QUESTION: The Mishnah states that the daughters of Kusim are deemed to have a status of Nidos from birth. The Gemara quotes Rav Sheshes who explains that the Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Meir maintains that we are "Chayish l'Mi'uta" -- we must be concerned for the minority in the case of a Safek and we do not follow the majority. Since it is possible that even a one-day-old girl could see Dam Nidah, we must suspect that all Benos Kusim are Nidos and treat them accordingly (for example, we may not let them touch Taharos).

The Gemara asks that even according to Rebbi Meir, Benos Kusim should not have the status of Nidah, because Rebbi Meir himself maintains that we take into account the minority only when it is a common minority, but not when it is an unlikely possibility. The Gemara answers that this in fact was a common occurrence, and it proceeds to record three incidents in which a baby girl was immersed into a Mikvah before the mother was able to become Tahor from the birth.

TOSFOS (DH v'Hitbiluha) asks that these incidents do not seem to prove the Gemara's point. Perhaps the reason why the infant was dipped in the Mikvah was not because she experienced a flow of blood, but because she was Tamei with Tum'as Maga as a result of contact with her mother during birth! How does the Gemara know that the infant was dipped in the Mikvah because she was a Nidah?

(a) TOSFOS answers that it is clear that the Gemara records these incidents because something out of the ordinary occurred. The Gemara would not mention that an infant was immersed in a Mikvah simply because of contact with her mother who was a Nidah. It must be that the babies in these cases had experienced a flow of blood.

(b) The TOSFEI HA'ROSH first answers, like Tosfos, that all babies would be immersed in the Mikvah for contact with a Nidah, and thus the Gemara is not referring to such cases. He then counters that immersing a baby because of Maga Nidah is odd, because immediately after being put in the Mikvah the baby will be given back to the mother to nurse and will become Tamei with Maga Nidah again! It must be that babies are not immersed because of Maga Nidah, and thus in each of the incidents that the Gemara records the baby must have been Tamei with Tum'as Nidah herself.

(c) The RASHBA and RITVA also give the answer of Tosfos, but they suggest another reason for why there is no reason to immerse a baby in the Mikvah because of Maga Nidah.

The Ritva explains that the Tum'ah of Maga Nidah is only a Rishon l'Tum'ah. Consequently, one who touches the baby would not become Tamei in a manner that would make Terumah become Pasul if he touches it. We also are not concerned that the infant might touch Terumah, since no baby grabs food at such an early age (one to two weeks old). The Rashba adds that it is uncommon for a baby to need to be immersed in order to eat Terumah, because infants do not eat solid foods at this age. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Gemara derives from the letter "Vav" in the word "v'Ishah" (Vayikra 15:18) written with regard to Tum'as Be'ilah that a man who has a discharge of red Shichvas Zera is not Tamei with Tum'as Keri. Similarly, the Gemara derives from the "Vav" in the word "v'Ish" (Vayikra 15:16) written with regard to Tum'as Keri that a woman who has a white discharge is not Tamei with Tum'as Nidah.

Why does the Gemara here interpret the extra "Vav" to be limiting the application of the law in the verse? Normally, an extra "Vav" broadens the application of the law in the verse. (TOSFOS DH li'Me'utei)

(a) TOSFOS says in the name of RASHI that although an extra "Vav" is usually understood to broaden the application of the law in the verse, in the cases here the Gemara was unable to find anything to include in the law of the verse that is not already mentioned in the verses. Therefore, the Gemara understood that the extra "Vav" must be limiting the application of the law.

(b) The KORBAN AHARON (on the Toras Kohanim) explains that, normally, the letter "Vav" is interpreted as broadening the meaning of a verse because the word to which it is appended adds some detail to the verse. Just as the word itself broadens the meaning of the verse, the "Vav" that precedes it broadens the meaning of the verse. In the cases of the Gemara here, however, the word to which the "Vav" is appended is "Ish" or "Ishah"; these words are written in order to limit the meaning of the verse to an adult and to exclude a child from the laws discussed in the verses. (Although a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that the laws of these verses apply to three-year-old girls and nine-year-old boys, this is not the straightforward meaning of the verse.) In such a case, where the word itself is limiting the application of the law in the verse, the "Vav" that precedes it broadens the limitation and adds a further limitation. (See CHOCHMAS BETZALEL.)