נדה סא, ב

נדה סא, ב

נושאים הלכות תעניות פ"ההלכות איסורי ביאה פ"טהלכות כלאים פ"יהלכות מטמאי משכב ומושב פ"ד

1. א
   בּוֹדְקוֹ שְׁכוּנוֹת שְׁכוּנוֹת.
   He examines it section by section, as by examining each part of the garment separately he will discover any remaining blood stain.
2. ב
   אָבְדָה בּוֹ שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, חָדָשׁ — בּוֹדְקוֹ בְּמַחַט, שָׁחוּק — בּוֹדְקוֹ בַּחַמָּה. תָּנָא: אֵין ״שְׁכוּנָה״ פְּחוּתָה מִשְּׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת.
   In the case of a garment in which a seminal emission, which is also ritually impure, was lost, i.e., it is not known where on the garment the semen is, if the garment is new, one examines it by sticking a needle into every part of it. In this manner he will feel if the semen is in the garment. If the garment is worn out, one examines it by holding it up to the sun, as the sun’s rays will not pass through the stained part of the garment. It was taught in a baraita: The section mentioned need not be less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths in area.
3. ג 10
   תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֶּגֶד שֶׁאָבַד בּוֹ כִּלְאַיִם — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לְגוֹי, וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ מַרְדַּעַת לַחֲמוֹר, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה מִמֶּנּוּ תַּכְרִיכִין לְמֵת. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת — מִצְוֹת בְּטֵלוֹת לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא.
   The Gemara cites another case of a garment in which something was lost. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a garment in which diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, was lost, i.e., it is a wool garment into which a linen thread was sewn or vice versa and it is not known where on the garment the thread is located, one may not sell it to a gentile and one may not even fashion it into a saddlecloth for a donkey. This is prohibited lest one remove a piece of the garment and sew it onto his own clothing. But one may fashion it into a shroud for a corpse, as there is no concern that one might remove it from the dead. Rav Yosef said: That is to say that the mitzvot will be nullified in the future. If this were not the case, then when the dead are resurrected they will be deriving benefit from the garment of diverse kinds in which they were buried.
4. ד
   אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, וְאִי תֵימָא רַב דִּימִי: וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי אֲמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי, לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְסׇפְדוֹ, אֲבָל לְקוֹבְרוֹ אָסוּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ לְקוֹבְרוֹ.
   Abaye said to Rav Yosef, and some say that Rav Dimi said to Rav Yosef: But didn’t Rabbi Mani say that Rabbi Yannai said: They taught that it is permitted to place a corpse in a shroud of diverse kinds only in order to eulogize him, but it is prohibited to bury him in a shroud of diverse kinds? Rav Yosef said to him: Wasn’t it stated with regard to that matter that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is even permitted to bury him in a shroud of diverse kinds?
5. ה 3
   וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי דִכְתִיב ״בַּמֵּתִים חׇפְשִׁי״? כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּת אָדָם נַעֲשָׂה חׇפְשִׁי מִן הַמִּצְוֹת.
   And Rabbi Yoḥanan conforms to his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Set apart [ḥofshi] among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, whom You remember no more” (Psalms 88:6)? Once a person dies, he becomes free [ḥofshi] from the mitzvot.
6. ו
   אָמַר רַפְרָם בַּר פָּפָּא, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בֶּגֶד שֶׁאָבַד בּוֹ כִּלְאַיִם — צוֹבְעוֹ, וּמוּתָּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַפְרָם בַּר פָּפָּא: מְנָא לֵיהּ לְסָבָא הָא?
   § Rafram bar Pappa says that Rav Ḥisda says: With regard to a garment in which diverse kinds was lost, one may dye it, and it is permitted to wear the garment, as wool and linen absorb dye differently, and therefore it will be easy to notice the location of the other kind of thread and remove it. Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: From where does the Elder, i.e., Rav Ḥisda, derive this halakha?
7. ז
   אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַתְנִיתִין הִיא, דִּתְנַן: בּוֹדֵק עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְסֶלַע, וְאִי לֵיכָּא — אֵימַר עוֹרֵב נְטָלָהּ. הָכִי נָמֵי: עַמְרָא וְכִיתָּנָא בַּהֲדָדֵי לָא סָלֵיק לְהוּ צִבְעָא, וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא יְדִיעַ — אֵימַר מִנְתָּר נְתַר.
   Rafram bar Pappa said to him: It is derived from the mishna, as we learned: With regard to a pile of stones that was known to have an item of ritual impurity buried beneath it, one continues searching beneath each of these piles until he reaches bedrock. And if the impure item is not there, i.e., if he found nothing, one can say that a raven or some other animal took it. So too here, wool and flax, i.e., linen, do not absorb the dye in the same manner. And since he dyed the garment and he does not know of any mixture of linen and wool within it, as the entire garment absorbed the dye in the same way, one must say that that thread has fallen out, and therefore it is permitted to wear the garment.
8. ח
   אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יֵיבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָר זוּטְרָא: הַאי מַאן דִּרְמֵי חוּטָא דְּכִיתָּנָא בִּגְלִימָיה דְּעַמְרָא וְנַתְּקֵיהּ, וְלָא יָדַע אִי נְתִיק אִי לָא נְתִיק — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
   Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yeiva, said in the name of Mar Zutra: In a case of one who put a thread of flax in a cloak of wool and it fell out, but he does not know whether it all fell out or whether it did not all fall out, it is permitted to wear the cloak.
9. ט 18
   מַאי טַעְמָא? מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא ״שַׁעַטְנֵז״ כְּתִיב — עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שׁוּעַ, טְוִוי, וְנוּז. וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ בֵּיהּ, וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא יָדַע אִי נַתְּקֵיהּ — שְׁרֵי.
   The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the halakha is lenient in this case of uncertainty? By Torah law, it is written: “Diverse kinds [sha’atnez]” (Deuteronomy 22:11), and this is interpreted as an acronym indicating that the halakha of diverse kinds does not apply unless the item is combed smooth [shua], spun [tavui] as a thread, and woven [nuz]. Without these characteristics, the combination is not considered diverse kinds by Torah law. And it is the Sages who decreed that diverse kinds that are merely attached to each other are prohibited, despite the fact that they are not combed and spun together. And in this case, since he does not know if it all fell out it is permitted, as the halakha is lenient with regard to uncertainties involving prohibitions that are by rabbinic law.
10. י 1
    מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אֵימַר אוֹ שׁוּעַ אוֹ טְוִוי אוֹ נוּז! וְהִלְכְתָא כְּמָר זוּטְרָא, מִדְּאַפְּקִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא בַּחֲדָא לִישָּׁנָא.
    Rav Ashi objects to this leniency. One can say that by Torah law it is prohibited if the linen and wool are either combed, or spun, or woven. Perhaps the word sha’atnez does not limit the prohibition to a combination of all three activities, but to any one of them. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Mar Zutra, from the fact that the Merciful One expresses the prohibition in the Torah in one word, sha’atnez. Therefore, the term means all three characteristics together.
11. יא
    תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֶּגֶד צָבוּעַ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם. רַבִּי נָתָן בַּר יוֹסֵף אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם, שֶׁלֹּא תִּקְּנוּ בִּגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין לְאִשָּׁה אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עַל כִּתְמֵיהֶן.
    § The Sages taught in a baraita: A colored garment renders a woman impure due to blood stains if she sees a blood stain on it. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: If she sees a blood stain on the colored garment she is not impure due to a blood stain, as the Sages enacted that women wear colored garments, and this decree was made only in order to be lenient with regard to their blood stains, i.e., so that they do not become impure.
12. יב
    תִּקְּנוּ? מַאי תַּקְּנִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא, שֶׁלֹּא הוּתְּרוּ בִּגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין לְאִשָּׁה אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עַל כִּתְמֵיהֶן. ״הוּתְּרוּ״ — מִכְּלָל דַּאֲסִירִי!
    The Gemara questions Rabbi Natan bar Yosef’s use of the word: Enacted. The Sages enacted? What was their enactment? Rather, Rabbi Natan bar Yosef said the reason that the Sages permitted colored garments to women was only in order to be lenient with regard to her blood stains. The Gemara raises an objection: From the statement that the Sages permitted colored garments one can conclude by inference they were previously prohibited. But was there a time when it was not permitted for women to wear colored garments?
13. יג
    אִין, דִּתְנַן: בַּפּוּלְמוּס שֶׁל אַסְפַּסְיָנוּס גָּזְרוּ עַל עַטְרוֹת חֲתָנִים וְעַל הָאִירוּס, בִּקְּשׁוּ לִגְזוֹר עַל בִּגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין. אָמְרִי: הָא עֲדִיפָא, כְּדֵי לְהָקֵל עַל כִּתְמֵיהֶן.
    The Gemara answers: Yes, as we learned in a mishna (Sota 49a): In the war [bapulmus] of Vespasian they decreed upon the crowns of bridegrooms, i.e., that bridegrooms may no longer wear crowns, and upon the drum [ha’irus], i.e., they also banned the playing of drums. They also sought to decree with regard to colored garments, i.e., that women may not wear such garments, but they said: This is preferable, that women should wear colored garments, in order to be lenient with regard to their blood stains, as a blood stain found on a colored garment does not render a woman ritually impure.
14. יד
    מַתְנִי' שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַכֶּתֶם: רוֹק תָּפֵל, וּמֵי גְרִיסִין, וּמֵי רַגְלַיִם, וְנֶתֶר, וּבוֹרִית,
    MISHNA: There are seven substances that one applies to the stain on a garment to ascertain whether it is a blood stain or a dye, as these seven substances remove the blood. They are: Tasteless saliva, and liquid from split beans, and urine, and natron, and borit,