ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 28
(a) If a woman miscarries a cut leg or hand, she is Temei'ah Leidah.
(b) Otherwise, we may have said that it comes from a cut-up body, in which
case she is Tehorah.
(c) We cannot give her the days of Taharah, because we do not know when she
miscarried the body, so we do not really know when to begin counting them.
(d) Had the Beraisa added 'u'le'Nidah', we would have thought that we
actually contend with a possible Nidus. This would mean that the Leidah is
no more than a Safeik Leidah, and that her Korban is consequently not eaten
- which is not the case.
(a) If a baby sticks out its hand from its mother's womb, the mother is
Temei'ah Leidah, even if it subsequently withdraws it. And we learn it from
the Pasuk by Tamar "va'Yehi be'Lidtah, va'Yitein Yad".
(b) When the Beraisa writes that we do not contend with it at all, it means
Vaday, but not Safek. Practically, that means the mother only keeps the
days of Tum'ah, but not of Taharah.
(c) How can we possibly say that the Beraisa means Vaday, but not Safek,
when it explicitly writes that 'we do not contend with it at all'. So what
the Beraisa must mean is that we do not contend with the hand regarding
Tum'as Leidah d'Oraysa', and Rav Huna, who says that the mother is
Temei'ah, is speaking de'Rabbanan.
(d) The Pasuk quoted by Rav Huna is only an Asmachta.
(a) Since Rav Yitzchak said that the sex of the child is determined by
which parent 'sows' first (a boy if it was the mother, and a girl if it was
the father), we might have thought that if the one child is a boy, it means
that the mother 'sowed' first, and that we can therefore assume the other
child to be a boy, too. Therefore, the Tana found it necessary to tell us
that, even if the one child is a boy, we must still suspect the Androginus
to be a girl. Why is that?
If a Tumtum or an Androginus sees Loven and Odem (not necessarily at the
same time), he is Tamei Vaday 'Mimah Nafshach' (either way). That is why.
if he touches Terumah, it must be burnt.
Because maybe both parents sowed simultaneously.
(b) If the mother gives birth to a female and a Tumtum or an Androginus,
she must sit fourteen days of Tum'ah and sixty-six days of Taharah of a
Because, even if the Tumtum and the Androginus turn out to be a male, all
the days of Tum'ah and Taharah of a boy are absorbed in those of the girl.
(c) According to the Din of the Mishnah, if the baby emerges cut up or feet
first, the mother is Temei'ah Leidah only when the majority of the baby has
emerged; whereas if it emerges whole, head first, she is Temei'ah as soon
as the head emerges.
(d) It is the forehead that causes the baby to be called 'born'.
The reason that he is Patur from bringing a Korban if he then enters the
Beis Hamikdash, according to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, is because the Torah
writes "*mi'Zachar ve'Ad Nekeivah* Teshaleichu" (when it could just as well
have written "Adam", as we shall see later), inferring that only a
*definite male* or a *definite female* must be sent out of the Azarah when
they are Tamei, but not a Safek.
(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, we learn from "O be'Nivlas Sheretz ...
ve'Ne'elam Mimenu", that it is the specific Tum'ah (the Sheretz that he
touched) that he must have forgotten, but not the Mikdash, in order to be
Chayav a Korban. Consequently, if what he forgot was not specific - meaning
for example, a Tumtum who saw Odem and Loven, who does not know through
which one he is Tamei, he is not obligated to bring a Korban for entering
But according to Rebbi Akiva, he is exempt from bringing a Korban if he
entered the Azarah with He'elam Mikdash, because of the Pasuk "ve'Ne'elam
Mimenu ve'Hu Tamei", not because of "be'Nivlas Sheretz". According to him,
therefore, there is no Pasuk that requires him to pinpoint the Tum'ah - as
long as he knows that he is Tamei, he will be Chayav.
(b) We need the Pasuk "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo, *le'Zachar* *ve'la'Nekeivah*", to
include all the 'fountains' of a Zav and of a Zavah respectively.
(c) From Adam, we would not have included metal vessels in the leniency,
since the Torah writes "*mi'Kol Tamei* la'Nefesh", to include even metal
vessels which became Tamei in the prohibition of remaining in the Azarah -
in spite of "Adam".
(a) We learn from "mi'Zachar ve'Ad Nekeivah Teshaleichu" that everything
that is subject to the Din of Mikveh - like a man and a woman - must be
sent out of the Azarah, and that includes metal vessels (preventing us from
including them in "Adam" - which excludes earthenware vessels from the
We cannot, in similar fashion, learn from "Zachar" and "Nekeivah" by
Erchin, and preclude a Tumtum and an Androginus from the Din of Erchin,
because we need "Zachar" and "Nekeivah" to make a distinction between the
Erech of a man and that of a woman.
(b) And from "mi'Zachar" we learn that the exclusion of a Tumtum and an
Androginus from being sent out of the Azarah is confined to the Tum'ah that
comes from the man's body - namely, Zivus, but not to other Tum'os, such as
a Tumtum or an Androginus who touched a corpse; *they* are obligated to
leave the Azarah immediately and to bring a Korban, if they did not.