Commentary for Niddah 13:26

אני לא שמעתי אלא בתולה

and put it on an inverted basket of palm-twigs or on a board,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. on an object that is not susceptible to ritual uncleanness. Neither the board, nor the basket in its inverted position, has a receptacle, and it is only 'vessels' with proper receptacles that are susceptible to uncleanness. ');">²⁵</span> and then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the dough-offering when being set aside must be close to the dough for which it is offered. ');">²⁶</span> bring it close [to the major portion of the dough] and designate it [as dough-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By that time the uncleanness of the woman can no longer be imparted to it since the object on which it rests (cf. prev. n. but one) intervenes. ');">²⁷</span> this procedure being permitted] because the uncleanness of the dough<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it'; that had been touched by the woman who (v. supra) is of the second grade of uncleanness. ');">²⁸</span> is only of the third grade,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A clean object touched by an unclean one being always (with some exceptions) subject to a grade of uncleanness that is by one grade lower than the latter. ');">²⁹</span> and the third grade is regarded as clean in common food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' T.Y. IV, 2; such as the dough is presumably before the dough-offering had been taken from it. ');">³⁰</span> Now if you were to maintain that 'common food that is in a condition of <i>tebel</i> in respect of the dough-offering is regarded as dough-offering' [the objection would arise:] Did she not in fact convey uncleanness to it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When she first touched it. What then was the use of the entire procedure and precaution after that? ');">³¹</span> — Said Abaye: In regard to any object,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such, e.g., as the load carried by a zab. ');">³²</span> that conveys certain uncleanness to common food, uncleanness has been imposed as a preventive measure, even in a doubtful case, where common food that is in a condition of <i>tebel</i> in respect of the dough-offering is concerned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of'. ');">³³</span> but in regard to the woman who is a tebulath yom, since she does not convey certain uncleanness to common food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A third grade of uncleanness, as stated supra, being regarded as clean. ');">³⁴</span> no uncleanness has been imposed as a preventive measure in a doubtful case where common food that is in a condition of <i>tebel</i> in respect of the dough-offering is concerned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of'. ');">³³</span> But is there not the case of the retrospective uncleanness of the twenty-four hours [preceding the observation] of a menstrual flow which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the actual period of the flow. ');">³⁵</span> conveys certain uncleanness to common food and in connection with which, nevertheless, no uncleanness has been imposed as a preventive measure in a case of doubt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., during the twenty-four hours preceding the observation of the flow when the uncleanness is only doubtful. ');">³⁶</span> where common food that is in a condition of <i>tebel</i> in respect of the dough-offering is concerned;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of'. ');">³³</span> for has not the Master said, 'R. Samuel son of R. Isaac accepted from him this [teaching, and explained it] as applying to common food that was prepared under conditions of hallowed things and not to common food that was prepared in conditions of terumah'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 6b ad fin. 'Common food that was prepared in conditions of terumah' being presumably in an analogous position to 'common food that is in a condition of tebel in respect of the dough-offering' both should be subject to the same restrictions. Why then was the former exempted from the restriction while the latter was subjected to it? ');">³⁷</span> — In the former case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. Lit., 'there'. ');">³⁸</span> no <i>terumah</i> is kneaded up with the common food<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in them'. ');">³⁹</span> but in the latter case <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the dough-offering. ');">⁴⁰</span> is kneaded up with the dough.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter must consequently be subject to greater restrictions. ');">⁴¹</span> And if you prefer I might reply: Leave out of the question the retrospective uncleanness of the twenty-four hours, since it is merely a Rabbinical measure. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. R. ELIEZER RULED: IN THE CASE OF FOUR CLASSES OF WOMEN IT SUFFICES [FOR THEM TO RECKON] THEIR [PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME [OF THEIR DISCOVERING OF THE FLOW]: A VIRGIN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');">⁴²</span> A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');">⁴²</span> A NURSING WOMAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');">⁴²</span> AND AN OLD WOMAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');">⁴²</span> R. JOSHUA SAID: I HAVE ONLY HEARD [THE RULING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Eliezer that IT SUFFICES etc. ');">⁴³</span> APPLIED TO] A VIRGIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not to the other three classes. ');">⁴⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Niddah 13:26. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.