Commentary for Niddah 120:46

היו שתיהן עוברות שתיהן מניקות שתיהן זקנות שתיהן בתולות זו היא ששנינו לא היו ראויות לראות רואין

remain clean. But R. Oshaia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that even if a discovery of blood was made immediately after she handled the clean things one cannot be sure that the discharge had occurred earlier when she was still handling them. ');">⁴⁴</span> ruled: Even where her husband is liable to a sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2. ');">⁴⁵</span> her clean things are<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the doubt. ');">⁴⁶</span> deemed to be in a suspended state.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it follows that our Mishnah which ruled that only the woman who found herself on examination to be unclean is regarded as the cause of the blood while the two others remain clean, upholds the opinion of Bar Pada who, where the examination took place immediately after the clean things had been handled, regards the things as definitely unclean. It must be contrary to the view of R. Oshaia who, even in such a case (an examination after the shortest interval), regards the clean things as being merely in a suspected state. ');">⁴⁷</span> One can see the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why it may be assumed that the discharge occurred earlier during intercourse. ');">⁴⁸</span> there, since it might well be assumed that the waiter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Euphemism. ');">⁴⁹</span> had caused the obstruction of the blood; but, in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The handling of clean things. ');">⁵⁰</span> if it were a fact that the blood was there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the discharge occurred earlier. ');">⁵¹</span> what could have caused its obstruction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously nothing. Hence it is only in the case of intercourse (where the assumption is possible) that the husband becomes liable for a sin-offering, but in the case of clean things (where no such assumption is possible) no certain uncleanness may be presumed and only that of a doubtful nature may be imposed upon them Rabbinically for twenty-four hours retrospectively. ');">⁵²</span> R. Jeremiah observed: As to R. Oshaia's metaphor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The waiter had caused the obstruction of the blood'. ');">⁵³</span> to what may this be compared? To an old man and a child who were walking together on a road. While they are underway the child restrains his gait.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'delays to come', waiting for the lead of the old man. ');">⁵⁴</span> but after they enter the town<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When they walk in different directions to their own respective homes. ');">⁵⁵</span> the child accelerates his pace.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hastens to come'. ');">⁵⁶</span> Abaye on the other hand observed: As to the metaphor of R. Oshaia, to what may this be compared? To a man who puts his finger on his eye. While the finger is on the eye the tears are held back, but as soon as the finger is removed the tears quickly come forth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hastens to come'. ');">⁵⁶</span> THEY MAY ALSO ATTRIBUTE THE BLOOD TO ONE ANOTHER. Our Rabbis taught: In what manner do they attribute it to one another? If one was a pregnant woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'delays to come', waiting for the lead of the old man. ');">⁵⁴</span> and the other was not pregnant, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was a nursing woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who usually loses her menstrual flow. ');">⁵⁷</span> and the other was not a nursing woman, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was an old woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who usually loses her menstrual flow. ');">⁵⁷</span> and the other was not an old woman, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was a virgin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a young woman (whether unmarried or married) who had not yet experienced any menstrual discharge (cf. supra 8b). ');">⁵⁸</span> and the other was no virgin, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If both were pregnant, nursing, old or virgins — it is [a case like] this concerning which we have learnt, IF THEY WERE NOT LIKELY TO OBSERVE A DISCHARGE, THEY MUST BE REGARDED

Explore commentary for Niddah 120:46. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.