Is there a way to determine if a stain is from blood or from something else? Laundering it with certain substances can be an indicator as certain substances used in a particular way can remove blood stains but not necessarily other stains. If one washes with seven specific substances, and the stain comes out, it is an indicator that it is blood. And if not, it is dye or something else. After the stain comes out or if it doesn’t come out fully, one can put in a mikveh and purify it – whatever is left is considered absorbed and it not a problem. What are the seven substances and is the order of washing important? If the stain doesn’t come out and one washes it again and the stain comes out then, does that make it impure? Does that prove that the owner thought the stain was blood and therefore we treat it as blood? the owner’s intent important? If so, why? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue regarding impurity that is absorbed that does not make other items impure – does that include items that can get out if one works very hard at it? Does it matter if the item that is absorbed a high level of impurity (av hatuma and on a Torah level) or if it is low level (rabbinic and first degree impurity)? Rabbi Yochanan brings three sources to question Reish Lakish and then Reish Lakish brings one against Rabbi Yochanan. Based on the last question, Rav Papa specifies in exactly which case they disagree.
Niddah 62
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Niddah 62
קִמוֹנְיָא, וְאַשְׁלָג.
Cimolian earth [kamonya], and potash [eshlag].
הִטְבִּילוֹ וְעָשָׂה עַל גַּבָּיו טְהָרוֹת, הֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין וְלֹא עָבַר — הֲרֵי זֶה צֶבַע, הַטְּהָרוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל. עָבַר אוֹ שֶׁדֵּהָה — הֲרֵי זֶה כֶּתֶם, וְהַטְּהָרוֹת טְמֵאוֹת וְצָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל.
If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is presumably from a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. If the stain disappeared or if it faded, that is a blood stain, and the ritually pure items that he handled are impure, and he must immerse the garment again.
אֵיזֶהוּ רוֹק תָּפֵל? כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא טָעַם כְּלוּם. מֵי גְרִיסִין — לְעִיסַּת גְּרִיסִין שֶׁל פּוֹל חֲלוּקַת נֶפֶשׁ. מֵי רַגְלַיִם — שֶׁהֶחְמִיצוּ.
What is tasteless saliva? It is saliva that emerges from the mouth of any person who tasted nothing all night, when he first awakens in the morning. Liquid from split beans is created through the chewing of split beans that divided naturally, not by human hand, which is then applied to the stain. The urine that is an effective detergent is specifically urine that fermented for three days.
וְצָרִיךְ לְכַסְכֵּס שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, הֶעֱבִירָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן, אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין כְּאַחַת — לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.
And one must rub each and every one of the substances three times over the stain, and one must apply them separately, and one must apply them in the order they are listed in the mishna. If one applied them in a manner that is not in their prescribed order, or if one applied all seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing. One cannot determine by means of that examination whether it is blood or a dye.
גְּמָ’ תָּנָא: נֶתֶר אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִית, וְלֹא נֶתֶר אַנְטִפַּטְרִית.
GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the identities of the seven substances that remove blood stains. With regard to natron, a Sage taught in a baraita: This is referring to Alexandrian natron, i.e., from the city in Egypt, and not natron from Anpantrin, which is of a different quality.
בּוֹרִית. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: זֶה אַהֲלָא. וְהָתַנְיָא: הַבּוֹרִית וְהָאָהָל! אֶלָּא מַאי בּוֹרִית? כַּבְרִיתָא.
The mishna lists borit as one of the seven substances. Rav Yehuda says: This is referring to ice plant. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Borit and ice plant, which indicates that they are two different substances? Rather, what is borit? Sulfur.
וּרְמִינְהִי: הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן הַלְבֵּיצִין, וְהַלְּעוֹנִין, הַבּוֹרִית, וְהָאָהָל. וְאִי בּוֹרִית כַּבְרִיתָא, מִי אִית לֵיהּ שְׁבִיעִית? וְהָתְנַן: זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עִיקָּר — יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁבִיעִית, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עִיקָּר — אֵין לוֹ שְׁבִיעִית! אֶלָּא מַאי בּוֹרִית? אַהֲלָא. וְהָתַנְיָא: הַבּוֹרִית וְהָאָהָל! תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי אַהֲלָא.
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the baraita discussing the halakha of plants whose use is prohibited during the Sabbatical Year: They added to the list of such plants: Bulbs of ornithogalum, and wormwood, and borit, and ice plant. And if it would enter your mind to say that borit is sulfur, is there sulfur that is subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year? But didn’t we learn in a baraita that this is the principle: Anything that has a root and grows is subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year, and anything that does not have a root is not subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year? Rather, what is borit? It is ice plant. But isn’t it taught in the baraita: And borit and ice plant? The Gemara explains that there are two types of ice plant, one of which is called borit.
קִמוֹנְיָא. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁלוֹף דּוֹץ. וְאַשְׁלָג, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁאֵלְתִּינְהוּ לְנָחוֹתֵי יַמָּא, וַאֲמַרוּ: אַשְׁלָגָא שְׁמֵיהּ, וּמִשְׁתְּכַח בֵּינֵי נִקְבֵי מַרְגָּנִיתָא, וּמַפְּקִי לֵהּ בְּרַמְצָא דְּפַרְזְלָא.
With regard to the Cimolian earth mentioned in the mishna, Rav Yehuda said: This is the earth referred to as: Pull out, stick in. And with regard to the eshlag mentioned in the mishna, Shmuel said: I asked all of the seafarers about the identity of eshlag, and they told me it is called ashlega, in Aramaic, and can be found in the shell of the pearl, and is removed with an iron skewer.
הִטְבִּילוֹ וְעָשָׂה [כּוּ׳]. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין וְלֹא עָבַר, צַפּוֹן וְעָבַר — טׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְמֵאוֹת.
§ The mishna teaches: If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, but he then applied soap [tzafon] and it disappeared, any ritually pure items that he handled with the garment are impure.
צַפּוֹן צֶבַע נָמֵי מְעַבַּר! אֶלָּא, הֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו שִׁשָּׁה סַמָּנִין וְלֹא עָבַר, הֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו צַפּוֹן וְעָבַר — טׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְמֵאוֹת, שֶׁאִם הֶעֱבִיר שְׁבִיעִי מִתְּחִילָּה, שֶׁמָּא עָבַר.
The Gemara raises an objection with regard to this ruling: But soap causes dye to disappear as well; why then should one assume that the stain was blood? Rather, the baraita means that if one applied only six of the seven substances to it and the stain did not disappear, and he then applied soap to the stain and it disappeared, any ritually pure items that he handled with the garment are impure. The reason is that if he had applied all seven substances initially, perhaps the stain would have disappeared, proving that it was blood. Consequently, the garment is rendered impure due to uncertainty.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: הֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין וְלֹא עָבַר, שְׁנָאָן וְעָבַר — טׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְהוֹרוֹת.
It is taught in another baraita: If one applied the seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, indicating that it is a dye, and he then repeated and applied the seven substances a second time and the stain disappeared, any ritually pure items that he handled with the garment remain ritually pure.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא הַטְּהָרוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בֵּין תִּכְבּוֹסֶת רִאשׁוֹנָה לַשְּׁנִיָּה, אֲבָל טְהָרוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ אַחַר תִּכְבּוֹסֶת שְׁנִיָּה — טׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְמֵאוֹת, שֶׁהֲרֵי הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו וְעָבַר.
In explanation of this baraita, Rabbi Zeira says: They taught that the pure items remain pure only with regard to the ritually pure items that were handled between the first washing with the seven substances and the second washing. But with regard to any pure items that were handled with the garment after the second washing, these pure items become impure, as he was particular about it, i.e., by repeating the washing procedure he showed he was concerned that it might be blood, and the stain disappeared, demonstrating that it was in fact blood.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִידֵּי בִּקְפִידָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא?
Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi, with regard to his statement: Does the matter of purity or impurity depend on whether or not one is particular about the blood stain? If the items he handled on the garment between the first and second washings are ritually pure, then any items he handled after the second washing should likewise be pure.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר: דַּם הַנִּדָּה וַדַּאי — מַעֲבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין, וּמְבַטְּלוֹ.
Rav Ashi said to him: Yes, the status of purity depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the stain. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: If one finds blood on a garment that is certainly from a menstruating woman and therefore renders the garment impure, one may apply the seven substances listed in the mishna to it and thereby nullify it from being considered a blood stain at all, even if the stain is not completely removed. And he may then immerse the garment in a ritual bath and it is ritually pure.
וְאַמַּאי? הָא דַּם נִדָּה הוּא! אַלְמָא בִּקְפֵידָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, הָכִי נָמֵי בִּקְפֵידָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא.
Rav Ashi analyzes this ruling: But why is the garment pure? After all, it has blood from a menstruating woman on it. Evidently, the matter of whether or not it is ritually pure depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the blood stain. So too here, the matter of whether or not it is ritually pure depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the blood stain.
תְּנַן הָתָם: חֲרָסִין שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן זָב, שֶׁבָּלְעוּ מַשְׁקִין, וְנָפְלוּ לַאֲוִיר הַתַּנּוּר, וְהוּסַּק הַתַּנּוּר — הַתַּנּוּר טָמֵא, שֶׁסּוֹף מַשְׁקֶה לָצֵאת.
§ We learned in a mishna there (see Kelim 9:5): In a case of pottery, i.e., a chamber pot, that a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] has used and that has absorbed impure liquids from the zav, and it then fell into the air of an oven, and the oven was subsequently heated, the oven is impure, as the impure liquid will eventually emerge from the chamber pot due to the heat of the oven.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מַשְׁקִין קַלִּים, אֲבָל מַשְׁקִין חֲמוּרִין — טָמֵא, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הוּסַּק הַתַּנּוּר. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֶחָד מַשְׁקִין קַלִּין וְאֶחָד מַשְׁקִין חֲמוּרִין, אִם הוּסַּק הַתַּנּוּר — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא.
The amora’im disagree with regard to the correct interpretation of this mishna. Reish Lakish says: They taught that the oven is impure once it is heated only with regard to liquids of lesser ritual impurity, i.e., that are not primary sources of impurity, such as the tears or urine of one who was rendered impure by contact with a corpse. But with regard to liquids of greater ritual impurity, e.g., urine of a zav or zava, the oven is impure even though the oven was not heated. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to both liquids of lesser ritual impurity and liquids of greater ritual impurity that fell into an oven, if the oven was heated, then yes, the oven is impure, but if the oven was not heated, it is not impure.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הִטְבִּילוֹ, וְעָשָׂה עַל גַּבָּיו טְהָרוֹת, וְהֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין וְלֹא עָבַר — הֲרֵי זֶה צֶבַע, וְטׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְהוֹרוֹת, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל!
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from the mishna: If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown, and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is presumably from a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are ritually pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. Rabbi Yoḥanan understands that the stain is not definitely from a dye; even if it is from blood, such blood that is absorbed into the garment to the degree that it does not come out after this process is performed, does not impart ritual impurity. The same should apply in the case of the oven, i.e., the liquids should impart impurity only when the oven is heated and they actually emerge.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִכְתָמִים דְּרַבָּנַן.
Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan in response: Leave aside blood stains, i.e., one cannot cite a proof from them, as they impart impurity by rabbinic law, and for this reason the Sages were lenient and ruled that they do not impart impurity until they actually emerge. But with regard to liquids that are impure by Torah law, the halakha is different.
וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: דַּם הַנִּדָּה וַדַּאי — מַעֲבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין וּמְבַטְּלוֹ!
Rabbi Yoḥanan raises another objection to Reish Lakish: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: If one finds blood on a garment that is certainly from a menstruating woman and therefore renders the garment impure, one may apply the seven substances listed in the mishna to it and nullify the stain from being considered a blood stain at all, even if the stain is not entirely removed; and he may then immerse the garment in a ritual bath and it is ritually pure?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי לֹא שָׁנָה, רַבִּי חִיָּיא מְנָא לֵיהּ?
Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan in response: You cannot raise an objection to me from the baraita of Rabbi Ḥiyya, since if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not teach this halakha in the Mishna, from where did Rabbi Ḥiyya learn it? Rabbi Ḥiyya was a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and therefore he could not have included a halakha that contradicts the Mishna. Consequently, this statement in his name must be erroneous.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רְבִיעִית דָּם שֶׁנִּבְלַע בַּבַּיִת — הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי — הָא בְּכֵלִים דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא, הָא בְּכֵלִים דְּבַסּוֹף.
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a mishna (Oholot 3:2): With regard to a quarter–log of blood from a corpse that was absorbed in the floor of a house, every vessel in the house is ritually impure by virtue of being under the same roof as the blood. The Gemara parenthetically notes: And some say that the mishna states that every vessel in the house is ritually pure. And these two statements do not disagree, as this first statement was issued in reference to vessels that were in the house at the outset, before the blood became absorbed; and this second statement was issued in reference to vessels that came into the house at the end, after the blood had already been absorbed.
נִבְלְעָה בִּכְסוּת, אִם מִתְכַּבֶּסֶת וְיוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית דָּם — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה!
The mishna continues: In a case where the blood was absorbed in a garment, it is examined. If the garment is washed and a quarter–log of blood emerges from it, it is ritually impure and it imparts impurity to the vessels in the house as well. But if not, then it is pure, and it does not impart impurity. Apparently, only blood that can be removed from a garment is considered blood, whereas blood absorbed in the garment is insignificant. This is in accordance with the opinion that an absorbed substance does not impart ritual impurity, even if it can be removed in some manner.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִקּוּלֵּי רְבִיעִיּוֹת שָׁנוּ כָּאן, שָׁאנֵי דַּם תְּבוּסָה דְּרַבָּנַן.
Rav Kahana said in response: They taught here a halakha from among the leniencies that apply to the measurement of a quarter-log. That is, this case is different, as the mishna is referring to the blood of submission discharged from a body at the time of death, and such blood is ritually impure by rabbinic law. But in general, a ritually impure liquid that is absorbed into an item does impart impurity.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַבָּלוּעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לָצֵאת — טָהוֹר. הָא יָכוֹל לָצֵאת — טָמֵא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא נָפֵיק!
Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna (Oholot 3:2): Any liquid that is absorbed but that is unable to emerge is pure. Reish Lakish infers from this mishna that if it is able to emerge it is impure, and that this is the halakha even though it has not yet emerged.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאֵין יָכוֹל לָצֵאת, וְלֹא הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טָהוֹר; יָכוֹל לָצֵאת וְהִקְפִּיד עָלָיו — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טָמֵא.
Rav Pappa said in defense of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: Anywhere that the liquid is unable to emerge and the owner of the garment is not particular about it, i.e., he is not bothered that this liquid is absorbed within the garment, everyone, i.e., both Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, agrees that the garment is pure. If the liquid is able to emerge and the owner of the garment is particular about it and does not want it in his garment, everyone agrees that the garment is impure.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי דְּיָכוֹל לָצֵאת וְלֹא הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו, מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּיָכוֹל לָצֵאת, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו, וּמָר סָבַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּיָכוֹל לָצֵאת
They disagree when the liquid is able to emerge and the owner is not particular about it. One Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that since the liquid is able to emerge, even though the owner is not particular about it, the garment is impure. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that even though the liquid is able to emerge,
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 started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
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.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
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 .
Panama, Panama
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.
Virginia, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, 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!
Jerusalem, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
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!
Highland Park, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
Niddah 62
קִמוֹנְיָא, וְאַשְׁלָג.
Cimolian earth [kamonya], and potash [eshlag].
הִטְבִּילוֹ וְעָשָׂה עַל גַּבָּיו טְהָרוֹת, הֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין וְלֹא עָבַר — הֲרֵי זֶה צֶבַע, הַטְּהָרוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל. עָבַר אוֹ שֶׁדֵּהָה — הֲרֵי זֶה כֶּתֶם, וְהַטְּהָרוֹת טְמֵאוֹת וְצָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל.
If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is presumably from a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. If the stain disappeared or if it faded, that is a blood stain, and the ritually pure items that he handled are impure, and he must immerse the garment again.
אֵיזֶהוּ רוֹק תָּפֵל? כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא טָעַם כְּלוּם. מֵי גְרִיסִין — לְעִיסַּת גְּרִיסִין שֶׁל פּוֹל חֲלוּקַת נֶפֶשׁ. מֵי רַגְלַיִם — שֶׁהֶחְמִיצוּ.
What is tasteless saliva? It is saliva that emerges from the mouth of any person who tasted nothing all night, when he first awakens in the morning. Liquid from split beans is created through the chewing of split beans that divided naturally, not by human hand, which is then applied to the stain. The urine that is an effective detergent is specifically urine that fermented for three days.
וְצָרִיךְ לְכַסְכֵּס שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, הֶעֱבִירָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן, אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין כְּאַחַת — לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.
And one must rub each and every one of the substances three times over the stain, and one must apply them separately, and one must apply them in the order they are listed in the mishna. If one applied them in a manner that is not in their prescribed order, or if one applied all seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing. One cannot determine by means of that examination whether it is blood or a dye.
גְּמָ’ תָּנָא: נֶתֶר אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִית, וְלֹא נֶתֶר אַנְטִפַּטְרִית.
GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the identities of the seven substances that remove blood stains. With regard to natron, a Sage taught in a baraita: This is referring to Alexandrian natron, i.e., from the city in Egypt, and not natron from Anpantrin, which is of a different quality.
בּוֹרִית. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: זֶה אַהֲלָא. וְהָתַנְיָא: הַבּוֹרִית וְהָאָהָל! אֶלָּא מַאי בּוֹרִית? כַּבְרִיתָא.
The mishna lists borit as one of the seven substances. Rav Yehuda says: This is referring to ice plant. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Borit and ice plant, which indicates that they are two different substances? Rather, what is borit? Sulfur.
וּרְמִינְהִי: הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן הַלְבֵּיצִין, וְהַלְּעוֹנִין, הַבּוֹרִית, וְהָאָהָל. וְאִי בּוֹרִית כַּבְרִיתָא, מִי אִית לֵיהּ שְׁבִיעִית? וְהָתְנַן: זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עִיקָּר — יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁבִיעִית, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עִיקָּר — אֵין לוֹ שְׁבִיעִית! אֶלָּא מַאי בּוֹרִית? אַהֲלָא. וְהָתַנְיָא: הַבּוֹרִית וְהָאָהָל! תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי אַהֲלָא.
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the baraita discussing the halakha of plants whose use is prohibited during the Sabbatical Year: They added to the list of such plants: Bulbs of ornithogalum, and wormwood, and borit, and ice plant. And if it would enter your mind to say that borit is sulfur, is there sulfur that is subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year? But didn’t we learn in a baraita that this is the principle: Anything that has a root and grows is subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year, and anything that does not have a root is not subject to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year? Rather, what is borit? It is ice plant. But isn’t it taught in the baraita: And borit and ice plant? The Gemara explains that there are two types of ice plant, one of which is called borit.
קִמוֹנְיָא. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁלוֹף דּוֹץ. וְאַשְׁלָג, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁאֵלְתִּינְהוּ לְנָחוֹתֵי יַמָּא, וַאֲמַרוּ: אַשְׁלָגָא שְׁמֵיהּ, וּמִשְׁתְּכַח בֵּינֵי נִקְבֵי מַרְגָּנִיתָא, וּמַפְּקִי לֵהּ בְּרַמְצָא דְּפַרְזְלָא.
With regard to the Cimolian earth mentioned in the mishna, Rav Yehuda said: This is the earth referred to as: Pull out, stick in. And with regard to the eshlag mentioned in the mishna, Shmuel said: I asked all of the seafarers about the identity of eshlag, and they told me it is called ashlega, in Aramaic, and can be found in the shell of the pearl, and is removed with an iron skewer.
הִטְבִּילוֹ וְעָשָׂה [כּוּ׳]. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין וְלֹא עָבַר, צַפּוֹן וְעָבַר — טׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְמֵאוֹת.
§ The mishna teaches: If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, but he then applied soap [tzafon] and it disappeared, any ritually pure items that he handled with the garment are impure.
צַפּוֹן צֶבַע נָמֵי מְעַבַּר! אֶלָּא, הֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו שִׁשָּׁה סַמָּנִין וְלֹא עָבַר, הֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו צַפּוֹן וְעָבַר — טׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְמֵאוֹת, שֶׁאִם הֶעֱבִיר שְׁבִיעִי מִתְּחִילָּה, שֶׁמָּא עָבַר.
The Gemara raises an objection with regard to this ruling: But soap causes dye to disappear as well; why then should one assume that the stain was blood? Rather, the baraita means that if one applied only six of the seven substances to it and the stain did not disappear, and he then applied soap to the stain and it disappeared, any ritually pure items that he handled with the garment are impure. The reason is that if he had applied all seven substances initially, perhaps the stain would have disappeared, proving that it was blood. Consequently, the garment is rendered impure due to uncertainty.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: הֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין וְלֹא עָבַר, שְׁנָאָן וְעָבַר — טׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְהוֹרוֹת.
It is taught in another baraita: If one applied the seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, indicating that it is a dye, and he then repeated and applied the seven substances a second time and the stain disappeared, any ritually pure items that he handled with the garment remain ritually pure.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא הַטְּהָרוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בֵּין תִּכְבּוֹסֶת רִאשׁוֹנָה לַשְּׁנִיָּה, אֲבָל טְהָרוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ אַחַר תִּכְבּוֹסֶת שְׁנִיָּה — טׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְמֵאוֹת, שֶׁהֲרֵי הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו וְעָבַר.
In explanation of this baraita, Rabbi Zeira says: They taught that the pure items remain pure only with regard to the ritually pure items that were handled between the first washing with the seven substances and the second washing. But with regard to any pure items that were handled with the garment after the second washing, these pure items become impure, as he was particular about it, i.e., by repeating the washing procedure he showed he was concerned that it might be blood, and the stain disappeared, demonstrating that it was in fact blood.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִידֵּי בִּקְפִידָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא?
Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi, with regard to his statement: Does the matter of purity or impurity depend on whether or not one is particular about the blood stain? If the items he handled on the garment between the first and second washings are ritually pure, then any items he handled after the second washing should likewise be pure.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר: דַּם הַנִּדָּה וַדַּאי — מַעֲבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין, וּמְבַטְּלוֹ.
Rav Ashi said to him: Yes, the status of purity depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the stain. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: If one finds blood on a garment that is certainly from a menstruating woman and therefore renders the garment impure, one may apply the seven substances listed in the mishna to it and thereby nullify it from being considered a blood stain at all, even if the stain is not completely removed. And he may then immerse the garment in a ritual bath and it is ritually pure.
וְאַמַּאי? הָא דַּם נִדָּה הוּא! אַלְמָא בִּקְפֵידָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, הָכִי נָמֵי בִּקְפֵידָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא.
Rav Ashi analyzes this ruling: But why is the garment pure? After all, it has blood from a menstruating woman on it. Evidently, the matter of whether or not it is ritually pure depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the blood stain. So too here, the matter of whether or not it is ritually pure depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the blood stain.
תְּנַן הָתָם: חֲרָסִין שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן זָב, שֶׁבָּלְעוּ מַשְׁקִין, וְנָפְלוּ לַאֲוִיר הַתַּנּוּר, וְהוּסַּק הַתַּנּוּר — הַתַּנּוּר טָמֵא, שֶׁסּוֹף מַשְׁקֶה לָצֵאת.
§ We learned in a mishna there (see Kelim 9:5): In a case of pottery, i.e., a chamber pot, that a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] has used and that has absorbed impure liquids from the zav, and it then fell into the air of an oven, and the oven was subsequently heated, the oven is impure, as the impure liquid will eventually emerge from the chamber pot due to the heat of the oven.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מַשְׁקִין קַלִּים, אֲבָל מַשְׁקִין חֲמוּרִין — טָמֵא, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הוּסַּק הַתַּנּוּר. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֶחָד מַשְׁקִין קַלִּין וְאֶחָד מַשְׁקִין חֲמוּרִין, אִם הוּסַּק הַתַּנּוּר — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא.
The amora’im disagree with regard to the correct interpretation of this mishna. Reish Lakish says: They taught that the oven is impure once it is heated only with regard to liquids of lesser ritual impurity, i.e., that are not primary sources of impurity, such as the tears or urine of one who was rendered impure by contact with a corpse. But with regard to liquids of greater ritual impurity, e.g., urine of a zav or zava, the oven is impure even though the oven was not heated. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to both liquids of lesser ritual impurity and liquids of greater ritual impurity that fell into an oven, if the oven was heated, then yes, the oven is impure, but if the oven was not heated, it is not impure.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הִטְבִּילוֹ, וְעָשָׂה עַל גַּבָּיו טְהָרוֹת, וְהֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין וְלֹא עָבַר — הֲרֵי זֶה צֶבַע, וְטׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְהוֹרוֹת, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל!
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from the mishna: If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown, and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is presumably from a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are ritually pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. Rabbi Yoḥanan understands that the stain is not definitely from a dye; even if it is from blood, such blood that is absorbed into the garment to the degree that it does not come out after this process is performed, does not impart ritual impurity. The same should apply in the case of the oven, i.e., the liquids should impart impurity only when the oven is heated and they actually emerge.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִכְתָמִים דְּרַבָּנַן.
Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan in response: Leave aside blood stains, i.e., one cannot cite a proof from them, as they impart impurity by rabbinic law, and for this reason the Sages were lenient and ruled that they do not impart impurity until they actually emerge. But with regard to liquids that are impure by Torah law, the halakha is different.
וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: דַּם הַנִּדָּה וַדַּאי — מַעֲבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין וּמְבַטְּלוֹ!
Rabbi Yoḥanan raises another objection to Reish Lakish: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: If one finds blood on a garment that is certainly from a menstruating woman and therefore renders the garment impure, one may apply the seven substances listed in the mishna to it and nullify the stain from being considered a blood stain at all, even if the stain is not entirely removed; and he may then immerse the garment in a ritual bath and it is ritually pure?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי לֹא שָׁנָה, רַבִּי חִיָּיא מְנָא לֵיהּ?
Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan in response: You cannot raise an objection to me from the baraita of Rabbi Ḥiyya, since if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not teach this halakha in the Mishna, from where did Rabbi Ḥiyya learn it? Rabbi Ḥiyya was a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and therefore he could not have included a halakha that contradicts the Mishna. Consequently, this statement in his name must be erroneous.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רְבִיעִית דָּם שֶׁנִּבְלַע בַּבַּיִת — הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי — הָא בְּכֵלִים דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא, הָא בְּכֵלִים דְּבַסּוֹף.
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a mishna (Oholot 3:2): With regard to a quarter–log of blood from a corpse that was absorbed in the floor of a house, every vessel in the house is ritually impure by virtue of being under the same roof as the blood. The Gemara parenthetically notes: And some say that the mishna states that every vessel in the house is ritually pure. And these two statements do not disagree, as this first statement was issued in reference to vessels that were in the house at the outset, before the blood became absorbed; and this second statement was issued in reference to vessels that came into the house at the end, after the blood had already been absorbed.
נִבְלְעָה בִּכְסוּת, אִם מִתְכַּבֶּסֶת וְיוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית דָּם — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה!
The mishna continues: In a case where the blood was absorbed in a garment, it is examined. If the garment is washed and a quarter–log of blood emerges from it, it is ritually impure and it imparts impurity to the vessels in the house as well. But if not, then it is pure, and it does not impart impurity. Apparently, only blood that can be removed from a garment is considered blood, whereas blood absorbed in the garment is insignificant. This is in accordance with the opinion that an absorbed substance does not impart ritual impurity, even if it can be removed in some manner.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִקּוּלֵּי רְבִיעִיּוֹת שָׁנוּ כָּאן, שָׁאנֵי דַּם תְּבוּסָה דְּרַבָּנַן.
Rav Kahana said in response: They taught here a halakha from among the leniencies that apply to the measurement of a quarter-log. That is, this case is different, as the mishna is referring to the blood of submission discharged from a body at the time of death, and such blood is ritually impure by rabbinic law. But in general, a ritually impure liquid that is absorbed into an item does impart impurity.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַבָּלוּעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לָצֵאת — טָהוֹר. הָא יָכוֹל לָצֵאת — טָמֵא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא נָפֵיק!
Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna (Oholot 3:2): Any liquid that is absorbed but that is unable to emerge is pure. Reish Lakish infers from this mishna that if it is able to emerge it is impure, and that this is the halakha even though it has not yet emerged.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאֵין יָכוֹל לָצֵאת, וְלֹא הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טָהוֹר; יָכוֹל לָצֵאת וְהִקְפִּיד עָלָיו — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טָמֵא.
Rav Pappa said in defense of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: Anywhere that the liquid is unable to emerge and the owner of the garment is not particular about it, i.e., he is not bothered that this liquid is absorbed within the garment, everyone, i.e., both Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, agrees that the garment is pure. If the liquid is able to emerge and the owner of the garment is particular about it and does not want it in his garment, everyone agrees that the garment is impure.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי דְּיָכוֹל לָצֵאת וְלֹא הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו, מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּיָכוֹל לָצֵאת, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו, וּמָר סָבַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּיָכוֹל לָצֵאת
They disagree when the liquid is able to emerge and the owner is not particular about it. One Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that since the liquid is able to emerge, even though the owner is not particular about it, the garment is impure. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that even though the liquid is able to emerge,
