The Eddie B. Sitt edition of the Talmud Bavli audio series on Masechet Niddah has been dedicated by Ron Yaish in honor of his children, Ovadia Avraham ben Rachel Shifrah and Levi Yitzchak ben Rachel Shifrah, as well as in honor of his wife, Eshet Chayil Rachel Shifrah bat Tovah Yocheved. May Ron Yaish and his wife continue, Be'ezrat Hashem, to be blessed with more children and derive much Nachat from their current children, both spiritually and materially. Amen v'Amen.
Today, we begin on Daf Gimmel, studying Daf Bet Amud Bet, starting three, four, five, or six lines from the bottom. To recap where we left off yesterday, we learned about the differing opinions of Hillel and Shammai regarding a woman who sees Niddah, meaning she sees blood. Shammai maintains that she becomes teme'ah going forward, which means everything she touches from that point onward is considered teme'ah. It is agreed by all that she is teme'ah for her husband at that moment. However, the discussion centers on taharot, or ritual purity, and how her status retroactively affects everything she has touched prior to this sighting of blood.
Hillel, however, argues that one must assume there could have been blood already present in her body that has now come out. Thus, he posits that she is teme'ah retroactively, and there is a debate regarding how far back this retroactive tum'ah extends. This fundamental disagreement between Shammai and Hillel revolves around the question of whether to apply retroactive tum'ah in such a case.
Yesterday, we presented two questions regarding both rabbis' positions. The first question involved a Mikvah that originally contained 40 Se'ah but was later found to be lacking, now holding only 39 Se'ah. The uncertainty remains as to when it became lacking—was it just now, or had it been lacking previously? The Gemara concludes that we must assume it became lacking earlier, meaning that all objects immersed in the Mikvah must be treated as teme'ah retroactively due to this uncertainty. For Terumah, we say that it cannot be eaten, although it is not burned, since it is possible that the Mikvah was chaser before the immersion.
The Gemara goes further to state that the Mikvah case is treated not just on a rabbinic level but also as a definitive case of tum'ah. The general rule states that tum'ah in the Reshut HaRabim is considered tahor unless proven otherwise. Thus, if the Mikvah is in the Reshut HaRabim, it is not a mere safek; we assert with certainty that everything that was immersed is teme'ah.
The second case we examined was that of a chavit, a barrel of Terumah. If this barrel turns to vinegar and we do not know when it changed, we again face retroactive implications. The Gemara suggests that we must consider it tevel retroactively, either back three days or earlier, depending on the interpretation. This too is treated as a rabbinical decree.
Now, the Gemara poses a question: why is the Mikvah case treated as de'oraita (a Torah law), while the vinegar case is only derabbanan (a rabbinical law)? Both cases involve retroactive tum'ah. The Gemara seeks to clarify this distinction.
As we explore the reasoning, we find that Shammai believes in a definitive retroactive status when it comes to the Mikvah, while Hillel suggests that uncertainty exists, leading to a safek condition. The Gemara further highlights that Shammai treats the Mikvah as a definitive case, while Hillel allows for the possibility that the tum'ah could have been present earlier. This distinction is critical in understanding how each rabbi approaches the issue.
Continuing with our discussion, we delve into the example of a Mavoi, an alleyway where a sheretz (a type of creeping animal) is found. The Gemara explains that if a sheretz is found in the Mavoi, everything that passed through is retroactively teme'ah. The Gemara seeks to understand why Shammai's ruling on Niddah differs from the case of the sheretz.
The response indicates that the sheretz could come from two sources: from within the Mavoi itself or from outside. This dual possibility increases the concern for retroactive tum'ah. In contrast, Niddah only originates from the woman herself, thus not warranting the same level of concern for retroactive tum'ah.
As we wrap up this discussion, we recognize the multifaceted nature of these halachic principles and the various factors influencing the rulings of Shammai and Hillel. Each case requires careful consideration of the circumstances and the implications for taharot and tum'ah. The depth of these discussions highlights the complexity of halachic reasoning and the importance of understanding the underlying principles at play.