OPINIONS: The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Eliezer who says that four types of women are considered to have the status of Dayah Sha'atah: a young girl, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, and an elderly woman. The Mishnah (7b) says that a woman is considered pregnant with regard to this Halachah "when her pregnancy is known." The Gemara (8b) asks, at what point is her pregnancy considered to be known? Sumchus says that this is when she is three months pregnant.

What is the intention of Sumchus? Does he mean that a pregnant woman can have the status of Dayah Sha'atah only at three months into her pregnancy, or does he mean that she has the status of Dayah Sha'atah at three months because this is when her pregnancy is usually known, but if it would be known earlier, then she would have the status of Dayah Sha'atah earlier?

The intent of Sumchus seems to be evident from the words of the Gemara later (9a). Rebbi Yirmeyah asked Rebbi Zeira a question about a woman who sees Dam Nidah and soon after is noticeably pregnant. Since she is now known to be pregnant, is she given the status of Dayah Sha'atah from the time she saw Dam Nidah, or does she maintain the status of an ordinary woman from the time she saw Dam Nidah (and any Taharos she handled within the last twenty-four hours of finding Dam Nidah are Tamei), since she was not noticeably pregnant at the time that she saw Dam?

Rebbi Zeira answered that the reason why a pregnant woman's status is Dayah Sha'atah is that her head and limbs are heavy (which makes her "Mesulekes Damim"). Before she is pregnant (or noticeably pregnant), her limbs are not heavy, and therefore at that time she is considered like ordinary women who are suspected to have been Tamei even before they actually saw Dam.

Rebbi Zeira's response implies that the status of Dayah Sha'atah of a pregnant woman is not a matter of knowing when she is pregnant, but rather it depends on the physiology of a woman's body at three months of pregnancy. Accordingly, even if it is known before three months that she is pregnant, her status would not be Dayah Sha'atah. Is this indeed the Halachic conclusion?

(a) RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt'l in IGROS MOSHE (YD 3:52) writes that although this is the Gemara's conclusion, and the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 189:33) rules this way, it is apparent that "Nishtanah ha'Teva" -- "the nature has changed." Apparently, in the times of the Gemara women occasionally saw Dam Nidah for up to three months into their pregnancies. For the last several hundred years, however, we have observed that a woman no longer sees Dam Nidah as soon as she becomes pregnant. He quotes the BACH who ruled that a woman who was suspected of bearing a child to a man who was not her husband was innocent of this charge, because she clearly saw Dam Nidah during the time that she was accused of being pregnant from the other man.

Since the nature of women has changed, the Igros Moshe rules that one may rely on a pregnancy test or an internal medical examination to establish a Halachic status of being pregnant even before three months.

(b) The Igros Moshe explicitly argues with the ruling of REBBI AKIVA EIGER (#128), whom he quotes at the end of his responsum. Although Rebbi Akiva Eiger also acknowledged this change in the nature of women, he upheld the aforementioned ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (YD 189:33). The NISHMAS AVRAHAM (YD 189:33) quotes the Igros Moshe as saying that Rebbi Akiva Eiger used this logic in his responsum only in order to be lenient. There is no conclusive proof that he would have used the same logic to be stringent and say that one cannot rely on a pregnancy test.

However, it seems that many Acharonim dispute the ruling of the Igros Moshe, including the AVNEI NEZER (YD 238:3) and the SIDREI TAHARAH (YD 194:7). The SHEVET HA'LEVI (3:14), CHUT HA'SHANI (189:17), BADEI HA'SHULCHAN (184:39), and MACHAZEH ELIYAHU (#105) are also stringent in this matter. (Y. MONTROSE)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Eliezer who says that four types of women are considered to have the status of Dayah Sha'atah: a young girl, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, and an elderly woman. Rebbi Yehoshua says that he heard only that this Halachah applies to a young girl, unlike the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. However, he said, the Halachah follows Rebbi Eliezer.

The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which explains this argument. At the time of this argument, the commonly-accepted Halachic ruling followed the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua, that the status of Dayah Sha'atah applies only to a young girl. After Rebbi Eliezer died, Rebbi Yehoshua himself instituted that the people may now follow the lenient opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. What was the reason for this change in Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling? The Beraisa explains that Rebbi Eliezer was a "Shamuti." Rebbi Yehoshua therefore reasoned that if we would follow a ruling of Rebbi Eliezer, people would start following him in other cases as well. Since Rebbi Eliezer was a great scholar, it would be wrong to criticize the people for following him, for this would be insulting to Rebbi Eliezer. After Rebbi Eliezer died, however, there was no longer any concern that the people might follow his rulings. Even if they would attempt to do so, the Chachamim could rebuke the people and enforce the Halachah without offending Rebbi Eliezer.

What does the Beraisa mean when it says that Rebbi Eliezer was a "Shamuti"?

(a) RASHI (DH Shamuti) explains that this refers to the famous incident recorded in Bava Metzia (59b). The Gemara there relates that Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim argued about a certain Halachic issue, and he would not bow to the rule of the majority. In order to show that his ruling was incorrect and to penalize him for not consenting to the majority view, the Chachamim took the Taharos which he ruled were permitted, burned them, and declared him to be in "Shamta" (a type of excommunication). This is what the Gemara means when it says that Rebbi Eliezer was a "Shamuti."

Accordingly, as the Beraisa here relates, the Chachamim did not want Rebbi Eliezer's leniencies to be used because this would lead people back to accepting his authority. Rebbi Yehoshua allowed the ruling to be used only after Rebbi Eliezer had died.

TOSFOS (DH Shamuti) argues that the Gemara would not call Rebbi Eliezer a "Shamuti" to indicate that he was excommunicated. The Gemara in Bava Metzia itself does not mention the word "Shamta" (it is mentioned there only by Rashi), but rather it says that they were "Mevarech" him. This words seems to be a euphemism for excommunication, since the Gemara would not use a derogatory word about such a great Talmid Chacham. How, then, could the Gemara here refer to him with this derogatory title? While it could be that Tosfos understands that "Mevarech" is not the equivalent of "Shamta," the MAHARI SHAPIRA explains that Tosfos agrees with Rashi that Rebbi Eliezer was put into "Shamta," as the Gemara explicitly states in Berachos (19a). Tosfos argues only that this cannot be the definition of the word "Shamuti."

The RAVYAH (quoted in the margin of Tosfos) asks that the Gemara in Sanhedrin (68a) relates an incident in which it mentions that Rebbi Eliezer was wearing Tefilin. The Gemara in Moed Katan (15a) asks whether one who is excommunicated is allowed to wear Tefilin, and it does not resolve the question ("Teiku"). If Rebbi Eliezer wore Tefilin and he was excommunicated, then the Gemara in Moed Katan should prove from Rebbi Eliezer that one who is excommunicated may wear Tefilin! It must be that he was not excommunicated. One cannot suggest that Rebbi Eliezer was excommunicated but he disregarded the excommunication, because the Gemara relates that Rebbi Eliezer removed his shoes when he heard the proclamation of his colleagues. The Ravyah seems to understand that Rebbi Eliezer was not actually excommunicated, and therefore he rejects the explanation of Rashi. How, though, does he understand the Gemara in Berachos (19a) which clearly implies that Rebbi Eliezer was excommunicated? (For answers to the question of the Ravyah, see TESHUVOS RIVASH #173 and the Mahari Shapira on Rashi here.)

(b) Tosfos quotes RABEINU TAM, the RASHBAM, and REBBI MAKIR (end of Tosfos) who explain that "Shamuti" means that he was from the House of Shamai. Rebbi Yehoshua did not want people to rule like Rebbi Eliezer, who followed the rulings of Beis Shamai, after it had already been decided that the Halachah should follow Beis Hillel. If they would accept this one ruling, they might follow other rulings of Beis Shamai as well. Only after Rebbi Eliezer died was there little suspicion that the people would follow his rulings. Even if they would attempt to follow his rulings, they could now be rebuked without offending Rebbi Eliezer. (Y. MONTROSE)