לזכות הרה"ג ר' אליעזר זאב בן דבורה וכל בני ביתו
[Isn't it COOOOOL when I put French words (like "vis a vis") in the title of my posts?].
The ruling concerning ספק טומאה is that if the ספק was created in a רה"ר the ספק is טהור; if it originated in a רה"י then it is טמא even if there is a ספק ספיקא להתיר . Our גמרא is discussing the status of woman where מקצת שליא was expelled on day one, etc.; whether we count the ימי טומאה from day one. רש"י explains that this question is relevant if she touched טהרות on day one after the מקצת שליא was expelled; are these טהרות considered טמא or טהור. It appears from the גמרא that the status of the women depends if we maintain יש מקצת שליא בלא ולד, then she is טהורה (for it is a ספק ספיקא - one ספק if it came out at all. Another if the MAJORITY came out) or if we maintain אין מקצת שליא בלא ולד, then she is טמאה (for there is only one ספק - whether it came out all, and ספיקו לחומרא).
Tosfos takes issue with this discussion. Let us see the gemara and then the Tosfos:
מאי קמ"ל דאין מקצת שליא בלא ולד תנינא שליא שיצתה מקצתה אסורה באכילה סימן ולד באשה סימן ולד בבהמה
אי ממתני' הוה אמינא דיש מקצת שליא בלא ולד וגזירה מקצתה אטו כולה קמ"ל.
When a woman gives birth or miscarries a fetus she is thereby rendered ritually impure (see Leviticus 12:1–5). Even if she delivers only the afterbirth, with no discernible fetus, she is rendered ritually impure due to the possibility that the fetus was dissolved in the afterbirth, and it is therefore considered as though she delivered it (Nidda 24b). The length of the period of impurity depends on the sex of the child. In the case where it is unclear what the sex is, she must observe the longer period of fourteen days (Nidda 29a). At the end of that period she may purify herself by immersing in a ritual bath. And Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: If part of the afterbirth [shilya] emerged on the first day of a woman’s miscarriage and part of it emerged on the second day, one counts the period of ritual impurity from the first day.
Rava said to Ulla: What is the rationale for your opinion to begin counting from the first day? It would appear to be based on the following: Ritual impurity is engendered only once the woman has delivered the fetus. This is defined as the emergence of the majority of the fetus or its head. Since in this case the fetus is not discernible, one must consider the possibility that it had already emerged on the first day, and therefore one is required to act stringently and regard her as impure from the first day.
Rava questions the propriety of acting stringently in this case, as it is a stringency that results in a leniency, because if she begins counting from the first day, you will also render her fit to immerse and become pure from fourteen days after the first day. This is a leniency because it is possible that the majority of the fetus emerged only on the second day and therefore her period of impurity began only then. She will therefore remain impure until the fifteenth day.
Rather, Rava said: With regard to being concerned for the possibility that she is impure from the first day, she should be concerned. But with regard to counting the period of impurity, one counts only from the second day.
The Gemara asks: What is Ulla teaching us through this halakha? Does he mean to teach us that part of the afterbirth does not emerge without part of the fetus inside [and there is only one ספק - did MOST of the ולד come out. But if part of the afterbirth DOES emerge without part of the feuts inside then it is a ספק ספיקא. One ספק if it came out at all. Another if MOST came out]? But we already learned that in a mishna (Ḥullin 77a): When an animal is ritually slaughtered, the animal and everything inside it becomes permitted for consumption. This applies to an unborn fetus as well. If prior to the slaughter the majority of the fetus emerged, it is considered to have been born, and therefore the entire fetus, even the part that is still within its mother, is not rendered permitted for consumption by the slaughter. Accordingly, if part of the afterbirth emerged prior to the slaughter, it is prohibited to eat it, because an afterbirth is a sign of a fetus in a woman and a sign of a fetus in an animal.
The Gemara explains: If I would know this only from the mishna, I would say that there is a possibility that part of the afterbirth will emerge without part of the fetus inside, and the reason that the Sages forbid eating the afterbirth is due to a rabbinic decree prohibiting a case where part of an afterbirth emerges from the womb and part of it remains inside, due to the possibility that one may confuse it with a case where all of the afterbirth emerges. Therefore, Ulla teaches us that, in fact, part of the afterbirth does not emerge without part of the fetus inside.
Says Tosfos:
דאין מקצת שליא בלא ולד - וא"ת לר"א דאמר חוששין משום דאין מקצת שליא בלא ולד אבל אם היה מקצת שליא בלא ולד לא היתה חוששת, היכי דמי? אי ברה"ר אפי' בחד ספיקא מטהרי' ואי ברה"י אפי' בספק ספיקא נמי טמא דהא תנן (טהרות פ"ו מ"ד) כל ספיקות שאתה יכול להרבות ברה"י אפי' ספק ספיקא טמא וי"ל דשמעתין איירי לענין לאוסרה לבעלה:
And if you will say; according to ר"א who maintains that we are concerned that they may have been a birth on day one, since there is not (even) a partial discharge of the placenta without at least part of the fetus embedded in it. Therefore we are concerned that perhaps a majority of the fetus or the head of the fetus was embedded in this partial placenta. This would render this discharge a ‘birth’ and the woman would be טמאה לידה .
However if there could be a partial placenta without a fetus, the woman would not have to be concerned that there is a birth (and cause her טומאת לידה), since it is possible that there was no fetus at all, and at the most only a minor part of the fetus (which leaves her טהורה).
What case are we discussing; if the discharge was in a public domain then even if there is a single doubt we declare it טהור therefore even if אין מקצת שליא בלא ולד nevertheless the טהרות should remain טהור since there is (one) ספק if there is רוב ולד in this expelled שליא or not. The rule is that a ספק טומאה ברה"ר is ספיקו טהור. If the woman touched טהרות after the מקצת שליא was expelled those טהרות are טהור מספק.
And if the discharge was in a private domain then even if it is a ספק ספיקא if she is טמא; she is still טמא for we learned in a משנה in מסכת טהרות "all ספיקות that you can add on in a רה"י even if it a ספק ספיקא, the object in doubt is טמא".
So where is there a halachic distinction between the opinions of אין מקצת שליא בלא ולד and יש מקצת שליא בלא ולד? If it is reshus harabim it is טהור no matter what and in reshus hayachid it is טמא no matter what???
Answers Tosfos that our גמרא is discussing the status of the women, concerning whether she is forbidden to her husband on account of טומאת לידה; but we are not discussing whether the טהרות she touched are טמא or טהור. The status of the טהרות, indeed depends on where the ספק טומאה took place; ברה"ר or ברה"י as previously mentioned. However the concern of לאוסרה על בעלה is not a דין of ספק טהרות, but rather a דין of ספק איסור. In cases of ספק איסור it depends whether it is one ספק, then ספיקו לאיסור, or if it is a ספק ספיקא , and then it is ספיקו להיתר, regardless whether it is in the רה"ר or רה"י.
It emerges from Tosfos that there is a distinction between her איסור לבעלה and her דין טומאה. Her דין טומאה is determined by the domain - רשות הרבים or רשות היחיד. Her איסור לבעלה depends on whether there is one ספק and she is אסורה or if there are two ספקות and she is מותרת.
Asked Reb Elchonon [the real one from Baranovitch and not the fake one from Manhattan and the Old City]:
פרק החולץ יבמות מ"ז ע"ב בתוס' ד"ה במקום טבילת נדה לא כתב קרא בהדיא ופירוש רב יהודה גאון דנפקא לן בק"ו ממגעה דטעון טבילה היא עצמה לא כ"ש וקשה דהתינח לענין טהרות אבל אכתי לבעלה מנ"ל דצריכה טבילה וצ"ל דא"א שתהא נדה חצאי לטהרות ולא לבעלה וכיון דלענין טהרות טמאה אסורה גם לבעלה.
The Torah never explicitly says that a niddah must go to mikva. It just says that if she touches something it becomes impure and must be immersed in a mikva. So what is the source that SHE must go to mikva? Rav Yehudai Gaon says that the source is a kal vachomer. If what she touches must be immersed - then she CERTAINLY must be. But that only gives us a source about tumah and tahara, so how do we know that she must go to mikva to be with her husband?? We have to say that if she must immerse for taharos then she also must immerse for her husband [איסור]. If she is a niddah then she is one for both דיני טומאה AND איסור לבעלה.
Asked Reb Elchonon: This contradicts our Tosfos who says that there is a distinction between דין טומאה and איסור לבעלה!?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
PLEASE FLLOOOOOOD MY EMAIL BOX WITH TERUTZIM!!!!
PLEASE FLLOOOOOOD MY EMAIL BOX WITH TERUTZIM!!!!
