Related%20passage for Niddah 5:52

ומאי איכא בין הני לישני להאיך לישנא

— [He meant:] All sensible women. Then why did he not merely state WOMEN?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Omitting 'ALL'. ');">⁴⁸</span> — He intended to indicate that the law is not in agreement with R. Eliezer; for R. Eliezer mentioned 'Four classes of women'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 7a. ');">⁴⁹</span> and no more, hence he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shammai. ');">⁵⁰</span> informed us [that the law applies to] ALL WOMEN. But is there not the case of stains?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of menstrual blood, which (v. infra 56a) cause uncleanness retrospectively, though prior to the moment of its discharge the woman was unaware of any flow. ');">⁵¹</span> Must we then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Shammai does not extend the unclean period retrospectively, maintaining that a woman is invariably aware when her flow first appears. ');">⁵²</span> assume that we learnt the Mishnah about stains<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it was ruled that a stain causes uncleanness even where the woman had felt no flow whatever. ');">⁵³</span> in disagreement with Shammai? — Abaye replied: Shammai agrees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the menstruant's uncleanness is extended retrospectively. ');">⁵⁴</span> in the case of stains. What is the reason? — Since she was neither handling a slaughtered bird nor was she passing through the butchers' market, whence could that blood have come?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it must be assumed to have come from the woman's menstrual flow. ');">⁵⁵</span> And<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH. Cur. edd. omit 'and'. ');">⁵⁶</span> if you prefer I might reply, This is Shammai's reason: If in fact any blood were there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. prior to its discovery. ');">⁵⁷</span> it would have flowed out earlier.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As none flowed out it may well be assumed that the flow began only just before it had been discovered. ');">⁵⁸</span> And Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. how can he maintain his ruling in view of the argument here advanced for Shammai? ');">⁵⁹</span> — The walls of the womb may have held it back.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, however, it might have made its way to the ante-chamber the period of uncleanness must extend from that time onwards. ');">⁶⁰</span> And Shammai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut. ');">⁶¹</span> — The walls of the womb do not hold blood back. But what can be said for a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the three classes enumerated infra 45a. ');">⁶²</span> who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prevent conception. ');">⁶³</span> uses an absorbent in her marital intercourse?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the material used would also absorb any menstrual blood, there could be no proof that the discharge did not begin prior to the discovery. How then could Shammai rule that the menstrual uncleanness begins only at 'THE TIME OF THEIR DISCOVERING THE FLOW'? ');">⁶⁴</span> — Abaye replied: Shammai agrees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That menstrual uncleanness is reckoned retrospectively. ');">⁶⁵</span> in the case of one who uses an absorbent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one. ');">⁶⁶</span> Raba replied: An absorbent too [does not affect Shammai's ruling, since] perspiration causes it to shrink.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of perspiration it inevitably shrinks' and consequently, enables the blood to pass out. As no blood appeared prior to the discovery Shammai may well maintain that the uncleanness does not begin prior to the DISCOVERING OF THE FLOW. ');">⁶⁷</span> Raba, however, agrees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With Abaye. ');">⁶⁸</span> in the case of a tightly packed absorbent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the blood cannot pass through it. ');">⁶⁹</span> What, however, is the practical difference between the latter explanations<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That (a) 'a woman feels' and (b) 'it would have flowed out earlier' (supra). ');">⁷⁰</span> and the former explanation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 2a, 'a woman should be presumed to enjoy her usual status'. ');">⁷¹</span>

Explore related%20passage for Niddah 5:52. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.