2092 —ביאור תוספות והרש"ש בדיני נדה וזבה

[Chodesh HaGeulah 5713]

What you questioned in your last letter regarding the conclusion in Nidah (42a) that it is like one who sees, from Tosefta Zavim chapter 3, according to the Gra's explanation in Zavah—if it is not her type, it does not invalidate, so it would be like touching—I did not understand your question. In the Gemara, it discusses a woman who emits semen that she received, and in the Tosefta—it refers to seeing something that is not her type, for even the impurity of touching does not apply here, as a woman does not become impure from white discharge.

b) What you further questioned there—regarding Rashash on Zavim chapter 4 mishnah 6, who explains in the above Tosefta that "not his type invalidates" refers to a Zav who saw etc., that only one day is invalidated, unlike a Zavah who invalidates seven days. Thus, this is a stringency for Zavah but not for Zav. However, even regarding the law itself there is room to question: since it is a scriptural decree that only complete Zivah invalidates all seven days and not when mixed, so too for a Zavah the law should be that if she sees white during her Zivah days—even though it's impossible without some Zivah—she should only invalidate one day (see Nidah 22a and Tosafos there). Further clarification is needed according to this explanation—it should have said "not his type mixed invalidates." Also, apparently there are difficulties with what Rashash writes about the second explanation—what are they?

To resolve all these comments above—and since in any case one must say that Rashash on this Mishnah was printed incorrectly, because between the words "woman seeing" several words are missing as is evident—perhaps we can say another printing error occurred: instead of "and this explanation," it should read "and this first explanation is not possible"—and all of the above is resolved. As for why Tosafos commentators copied only the first explanation and not the second—this is understandable; they did not notice all these comments.

1 See Rabbi Sh.D.B. Levi's note (editor of Igros) about which month Chodesh HaGeulah refers to; however, I already noted in a letter from 1953 that they entered it under Kislev when it actually belongs to Nissan, and generally if just Chodesh HaGeulah is written it refers to Nissan.

Summary

This letter demonstrates careful analysis of halachic texts and highlights how textual variants or printing errors can impact understanding. The Rebbe teaches us to approach Torah study with precision and humility when resolving complex issues.