Reference for Niddah 4:46

בר"ה טהורות ברה"י תולין

present an objection against Shammai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled in our Mishnah that menstruants are not deemed to have been unclean for any length of time retrospectively, but reckon their period of uncleanness only from the moment OF THEIR DISCOVERING THE FLOW. ');">⁴³</span> — The reason there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha cited. ');">⁴⁴</span> is that it can be postulated that the <i>tebel</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The untithed wine, v. Glos. ');">⁴⁵</span> shall be regarded as having its presumptive status, and then it may be presumed that it had not been ritually prepared.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the priestly and levitical dues have not been duly set aside for it. ');">⁴⁶</span> On the contrary! Why not postulate that the wine be regarded as having its presumptive status<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of being wine. ');">⁴⁷</span> and then it might be assumed that it had not become sour? — Surely it stands sour before you. But in that case also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the menstruant. ');">⁴⁸</span> is there not blood before you? — She has only just now observed it. But in that case too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the jug of wine. ');">⁴⁹</span> is it not sour only just now? — What a comparison! In the latter case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the jug of wine. ');">⁴⁹</span> it might well be presumed that the wine turned sour by degrees,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it lost its status long before it completely turned into vinegar. ');">⁵⁰</span> but can it also be said in the former case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the menstruant. ');">⁴⁸</span> that she observed the flow by degrees?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not. Hence the assumption that the flow began the moment it was discovered. ');">⁵¹</span> — What an objection is this! Is it not possible that she observed the blood only when it came in profusion? — In the former case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the jug of wine. ');">⁴⁹</span> there are two unfavourable factors<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The confirmed status of the wine as tebel and its present sour condition. ');">⁵²</span> while in the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the menstruant. ');">⁴⁸</span> there is only one such factor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The present observation of the blood. ');">⁵³</span> An incongruity, however, was pointed out between the case of the jug<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cited supra from Tosef. Ter. IV. ');">⁵⁴</span> and that of the ritual bath:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mik. II, 2, also cited supra. ');">⁵⁵</span> Wherein lies the essential difference between the two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both of which (as stated supra) there are equally two unfavourable factors. ');">⁵⁶</span> that in the latter case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mik. II, 2. ');">⁵⁷</span> [the retrospective uncleanness is regarded as] a certainty while in that of the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cited supra from Tosef. Ter. IV. ');">⁵⁸</span> [the uncleanness of the <i>terumah</i> is deemed] doubtful? — R. Hanina of Sura replied: Who is the author [of the ruling concerning the] jug? R. Simeon, who in respect of a ritual bath also regards [the retrospective uncleanness] as a matter of doubt; for it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So marg. gl. Cur. edd. 'we learnt'. ');">⁵⁹</span> If a ritual bath was measured and found lacking all purifications heretofore effected through it whether it was in a public or in a private domain, are regarded as unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra q.v. notes. ');">⁶⁰</span> R. Simeon ruled: In a public domain they are regarded as clean but in a private domain they are regarded as being in suspense.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Mik. I; the reason is discussed infra. ');">⁶¹</span>

Jastrow

Jastrow