Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nidah 35

1. THE "RE'IYAH RISHONAH" OF A METZORA
   • Question: The Gemara discusses whether the Re'iyah Rishonah of a Metzora is Tamei or Tahor. The Gemara explains that this depends on whether it is a Ma'ayan or not. The Gemara concludes that since a Pasuk is necessary to teach us that the second Re'iyah of a Metzora is Tamei, obviously it is not a Ma'ayan. The Metzora's first Re'iyah is therefore Tahor.

     RASHI (DH v'Itkish) cites an explanation that says that the verse is teaching that even the *first* Re'iyah of a Metzora is Tamei. Rashi asks four questions on this explanation:

     1. The Gemara concludes, "From here we see that Zov is not a Ma'ayan." According to this explanation, however, this is not the issue, since it is Tamei even if it is *not* a Ma'ayan (as the verse teaches us).
     2. The Gemara later on (55a) explains that since the words "Zuvo Tamei" are the second mention of Zov in this verse, they are referring to the second Re'iyah of Zov and not the first Re'iyah.
     3. The Gemara makes a Kal v'Chomer: If Zov makes others Tamei with Masa, obviously it is itself Metamei b'Masa. This Kal v'Chomer would only apply to a second Re'iyah, since after the first Re'iyah a Zav is not Metamei b'Masa.
     4. The first Re'iyah is not Metamei b'Masa since it is only Keri, how can the Beraisa be teaching us that it *is* Metamei b'Masa?

   • Answer:
     2. (c)(d) The RAMBAN answers that the explanation cited by Rashi agrees that the verse is dealing with the Re'iyah Sheniyah of a Zav, as is clear from the fact that it is the second "Zov" mentioned in the Pasuk. He explains that those who offered this explanation understood that the Pasuk is teaching us by means of the rule, quot;Im Eino Inyan," that the first Re'iyah of a Metzora is Tamei. The verse is not needed to teach that the second Re'iyah of a Zav is Tamei because that is learned from a Kal v'Chomer, hence, it must be teaching that the first Re'iyah is Metamei b'Masa at times (i.e., if it comes from a Metzora). This answers questions
     2. , (c) and (d), since even according to the explanation Rashi rejects the verse in now discussing Re'iyah Sheniyah.

     1. The RITVA answers question (a) by suggesting that the reason the Gemara concludes with "Shma Minah Makom Zivah Lav Ma'ayan," is to emphasize the mistake in thinking that the question of whether Re'iyah Rishonah of a Metzora is Tahor or Tamei depends on whether it is a Ma'ayan or not.