Commentary for Niddah 143:47

כבעל קרי

CONVEY UNCLEANNESS TO COUCH AND SEAT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In cur. edd., the plural is here used. ');">⁴²</span> AND ARE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. use here the fem. sing. ');">⁴¹</span> EXEMPT FROM THE SACRIFICE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, since a discharge on the twelfth day cannot be treated as a continuation of that on the eleventh (cf. prev. n. but two) and since it does not invalidate the immersion on that day, that discharge, as far as zibah is concerned, might well be regarded as if it had never occurred. The case is consequently similar to that of R. Huna where a discharge on an intermediate day in the zibah period was followed by a day on which none had occurred. As in the Mishnah, where the second discharge occurred on the twelfth, uncleanness has been imposed Rabbinically as a preventive measure against the possibility of a second discharge occurring on the eleventh so also in the case of R. Huna uncleanness must be imposed where no discharge occurred on the second day as a preventive measure against the possibility of a discharge occurring on the second day. What need then was there for R. Huna to make a statement which is implicit in the ruling of our Mishnah? ');">⁴³</span> R. Kahana objected:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against R. Huna. ');">⁴⁴</span> Where she observed a discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case dealt with in our Mishnah though that discharge could not be attributed to zibah. ');">⁴⁵</span> the case is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From one where there was no discharge at all. How then could R. Huna maintain his statement? ');">⁴⁶</span> Said R. Joseph: But what matters it that she observed a discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case in our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁷</span> seeing that it is one of menstruation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which cannot be attributed to zibah; and consequently (cf. p. 501, n. 13) might be regarded (as in the case of R. Huna) as if no discharge had taken place. What then is the basis of R. Kahana's objection? ');">⁴⁸</span> — Abaye answered R. Joseph: R. Kahana<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who advanced the opinion that 'where she observed a discharge the case is different'. ');">⁴⁹</span> had this difficulty: Where the woman did observe a discharge one can well see the reason why uncleanness has been imposed since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling concerning one discharge being likely to be misunderstood for that of another discharge. ');">⁵⁰</span> an observation of menstruation had to be declared unclean as a preventive measure against the possibility of an observation of a discharge of <i>zibah</i>, but where one observed no discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the absence of a discharge is not likely to be misunderstood for a discharge. ');">⁵¹</span> what possibility was there to be provided against? And, furthermore, we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Contrary to the view of R. Huna. ');">⁵²</span> If a man observed one discharge of <i>zibah</i>, Beth Shammai ruled: He is like a woman who waits a day for a day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. who must allow one clean day to pass for every day on which she experienced a discharge before she may be regarded as clean. As the uncleanness of the touch of such a woman on the second day after she performed immersion is left in suspense to provide against the possibility of a discharge appearing later in the day, so must also be the uncleanness of such a person if after experiencing the discharge he performed immersion. If, e.g., he touches tithe its uncleanness must remain in suspense in case he observes a second discharge which would continue his former zibah. ');">⁵³</span> and Beth Hillel ruled: Like a man who emitted semen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. he is clean in regard to tithe immediately after his immersion. At all events it was here stated that, according to Beth Shammai, a woman who waits a day for a day is on a par with a man who experienced a first discharge of zibah. ');">⁵⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Niddah 143:47. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.