become impure unless she senses in her flesh.
הַאי ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״בְּבָשָׂר״, מַאי ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: עַד שֶׁתַּרְגִּישׁ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ.
The Gemara asks: And still, Shmuel requires the term “in her flesh” to teach that she is impure only if the blood touches her flesh, and not through blood found in a gestational sac, nor through blood found in an amorphous piece of tissue that she emitted. The Gemara answers: Conclude two conclusions from this verse, as the plain meaning of the term teaches all these halakhot.
וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״, וְלֹא בְּשָׁפִיר וְלֹא בַּחֲתִיכָה! תַּרְתֵּי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
With regard to the opinion of Shmuel, the Gemara suggests: Come and hear a mishna at the beginning of the next chapter (59b): In the case of a woman who is urinating and sees blood intermingled with the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinates while she is standing she is ritually impure, as the blood could have originated in the uterus. And if she is sitting she is ritually pure, as it is clear that the blood is from a wound.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה צְרָכֶיהָ, וְרָאֲתָה דָּם. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם עוֹמֶדֶת — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם יוֹשֶׁבֶת — טְהוֹרָה.
The Gemara analyzes this mishna: What are the circumstances? If she sensed while urinating, then in the case where she is sitting, why is she ritually pure, according to Shmuel? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense while urinating? And yet the mishna teaches that if she urinates while she is standing she is ritually impure. This indicates that her status does not depend on her sensing, which contradicts the statement of Shmuel.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאַרְגִּשָׁה — יוֹשֶׁבֶת אַמַּאי טְהוֹרָה? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלָא אַרְגִּשָׁה, וְקָתָנֵי: עוֹמֶדֶת טְמֵאָה!
The Gemara answers: This affords no proof, as the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed while urinating, and yet since this feeling accompanied urination, one might say it was the sensation of urine. Consequently, if she urinated while standing, the urine would return to her uterus and bring blood with it. But if she urinated while sitting the urine cannot return to the uterus and therefore she is pure, as the sensation is attributed to her urine.
לְעוֹלָם דְּאַרְגִּשָׁה, וְאֵימוֹר ״הַרְגָּשַׁת מֵי רַגְלַיִם הֲוַאי״. עוֹמֶדֶת — הֲדוּר מֵי רַגְלַיִם לְמָקוֹר (וְאַיְיתִי) [וְאַיְיתוֹ] דָּם, וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת — טְהוֹרָה.
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear the mishna below (58b): With regard to an examination cloth that was placed beneath the pillow and blood was later found on the cloth, and it is unclear whether it is the blood of an examination or the blood of a louse that was crushed beneath it, if the stain is round it is ritually pure. There is no concern that this blood might have come from her examination, as a woman examines through an act of wiping and a stain produced in this manner would not be round. And if the stain is elongated it is ritually impure, as this shape can be formed by an examination.
תָּא שְׁמַע: עֵד שֶׁהָיָה נָתוּן תַּחַת הַכַּר, וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם — אִם עָגוֹל טָהוֹר, וְאִם מָשׁוּךְ טָמֵא.
The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What are the circumstances? If she sensed, then in the case where the stain is round why is it pure? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense? And yet the mishna teaches that an elongated stain is impure. This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel that a woman is rendered impure only if she sensed.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאַרְגִּישָׁה — עָגוֹל אַמַּאי טָהוֹר? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלָא אַרְגִּישָׁה, וְקָתָנֵי: מָשׁוּךְ טָמֵא.
The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed, but since she also performed an examination one might say this was the sensation of the examination cloth. Consequently, if the stain was elongated, as appropriate for a stain produced by an examination, the blood certainly came from her body, whereas if the stain was round it is pure, as this is not the usual appearance of a stain from an examination.
לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּאַרְגִּישָׁה, וְאֵימוֹר ״הַרְגָּשַׁת עֵד הֲוַאי״, מָשׁוּךְ — וַדַּאי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָא, עָגוֹל — טָהוֹר.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another mishna (14a): If blood was found on his, i.e., the husband’s, examination cloth following intercourse, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure for seven days, in accordance with the halakha of a menstruating woman and one who engages in intercourse with her, and they are each liable to bring a sin offering for unwittingly performing an action punishable with excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, the woman and her husband are likewise ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her swatch after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלּוֹ — טְמֵאִין, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּקׇרְבָּן. נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ אֹתְיוֹם — טְמֵאִין, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּקׇרְבָּן. נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ לְאַחַר זְמַן — טְמֵאִים מִסָּפֵק, וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן.
The Gemara analyzes this mishna: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a situation where she sensed, then in the case where blood was found on her cloth after time passed, why are they exempt from bringing the sin offering? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense? And yet the mishna teaches that if blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, they are ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. Once again, this contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed, but since she was engaging in intercourse at the time, one might say this was the sensation of the male organ.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאַרְגִּישָׁה, לְאַחַר זְמַן אַמַּאי פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלָא אַרְגִּישָׁה, וְקָתָנֵי נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ אֹתְיוֹם טְמֵאִין וְחַיָּיבִין בְּקׇרְבָּן! לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּאַרְגִּישָׁה, וְאֵימָא הַרְגָּשַׁת שַׁמָּשׁ הֲוָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear from a baraita: You are found to say that there are three uncertainties involving cases where blood is found on a woman or her garments. If a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, the halakha is that it is impure. If it is found on her robe and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, the halakha is that it is pure. And in the case of a woman whose status as a menstruating woman is uncertain, with regard to her touching items and with regard to her moving items, one should follow the majority.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שְׁלֹשָׁה סְפֵקוֹת בָּאִשָּׁה — עַל בְּשָׂרָה, סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָמֵא. עַל חֲלוּקָהּ, סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָהוֹר. וּבְמַגָּעוֹת וּבְהֶיסֵּטוֹת, הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What is the meaning of the phrase: Follow the majority, with regard to this woman of uncertain status? Does this not mean that if for the majority of her days she is in a state of ritual impurity, as she emits impure blood on many days, then she is considered impure even when her status is uncertain? And since this baraita does not differentiate between cases where she did and did not sense, the ruling that one follows the majority, and that she is impure, evidently applies even though she did not sense, which contradicts the opinion of Shmuel.
מַאי ״הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב״? לָאו אִם רוֹב יָמֶיהָ טְמֵאִין — טְמֵאָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אַרְגִשָׁה.
The Gemara answers: No proof may be brought from here, as this is what the baraita means: If on the majority of her days this woman sees blood accompanied by a sensation, she is impure, despite the fact that she is uncertain whether she had a sensation, as one can say she sensed on this occasion as well, but it was not on her mind, i.e., she did not pay attention to it at the time.
לָא, אִם רוֹב יָמֶיהָ בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה חָזְיָא — טְמֵאָה, דְּאֵימוֹר אַרְגִשָׁה וְלָאו אַדַּעְתַּהּ.
Before returning to the opinion of Shmuel, the Gemara analyzes the other clauses of this baraita. The Master said above: If a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is impure; if it is found on her robe and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is pure. The juxtaposition of these two cases indicates that the blood is found in the same area in both instances.
אָמַר מָר: עַל בְּשָׂרָה סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָמֵא, עַל חֲלוּקָהּ סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָהוֹר.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the blood was discovered from the belt and below, then when it was found on her robe why is she pure? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure? And if the blood was from the belt and above, then if it was discovered on her flesh why is she impure? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if she saw blood on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure?
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, עַל חֲלוּקָהּ אַמַּאי טָהוֹר? וְהָא תְנַן: מִן הֶחָגוּר וּלְמַטָּה טָמֵא! וְאִי מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה, עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ אַמַּאי טָמֵא? וְהָתְנַן: רָאֲתָה דָּם עַל בְּשָׂרָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה טְהוֹרָה!
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the blood was discovered from the belt and below, and if you wish, say instead that it was found from the belt and above. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that the blood was found from the belt and below, as the baraita is referring to a situation where the blood can be attributed to an external factor, e.g., a case where she passed through a marketplace of butchers [tabbaḥim]. Consequently, if the blood is found on her flesh it is assumed that it came from her body, as, if it came from the outside world, it should have been found on her robe as well. If it is discovered on her robe it is assumed that it came from the outside world, as, if it came from her body, it should have been found on her flesh as well.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָבְרָה בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים. עַל בְּשָׂרָה — מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָאי, דְּאִי מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָאי — עַל חֲלוּקָהּ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ אִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי. עַל חֲלוּקָהּ — מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָא, דְּאִי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָא — עַל בְּשָׂרָה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ אִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי.
And if you wish, say instead that the blood was found from the belt and above, and the baraita is referring to a situation where it is possible the blood came from her body, e.g., a case where she jumped backward. Therefore, if the blood is found on her flesh it certainly came from her body, as, if it came from the outside world, it should have been found on her robe as well. And if it is discovered on her robe the assumption is that it came from the outside world, as, if it came from her body, it should have been found on her flesh as well.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה, כְּגוֹן דְּאִזְדְּקַרָה עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ — וַדַּאי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָאי, דְּאִי מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָאי — עַל חֲלוּקָהּ אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ אִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי. עַל חֲלוּקָהּ — מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָאי, דְּאִי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָאי — עַל בְּשָׂרָה אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ אִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי.
The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita to the opinion of Shmuel: In any event, the baraita teaches that if a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is impure, and this is the halakha even though she did not sense, which contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. And furthermore, we learned in the mishna that a woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina becomes ritually impure, and this is apparently the halakha even though she did not sense. Rav Yirmeya of Difti says: The ruling of Shmuel that a woman must sense in order to be rendered impure applies only by Torah law. But Shmuel concedes that in all the cases cited above, where it is indicated that a woman is impure despite the fact that she did not sense, she is impure
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר טָמֵא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הִרְגִּישָׁה. וְעוֹד תְּנַן: הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם עַל בְּשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה טְמֵאָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הִרְגִּישָׁה. אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה מִדִּפְתִּי: מוֹדֶה שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה
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’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
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, 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
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
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 started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
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
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
Niddah 57
גְּמָ’ מַאי דְּרוּשׁ? ״לֹא תַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר גָּבְלוּ רִאשֹׁנִים בְּנַחֲלָתְךָ״.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the Samaritans do not observe burial customs for stillborn children. The Gemara asks: What verse did they interpret as a source for this practice? The Gemara replies that they interpreted the verse: “You shall not remove your fellow’s boundary marker, which was bounded by the first ones, in your inheritance that you shall inherit, in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it” (Deuteronomy 19:14).
כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ נַחֲלָה — יֵשׁ לוֹ גְּבוּל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ נַחֲלָה — אֵין לוֹ גְּבוּל.
The Gemara explains: The Sages derived from this verse that it is prohibited to sell one’s ancestral burial ground. In accordance with this interpretation of the verse, the Samaritans derived that any individual who has an inheritance, i.e., who stands to inherit land, has a boundary, i.e., a burial place, whereas any individual who does not have an inheritance in the land, e.g., a stillborn child, does not have a boundary, i.e., a burial place. The Samaritans therefore concluded that the mitzva of burial does not apply to stillborn children.
נֶאֱמָנִים לוֹמַר קָבַרְנוּ. וְהָא לֵית לְהוּ ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״! אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בְּכֹהֵן עוֹמֵד שָׁם.
The mishna teaches that Samaritans are deemed credible to state: We buried the stillborn children in a certain place, or to state that they did not bury the stillborn children there, and that place does not transmit ritual impurity. The Gemara objects: But the Samaritans do not accept the Sages’ interpretation of the verse: “And you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), that one may not cause another to sin. Since they are not concerned about misleading others, why is their testimony accepted? Rabbi Abbahu says: The mishna is referring to a case where a Samaritan priest is standing there, on that spot, which indicates that he genuinely maintains it is not impure with the impurity of a corpse.
וְדִילְמָא כֹּהֵן טָמֵא הוּא? דְּנָקֵיט תְּרוּמָה בִּידֵיהּ, וְדִילְמָא תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה הִיא? דְּקָאָכֵיל מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara objects: But perhaps he is an impure priest and therefore he does not refrain from standing in an impure place. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a situation where the priest is holding teruma in his hand, which indicates he is ritually pure. The Gemara further objects: But perhaps it is impure teruma. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case where the priest is partaking of the teruma, which indicates that it is not impure, as it is prohibited to consume impure teruma.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לָא בְּקִיאִי בִּיצִירָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if this is the circumstance, it is obvious that the Samaritan priest’s testimony can be accepted. Then what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the Samaritans are not knowledgeable with regard to the stages of the formation of an embryo, and they might bury a fetus believing that it is an unformed fetus that does not transmit impurity, when it is actually a forty-day-old fetus, which is impure. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, and their testimony is accepted.
נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְכוּ׳. וְהָא לֵית לְהוּ ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״! אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּגוֹזֵז וְעוֹבֵד.
The mishna teaches that the Samaritans are deemed credible to state with regard to an animal that it previously gave birth, and its subsequent offspring does not have the sacred status of a firstborn animal. The Gemara objects: But the Samaritans do not accept the Sages’ interpretation of the verse: “And you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind,” that one may not cause another to sin. Why, then, is their testimony accepted? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The mishna is referring to a case where the Samaritan is shearing and working the offspring of the animal. Since the Samaritans are meticulous with regard to Torah law, it is evident that it is not a firstborn.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לָא בְּקִיאִי בְּטִינּוּף, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if this is the circumstance, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the Samaritans are not knowledgeable with regard to a murky discharge emitted from the uterus, which is indicative of a fetus and exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn (see Bekhorot 21a). It is possible that the Samaritan mistakenly believes the animal previously emitted a murky discharge and therefore its offspring is not a firstborn. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, and their testimony is accepted.
נֶאֱמָנִין עַל צִיּוּן וְכוּ׳. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיבָא — מִזְהָר זְהִירִי בֵּיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרָאָה עֶצֶם אָדָם וּבָנָה אֶצְלוֹ צִיּוּן״.
The mishna further teaches that the Samaritans are deemed credible to testify with regard to the marking of graves, as the Samaritans mark their graves, and we rely on their marking as an indication that a corpse is buried there. Therefore, any place where there is no marking is considered ritually pure. The Gemara explains: Even though the marking of graves is required only by rabbinic law, and Samaritans generally do not observe rabbinic law, since it is written in the Bible, the Samaritans are meticulous with regard to it, as it is written: “And those that pass through shall pass through the land, and when one sees a human bone he shall set up a marking by it, until the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-gog” (Ezekiel 39:15).
אֲבָל אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לֹא עַל הַסְּכָכוֹת וְכוּ׳. סְכָכוֹת — דִּתְנַן: ״אֵלּוּ הֵן סְכָכוֹת — אִילָן הַמֵּיסֵךְ עַל הָאָרֶץ״. פְּרָעוֹת — דִּתְנַן: ״אֲבָנִים פְּרוּעוֹת הַיּוֹצְאוֹת מִן הַגָּדֵר״.
The mishna teaches: But with regard to the following cases in which the exact location of a grave is unknown, the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify: They are not deemed credible to testify about overhanging boughs, nor about the protrusions that jut out of stone fences. The Gemara explains these terms: The term overhanging boughs should be understood as we learned in a mishna (Oholot 8:2): These are overhanging boughs: A tree that hangs over the ground. The term protrusions should be understood as we learned in the Tosefta (Oholot 9:4): Protruding stones that jut out of a fence.
בֵּית הַפְּרָס. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל: מְנַפֵּחַ אָדָם בֵּית הַפְּרָס, וְהוֹלֵךְ.
§ The mishna teaches that the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas. With regard to a beit haperas, Rav Yehuda says that Rav Shmuel says: The reason the Sages deemed a beit haperas impure is due to the concern that the bones, but not the flesh of the corpse, were dispersed by the plow throughout the field. The halakha is that a bone transmits impurity by carrying or by contact, if it is at least the size of a barley grain, but it does not transmit impurity by means of a tent. Therefore, if a person is carrying ritually pure items, or if he wishes to remain ritually pure so that he may consume consecrated items, and yet he must pass through a beit haperas, he may blow on the earth of the beit haperas before each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it and avoid it. And in this manner he may walk across the area while remaining ritually pure, even though he might step over a bone.
רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אַמֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: בֵּית הַפְּרָס שֶׁנִּידַּשׁ טָהוֹר. וְתָנָא: הַחוֹרֵשׁ בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת — הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה בֵּית הַפְּרָס, וְעַד כַּמָּה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? מְלֹא מַעֲנָה, מֵאָה אַמָּה, בֵּית אַרְבַּעַת סְאִין. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: חָמֵשׁ.
Rav Yehuda bar Ami says in the name of Rav Yehuda: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot by many people is pure, as it may be assumed that any bone fragments at least as large as a barley grain that were on the surface were either broken or removed. And it was taught in a baraita: In the case of one who plows a graveyard, this individual thereby renders it a beit haperas. And to what extent does he render it a beit haperas, i.e., how far does the concern apply that bones might have been dispersed? The field is rendered a beit haperas to the extent of a full furrow [ma’ana], one hundred cubits by one hundred cubits, which is the area required for sowing four se’a of seed. Rabbi Yosei says: The area rendered a beit haperas is the area required for sowing five se’a of seed.
וְלָא מְהֵימְנִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: שָׂדֶה שֶׁאָבַד בָּהּ קֶבֶר, נֶאֱמָן כּוּתִי לוֹמַר ״אֵין שָׁם קֶבֶר״.
With regard to the ruling of the mishna that the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas, the Gemara asks: And aren’t they deemed credible? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a field in which a grave was lost, which has the status of a beit haperas, a Samaritan is deemed credible to say: There is no grave there?
לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵעִיד אֶלָּא עַל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל קֶבֶר. אִילָן שֶׁהוּא מֵיסֵךְ עַל הָאָרֶץ — נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר ״אֵין תַּחְתָּיו קֶבֶר״, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵעִיד אֶלָּא עַל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל קֶבֶר.
The baraita explains: This is due to the fact that he is not considered to be testifying about a case of uncertain impurity; rather, he is testifying about the location of the grave itself, which is a matter of Torah law, and the Samaritans are deemed credible with regard to a matter of Torah law. Likewise, in the case of a tree that is hanging over the ground, a Samaritan is deemed credible to say: There is no grave beneath it, as he is testifying only about the location of the grave itself. This indicates that the Samaritans are deemed credible with regard to overhanging boughs and protrusions.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּמְהַלֵּךְ וּבָא עַל פְּנֵי כּוּלָּהּ.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says in explanation: The baraita is referring to a case where the Samaritan is walking to and fro over the entire area, and therefore if there was a grave there he would certainly have become impure. Consequently, one may rely on his statement with regard to the purity of the place. By contrast, the mishna is speaking of a case where the Samaritan did not traverse the entire area, and therefore his testimony is not accepted, as they are not meticulous with regard to cases of uncertainty.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רְצוּעָה נָפְקָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: If so, it is obvious that his testimony is credible, and what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the baraita is necessary, lest you say that perhaps a narrow strip of land, which is called by the same name as this field, extends into a nearby field, and the Samaritan presumes the grave is located in that strip of land. If so, even if the Samaritan traversed the entire field his testimony cannot be accepted, as he traversed the field because he considered it merely a case of uncertain impurity. The baraita therefore teaches us that if the Samaritan traverses the entire field his testimony is accepted, as this concern is not an issue.
זֶה הַכְּלָל כּוּ׳. זֶה הַכְּלָל לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי תְּחוּמִין וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ.
The mishna teaches: This is the principle governing the credibility of Samaritans: In the case of any matter of halakha that they are suspected of not fulfilling, they are not deemed credible to testify about it. The Gemara asks: What is added by the term: This is the principle? The Gemara answers: It serves to add that Samaritans are not deemed credible with regard to Shabbat boundaries, i.e., to say that a Shabbat boundary extends until a certain point, as the halakha of Shabbat boundaries applies by rabbinic law. And likewise, the Samaritans are not deemed credible with regard to the status of wine used for a libation in idol worship, as the Samaritans do not refrain from drinking wine touched by a gentile.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ דַּם הַנִּדָּה.
MISHNA: A woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina [beit haturpa], i.e., a place where blood that originated in her vagina could be found, becomes ritually impure, as there is a concern that it originated in the uterus and is menstrual blood. And if it was discovered on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure, as it certainly did not originate in the uterus. If the stain was discovered on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, although it is not adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there.
מַתְנִי’ הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם עַל בְּשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה — טְמֵאָה, וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה — טְהוֹרָה. עַל עֲקֵבָהּ וְעַל רֹאשׁ גּוּדָלָהּ — טְמֵאָה.
In a case where the stain was discovered on her leg or on her feet, if it was on the inner side she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. If it was on the outer side she is ritually pure, and if it was on the sides, either from here, i.e., on the front of her leg or foot, or from there, i.e., on the back of her leg or foot, she is also ritually pure, as blood from the uterus could not have reached there.
עַל שׁוֹקָהּ וְעַל פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ — מִבִּפְנִים טְמֵאָה, מִבַּחוּץ טְהוֹרָה, וְעַל הַצְּדָדִין מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן טְהוֹרָה.
In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there; if it was from the belt and above she is ritually pure. In a case where she saw the stain on the end of the sleeve of the robe, if the sleeve can reach adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure; and if not, i.e., if the stain is in a place on the sleeve that does not reach adjacent to the vagina, she is ritually pure.
רָאֲתָה עַל חֲלוּקָהּ מִן הֶחָגוּר וּלְמַטָּה — טְמֵאָה, מִן הֶחָגוּר וּלְמַעְלָה — טְהוֹרָה. רָאֲתָה עַל בֵּית יָד שֶׁל חָלוּק, אִם מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה.
If it was a robe which she would remove and with which she would cover herself at night, wherever on the robe that the stain is found, the stain renders her ritually impure, due to the fact that the robe moves while the woman is asleep and therefore the blood could have originated in the uterus. And likewise with regard to a kerchief [bapoleyos], no matter where the blood is found on the kerchief, the woman is impure.
הָיְתָה פּוֹשַׁטְתּוֹ וּמִתְכַּסָּה בּוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה, כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בּוֹ כֶּתֶם — טְמֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חוֹזֵר, וְכֵן בַּפּוּלְיוֹס.
GEMARA: With regard to the cases discussed in the mishna concerning a blood stain found on a woman, Shmuel says: If a woman examined the ground beneath her to see if it was clean from blood and other substances, and she found nothing, and subsequently she sat upon it and then found blood on it, although it might be assumed that this blood came from her, she is ritually pure. The reason is as it is stated: “And her issue in her flesh shall be blood, she shall be in her menstrual state seven days” (Leviticus 15:19). This verse teaches that a woman does not become impure unless she senses, i.e., experiences some type of sensation, in her flesh that she emitted blood from her uterus. Since this woman did not sense an emission of blood, she is pure.
גְּמָ’ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בָּדְקָה קַרְקַע עוֹלָם, וְיָשְׁבָה עָלֶיהָ, וּמָצְאָה דָּם עָלֶיהָ — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ — עַד שֶׁתַּרְגִּישׁ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ.
The Gemara asks: How can Shmuel interpret the verse in this manner? After all, he requires this term: “In her flesh,” to teach a different halakha, that a woman becomes impure by finding blood inside her body just as by seeing blood outside her body, i.e., provided that the blood is uterine blood, even if it is currently situated inside her vaginal canal, she is impure. The Gemara answers: If so, if it serves to teach only that blood inside is like blood outside, let the verse say: In the flesh. What is the reason that the verse states: “In her flesh”? Conclude from this term that a woman does not become impure unless she senses in her flesh.
הַאי ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״בְּבָשָׂר״, מַאי ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: עַד שֶׁתַּרְגִּישׁ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ.
The Gemara asks: And still, Shmuel requires the term “in her flesh” to teach that she is impure only if the blood touches her flesh, and not through blood found in a gestational sac, nor through blood found in an amorphous piece of tissue that she emitted. The Gemara answers: Conclude two conclusions from this verse, as the plain meaning of the term teaches all these halakhot.
וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״, וְלֹא בְּשָׁפִיר וְלֹא בַּחֲתִיכָה! תַּרְתֵּי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
With regard to the opinion of Shmuel, the Gemara suggests: Come and hear a mishna at the beginning of the next chapter (59b): In the case of a woman who is urinating and sees blood intermingled with the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinates while she is standing she is ritually impure, as the blood could have originated in the uterus. And if she is sitting she is ritually pure, as it is clear that the blood is from a wound.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה צְרָכֶיהָ, וְרָאֲתָה דָּם. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם עוֹמֶדֶת — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם יוֹשֶׁבֶת — טְהוֹרָה.
The Gemara analyzes this mishna: What are the circumstances? If she sensed while urinating, then in the case where she is sitting, why is she ritually pure, according to Shmuel? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense while urinating? And yet the mishna teaches that if she urinates while she is standing she is ritually impure. This indicates that her status does not depend on her sensing, which contradicts the statement of Shmuel.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאַרְגִּשָׁה — יוֹשֶׁבֶת אַמַּאי טְהוֹרָה? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלָא אַרְגִּשָׁה, וְקָתָנֵי: עוֹמֶדֶת טְמֵאָה!
The Gemara answers: This affords no proof, as the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed while urinating, and yet since this feeling accompanied urination, one might say it was the sensation of urine. Consequently, if she urinated while standing, the urine would return to her uterus and bring blood with it. But if she urinated while sitting the urine cannot return to the uterus and therefore she is pure, as the sensation is attributed to her urine.
לְעוֹלָם דְּאַרְגִּשָׁה, וְאֵימוֹר ״הַרְגָּשַׁת מֵי רַגְלַיִם הֲוַאי״. עוֹמֶדֶת — הֲדוּר מֵי רַגְלַיִם לְמָקוֹר (וְאַיְיתִי) [וְאַיְיתוֹ] דָּם, וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת — טְהוֹרָה.
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear the mishna below (58b): With regard to an examination cloth that was placed beneath the pillow and blood was later found on the cloth, and it is unclear whether it is the blood of an examination or the blood of a louse that was crushed beneath it, if the stain is round it is ritually pure. There is no concern that this blood might have come from her examination, as a woman examines through an act of wiping and a stain produced in this manner would not be round. And if the stain is elongated it is ritually impure, as this shape can be formed by an examination.
תָּא שְׁמַע: עֵד שֶׁהָיָה נָתוּן תַּחַת הַכַּר, וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם — אִם עָגוֹל טָהוֹר, וְאִם מָשׁוּךְ טָמֵא.
The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What are the circumstances? If she sensed, then in the case where the stain is round why is it pure? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense? And yet the mishna teaches that an elongated stain is impure. This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel that a woman is rendered impure only if she sensed.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאַרְגִּישָׁה — עָגוֹל אַמַּאי טָהוֹר? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלָא אַרְגִּישָׁה, וְקָתָנֵי: מָשׁוּךְ טָמֵא.
The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed, but since she also performed an examination one might say this was the sensation of the examination cloth. Consequently, if the stain was elongated, as appropriate for a stain produced by an examination, the blood certainly came from her body, whereas if the stain was round it is pure, as this is not the usual appearance of a stain from an examination.
לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּאַרְגִּישָׁה, וְאֵימוֹר ״הַרְגָּשַׁת עֵד הֲוַאי״, מָשׁוּךְ — וַדַּאי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָא, עָגוֹל — טָהוֹר.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another mishna (14a): If blood was found on his, i.e., the husband’s, examination cloth following intercourse, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure for seven days, in accordance with the halakha of a menstruating woman and one who engages in intercourse with her, and they are each liable to bring a sin offering for unwittingly performing an action punishable with excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, the woman and her husband are likewise ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her swatch after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלּוֹ — טְמֵאִין, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּקׇרְבָּן. נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ אֹתְיוֹם — טְמֵאִין, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּקׇרְבָּן. נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ לְאַחַר זְמַן — טְמֵאִים מִסָּפֵק, וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן.
The Gemara analyzes this mishna: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a situation where she sensed, then in the case where blood was found on her cloth after time passed, why are they exempt from bringing the sin offering? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense? And yet the mishna teaches that if blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, they are ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. Once again, this contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed, but since she was engaging in intercourse at the time, one might say this was the sensation of the male organ.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאַרְגִּישָׁה, לְאַחַר זְמַן אַמַּאי פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלָא אַרְגִּישָׁה, וְקָתָנֵי נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ אֹתְיוֹם טְמֵאִין וְחַיָּיבִין בְּקׇרְבָּן! לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּאַרְגִּישָׁה, וְאֵימָא הַרְגָּשַׁת שַׁמָּשׁ הֲוָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear from a baraita: You are found to say that there are three uncertainties involving cases where blood is found on a woman or her garments. If a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, the halakha is that it is impure. If it is found on her robe and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, the halakha is that it is pure. And in the case of a woman whose status as a menstruating woman is uncertain, with regard to her touching items and with regard to her moving items, one should follow the majority.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שְׁלֹשָׁה סְפֵקוֹת בָּאִשָּׁה — עַל בְּשָׂרָה, סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָמֵא. עַל חֲלוּקָהּ, סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָהוֹר. וּבְמַגָּעוֹת וּבְהֶיסֵּטוֹת, הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What is the meaning of the phrase: Follow the majority, with regard to this woman of uncertain status? Does this not mean that if for the majority of her days she is in a state of ritual impurity, as she emits impure blood on many days, then she is considered impure even when her status is uncertain? And since this baraita does not differentiate between cases where she did and did not sense, the ruling that one follows the majority, and that she is impure, evidently applies even though she did not sense, which contradicts the opinion of Shmuel.
מַאי ״הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב״? לָאו אִם רוֹב יָמֶיהָ טְמֵאִין — טְמֵאָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אַרְגִשָׁה.
The Gemara answers: No proof may be brought from here, as this is what the baraita means: If on the majority of her days this woman sees blood accompanied by a sensation, she is impure, despite the fact that she is uncertain whether she had a sensation, as one can say she sensed on this occasion as well, but it was not on her mind, i.e., she did not pay attention to it at the time.
לָא, אִם רוֹב יָמֶיהָ בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה חָזְיָא — טְמֵאָה, דְּאֵימוֹר אַרְגִשָׁה וְלָאו אַדַּעְתַּהּ.
Before returning to the opinion of Shmuel, the Gemara analyzes the other clauses of this baraita. The Master said above: If a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is impure; if it is found on her robe and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is pure. The juxtaposition of these two cases indicates that the blood is found in the same area in both instances.
אָמַר מָר: עַל בְּשָׂרָה סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָמֵא, עַל חֲלוּקָהּ סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָהוֹר.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the blood was discovered from the belt and below, then when it was found on her robe why is she pure? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure? And if the blood was from the belt and above, then if it was discovered on her flesh why is she impure? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if she saw blood on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure?
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, עַל חֲלוּקָהּ אַמַּאי טָהוֹר? וְהָא תְנַן: מִן הֶחָגוּר וּלְמַטָּה טָמֵא! וְאִי מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה, עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ אַמַּאי טָמֵא? וְהָתְנַן: רָאֲתָה דָּם עַל בְּשָׂרָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה טְהוֹרָה!
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the blood was discovered from the belt and below, and if you wish, say instead that it was found from the belt and above. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that the blood was found from the belt and below, as the baraita is referring to a situation where the blood can be attributed to an external factor, e.g., a case where she passed through a marketplace of butchers [tabbaḥim]. Consequently, if the blood is found on her flesh it is assumed that it came from her body, as, if it came from the outside world, it should have been found on her robe as well. If it is discovered on her robe it is assumed that it came from the outside world, as, if it came from her body, it should have been found on her flesh as well.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָבְרָה בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים. עַל בְּשָׂרָה — מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָאי, דְּאִי מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָאי — עַל חֲלוּקָהּ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ אִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי. עַל חֲלוּקָהּ — מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָא, דְּאִי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָא — עַל בְּשָׂרָה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ אִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי.
And if you wish, say instead that the blood was found from the belt and above, and the baraita is referring to a situation where it is possible the blood came from her body, e.g., a case where she jumped backward. Therefore, if the blood is found on her flesh it certainly came from her body, as, if it came from the outside world, it should have been found on her robe as well. And if it is discovered on her robe the assumption is that it came from the outside world, as, if it came from her body, it should have been found on her flesh as well.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה, כְּגוֹן דְּאִזְדְּקַרָה עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ — וַדַּאי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָאי, דְּאִי מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָאי — עַל חֲלוּקָהּ אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ אִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי. עַל חֲלוּקָהּ — מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָאי, דְּאִי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָאי — עַל בְּשָׂרָה אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ אִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי.
The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita to the opinion of Shmuel: In any event, the baraita teaches that if a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is impure, and this is the halakha even though she did not sense, which contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. And furthermore, we learned in the mishna that a woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina becomes ritually impure, and this is apparently the halakha even though she did not sense. Rav Yirmeya of Difti says: The ruling of Shmuel that a woman must sense in order to be rendered impure applies only by Torah law. But Shmuel concedes that in all the cases cited above, where it is indicated that a woman is impure despite the fact that she did not sense, she is impure
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר טָמֵא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הִרְגִּישָׁה. וְעוֹד תְּנַן: הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם עַל בְּשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה טְמֵאָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הִרְגִּישָׁה. אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה מִדִּפְתִּי: מוֹדֶה שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה
Follow
