Shalom. on 60A of niddah is says that that everyone agrees that we are toleh a tahor b' taloy. However this does not shtim with 60B beacause there Rav Yehuda amar Rav says that only when the ba'al is chayav a chatas, and not an asham taloy, are we toleh, meaning that we are not toleh a tahor in a taloy
simcha cohen
The Gemara 60a does not say that everyone agrees that we are toleh a tahor b'taloy. It says that everyone agrees that we are toleh tamei b'taloy.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Follow-up reply:
1) Also, it is in fact Rav Oshaya, not Rav Yehuda Amar Rav, who said on 60b that when the husband is liable for a chatas, the wife is toleh.
2) However the scenario discussed on 60a is not the same as the scenario of 60b. In 60a we discuss 2 paths; one of which is tamei (presumably because there is a grave there) and the other is pure. There are 2 people; one is pure, whilst the other is not sure if he is tahor or tamei, so he is called a toluy. We rely on saying that the pure person walked on the pure path, whilst the toluy person walked on the tamei path.
3) On 60b the case is where a woman had bleeding shortly after having relations with her husband; or alternatively had bleeding shortly after touching pure food. Rav Oshaya said that even if the bleeding occured so soon after the biyah that the husband is chayav chatas; because it is considered certain that he transgressed the Nidah proihibiton; nevertheless the pure food that she touched will still reamin tahor.
Dovid Bloom
thank you. however the hagaos vetziunim changes the girsa acc. to many rishonim that a tahur is toleh in a tamei. rav yehuda amar rav explains the mishna that a tahur is only toleh in a tamei, however a tahur is not toleh in a taloy. also, even though 60A is talking about tumah on paths, and 60B is talking about nida, the gemara earlier on 60A compares the two. rav yehuda amar rav is in conflict withr'yosie br' chanina
The girsa that hagaos vetziunim cites is "toleh tahur betaloy"; not "toleh tahor betamei".
Yasher Koach
Dovid Bloom
Follow-up reply:
Rav Yehudah Amar Rav says that if the husband brings an asham taluy, the wife's pure food is taluy. It would therefore seem more appropriate to say that a taloy is toleh in a taloy.
Best wishes
Dovid Bloom
Correct, i made a typo. Thank you. the girsa says that a tahor is toleh in a taloy. However the question remains that rav yehuda amar rav explains the mishna that a tahur is only toleh in a tamei, however a tahur is not toleh in a taloy. also, even though 60A is talking about tumah on paths, and 60B is talking about nida, the gemara earlier on 60A compares the two. rav yehuda amar rav is in conflict withr'yosie br' chanina
I could not find where, on 60A, the Gemara compares the tumah on the paths with the din of Rav Yehuda Amar Rav, who discusses how soon after touching the food must she find herself bleeding, in order for us to say that the blood is definitely from her, and not from one of the other 2 ladies sleeping in the bed.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
the gemara earlier on 60A compares tumah on paths with the din of nida
1) Rav Yehuda Amar Rav is discussing a very different issue than that of Rabbi Yosi beRabbi Chanina. Rav Yehuda Amar Rav relates to the Mishnah which talks about 3 women sleeping in the same bed where blood was found. If one of them checked herself and found that she had bled, we may rely on this and say that she is tamei and her 2 friends are tahor. Rav Yehuda Amar now says a chumra. We can only rely on this check if she did it "Keshiur veset" after the blood was found. Rashi above top 12a writes that Keshiur veset means immediately. So Rav Yehuda Amar Rav is limiting the lenience that the Mishnah gives us concerning relying on a check. We can only rely on a check if it was dione immediately after the blood was found in the bed. If the blood was found a bit later we say we have no way of knowing where the blood came from and all 3 ladies are tamei.
2) Rav Yosi bar Chanina is discussing paths in Reshut Harabim; the public domain. We have a rule that if we are in doubt concerning tumah in the Reshut Harabim, we are lenient. This is why Rav Yosi beRabbi Chanina is able to say that the tahor person walked on the tahor path, and thereby remained tahor.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Summary:
Simcha, looking at this again, it seems that what is bothering you is why is Rav Yehudah Amar Rav so stringent, and why is Rav Yosi beRabbi Chanina so lenient.
At least one difference is that R. Yosi's scenario is in Reshut Harabim, whilst Rav Yehuda's scenario is in Reshut Hayachid.
We have a rule that Safek Tumah b'Reshut Harabim is tahor whilst Safek Tumah b'Reshut Hayachid is tamei (see Gemara above Nidah 3a).
Behatzlachah
Dovid Bloom