Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nidah 62

62b

1. LIQUIDS ABSORBED IN A "ZAV'S" POT
   • Question:
     1. The Mishnah (Kelim 9:5) says that utensils used by a Zav (and which had absorbed Tamei liquids) which fell into an oven will only be Metamei the oven if the oven is ignited (because the heat serves to extract the Tamei liquids from the utensils). Rashi (DH Charasin) explains that the Mishnah refers to utensils such as the urine-container ("Avit Shel Mei Raglayim") of a Zav or Zava.

        Rashi's words are perplexing. The Mishnah cited says that the oven is only Tamei once the flame is ignited. Urine, however, is one of the Mashkin Chamurin (that is, it is an Av ha'Tum'ah and not just a Rishon) and according to Reish Lakish later in the Gemara, it is Metamei even without igniting the flame of the oven!

        It appears that Rashi was explaining the Mishnah according to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that even Mashkin Chamurin will not be Metamei the oven until the oven is lit. Why, though, did Rashi explain the Mishnah at this point according to Rebbi Yochanan? This question is strengthened by the fact that the Sugya concludes that even Rebbi Yochanan holds that Mashkin Chamurin that one wants to remove from a vessel (such as a urine-container) will be Metamei the oven even before it is lit.

     2. When Rashi (DH Lo Shanu) explains what Mashkin Kalin are, he gives tears and blood of a wound as examples. Rashi's words here are also perplexing, because the Gemara earlier (55b) cites a Beraisa that lists the tears of a Zav and blood of his wound as being on exactly the same level of Tum'ah as water that the Zav touched. If so, why did Rashi not simply explain Mashkin Kalim as water that the Zav touched?

   • Answer:
     1. The Mishnah in Kelim specifically mentions that the utensils were used by a Zav. Why does it mention Zav, when the same Halachah is true for utensils used by anyone with any type of Tum'ah?

        It must be that the Mishnah is specifically referring to Ma'ayanos of a Zav such as urine (which is an Av ha'Tum'ah), which are exclusive to a Zav. When Rashi explains the Mishnah to be referring to utensils that have absorbed Mashkin Chamurin (such as urine of a Zav), he is explaining the Mishnah according to Rebbi Yochanan in order to point out that Rebbi Yochanan's opinion is the simple understanding of the Mishnah. Reish Lakish's opinion is the novel approach that takes the Mishnah out of its simple meaning.

        Why did Rashi pick sides? Rashi was bothered by a problem in the Sugya. According to the Gemara's conclusion, Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Reish Lakish that Mashkin Chamurin that the owner wants to be removed from the utensils, and which can be removed, are Metamei (as the Mishnah (Ohalos 3:2) cited later in our Gemara says). However, Rebbi Yochanan still argues that if the owner does not want the Mashkin Chamurin to be removed, even if they will be removed in the future, they are not Metamei. From where did Rebbi Yochanan learn this Halachah?

        He learned it from the first Mishnah in our Sugya (Kelim 9:5) that says that utensils absorbed with Mashkin Chamurin will not be Metamei (until the oven is lit). From the apparent contradiction between the two Mishnayos, Rebbi Yochanan derived the difference between when the owner wants the Mashkin to come out and when he does not. This is what Rashi is pointing out by explaining the Mishnah according to Rebbi Yochanan. (Based on the Shiurim of ha'Gaon Rav Moshe Shapiro)

     2. Rashi was forced to explain Mashkin Kalim as the tears of a Zav and not simply as water that a Zav touched, because otherwise why did the Mishnah specifically say Zav and not any type of Tum'ah according to Reish Lakish. Rashi understood, therefore, that the Mishnah is discussing only bodily fluids, and since the list of bodily fluids was taught with regard to Zav (see Gemara 55b), it mentions a Zav in the Mishnah. The Halachah of the Mishnah, though, would apply to other Teme'im as well.

        However, why did the Mishnah itself choose to discuss only bodily fluids? The same Halachah should apply to water touched by a Zav! Perhaps the Mishnah did not teach the Halachah with regard to water because water is easily evaporated and it will evaporate before it reaches the inside of the oven. Fluids from the body do not evaporate as quickly, and therefore they will be Metamei the oven. (M. Kornfeld)

2. LIQUIDS THAT ARE TAMEI WHICH HAVE BEEN ABSORBED OPINIONS: Everyone agrees that Tamei liquids absorbed within another substance (Mashkin Belu'in) that will not come out are Tahor. What is the reasoning behind this Halachah?
   1. RASHI (DH Iy Lo) cites the Sugya in Chulin that says that a dead fetus inside the mother's body is not Metamei because it is "Tum'ah Belu'ah," Tumah absorbed within another substance. This is also the opinion of Tosfos DH mi'Kulei and the Ra'avad, Hilchos Tum'as Mes 20:5.

   2. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 20:5) rules that the only case where Tum'ah Belu'ah is not Metamei is when it is absorbed inside a living being (like the case in Chulin). The Vilna Gaon also learns like this (in his commentary to Ohalos 11:7). According to the Rambam, a Tamei liquid that is absorbed within another substance is Tahor because it is no longer considered an independent entity. (It has become part of the substance in which it is absorbed.)

3. A HOUSE THAT ABSORBED BLOOD
   • Question: The Gemara cites a Mishnah that says that utensils in a house in which blood was absorbed n the floors do not become Tamei. If the blood has not yet been absorbed, the utensils do become Tamei.

     What is the Mishnah teaching us? Of course utensils become Tamei when they are under the same roof as the blood of a Mes!

   • Answer:
     1. Perhaps we might have thought that blood that will eventually become absorbed is considered already absorbed, and it will not be Metamei the utensils. The Mishnah, therefore, teaches that the blood indeed is Metamei the utensils even though it will eventually be absorbed.

     2. The Mishnah is talking about a case where part of the Revi'is of blood has already been absorbed into the house. Since there is no longer a full Revi'is of actual blood remaining, perhaps the utensils should not become Tamei. The Mishnah, therefore, teaches that the blood indeed is Metamei the utensils, because we say that the blood that has been absorbed complements the remaining blood to make a full Revi'is. (Shitah Mekubetzes in the name of the Ra'avad, Bava Kama 101b)

        (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.)