ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 33
(a) From "Yitma Shiv'as Yamim" we learn that a Bo'eil Nidah is Tamei for
seven days, and not just for the number of days that the *woman* remains
No! Not all Kutim were Bo'alei Nidos. But all the married ones were.
(b) From "va'Tehi Nidasah Alav" we learn that, like her, he is Metamei
people and earthenware vessels.
(c) And from the Pasuk "ve'Chol ha'Mishkav Asher Yishkav Alav Yitma". we
learn that the Torah has removed the stringency of a Nidah (presumably from
the word "Yitma", as the Gemara said earlier) - i.e. his Mishkav and Moshav
are Metamei Adam, but not to be Metamei the clothes that he is wearing.
(d) According to Abaye, we cannot learn "va'Tehi Nidasah Alav" and "ve'Chol
ha'Mishkav" as a 'Kelal u'Ferat', because they are not in close
juxtaposition. But according to Rava, even if they are not in close
juxtaposition, they can in principle, serve as a 'Kelal u'Ferat' - but not
here, since the Torah uses the word "ve'Chol", which comes to include (to
be more stringent), and not to exclude.
(e) "va'Tehi Nidasah *Alav*" infers a stringency. Consequently, that we
cannot compare the Bo'eil to the Nidah, and say that, just as there is no
difference by between *her* touching and her Mishkav and Moshav to be
Metamei a person together with the clothes that he is wearing, so too
should there be no difference by *him* berween his touching something and
his Mishkav and Moshav, to say that in both cases, the person that he
touches becomes Tamei, but not the clothes that he is wearing - Because
that is a lemiency!
(a) Had the Kutim sat seven clean days after every sighting, that would be
fine, because then they would sit seven days on yellow blood, in case it
was Tamei, and then, when they would see red blood, say on the fourth day,
they would again count seven clean days, and so on.
The trouble was that they counted seven days of Nidus from the first time
only, as we explained in our Mishnah.
(b) In the second explanation, the problem with the Kuti'os was that they
would count the day that they stopped seeing Dam Zivus as the first of the
seven clean days, because of the principle 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo'. In
fact, a woman requires seven *full* days without seeing.
(c) The Gemara wants to say that we cannot count the day that she stops
seeing as the first of the seven clean days, because, if so, how can seeing
Keri during the seven clean days of a Zav, break one day (to make her count
one extra day)? As soon as he sees, he should count the remainder of the
day as the one additional day; in which case, the Keri will not have broken
anything at all!
(d) That is no proof, the Gemara concludes, because the Torah could be
speaking in a case when he sees Keri at the end of the day, just before
sunset, so that there is not time to count a part of the day as the one
Nor does it matter how unlikely it is for the Pasuk to be coming to teach
us such an unusual case, because, if that is the only way to understand the
Pasuk, then so be it (See Tosfos ha'Rosh, Amud Beis d.h. Shavkeih)
(a) The Gemara asks whether a woman who exudes the Zera of her husband, is
Temei'ah because she has seen Zera, in which case the sighting will break
the seven clean days; or is it only because she touched the Zera of her
husband, and touching Tum'ah does not break the seven clean days.
(b) Rava however, asks on this: How many days would one break? Seven? But
how can a Poletes be more stringent than the man himself (whose Zera she is
seeing), whose Keri only breaks one day, and no more?
Should she break only one day? But the Torah writes "ve'Achar Tithar" -
only after seven clean days, can a Zavah attain Taharah, but not if there
was even one day of Tum'ah?
(c) The Gemara retorts that just as by a Zav, the Torah insists that he has
seven clean days before becoming Tahor, yet if he sees one day of Keri, he
only breaks one day (because the Torah's insistence is confined to a
sighting of *Zivus* - it is only then that a sighting inevitably breaks all
seven days, but not by a sighting of Keri), so too, is the case with a
(a) Rav Shmuel must have been a Yerei Shamayim, for the old woman to have
wished Rav Papa to be like him.
(b) Rav Papa answered that our Mishnah is speaking about a Shaver (a
Talmid-Chacham), whom one would hardly accuse of being Vaday Metamei
(c) If our Mishnah is speaking about a Chaver, how can it refer to him as a
(d) Rav papa could have established that our Mishnah is speaking about a
Kuti who Toveled (so that he has no Din of Vaday Tamei), and then trod on
the clothes of a Chaver, and it is the clothes of the Chaver which then
touched Terumah. And it also speaks when the Kuti was naked, so we do not
worry about his clothes being a Medras for a Chaver.
(a) If we do not know whether or not, a Bas Kuti has undertaken to follow
the path of a Bas Yisrael or not, she has the Din of a Kutis. We know this
from Rebbi Yossi, who argues with the Tana Kama, and says that a Stam Kutis
has the Din of a Yisre'eilis, from which we can infer that, according to
the Tana Kama, a Stam Kutis has the Din of a Kutis.
(b) The Tzedoki was talking with a Kohen Gadol in the public street, when
some spittle fell onto the Kohen Gadol's cloak. The frustrated Kohen Gadol
went to asked the Tzedoki's wife whether she treated the first sighting of
yellow blood (like in our Mishnah) as Dam Nidus or not. She replied that
the wives of the Tzedokim were afraid of the Perushim and that they showed
their blood to the Chachamim.
Rebbi Yossi, following is ruling in our Mishnah - replied that a Stam Kuti
(equivalent to the Tzedokim in this regard) has the Din of a Bas Yisrael.
(c) They were not concerned about the spittle of the Tzedoki, because he
was a Chaver.