Nidah 25
Summary
- Today's שיעור on מסכת נדה דף כה begins from דף כד עמוד ב and moves through אגדה and הלכה, interpreting אבא שאול’s extraordinary burial stories as symbolic lessons about the impossibility of attaining *taharah* while remaining attached to *tumah*, then shifting into detailed sugyos about the status of *shafir* and *shafir merukam* for *tum’at leida*, the scope of the מחלוקת between רבי יהושע and חכמים (and how psukim, *sevara*, and *asmachta* function), the differing approaches of רב and שמואל in practice, and concluding with the laws and description of a סנדל and why its features matter even when another ולד emerges with it.
- Abba Shaul, or alternatively רבי יוחנן, says he buried dead people and once ran after a deer and entered the thigh bone of a corpse, running three *parsah* inside it without catching the deer and without reaching the end of the bone. Abba Shaul reports that when he retraced his steps, they told him the bone was from עוג מלך הבשן. The מפרשים explain that the deer represents *taharah*, the thigh bone of a dead body represents *tumah*, and עוג מלך הבשן represents *tumah*, so as long as a person remains connected to *tumah* he cannot reach *taharah*. The מפרשים connect the three *parsah* both to the report in מסכת ברכות that עוג lifted a mountain of three *parsah* and to מחנה ישראל being three *parsah*.
- A similar teaching is brought where Abba Shaul says a cave opened beneath him and he stood in the socket of a dead person’s eye up to his nose, and when he climbed out they told him it was the eye of אבשלום. The explanation given is that Abba Shaul seeks *taharah* but falls into the *tumah* represented by אבשלום, who is associated with a *yefat to’ar* and with relations to the *pilagshim* of דוד. The phrase “up to my nose” is tied to the *neshamah*, as in the morning text “אלקי נשמה שנתת בי טהורה היא.”
- The Gemara rejects the suggestion that Abba Shaul sank quickly because he was a midget by stating that Abba Shaul was tall in his generation, with רב טרפון reaching his shoulders, and then it lists a chain where each later great figure reaches only the shoulders of the prior one: רב טרפון, רבי מאיר, רבי, רבי חייא, רב, and רב יהודה. The מפרשים explain this as teaching that each generation is weaker than the previous one. The Gemara continues with רב יהודה being tall in his generation while אדא דיילא reaches his shoulders, and it records further diminishing stature for people of פומבדיתא relative to אדא דיילא.
- The ספר מראה קציעה is cited as learning from this sugya that tallness is treated as an aspect of handsomeness because these great individuals are described as handsome in their height. The מראה קציעה says that when someone sees a good-looking tall individual he should recite the ברכה of שככה לו בעולמו. The מראה קציעה conditions this on proper proportion, excluding someone who is very tall but very lanky and skinny.
- A question is asked before רבי about a woman who miscarries a *shafir* מלא בשר, and רבי answers that he did not hear a ruling. ישמעאל ברבי יוסי quotes רבי יוסי that מלא דם makes her טמא נידה and מלא בשר makes her טמא לידה. The response challenges the report because the ruling on מלא דם aligns with the יחיד position of סומכוס משום רבי מאיר from earlier in the פרק, and the inclusion of that contested component makes them suspicious of the accompanying ruling about מלא בשר.
- The אחרונים אור הנר answers that if רבי יוסי’s basis were *אי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם*, then any discharge would render her טמאה and no distinction between מלא בשר and מלא דם would be meaningful. The fact that רבי יוסי distinguishes between them shows his ruling on מלא דם is tied to the specific stance associated with סומכוס משום רבי מאיר rather than to the general principle of *אי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם*. The Gemara then frames the מלא בשר ruling as potentially following רבי יהושע, against whom the halachah is not accepted according to that line.
- A ברייתא states that on a *shafir* שאינו מרוקם, רבי יהושע says it is a ולד and חכמים say it is not a ולד. The חזון איש explains that since רבי יוסי rules like a יחיד (accepting the יחיד view in מלא דם), it is consistent to attribute his מלא בשר ruling to ruling like רבי יהושע even though the חכמים disagree. This reading treats רבי יוסי as willing to depart from the majority, so the second ruling can also be aligned with a dissenting position.
- ריש לקיש בשם רבי אושעיא limits the מחלוקת to עכור and holds that with צלול liquid in the sack all agree it is not a ולד. Another approach in the ראשונים is noted that the distinction may be about the clarity of the skin itself rather than the liquid. רבי יהושע בן לוי states “בצלול מחלוקת,” and the Gemara is uncertain whether this means that only by צלול there is dispute and by עכור all agree it is a ולד, or whether it means that both cases are disputed, and the Gemara leaves the question as תיקו.
- A ברייתא cites רבי יהושע בן חנניה deriving from “ויעש ה' אלקים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור וילבישם” that Hashem does not make skin for אדם unless he is formed, and the אבן עזרא is used to explain this as linking the presence of עור to the fetus being developed. The sugya infers that once there is עור it is treated as a ולד and this does not depend on whether the liquid is עכור or צלול. The Gemara uses this to conclude that the relevant dispute must be about צלול, because if it were only about עכור then a פסוק would be unnecessary since it would follow from *sevara*.
- A teaching from the רוגטשובר is brought that Adam and Chavah would have faced a halachic problem of reciting *shehecheyanu* on a new garment, but leather garments do not require *shehecheyanu* because an animal was killed to produce them. The רוגטשובר says Hashem therefore made them specifically כתנות עור to avoid that issue. This is presented as a *vort* alongside the sugya’s halachic use of the pasuk about עור.
- The שם משמואל על התורה is cited as extracting a יסוד that *sevara* is “more than” a פסוק because the Gemara treats a פסוק as unnecessary where logic suffices. A תשובה from the מרש"ק is quoted that not knowing a source is understandable due to the vast literature, but erring in *sevara* is more serious because *sevara* does not require a text to access it. The שם משמואל adds that this valuation may have fit חז"ל’s era with limited written material, while in later times with many ספרים one should not rely only on personal logic but on the printed word.
- The גר״א is cited as using this sugya as a basis for the שלחן ערוך ruling that when two poor people come, one needing food and one needing clothing, food takes precedence because Hashem only concerned Himself with clothing after the person was created. The רמ״א limits this to cases where the two people are of equal stature and gives precedence to clothing for a תלמיד חכם over food for an עם הארץ. The ש״ך says that today there is uncertainty about anyone qualifying for that תלמיד חכם precedence.
- Rav Nachman בשם רבה בר אבוה states that the מחלוקת is בעכור and by צלול all agree it is not a ולד. Rava challenges him from a משנה in מסכת בכורות י״ט that gives סימנים of ולד for animals, where טנף is a sign for בהמה דקה and a שליה is a sign for בהמה גסה, and for a woman either *shafir* or שליה is a sign. The Gemara observes that the משנה does not treat a *shafir* in an animal as a sign, and it argues that if the dispute were only about עכור then the logic should apply equally to animals and humans, pushing toward the conclusion that the issue is about צלול and that the human case is supported by the pasuk.
- The Gemara answers that רבי יהושע is not certain; רבי יהושע ספוקי מספקא ליה and he applies חומרה depending on whether the realm is monetary or prohibitory. The sugya sets ממון as ספק ממונא לקולא, while איסורא is ספק איסורא לחומרא, and טומאה is treated with ספק טומאה לחומרא. This explains why by פדיון הבן (a monetary extraction of חמש סלעים) he is lenient, while by animal בכורה restrictions and by a woman’s *tum’ah* status he is stringent.
- The מפרשים ask why רבי יהושע needs to teach ספק ממונא לקולא since המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה is well known, and they answer that one might have thought a דבר מצוה like פדיון הבן would override that norm, so the משנה teaches it still applies. A question to the צמח צדק is presented about couples who do not know whether they are כהנים or לויים and whether they should do פדיון הבן, and the צמח צדק applies the sugya to rule that ספק ממונא לקולא means they do not perform פדיון הבן. ערוך השולחן and קונטרס הספיקות disagree and require פדיון הבן by relying on רוב that most people are not כהנים or לויים.
- The Gemara asks how רבי יהושע can be in doubt if he cited a pasuk, and it answers that the pasuk is only *derabbanan* and is an *asmachta* בעלמא. רב חנינא בר שמיי asks רב which view he follows, and רב says that whether עכור or צלול he is not חושש and does not treat a *shafir* as a ולד. שמואל says that in both cases he is חושש, and Rav Dimi reports that Shmuel was never מטהר a *shafir* except one that was so transparent that a hair placed on one side could be seen from the other, where Shmuel reasoned that if a fetus had been there it could not have been that clear.
- A ברייתא defines a *shafir merukam* and attributes to Abba Shaul that its initial formation is “מראשו,” with ראשונים debating whether this means developing from the head or the head being the first identifiable organ while development begins elsewhere. The סימנים include the eyes as two fly-like drops separated from each other, nostrils as two fly-like drops close to each other, and a mouth like a hairline, with genital indicators described differently for male and female at that stage and with no formed hands or feet. A pasuk from איוב is cited as describing the process from liquid to solidification, then skin and flesh, and then bones and sinews. The ברייתא instructs not to examine it in water because water is harsh and can crush it, but to examine it in oil because oil is soft and clarifies, and to view it in sunlight.
- Aba Shaul ben Nash, or Abba Shaul ben Remesh, describes determining sex by bringing a smooth-tipped splinter and moving it in the relevant place: if it catches it is a male and if it slides it is a female. Rav Nachman bar Avuha limits this to moving from bottom to top, because lateral movement could snag on the womb and mislead. Rav Ada bar Ahavah cites a teaching that a female appears like a split barley, Rav Nachman challenges that perhaps the split is between testes, and Abaye answers that testes are not yet discernible at that stage so that explanation cannot stand.
- Rav Amram teaches that the thighs look like two red threads like thicker warp threads, and the arms like two red threads like thinner weft threads. Shmuel tells Rav Yehudah not to rule it a fetus until hair is seen on its head, and the Gemara reconciles this with Shmuel’s general חושש stance by explaining that Shmuel requires stringency for *tum’ah* but does not grant ימי טוהר until the fetus is clearly developed, including hair. The sugya frames this as taking the longer *tum’ah* period out of concern for a female, while withholding the leniency of *taharah* days absent clear evidence.
- A story reports that an embryo came before Shmuel and he declared it 41 days old, but records from the woman’s immersion showed only 40 days since טבילה, leading Shmuel to state the husband had relations while she was a נידה. The husband was restrained and confessed. The Gemara concludes that Shmuel personally could assess such matters precisely, but his practical guidance is set for people who are not at his level, so they must be stringent for *tum’ah* and cautious about granting ימי טוהר.
- A ברייתא teaches that a סנדל resembles a sea fish and initially was a fetus but became crushed, while רבן שמעון בן גמליאל describes it as resembling the tongue of a large ox, with the ערוך לנר explaining they are offering descriptive metaphors rather than disputing reality. A tradition of “רבותינו” states that a סנדל requires צורת פנים, and שמואל rules הלכה that it needs facial form, even if the face is on the back, likened to someone struck and turned around. In the days of רבי ינאי, when people were lenient about a face-less סנדל, רבי ינאי objects that such leniency effectively purifies births that should generate *tum’at leida*, and the Gemara answers that the stringent requirement traced to a lone view “ממדוסא,” with attribution details involving רבי יוחנן, רב ביבי, and רב זירא.
- The Gemara asks why סנדל is needed since “אין סנדל שאין עמו ולד,” and it answers that if a נקבה emerges with it there is no question, but the case is where a זכר emerges with it. The Gemara proposes a הוה אמינא that the סנדל should be treated as זכר based on the rule that אשה מזרעת תחילה יולדת זכר and איש מזריע תחילה יולדת נקבה, and it rejects this by allowing that both may have emitted simultaneously, yielding one male and one female. The Gemara adds an alternative concern where a נקבה is born before שקיעה and a סנדל after שקיעה, requiring attention to which birth sets the counting for later niddah-cycle calculations. The ערוך לנר explains that the initial assumption rests on the improbability of precisely simultaneous emission, making same-sex twins seem more likely in that framing.
- A *vort* from the כתב סופר explains why the Torah places “וביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו” next to “אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר,” and why the mother is exempt from the חיוב of מילה stated in מסכת קידושין. The כתב סופר ties “אשה מזרעת תחילה יולדת זכר” to the son’s connection to the mother, with the son serving as her conduit for mitzvos she cannot perform, while the daughter connects to the father for mitzvos he cannot perform. The כתב סופר says the Torah therefore assigns the father the act of מילה so the father has a share in that mitzvah even when the birth is associated with the mother’s precedence in *tazria*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions