Niddah 10

מפקידה לפקידה מיבעיא

was it also necessary to state that it lessens THE PERIOD FROM THE PREVIOUS EXAMINATION TO THE LAST EXAMINATION?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a much shorter one (cf. prev. n.) being confined to the limits of the same day. ');">¹</span>

מהו דתימא

— As it might have been presumed that only in the case of the twenty-four hours' period did the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By enacting that the test is effective and reduces it. ');">²</span>

מעת לעת חשו בה רבנן לפסידא דטהרות אבל מפקידה לפקידה לא קמ"ל

take into consideration the possible loss of clean things<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the woman may have handled during this comparatively long time. ');">³</span>

כיצד דיה שעתה וכו'

but not in that of the period from the previous examination to the last examination,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A shorter period (cf. supra n. 10) during which not many things could have been handled and a much lesser loss is consequently involved. ');">⁴</span>

למה לי למיתני היתה יושבת במטה ועסקה בטהרות

we were informed [that both periods are equally reduced].

ליתני היתה עסוקה בטהרות ופרשה וראתה

HOW [IS ONE TO UNDERSTAND THE RULING THAT] 'IT SUFFICES [TO RECKON HER PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME SHE DISCOVERS THE FLOW' etc. What need was there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wherefore to me'. ');">⁵</span>

הא קמ"ל

for stating, IF SHE WAS SITTING ON A BED AND WAS OCCUPIED WITH RITUALLY CLEAN OBJECTS, when it should rather have been stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'let him teach'. ');">⁶</span>

טעמא דדיה שעתה הא מעת לעת מטה נמי מטמיא

IF SHE WAS OCCUPIED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Omitting the apparently superfluous 'WAS SITTING ON A BED'. ');">⁷</span>

מסייע ליה לזעירי דאמר זעירי

WITH RITUALLY CLEAN OBJECTS AND HAVING LEFT THEM, OBSERVED A FLOW? — It is this that we were informed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the additional words (cf. prev. n.). ');">⁸</span>

מעת לעת שבנדה עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים

The reason [why the bed is regarded as clean is] because [in the case of that woman]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who has a settled period. ');">⁹</span>

מכדי האי מטה דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל הוא וכל דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל ספקו טהור

it suffices [for her to reckon] her [period of uncleanness from the] time [of her discovery of the flow] but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a woman whose periods were not regular. ');">¹⁰</span>

תרגמה זעירי

[where the uncleanness extends backwards over] twenty-four hours the bed also is regarded as unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the bed of a confirmed menstruant (cf. Lev. XV, 21) which conveys uncleanness to the man that touches it as well as to the clothes he wears though the latter did not come in direct contact with it. ');">¹¹</span>

כשחברותיה נושאות אותה במטה דהויא ליה יד חברותיה

This provides support for Ze'iri, for Ze'iri ruled: [A woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one. ');">¹²</span>

והשתא דא"ר יוחנן

during] the twenty-four hours preceding her discovery of a menstrual flow causes bed and seat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which she lay or sat. ');">¹³</span>

ספק טומאה הבאה בידי אדם נשאלין עליה אפי' בכלי מונח ע"ג קרקע כמי שיש בו דעת לישאל אע"פ שאין חברותיה נושאות אותה במטה

to convey uncleanness to a man who in turn conveys it to his clothes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 6. ');">¹⁴</span>

גופא א"ר יוחנן

But consider: This bed is a thing that has no sense to answer questions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to be asked'. ');">¹⁵</span>

ספק טומאה הבאה בידי אדם נשאלים עליה אפי' בכלי המונח על גבי קרקע כמי שיש בו דעת לישאל

and is not doubtful uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as that caused by the woman in question during the twenty-four hours preceding the time she observed the flow. ');">¹⁶</span>

מיתיבי היה מתעטף בטליתו וטהרות וטומאות בצדו וטהרות וטומאות למעלה מראשו ספק נגע ספק לא נגע טהור

in the case of an object that has no sense to answer questions regarded as clean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it is, since the law of treating doubtful uncleanness as unclean is deduced from that of the sotah (v. Glos.) who is able to answer questions. ');">¹⁷</span>

ואם אי אפשר אא"כ נגע טמא

Ze'iri explained: [This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in our Mishnah, which does regard (by implication) the bed on which the woman sat as unclean. ');">¹⁸</span>

רשב"ג אומר

refers to a case] where her friends were carrying her in the bed so that the latter may be regarded as the hand of her friends.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The hand, being part of a human being who is well able to answer questions, is justly compared to the sotah whose doubtful uncleanness is regarded as unclean. It is for a similar reason (that things handled by a human being are regarded as his hand), it may be added, that the things the woman handled when sitting on the bed are regarded as unclean even where the bed was resting on the ground, and this explains why the objection supra was raised in connection with the bed and not in connection with the things the woman has handled. ');">¹⁹</span>

אומרים לו שנה ושונה

Now, however, that R. Johanan ruled that in the case of doubtful uncleanness conveyed through a human agency<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in that of the bed and the menstruant during the twenty-four hours preceding the observation of the flow or in that of a dead creeping thing that was carried by a man and a doubt arose as to whether it came in contact with a certain clean object. ');">²⁰</span>

אמרו לו

the object in doubt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the uncleanness, if any, was brought to it by a human agency. ');">²¹</span>

אין שונים בטהרות אמאי

though lying on the ground, is deemed to be capable of answering questions as if it had been a human being who has the sense to answer questions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in a private domain is regarded as unclean. Only when the inanimate object in doubt was near an unclean one that was also inanimate, and 'no human agency was involved, is it regarded as clean. ');">²²</span>

הא ספק טומאה הבאה בידי אדם הוא

[this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 28, n. 14. ');">²³</span>

בר מיניה דההיא דתני רב הושעיא

holds good] even though her friends were not carrying her in the bed.

ברשות היחיד ספקו טמא ברשות הרבים טהור

[Reverting to] the [above] text, 'R. Johanan ruled: In the case of doubtful uncleanness conveyed through a human agency the object in doubt, though lying on the ground, is deemed to be capable of answering questions as if it had been a human being who has the sense to answer questions'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra q.v. notes. ');">²⁴</span>

גופא אמר זעירי

An objection was raised: If a man was wrapping himself in his cloak while clean or unclean objects were at his side<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He being either unclean (in the former case) or clean (in the latter one). ');">²⁵</span>

מעת לעת שבנדה עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים

or above his head and it is doubtful whether there was contact<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the cloak and the objects in its vicinity. If there was contact, the cloak that (in the former case) contracted uncleanness from its wearer would convey uncleanness to the clean objects, or the unclean objects (in the latter case) would convey uncleanness to the cloak. ');">²⁶</span>

איני והא כי אתא אבימי מבי חוזאי אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה

or not, they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The objects in the vicinity (in the former case) and the cloak (in the latter case). ');">²⁷</span>

מעת לעת שבנדה משכבה ומושבה כמגעה

are deemed to be clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even, it is now assumed, in a private domain, because the cloak as well as the objects in its vicinity are incapable of answering questions. ');">²⁸</span>

מאי לאו מה

but if it was impossible [for the cloak and the other objects] not to have come in contact they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The objects in the vicinity (in the former case) and the cloak (in the latter case). ');">²⁹</span>

מגעה לא מטמא אדם אף משכבה לא מטמא אדם

are regarded as unclean. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: The man is told, 'Do it again'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. to wrap himself again in his cloak in the same place and position in which he did it first. ');">³⁰</span>

אמר רבא

and he does it again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this manner it is ascertained whether the cloak and the other objects have or have not come in contact. ');">³¹</span>

ותסברא

They,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis who disagreed with him. ');">³²</span>

קל וחומר הוא ומה כלי חרס המוקף צמיד פתיל הניצול באוהל המת אינו ניצול במעת לעת שבנדה

however, said to him: No repetition [test<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it may not exactly reproduce the former conditions. ');">³³</span>

משכבות ומושבות שאינן ניצולין באהל המת אינו דין שאין ניצולין במעת לעת שבנדה

is recognized] in questions of cleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Toh. IV which, however, has the following variation: 'R. Dosa ruled, He is told, " do="" it="" again"…="" they,="" however,="" said="" to="" him,="" no="" repetition …="" r.="" simeon="" b.="" gamaliel="" ruled,="" he="" sometimes="" does="" again'.="" ');"="">³⁴</span>

והא אבימי מבי חוזאי מתניתא קאמר

Now why [should they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 29, n. 10. ');">³⁵</span>

אימא

be clean]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first Tanna. ');">³⁶</span>

משכבה ומושבה

seeing that this is a case of uncleanness that is conveyed through a human agency?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which according to R. Johanan is unclean. ');">³⁷</span> — This is beside the point,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'outside of that'. ');">³⁸</span> for R. Hoshaia learnt: In a private domain [such a case of] doubtful uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One involving conveyance through a human agency. ');">³⁹</span> is regarded as unclean, and in a public domain it is regarded as clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No objection, therefore, may be raised from the Tosef. cited which may be explained to refer to a case in a public domain. ');">⁴⁰</span> [Reverting to] the [above] text, 'Ze'iri ruled: [A woman during] the twenty-four hours preceding her discovery of a menstrual flow causes bed and seat to convey uncleanness to a man who in turn conveys it to his clothes'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra q.v. notes. ');">⁴¹</span> But, surely, this cannot be correct.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I am not'. ');">⁴²</span> For did not Abimi from Be Hozai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Khuzistan. ');">⁴³</span> when he came bring with him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'came and brought'. ');">⁴⁴</span> a Baraitha which stated, 'During the twenty-four hours preceding the discovery of her menstrual flow a woman's bed and seat are [as unclean] as the object she touches', which means, does it not, that as an object she touches does not convey uncleanness to a human being<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only a primary uncleanness can do that. An object touched by a menstruant assumes only the status of a first grade of uncleanness which conveys uncleanness to objects but not to a human being. ');">⁴⁵</span> so also does not her bed convey uncleanness to a human being?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer apparently being in the affirmative, the difficulty arises: How could Ze'iri maintain that the woman causes bed and seat to convey uncleanness to a man who in turn etc.'? ');">⁴⁶</span> — Raba retorted: And do you understand this ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which seems to reduce the uncleanness of the bed and seat of the menstruant in question to a lower degree than that of earthenware. ');">⁴⁷</span> seeing that it [may be refuted by an inference] a minori ad majus: If an earthen vessel that was covered with a tight fitting lid, which is protected from uncleanness in a corpse's tent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only when uncovered does it contract uncleanness (cf. Num. XIX, 15). ');">⁴⁸</span> is yet not so protected [from the uncleanness] of the twenty-four hours preceding the discovery of a menstrual flow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it was touched by the woman during the twenty-four hours (cf. infra 6a) ');">⁴⁹</span> is it not logical that the beds and seats [of a menstruant], which are not protected from uncleanness in a corpse's tent, should not be protected from the uncleanness of the twenty-four hours preceding the discovery of a menstrual flow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the soundness of this argument cannot be questioned Abimi's ruling is obviously untenable and may well be disregarded. ');">⁵⁰</span> — But did not Abimi of Be Hozai quote a Baraitha?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is an authoritative utterance. ');">⁵¹</span> — Read:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the Baraitha. ');">⁵²</span> A woman's bed and seat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the twenty-four hours preceding her discovery of a menstrual flow. ');">⁵³</span>