Commentary for Niddah 10:39

משכבה ומושבה

seeing that this is a case of uncleanness that is conveyed through a human agency?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which according to R. Johanan is unclean. ');">³⁷</span> — This is beside the point,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'outside of that'. ');">³⁸</span> for R. Hoshaia learnt: In a private domain [such a case of] doubtful uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One involving conveyance through a human agency. ');">³⁹</span> is regarded as unclean, and in a public domain it is regarded as clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No objection, therefore, may be raised from the Tosef. cited which may be explained to refer to a case in a public domain. ');">⁴⁰</span> [Reverting to] the [above] text, 'Ze'iri ruled: [A woman during] the twenty-four hours preceding her discovery of a menstrual flow causes bed and seat to convey uncleanness to a man who in turn conveys it to his clothes'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra q.v. notes. ');">⁴¹</span> But, surely, this cannot be correct.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I am not'. ');">⁴²</span> For did not Abimi from Be Hozai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Khuzistan. ');">⁴³</span> when he came bring with him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'came and brought'. ');">⁴⁴</span> a Baraitha which stated, 'During the twenty-four hours preceding the discovery of her menstrual flow a woman's bed and seat are [as unclean] as the object she touches', which means, does it not, that as an object she touches does not convey uncleanness to a human being<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only a primary uncleanness can do that. An object touched by a menstruant assumes only the status of a first grade of uncleanness which conveys uncleanness to objects but not to a human being. ');">⁴⁵</span> so also does not her bed convey uncleanness to a human being?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer apparently being in the affirmative, the difficulty arises: How could Ze'iri maintain that the woman causes bed and seat to convey uncleanness to a man who in turn etc.'? ');">⁴⁶</span> — Raba retorted: And do you understand this ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which seems to reduce the uncleanness of the bed and seat of the menstruant in question to a lower degree than that of earthenware. ');">⁴⁷</span> seeing that it [may be refuted by an inference] a minori ad majus: If an earthen vessel that was covered with a tight fitting lid, which is protected from uncleanness in a corpse's tent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only when uncovered does it contract uncleanness (cf. Num. XIX, 15). ');">⁴⁸</span> is yet not so protected [from the uncleanness] of the twenty-four hours preceding the discovery of a menstrual flow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it was touched by the woman during the twenty-four hours (cf. infra 6a) ');">⁴⁹</span> is it not logical that the beds and seats [of a menstruant], which are not protected from uncleanness in a corpse's tent, should not be protected from the uncleanness of the twenty-four hours preceding the discovery of a menstrual flow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the soundness of this argument cannot be questioned Abimi's ruling is obviously untenable and may well be disregarded. ');">⁵⁰</span> — But did not Abimi of Be Hozai quote a Baraitha?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is an authoritative utterance. ');">⁵¹</span> — Read:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the Baraitha. ');">⁵²</span> A woman's bed and seat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the twenty-four hours preceding her discovery of a menstrual flow. ');">⁵³</span>

Explore commentary for Niddah 10:39. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.