Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nidah 14

1. THE BEDIKAH CLOTH THAT WAS SMEARED ON A WOMAN'S THIGH
   • Question: The Gemara discusses a case where a woman checked herself after Tashmish with a previously checked cloth (Eid Baduk) and wiped it on her thigh (in a place which blood from the Rechem could not reach). On the next morning she noticed blood on her thigh. We rule that she is Tamei since the blood may have come from the cloth.

     Why do we not check the cloth itself to see if there is blood on it?

   • Answer:
     1. TOSFOS (DH u'l'Machar) answers that the Gemara is discussing a case where the Bedikah cloth was lost.
     2. TOSFOS (ibid) suggests a second answer. Even if the cloth was found to be blood-stained, it would still not serve as conclusive proof that the woman is Tamei. It could be argued that the cloth became dirty from blood which was on her thigh. (Tosfos points out that according to this suggestion, the Gemara's question is only if the blood stain was larger than a Gris. If it is smaller than a Gris we would certainly assume it to be the blood of a flea which happened to be on her thigh.
     3. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 4:19) and RABBEINU CHANANEL (quoted in TOSFOS ibid.) explain that blood was found on the cloth (and not on the thigh, as Rashi explains). The Gemara's discussion is about a case where the stain was less than a Gris in size, since if it would be more than a Gris it would obviously be Tamei, like any other Kesem. The question of the Gemara is whether we may assume that the blood did not come from the Bedikah, but from the a flea on the thigh that the cloth was wiped upon. (The Rambam rules that the woman is Tamei.)

2. THE UNCHECKED BEDIKAH CLOTH
   • Question: The Gemara discusses a case where a woman checked herself with an unchecked cloth (i.e., a cloth that may or may have had blood on it before the Bedikah was performed). The cloth was then put into a box, and blood was found on it in the morning. Rebbi rules that the woman is certainly Tamei. Rebbi Chiya disagrees and rules that she is only Tamei mi'Safek.

     Why does Rebbi rule that she is certainly Tamei? Since we are dealing with an unchecked cloth, the blood certainly might have come from another source!

   • Answer:
     1. TOSFOS (DH b'Eid) and the RITVA explain that we are dealing with a cloth that was recently checked and then put in a reasonably well protected place. Had it been put in a very well protected spot, it would still be considered a checked cloth. However, since it was only placed in a reasonably well protected place it is considered Einah Baduk. A woman would not be Tamei after a Bedikah with a cloth from a dirty source, or one that was never checked. We would assume that the blood was on the cloth before the Bedikah.

     2. The RASHBA (DH u'Peirush) strongly disagrees with this ruling. The Rashba rules that if a cloth was once checked, it does not lose its status of a checked cloth (Eid Baduk) by merely being left unattended in a not so well protected location unless we have grounds to assume that something soiled it.

        The Rashba explains that the Gemara is discussing a cloth that was specifically put aside to be used as a Bedikah cloth, but was never checked. The Gemara discusses whether it is assumed to be clean since it was specifically put aside in a safe place for the purpose of Bedikah, or perhaps it might still have been dirty (since it was not actually checked and found clean) and the woman is therefore Tehorah.

14b

3. HALACHAH: AN UNCHECKED BEDIKAH CLOTH Rebbi and Rebbi Chiya argue in a case where a woman checked herself with an unchecked cloth (see above, #2) and found blood on it the next morning. Rebbi is Metamei and Rebbi Chiya disagrees and rules that she is only Tamei mi'Safek.

   The Gemara equates this with a case where a woman urinated and blood was found in the urine. Rebbi Meir rules that if she urinated standing up she is Tahor (since it is most likely in such a case that the blood was from the bladder) but if she urinated sitting down she is Tamei. Rebbi Yosi rules that she is Tahor in both cases since it is possible that the blood was from a Tahor source. Since we rule like Rebbi Yosi the Halachah should be that a woman is Tahor if she checks herself with an unchecked cloth.

   1. The RASHBA, based on the Gemara's comparison, in fact rules that she is Tahor if she checked herself with such a cloth and found blood on it the next morning, since we rule like Rebbi Yosi in the case where blood was found in urine. Thus the Halachah is neither like Rebbi who rules that it is certainly Tamei nor like Rebbi Chiya who rules that it is Tamei mi'Safek.

   2. RABBEINU CHANANEL as quoted by TOSFOS (DH v'Rebbi), explains that Rebbi Yosi did not rule that the woman is Tahor if blood was found in her urine. She is Tamei mi'Safek. If so the rulings of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Chiya are parallel. The woman is Tamei in both case mi'Safek.

   3. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ha 5:17) rules like Rebbi Yosi, that a woman is Tahor if we find blood in her urine. Yet the Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ha 4:19) also records that the Halachah is like Rebbi, that a woman is Tamei Nidah for certain if she checks herself with an unchecked cloth!

      The Magid Mishneh (ibid. 4:19) explains that although Rav Zeira equates these two Halachos, the Rambam understood that according to the Gemara's conclusion the two need not be equated.

      HALACHAH: The Poskim conclude that it is correct to be Machmir if blood was found on an unchecked Bedikah cloth, since even the Rashba, who rules leniently, concludes that it is praiseworthy to be Machmir in such a case (in the TORAS HA'BAYIS HAKATZER, quoted by the Magid Mishneh).

      (Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material as long as this header and the footer at the end of the mailing are included.) Join our free E-mail lists! Instructions at end of this mailing.