Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nidah 60

1. ASCRIBING A BLOODSTAIN TO A NON-JEWISH WOMAN OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that if a Jewish woman lent her garment to a gentile woman or to a Nidah, and after it was returned she wore the garment and found a stain on it, she may ascribe the stain to the gentile or Nidah and she herself is Tahor. Rav, in the Gemara, says that she can only ascribe the stain to the gentile "b'Nachris ha'Ro'ah" -- if the gentile has seen blood. Rav derives this condition from the comparison of gentile and Nidah in the Mishnah -- just like a Nidah has seen blood, so, too, the gentile mentioned in the Mishnah has seen blood.
   1. RASHI and the other Rishonim explain that Rav does not require that the gentile woman was seeing blood at the time she borrowed the garment, because if so why mention the gentile woman at all in the Mishnah? Rather, Rav requires that the gentile be old enough to see blood and that she has seen blood at least once in her life. Since the Rabanan decreed Tum'ah on gentiles, we can ascribe the Tamei stain to the Tamei gentile. (According to this understanding, the comparison that Rav makes between the Nidah and the gentile is only that both of them have seen blood once in their lifetime. The comparison does not go all the way to say that just like the Nidah is seeing blood right now, the gentile is also seeing blood right now.)

   2. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 9:29) rules, "If a woman lends her garment to a Nidah, *whether a gentile or a Jewess*... she may ascribe the stain to the Nidah." The Rambam seems to understand that the gentile woman must also be a Nidah at the time that she borrows the garment. (According to the Rambam, Rav's comparison between a Nidah and a gentile is total; just like the Nidah is seeing blood now, so, too, the gentile is seeing blood now.) It seems that the Rambam holds that we cannot ascribe the bloodstain to a source (the gentile woman) that did not have blood at the time the garment was being used. (See Beis Yosef 190:41, who understood the Rambam in this manner. The Magid Mishneh suggests that the Rambam's words may be interpreted to mean the same as the other Rishonim, but his explanation is somewhat forced.)

2. A "TAMEI" AND A "TAHOR" WHO TOOK DIFFERENT PATHS
   • Question: The Beraisa says that Raban Shimon Ben Gamliel and Rebbi argue concerning when a woman may ascribe a bloodstain on her garment to another woman who had also used it. They agree that a woman may ascribe a stain to a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom on that woman's first day of seeing blood, since a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom is already Tamei in any case, and will not lose anything if the stain is attributed to her.

     Rav Chisda says that the argument of Raban Shimon Ben Gamliel and Rebbi will also apply to a case of two people, one of whom was Tamei and the other Tahor, who walked along two paths, one of which was Tamei and the other Tahor. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel would say that the Tahor person may ascribe the Tum'ah to the Tamei person (that is, and say that the Tamei person walked along the Tamei path), while Rebbi would say that the Tahor person may not ascribe the Tum'ah to the Tamei person.

     Why is this case any different from the case of Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom on her first day of seeing blood, in which Raban Shimon Ben Gamliel and Rebbi agree that she may ascribe the Tum'ah to the Tamei woman, since the woman is already Tamei? In the case of the paths, we should assume that the Tamei took the Tamei path since he loses nothing by doing so! (Tosfos DH Tamei)

   • Answer: TOSFOS (DH Tamei) explains that Rav Chisda is talking about a Tamei Mes who had begun to count his seven days of Taharah (and have Mei Chatas sprinked on him on the fourth and seventh days). Rebbi would hold that since he had already begun the purification process, we cannot ascribe the Tum'ah to him because doing so would cause him to have to start counting the seven days over. Raban Shimon Ben Gamliel would hold that since he is still in a state of Tum'ah and he may not be Tovel at this point, we may ascribe the Tum'ah to him.

     It seems that Rav Chisda understands the argument between Raban Shimon Ben Gamliel and Rebbi to be whether we are concerned with ruining one's purification process and causing him to start over (-Rebbi), or with changing a person's status from Tamei to Tahor (Raban Shimon Ben Gamliel). Alternatively, it could be that the argument involves the degree of ruining his count for which we are concerned. Rebbi holds that even if attributing the Tum'ah to him would cause him to lose only a few days of his count, this is still considered causing him harm which we may not do. Raban Shimon Ben Gamliel holds that we may not attribute Tum'ah to him only if that would cause him to lose all of the days of Taharah. We may, however, cause him to lose a few days of his count, for this is not considered causing him harm.

60b

3. DO WE ATTRIBUTE A BLOODSTAIN TO A "SAFEK TEMEI'AH"
   • Question: The Mishnah says that if three women slept in the same bed and blood was found under one of them, they are all Tamei. Since they move around on the bed while they sleep, we do not know from whom the blood came. If one of them examined herself and found blood, we may attribute the blood that was found in the bed to her and she is Tamei while the other two women are Tahor.

     Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav says that this examination (or rather, wiping, see Tosfos DH v'Hu sh'Badkah) must be performed immediately ("b'Shiur Veses") upon finding the blood in the bed. The Gemara says that Rav must hold like Bar Pada, who holds that checking and finding blood immediately after handling Taharos is enough to determine that there was blood coming from her moments earlier while she was holding the Taharos (and those Taharos are now Tamei). Rebbi Oshaya holds that such a check does not tell us with certainty that she was bleeding moments earlier. Rashi (end of DH Ba'alah Patur) says that since according to Rebbi Oshaya the woman who found blood is only Safek Tamei, we cannot attribute the blood that was found to her and make the other women Tahor.

     1. It is clear from the words of Rashi that we cannot attribute the blood that was found in the bed to the woman who is Safek Tamei in order to be Metaher the other women. This contradicts the Gemara earlier (60a) that says that we may attribute Tum'ah to a Safek Tamei in order for the other to remain Tahor in the case of two people, one of whom was Safek Tamei and the other Tahor, who walked along two paths, one of which was Tamei and the other Tahor).

     2. It seems from Rashi that Rebbi Oshaya is arguing with the Mishnah, since he holds that if one woman checks for and finds blood immediately, this still does not allow us to be Metaher the other women. The Mishnah, though, says explicitly that if one woman checks and finds blood, this allows us to be Metaher the other women. How can Rebbi Oshaya argue with a Mishnah?

   • Answer:
     1. Perhaps we cannot attribute Tum'ah to a Safek Tamei in the case of the women, since what made the woman Safek Tamei (i.e., her bleeding) is the same factor that produced the Tum'ah in the bed (that is, the bloodstain). We may only attribute Tum'ah to a person whose Safek Tum'ah is independent of the present Tum'ah. (Heard from ha'Gaon Rav Moshe Shapiro)

        Alternatively, Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav argues with Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina and holds that we may not attribute Tum'ah to someone who is only a Safek Tamei. (M. Kornfeld)

     2. The MAHARAM (see also Rosh) explains that Rebbi Oshaya is not arguing with the Mishnah. To the contrary, he holds that the Mishnah is saying that we may attribute the blood even to a Safek Tamei, such as a woman who checked for blood after some time had passed (and not within "Shiur Veses"). This is also the intention of Rashi; Rashi is not saying that Rebbi Oshaya holds that since she is a Safek Tamei we cannot attribute the blood to her. Rather, since she is a Safek Tamei even when she checks immediately, there is no difference between checking immediately and checking later. In both cases we may attribute the blood to her, since according to Rebbi Oshaya we do attribute the blood to a Safek Tamei.

        Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav, however, who holds that there is a difference between checking immediately and checking later, must hold like Bar Pada, who differentiates between the two Halachically, making the former Tamei for certain and the latter only Safek Tamei. In addition, Rav Yehudah is of the opinion that we cannot attribute Tum'ah to a Safek Tamei.