Igrot Kodesh · Letter 2092 — Grief & Loss

[Month of redemption[1] 5713]

A) You ask me, in your most recent letter, about the conclusion of tractate Niddah 42a, that "she is regarded as having had an impure discharge."[2] You cite, indeed, the Tosefta of tractate Zavim, at the beginning of the third chapter, according to which, following the interpretation of the Vilna Gaon*, this woman does not invalidate the count she has made, since the fluid does not emanate from her. She must therefore be regarded as having touched this fluid.

I do not understand your question. Indeed, tractate Niddah speaks of a woman who discharges the seminal fluid she received, whereas, according to the Tosefta, it is a matter of one who loses a fluid not emanating from her, which can confer upon her only the impurity contracted by touching it, since the white fluid[3] does not render her impure.

B) You ask me, in the same letter, about the commentary of the Rash, on tractate Zavim, chapter 4, Mishnah 6. The same Tosefta says that the loss of a fluid emanating from a person does not invalidate his own count.[4] It is a matter, in this case, of a man afflicted with impure discharges, which annul, in such a case, only one day of his count, whereas a woman finding herself in the same situation annuls seven of them. From this standpoint, the status of the woman is more stringent than that of the man.

In fact, one may question the very principle of this halachah*. Indeed, according to a decision of the Torah*, the seven days of count are annulled when there are only impure discharges, but not when these are accompanied also by discharges of another type. The same should therefore apply to a woman.

If this woman loses white fluid during her period of discharge, she will annul only one day of her count, although one cannot avoid the loss of droplets of this discharge. You will consult, on this subject, tractate Niddah 22a and the Tosafos*, at the same reference.

Another question also arises, according to this interpretation. Why not specify that the fluid emanating from a person which does not invalidate the count may also be mixed?

One may also question the assertion of the Rash that several objections may be raised against the second explanation. What are they?

To answer all these questions, one must say that the text of the Rash, commenting on this Mishnah*, is not exact, and that several words are missing in it, which should follow the phrase "the woman who had a discharge." Perhaps it is possible to say that there is here another printing error, and that in place of "this commentary is inconceivable," one must read "the first commentary is inconceivable," which makes it possible to answer all these questions.

The commentators on Tosafos* reproduce the first commentary and not the second. All the more so have they not raised all the objections previously set forth.

Notes

[1] It was not possible to determine whether this expression designates the month of Nissan, as in letter no. 2083, or that of Kislev, as in letters nos. 1952 and 1953.

[2] It is a matter of a woman who discharges seminal fluid. She is regarded as impure for having had a discharge and not for having touched this seminal fluid.

[3] Emanating from the man.

[4] Of the number of days needed to become purified.

ב'צב

[חדש הגאולה תשי " ג ]

מה שהקשה במכתבו האחרון על המסקנא בנדה (מב, א) דהוי כרואה מתוספתא זבים רפ"ג, דלפי פי' הגר"א בזבה אין מינה אין סותרה וא"כ הוי כנוגעת - לא הבנתי קושיתו, דבש"ס איירי בפולטת ש"ז שקבלה ובתוספתא - ברואה אינה מינה, דאפילו טומאה דנוגעת אין עי"ז, דאין האשה מטמאה בלובן.

ב) מה שהקשה במכתבו שם - בר"ש זבים פ"ד מ"ו, דמפרש בתוספתא הנ"ל דאין מינו סותרו היינו זב שראה כו' שאין סותר אלא יום א' משא"כ בזבה דסותרת ז', דא"כ ה"ז חומר בזבה ולא בזב.

הנה גם בעצם הדין יש להקשות, דכיוון דגזה"כ הוא דדוקא זיבה גמורה סותרת כל ז' ולא כשהיא מעורבת, א"כ גם בזבה צ"ל הדין כן, דאם תראה לובן בימי זובה הרי אף שא"א בלא צחצוחי זיבה, לא תסתור אלא יום א' (ראה נדה כב, א ובתוס' שם).

עוד צע"ק לפי' זה - דהול"ל אין מינו מעורב סותר.

גם לכאורה צ"ע, מש"כ הר"ש דעל פי' הב' יש כמה קושיות - מה הן.

ולישב כל הערות הנ"ל, ובאשר בלא"ה מוכרח לומר דהר"ש במשנה זו נדפס בלתי מתוקן, כי בין התיבות "אשה בראי'" חסרות כמה תיבות כמובן. אולי אפ"ל, דנפל בדפוס עוד טעות ובמקום "ופי' זה " צ"ל "ופי' הא ' לא יתכן" - ומיושב כל הנ"ל. ומה שמפרשי התוס' העתיקו פי' הא' ולא הב' - הנה קלבד"מ, שלא הרגישו בכל הערות הנ"ל.

ב'צב
נדפסה בלקו"ש חי"ז ע' 475.

חודש הגאולה: לא נתברר אם הכוונה לחודש ניסן - כדלעיל אגרת ב'פג, או לחדש כסלו - כדלעיל אגרות א'תתקנה-ג.