ד Hilchos Nida Rav Baruch Simon shlit

[4 things mikabel tuma: ochlin, mashkim, adam, keilim.]

A. Mishna 59B- woman lends her clothing to a nida or non-Jew, and now she wears it once she got it back, can be tole that kesem found on it is from the woman she lent it to. But women sharing a blanket, if find kesem, mitamei all the women. If she sits on stone kli R’ Nechemia is mitaheir b/c says that something that’s eino mikabel tuma is eino mikabel kesamim.

1. תוס' K’Rebbi Nechemia- end of תוס' mentions that even though mashtisa is not mikabel tuma, nevertheless, since its mikabel tumas negaim the chumra will apply to it as well.

2. Baalei HaNefesh (ראב"ד) - We don’t pasken like R’ Nechemia, so no heter of em”t b/c see case of mashtisa which isn’t mikabel tuma and nevertheless they were worried about a kesem.

(a) Baal HaMaor- Doesn’t think this is a good raya b/c mashtisa is actually mikabel tuma b/c mashtisa isn’t the thread it’s the loom itself and that’s why they were mesupak in this case.

A. Chidushei הר"ן 57B- Were only gozer on davar hamikabel tuma b/c have din that Mekor Mikomo Tamei- any dam that comes from the uterus will be mitamei that which it falls on. Im kein, even when it’s only a kesem and she is really tehora midoraysa (no hargasha), nevertheless the begged it fell on is tamei. So since chazal were worried that ppl would be meikil by the begged they assured the woman as well. Im kein, whenever the dam is not being mitamei anything (b/c it’s eino mikabel tuma) no reason to be mitamei the woman.

1. Node B’Yehuda (MK 52) - Discusses question of כ"מ why kesamim aren’t a s”s, and explains that really only one safeik on a doraysa b/c safeik from her, safeik not from her, and if it is, we hold mekor mikomo tamei. Therefore, once we have to assur her begged tumas erev misafeik doraysa, then have to be mitamei her libaala as well midirabanan. (Basically same svara as the ר"ן, but lichora didn’t have the chidushei haRan). And says that the reason we assur even by something that’s mikabel tumas negaim is in order not to confuse different tumos.

2. Sidrei Tahara 190:54- Based on svara of ר"ן wants to say that when a davar she’eino mikabel tuma is on top of s/thing that is mikabel tuma the kesem is temeia b/c since the underneath kli is mikabel tumas masa from the kesem, have same chashash, might come to be meikil on the underneath kli so should assur the woman as well.

(a) Badei HaShulchan Biurim 190:33 – Acc to this Sidrei Tahara, woman who is wiping after the bathroom and assuming toilet paper is em”t should still assur the woman b/c the tissue is being held by the woman who is mikabeles tuma, so should still assur her. 190:10- brings kasha of Minchas Chinuch on Sd”t that most rishonim don’t think there is tumas masa by keilim. However, see that he didn’t argue with the basic yesod, so by human would agree to be machmir. But brings a number of achronim who argue:

i. Chasam Sofer: Doesn’t hold this way b/c discusses case where woman used eid she’eino baduk which is em”t and if held from sd”t wouldn’t be any discussion at all.

ii. שו"ע Harav: Brings a raya that we are chosheish for hargasha b/c most bedikos are done with cotton which isn’t mikabel tuma, so would be a kesem, ela must be we’re worried about hargasha. If held like sd”t wouldn’t be meikil on cotton b/c the woman is holding it.

*Badei haShulchan ends with צ"ע. Limaaseh, we are generally not chosheish for the chumra of the Sidrei Tahara.

A. Mishnayos Keilim

1. 2:5- covers made of paper are tehorim, but if hiskinu l’tashmish it’s temeia.

2. 17:16- If turn anything into a receptacle (kli kibul) will become tamei.

B. רמ' Hilchos Keilim 2:1- If take paper and turn it into a kli then will be mikabel tuma. *Sounds like without doing anything to it paper would not be mikabel tuma.
C. רמ' 1:11- Anything woven from different materials to make a begged is mikabel tuma. And says “halevadim k’begadim l’chol davar”.

- Usually when make a begged weave strings together. However, can also just take strings and press them together without weaving them. So רמ' is mechadeish that this is also considered a begged.

1. Node B’Yehuda (MT 105) - Acc to this רמ', paper has the din of levadim, and considered like beggadim and would be mikabel tuma.

i. What’s pshat in the mishnayos that paper is tahor when not made into a receptacle?

 Shivas Tzion (Node B’Yehuda’s son) - אה"נ the paper in those days wasn’t mikabel tuma b/c that was different kind of paper that was made from a whole leaf or a piece of a tree, etc. b/c that’s not maaseh levadim. Levadim has to be different parts pressed together, like weaving.
ii. Chasam Sofer 81- When רמ' talks about levadim, means take something that grew from the ground and press it together and still noticeable that it’s a string put together. However, if totally broken down and put back together and would never know this was cotton, linen, etc. then not considered levadim, and that’s the metzius by paper.

• 
  Sidrei Tahara 190:19- Agrees with the Chasam Sofer “panim chadashos ba’u l’kan”.
  

a. חזו"א Keilim 8:4- Begged doesn’t have to be livush adam, ela on the “min”, the same way that clothing of ppl are called keilim. So begged can even be a covering for a kli (maybe Malbushei Tahara is not a great kasha then??).

- R’ Bick, R’ Abadie both hold that disposable things are not mikabel tuma from R’ Moshe.

1. רמ' Keilim 6:7- something you use once and throw out is not mikabel tuma. 2:1- Even when make kli kibul, etc. has to be something that has kayama otherewise not mikabel tuma.

2. Tosefta Keilim 7:3- If make a kli from something that’s eino shel maamid tahor. Give examples of children hollowing out gourds and esrogim.

A. Gm Shabbos 26B- Tana D’bei R’ Yishamael: Whenever Torah uses word “begged” always refers to wool and linen b/c by tzaraas uses lashon “begged” and says “tzemer u’Pishtim”.

B. Menachos 39B- Only begged chayav midoraysa in tzitzis acc to Tdbr’y is tzemer u’pishtim for the same reason. However, dissenting opinion, Rava holds there is chiyuv of tzitzis on all begadim, and says that can use strings made of wool and linen for any begged, but other materials, have to use the same begged as the strings (Knaf min Knaf).

C. שו"ע O’Ch 9- מחבר: Only chayav min haTorah for tzitzis on wool or linen beggadim, others only chayav midirabanan. רמ"א: All beggadim are chayavim in tzitzis midoraysa.

*But e/one agrees that other beggadim have din of begged midirabanan.

[Some ppl are makpid to wear davka wool to be choshesh for the מחבר, but some are makpid davka to wear cotton to be chosheish for baal hamaor that since techeles is miakev the lavan ……]

A. Mishna Keilim 17:?- A/thing found in the yam is tahor. Meaning, the skin of animals from the yam are not mikabel tuma, except for “kelev hamayim” b/c he runs away onto the land. However, if connect something that isn’t mikabel tuma to something that is, the whole begged is now mikabel tuma.

B. Toras Kohanim parshas Tazria – needs to be something that’s gadel min ha’aretz in order to be mikabel tuma, משא"כ if its from the yam or anywhere else. Nylon is made from oil. So the question is, is oil considered from the ground? B/c on the one hand, found in the ground, but at the same time, doesn’t grow from the ground (animals are considered gidulo min ha’aretz l’inyan many dinim). And if use this explanation not a din in yam per se, just not gidulo min ha’aretz.
C. שו"ת Maharsham ??- Discussing the question of paper being mikabel tuma (Node B’Yehuda/ Chasam Sofer). Not clear what comes out of this.
D. Kovetz Teshuvos (R’ Elyashiv) - two kinds of mikvaos: 1) Mikvaos 2) Maayanos- Spring water, doesn’t come from rain but from deep in the ground. Maayan can be moving, משא"כ mikva water has to be stationary. R’ Elyashiv wants to say that whenever dig in ground and find a liquid that’s a maayan, d’haynu can be tovel in oil. Im kein, certainly not mikabel tuma b/c its like yam.

- Shaarei Tahara (R’ Yechiel Michel Stern) - quotes from R’ Elyashiv that Nylon is not mikabel tuma and could even be tovel keilim in oil well.

- This psak of R’ Elyashiv became very popular. However, R’ Elyashiv himself holds like the Sidrei Tahara l’inyan em”t al gabei mk”t. So even woman who would be wearing nylon stockings but they are on her body which is mikabel tuma, kesem would be tamei. His kula would only be if it would be found on a sheet that’s made of nylon.

A. Gm Chullin 57B- Shmuel’s din: Woman sits on ground and sees dam w/ no hargasha, tehora. R’ Ashi explains that Shmuel holds like R’ Nechemia that s/thing that’s eino mt is eino mikabel kesamim.

[Most poskim hold that if have a kli that is naaseh l’shameish im hakarka (water meter, etc.) even though it’s not mikabel tuma, but the water inside still has din of mayim she’uvim. But there is minority opinion (gidulei tahara) that once it’s naaseh l’shamesh im hakarka considered karka mamash and the water is not considered mayim she’uvim].

A. Gm Nida 58A- woman who finds dam on the mashtisa and they asked her to do the motion again to see if it goes under her legs.

3 pshatim in this gm:

1. תוס'- אה"נ this thread is not מק"ט, but it is mikabel tumas negaim, so also mikabel ksamim.

2. ראב"ד (baalei HaNefesh) - thinks mashtisa is thread as well. And says that see from this gm that don’t hold like this din that אמק"ט is eino mikabel kesamim. B/c the mashtisa isn’t מק"ט and nevertheless they were worried about the kesem.

3. Baal HaMaor- mashtisa isn’t the thread, it’s the needle. Im kein, it is מק"ט, and that’s why they were worried, but אה"נ we do hold like R’ Nechemia.

C. שו"ע 190:10- kesem that’s found on אמק"ט, not gozer (don’t mention anything about being mikabel tumas negaim).

1. ש"ך 16- quotes תוס'/רא"ש and says that a/thing that’s mikabel tumas negaim, even though not mikabel other tumos, mikabel ksamim (3x3 etzbaos).

2. Toras Shlamim – Quotes ש"ך, and says that acc to this, maybe would be mitamei if found in places that could be mikabel tumas negaim, like a bayis.

3. Chavas Daas chidushim 12 – quotes this ש"ך as well, and says that this would be b/c lo plug rabanan, and din would apply to a/thing that’s mikabel any tuma at all.
D. Kreisi Upleisi- Doesn’t understand תוס' b/c the whole svara applies specifically to something that would be mikabel tuma from the dam coming out of the woman and would be a stira if assured the begged and not her, so assur her too. But by s/thing that is mikabel negaim, the dam won’t assur the begged either, so why would you be gozer on the woman?! Gives possible pshat b/c negaim can be red, and woman sat on white begged and found red on it we are tole that it came from the woman, not from a nega. If that’s true, then have to assur the woman. Im kein, have to assur all cases where item can be mikabel tumas negaim, but he himself says this pshat is dachuk.

- So explains this is why the מחבר and רמ"א don’t bring this halacha. And even if wanted to say this pshat, that would only be by nigei begadim, but not by batim b/c what’s the connection btwn nigei batim and isha nida.

*In general, poskim are meikil by this shayla, even in eretz yisrael (obviously, if there’s a lot of dam, then have to be dan whether this is a reiya).

A. Shmini 11:36- “ach maayan u’bor mikvei mayim yihiye tahor. . .”

1. רש"י- the person who immerses in the mikve comes out tahor. But that’s drashas chazal. But also quotes pashut pshat, which is that mikva is immune from kabalas tuma. The mikva itself is tahor.

Im kein, if have enough water in the toilet to be a mikva, would be em”t and could be meikil. But don’t have enough. But maybe this is called mayim b’karka. But if not, in trouble b/c water in general is mikabel tuma.

Quotes Mishna Mikvaos 1:1- tamei person drinks from a puddle and then tahor person drinks from it the tahor person become tamei.

2 pshatim:

1. Rash: When you have mayim shebikarka, even if not 40 seah, dino k’karka and not mikabel tuma. So why does the tahor guy become tamei? B/c the tamei man when he drank dropped some water back in from his mouth. This is also how the Bartenura learns.

a. ראב"ד- for keilim temeim only need reivis of mayim she’bikarka to be mitaheir. So even to say like the Rash, have to have reviis (which we do have in toilet bowl). Maharsham says this as well.
2. רמ'- Tamei guy is mitamei the water b/c אה"נ mikva is immune from tuma, but if less than 40 seah, if do it l’ratzon (wanted to come in contact w/ the water), mitamei.

** R’ Greenwald argues that this din of the toilet water is based on machlokes רמ'/Rash. Acc to Rash, not מק"ט, acc to רמ' it is מק"ט.

**Im kein, since by kesamim we go l’kula (b’ksamim shamin l’hakeil), can be someich on the Rash to be meikil.

And what about the fact that the water in there should be mayim sheuvim, and is talush (so shouldn’t be considered mayim shebikarka)? Answers that b/c of breira, it was huvrar l’mafreia that this water was going to be used b’karka, and we hold yesh breira in dirabanans.

- However, at the end, says he doesn’t want to be meikil unless someone else would be maskim. So he sent it to the Minchas Yitzchak who writes that R’ Shlomo Kluger agrees with him based on another svara: A/thing that’s only mikabel tuma midirabanan is not mikabel kesamim, and there are those who hold that mashkim only become temeim midirabanan.
C. Kane Bosem (R’ Meir Bronsdorfer) - argues with the Pupa Rav, thinks the water is mikabel tuma.

D. Lechem Oni (R’ Yechezkel Roth) - Deals with same mekoros, and at end, says there’s what to rely on to be meikil.

- R’ Ausch: Thought it should depend on what time of the month it was.

Many Morei Horaa are meikil when there’s a little bit of blood, even more than a gris. But there are machmirim as well. This comes up in bath tub as well.

Question #1- Is this dam from the uterus or is this dam maka from the urinary tract.

Question #2- Even if it is viewed as dam nida, is it a reiya or a kesem?
I. Source of the din

A. Mishna 59B- woman who sees dam when she goes to the bathroom, machlokes R’ Meir and R’ Yossi.

R’ Meir: If sitting tehora, standing temeia.

R’ Yossi: Always tehora. Don’t have to be chosheish that this is dam nida.

• 
  Gm brings up 2 other issues: What’s this chiluk between standing and sitting? If it’s that the mei raglayim might bring the dam out from the uterus, that can happen when sitting too?
  

2. Then gm says but why not worried that after the mei raglayim is finished then dam came afterwards and you just found it all together? So gm says talking about case where she is sitting on the edge of the seat and being mezanekes into the seat, so if there was dam nida it would be on the edge of the seat (b/c dam nida doesn’t come out w/ force, just drips out). So if it’s in the bowl, then know that this dam came from the urinary tract.

 Gm concludes that Hilchisa like R’ Yossi.

**The question, though, is do these last two chilukim apply only to R’ Meir, in which case we don’t care b/c we pasken like R’ Yossi. Or do they apply to R’ Yossi as well?

A. רמ' 5:17- Paskens straight up like R’ Yossi, always assume its dam maka.

1. R’ Yechezkel Roth- Acc to ר"ח, R’ Meir is chosheish that mei raglayim will not only bring dam nida, but also cause hargasha. R’ Yossi holds no, will bring dam nida, but won’t cause a hargasha, so at worst we’re only talking about nida dirabanan. However, they agree 100% as to which cases will be tehora ligamrei and which will be temeia. It’s only a question of the level at which she will be temeia. And the gemara is discussing when they will both be mitaheir her ligamrei, d’haynu when you have tartei l’teivusa: Yosheves and Maznekes (and in the middle of the bowl).

[R’ Yossi: Bein omedes bein yosheves tehora, meaning that e/ case will be tehora mishum nida doraysa, and he’s not commenting on when she will be muteres ligamrei b/c in that he agrees w/ R’ Meir]
III. Discussion in Achronim

A. שו"ע 191:1-

1. מחבר: Quotes the רמ' straight up. No matter whether standing or sitting, tehora. And this is the sfardi psak. Always tehora.

2. רמ"א: quotes a number of opinions.

a. רא"ש- Need to have at least one teivusa. Sitting, or standing while miklachas (mezanekes) into the middle of the bowl.

b. ר"ח- Even sitting, only mutar if miklachas and find dam inside the safal. But standing, always assura, v’hachi nahug.

1. R’ Dovid Feinstein- Told R’ Simon he usually goes based on where the dam falls, but said usually won’t be a problem. Takes שו"ע k’pshuto (presumably still requires sitting and maznekes as well).

2. Sidrei Tahara 190:54- says we don’t know what’s called sfas hasafal, what’s inside the safal.

i. Badei haShulchan 190:19- Based on Sidrei Tahara, says in general have to be machmir. However, quotes from רע"א that when there are other tzdadim l’kula can be meikil and rely on that which is said in שו"ע.

3. R’ Abadie- Ikar haDin is really the מחבר, and רמ"א is being chosheish l’chumra. Im kein, if have another snif l’kula, can assume like the מחבר (i.e. she has been clean all day, seen no other dam, etc.)

4. R’ Willig, others- if hold like the Pupa Rav and Lechem Oni and assume water in toilet is not mikabel tuma, and assume like the ר"ח, that at worst only talking about a kesem, then can be meikil. B/c the whole case of the gm is talking about portable bedpan which would be mikabel tuma (Chaim A. asked R’ Willig the next day and he said he is kim’at always meikil in this shayla for this reason).

*R’ Hoffman (Baltimore) - b’makom tzorech would be meikil in water al tzad that not mikabel tuma.
Might have missed something.
C. Two other approaches l’kula in the achronim

1. Gm Nazir 63B- Safeik Tuma that is sitting on water is tahor.

a. Yeshuas Yaakov- This dam is safeik tuma b/c don’t know if its dam nida or dam maka, so should be tahor b/c sitting in water. (Simplified explanation, I don’t know the details of this svara).

**Question raised on him is that maybe this din is only by sheretz, it’s a gzhk. But ממ"נ this is another snif l’hakeil.

a. רמ' Avos haTuma 7:3- midirabanan mashkim can be mitamei a kli cheres even from the outside (usually only מק"ט inside).

b. ראב"ד is very upset, how can mashkim be mitamei more than a meis and sheretz can be mitamei?!

- Pri Deia: Gm 60B says b’feirush that if kesem falls on kli cheres on outside not mitamei, but רמ' holds that mashkim are mitamei kli cheres midirabanan. So see that at least the רמ' holds that in order to be mikabel ksamim needs to be mikabel tuma midoraysa, but even though mikabel tuma midirabanan not enough.

 Asked Shaarei Tahara, so then acc to the רמ' in our case since mei raglayim is only mikabel tuma midirabanan shouldn’t even be question, pashut that she’s tehora?

*R’ Simon thought pashut, b/c ר"ח is the one who held that our case is dealing with a kesem, the רמ' thought like rest of rishonim that we have chashash nida doraysa.

[Problem we are left with after this discussion: Connecting this discussion w/ our previous discussion of woman who wipes after mei raglayim, i.e. Putting together the sugyos on 57b and 59b.

I spoke w/ R’ Tuckman about this for a while and he explained to me how he wanted to connect the two sugyos. Basically as follows:

- When talk about machlokes R’ Yossi/R’ Meir have to understand what tzad in R’ Meir R’ Yossi is arguing w/. Pashtus is that R’ Meir is assuming that when the woman is doing anything other than standing and being maznekes that we assume that the dam we find is from the makor and is mitamei her miDoraysa b/c he assumes that the mei raglayim goes back and brings the dam and that there was a hargasha but she didn’t feel it. The question then is, which points is R’ Yossi arguing on: