Nida Thoughts

Nida Notes

מס' נדה- a ולד is seen as being equivalent to דם נדה . One is just another form of the other. Consider:
1)כל אשה שדמיה מרובין, בניה מרובין (סוף פרק ט') - more blood, more children. less blood, less children
2) a יולדת is literally equated in the פסוק to be like a נדה . Even when sitting 14 days for a girl the פסוק still says כנדתה, whereas by the 7 days of a מצורע מוסגר that comparison is never made (even though the דיני טומאה are the same, as far as I know). So in a sense it comes out almost parallel: you sit 7 days of טומאה for a ולד, 7 days for דם
3) (this “proof” is a little bit complicated but follow me here.)-- both a ולד and נדה דם have value on an existential level ( בבחינת הויה) i.e. their very existing in this world makes them significant regardless of how little impact we see them having on their external environment (בחינת חיים).
First let’s show this by ולד and then by דם נדה.(See נדה 5:2? ) I ask you what difference is there between a fully formed baby one second before it sticks out its head [which is the halachic threshhold for defining a לידה] and the second after it sticks out its head. Yet the Torah sees one as killing an object and one as killing a בן קיימא .
Furthermore, the Torah says you should do ייבום for a man who has died and בן אין לו, yet if a man had a son born to him for even a second and then that son dies (where he dies as a result of something external killing him בר קיימא vs. לאו בר קיימא) there is no longer any mitzva to do yibum! This is called “בן יש לו”.
Life is meaningful because it exists .
מאי חזית דדמך דידך סומק טפי דילמא דמא דההוא גברא סומק טפי
Who says your existence is worth more than hers. Who says your blood [דם] is worth more than hers?
See Sotah by Amram and Miriam where it implies that the birth of a child by definition allows for an עוה"ב whereas he wouldn’t if he were never born So we see that a ולד’s value is existential in nature.

Now דם נדה.(עיין מס' נדה ריש פרק ז') With exception of דם נדה ( including דם זבה ויולדת see Rambam perek 3 Hl’ mishkav u’moshav ) and בשר מת all other טומאות are only מטמא as long as they are moist. Once they’ve dried up to “the point of no return” (see גמ' שם) they are no longerטמא . This includes שרץ, נבלה, ש"ז, וכו' . Yet דם נדה is מטמא even then. Why, says the גמ'? because it exists and the פסוק says דם יהיה זובה בבשרה , so long as it exists it is טמא even where it lacks any moistness allowing it to impact on things around it. (although I should be honest and point out, as mentioned above, that this halacha isn’t only by דם נדה but by dam zava and yoledet also. Maybe that ruins what I’m saying, maybe not, I’m not sure).

[Maybe that’s also the reason for בשר מת being מטמא when it’s dried up, although the source in the torah that the גמ' brings doesn’t harp on any הויה language. Keep in mind also that there are other connections of נדה to טומאת אדם including it’s purification process of הזאת מי נדה.]
4)(מס' סוטה) אדם - אפר דם מרה אדם-


--the relationship of לידה to death and burial, both being a transition of worlds or “states of existence” if you will. The “seeding” of the woman and her giving forth those seeds [תזריע] similar to the seeding of the body in the ground and its coming up for תחית המתים. Note the גמ' (Sanhedrin Perek Chelek I vaguely remember) learning that people will get up from תחית המתים clothed similar to grain, and the קל וחומר of תחית המתים because מה ולד שנכנס בחשאי יוצא בקולי קולות זה שנכנס בקולי קולות כל שכן שיצא בקולי קולות . [1]

The גמ' (ל:) also connects these two events in the pasuk (ישיעיהו מה') כי לי תכרע כל ברך תשבע כל לשון .כל ברך- זה יום המיתה זה יום הלידה- תשבע כל לשון

Don’t forget the famous משל (I don’t know where the source is though) of the twin babies in their mother’s stomach and the one baby “mourning” over his brother who just “died” by being born.

[1] I’m a little bothered though about a גמ' (ע:) towards the end of the מס'. The גמ' says that the אנשי אלכסנדריא asked R’ Yehoshua ben Chananya 3 foolish questions. One of them was “Would people who got up for תחית המתים require sprinkling to purify their tumah?” to which he answered them “we’ll find out when mashiach comes”. Yet the גמ' earlier in the מס' mentioned this concept by showing the amazing quality of hashem to bring something tahor ( a child) of something tameh (the דם נדה and sperm). We note there the paradox so why is it so foolish to ask whether the same paradox will occur in the future for תחית המתים?