Niddah 112

אי נמי דאשתכח בגומא

Or also in the case where the creeping thing was found in a hole.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the sweeper made no declaration at all. ');">¹</span>

אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק מאן דבדק בגומא נמי בדיק אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבד גומא לא מתכבדא

If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined', any one who examines the alley examines also any hole in it; but if you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been properly swept', a hole is not usually swept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the creeping thing may have been lying in that hole long before the alley had been swept (cf. n. 5). ');">²</span>

וכן הכתם וכו'

SO ALSO A BLOODSTAIN etc. The question was raised: Is the shirt TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST WASHED in the presumptive state of having been duly examined,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time it was washed, when it was definitely ascertained that there was then no stain on it. ');">³</span>

איבעיא להו

or is it possible that it is in the presumptive state of having been properly washed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When any stain that may have been on it would have been washed out. ');">⁴</span>

עד שעת כבוס חזקתו בדוק או דלמא חזקתו מתכבס

And in what case could this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our assumption of the former or of the latter. ');">⁵</span>

למאי נפקא מינה דאמר כיבס ולא בדק

matter? — In that where a person declared that he had washed the shirt but did not examine it — If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined', surely, he had not examined it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncleanness would, therefore, be retrospective to the time before the washing. ');">⁶</span>

אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק הא לא בדק אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבס הא מתכבס

but if you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been properly washed', surely, it had been properly washed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the uncleanness could be retrospective to the time of washing only. ');">⁷</span>

אי נמי דאשתכחה בסטרא

Or also in the case where the stain was discovered in a fold.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'side', 'border'; and the washer did not make any declaration. ');">⁸</span>

אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק מאן דבדק בסטרא נמי בדיק

If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined', anyone engaged in an examination examines also the folds,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 393, n. 14. ');">⁹</span>

אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבס בסטרא לא מתכבס

but if you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been properly washed', a stain in a fold may not have been washed out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 393, n. 13. ');">¹⁰</span>

מאי

Now what is the decision? — Come and hear: For it was taught: R. Meir stated, Why did they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis. ');">¹¹</span>

תא שמע דתניא א"ר מאיר

rule that if a dead creeping thing was found in an alley it causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can testify, 'I examined this alley and there was no creeping thing in it', or to such time as it was last swept?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. why does not the uncleanness begin prior to the sweeping? ');">¹²</span>

מפני מה אמרו השרץ שנמצא במבוי מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את המבוי הזה ולא היה בו שרץ או עד שעת כיבוד

Because there is presumption that the children of Israel examine their alleys at the time they are swept; but if they did not examine them, they impaired its presumptive cleanness retrospectively.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the time prior to the sweeping. ');">¹³</span>

מפני שחזקת בני ישראל בודקין מבואותיהן בשעת כבודיהם ואם לא בדקו הפסידוהו למפרע

And why did they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis. ');">¹¹</span>

ומפני מה אמרו כתם שנמצא בחלוק מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את החלוק ולא היה בו כתם או עד שעת הכבוס

rule that a bloodstain, if found on a shirt, causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can testify, 'I examined this shirt and there was no stain on it', or to such time as it was last washed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. why does not the uncleanness begin before the washing? ');">¹⁴</span>

מפני שחזקת בנות ישראל בודקות חלוקיהן בשעת כבוסיהן ואם לא בדקו הפסידו למפרע

Because there is presumption that the daughters of Israel examine their shirts at the time they are washing them; but if they did not examine them, they impair its presumptive cleanness retrospectively.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncleanness beginning prior to the washing. ');">¹⁵</span>

ר' אחא אמר

R. Aha ruled: Let her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who did not examine her shirt when she washed it and subsequently found a bloodstain on it, and it is unknown whether that stain was there before the washing or was made subsequently. ');">¹⁶</span>

תחזור ותכבסנו אם נדחה מראיתו בידוע שלאחר כבוס ואם לאו בידוע שלפני הכבוס

wash it again. If its colour fades<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a result of the last washing. ');">¹⁷</span>

רבי אומר

it may be taken for granted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is known'. ');">¹⁸</span>

אינו דומה כתם שלאחר הכבוס לכתם שלפני הכבוס שזה מקדיר וזה מגליד

that it was made after the previous washing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if it had been there before the previous washing it would have faded in the course of that washing. Hence the uncleanness is retrospective to the time of the previous washing only. ');">¹⁹</span>

ש"מ

but if it does not fade it may be taken for granted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is known'. ');">¹⁸</span>

חזקתו בדוק ש"מ

that it was made before the previous washing. Rabbi said, A stain after its washing is not like a stain before it had been washed, for the former penetrates into the material while the latter remains clotted on its surface. Thus it may be inferred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From R. Meir's ruling. ');">²⁰</span>

ומטמא בין לח וכו'

that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When nothing to the contrary is definitely known. ');">²¹</span>

א"ר אלעזר

there is presumption that it was duly examined. This is conclusive.

לא שנו אלא שרץ אבל כתם לח נמי מטמא למפרע אימר יבש היה ומיא נפיל עליה

AND IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS WET etc. R. Eleazar explained: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's ruling. ');">²²</span>

שרץ נמי אימר

was learnt only concerning the dead creeping thing, but a wet bloodstain also causes uncleanness retrospectively,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the time it had last been washed. ');">²³</span>

יבש היה ומיא נפיל עליה

for it might be assumed that it was already dry but water had fallen upon it. But can it not be assumed in the case of a dead creeping thing also that it was already dry but water had fallen upon it? — If that were the case it would have been completely dismembered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assumption can, therefore, be applied to a bloodstain only. ');">²⁴</span>

אם איתא דהכי הוא אמרטוטי אימרטט

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ALL BLOODSTAINS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On women's garments. ');">²⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל הכתמין הבאין מרקם טהורין

THAT COME FROM REKEM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Yeb., Sonc. ed., p. 88, n. 10. ');">²⁶</span>

רבי יהודה מטמא מפני שהם גרים וטועין

ARE CLEAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because no Israelites of pure stock live there. The menstrual blood of heathens is levitically clean. ');">²⁷</span>

הבאין מבין העובדי כוכבים טהורין

R. JUDAH DECLARES THEM UNCLEAN, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE ARE PROSELYTES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose menstrual blood is unclean like that of Israelites proper. ');">²⁸</span>

מבין ישראל ומבין הכותים רבי מאיר מטמא וחכמים מטהרים מפני שלא נחשדו על כתמיהן

THOUGH MISGUIDED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. though they no longer observed the religious laws of Israel. ');">²⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> קפסיק ותני אפילו מתרמוד

THOSE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bloodstains. ');">³⁰</span>

א"ר יוחנן זאת אומרת

THAT COME FROM THE HEATHENS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. from places where no Israelites live. ');">³¹</span>

מקבלין גרים מתרמוד

ARE CLEAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 6. ');">³²</span>

איני והא רבי יוחנן וסביא דאמרי תרוייהו

THOSE THAT COME FROM ISRAELITES OR FROM SAMARITANS, R. MEIR DECLARES, ARE UNCLEAN, BUT THE SAGES DECLARED THEM CLEAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed in the Gemara infra. ');">³³</span>

אין מקבלין גרים מתרמוד

BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER NO SUSPICION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed in the Gemara infra. ');">³³</span>

וכי תימא

IN REGARD TO THEIR STAINS.

זאת ולא סבירא ליה והאמר רבי יוחנן

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Since the statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' THOSE THAT CAME FROM THE HEATHENS ARE CLEAN. ');">³⁴</span>

הלכה כסתם משנה

was made categorically<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he decided and teaches'. ');">³⁵</span>

אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יוחנן

it follows, does it not, that it applies even to those from Tarmod?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose inhabitants were reputed to have an admixture of Jewish blood. But how could this be reconciled with the law that Jewish menstrual blood is unclean? ');">³⁶</span>

מבין ישראל וכו'

— R. Johanan replied: This proves that proselytes may be accepted from Tarmod.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Palmyra: the inhabitants being regarded in all respects as heathens and not as a mixed breed of bastards from whom no proselytes may be accepted. ');">³⁷</span>

ורבנן אי דישראל מטהרי דמאן מטמו

But can this be right<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I am not. ');">³⁸</span>

חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני

seeing that both R. Johanan and Sabya ruled, No proselytes may be accepted from Tarmod? And should you reply that R. Johanan only said, 'This',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. 'this proves etc.' ');">³⁹</span>

מבין ישראל טמא

but he himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that no proselytes may be accepted from Tadmor. ');">⁴⁰</span>

מבין הכותים רבי מאיר מטמא דכותים גרי אמת הן

does not hold this view [it could be retorted]: Did not R. Johanan lay down, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with an anonymous Mishnah'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which, as shown supra, it follows that proselytes may be accepted from the Tarmodites. ');">⁴¹</span>

וחכמים מטהרין דכותים גרי אריות הן

— It is a question in dispute between Amoras as to what was actually R. Johanan's view.

אי הכי שלא נחשדו על כתמיהן גרי אריות מבעי ליה

FROM ISRAELITES etc. As to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' THE SAGES. ');">⁴²</span>

אלא הכי קאמר

if they declare the menstrual blood of Israelites clean, whose do they hold to be unclean? — Some words are missing from our Mishnah, this being the correct reading: FROM ISRAELITES are unclean, FROM SAMARITANS, R. MEIR DECLARES, ARE UNCLEAN, since Samaritans are true proselytes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose menstrual blood is, therefore, as unclean as that of a proper Israelite. ');">⁴³</span>

מבין ישראל ומבין הכותים טמאין דכותים גרי אמת הן

BUT THE SAGES DECLARED THEM CLEAN because, in their opinion, Samaritans are merely lion-proselytes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. proselytes who were converted to Judaism not out of religious convictions but out of fear of the lions that attacked them (cf. II Kings XVII, 25). ');">⁴⁴</span>

הנמצאין בערי ישראל טהורין שלא נחשדו על כתמיהם ואצנועי מצנעי להו

If so, instead of saying, BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER NO SUSPICION IN REGARD TO THEIR STAINS, It should have been said, Because they are lion-proselytes? — The fact rather is that it is this that was meant: FROM ISRAELITES OR FROM SAMARITANS they are unclean, since Samaritans are true proselytes; those that are found in Israelite cities<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In an open place. ');">⁴⁵</span>

הנמצאין בערי כותים רבי מאיר מטמא דנחשדו על כתמיהם

are clean since they are not suspected of leaving their stains exposed, for they rather keep them in privacy; and those that are found<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In an open place. ');">⁴⁵</span>

וחכמים מטהרין שלא נחשדו על כתמיהן

in Samaritan cities, R. MEIR DECLARES, ARE UNCLEAN because they are suspected of leaving their stains exposed, BUT THE SAGES DECLARED THEM CLEAN BECAUSE THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keeping them in privacy. ');">⁴⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל הכתמים הנמצאים בכל מקום טהורין חוץ מן הנמצאים בחדרים ובסביבות בית הטמאות

ARE UNDER NO SUSPICION IN REGARD TO THEIR STAINS.

בית הטמאות של כותים מטמאין באהל מפני שהם קוברין שם את הנפלים

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ALL BLOODSTAINS, WHERESOEVER THEY ARE FOUND,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In an Israelite locality. ');">⁴⁷</span>

ר' יהודה אומר

ARE CLEAN, EXCEPT THOSE THAT ARE FOUND INDOORS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in rooms', it being assumed that, since they are kept in privacy, they must be menstrual. ');">⁴⁸</span>

לא היו קוברין אלא משליכין וחיה גוררתו

OR ROUND ABOUT A CHAMBER FOR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a house of'. ');">⁴⁹</span>

נאמנים לומר קברנו שם את הנפלים או לא קברנו

UNCLEAN WOMEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a chamber used by menstruants. ');">⁵⁰</span>

נאמנים לומר על הבהמה אם בכרה אם לא בכרה

A CHAMBER FOR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a house of'. ');">⁴⁹</span>

נאמנים על ציון קברות ואין נאמנין לא על הסככות ולא על הפרעות ולא על בית הפרס

UNCLEAN SAMARITAN WOMEN CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BY OVERSHADOWING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. any person who enters into the chamber. ');">⁵¹</span>

זה הכלל

BECAUSE THEY BURY MISCARRIAGES THERE. R. JUDAH STATED, THEY DID NOT BURY THEM BUT THREW THEM AWAY AND THE WILD BEASTS DRAGGED THEM OFF. THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samaritans. ');">⁵²</span>

דבר שחשודים בו אין נאמנין עליו

ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY DECLARE, 'WE BURIED MISCARRIAGES THERE', OR 'WE DID NOT BURY THEM'. THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samaritans. ');">⁵²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big>

ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY DECLARE CONCERNING — A BEAST WHETHER IT HAD GIVEN BIRTH TO A FIRSTLING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the next birth is free from the restrictions imposed on a firstling. ');">⁵³</span> OR HAD NOT GIVEN BIRTH TO ONE. THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samaritans. ');">⁵²</span> ARE BELIEVED WHEN GIVING INFORMATION ON THE MARKING OF GRAVES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. any place not so marked may be treated as clean. ');">⁵⁴</span> BUT THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED EITHER IN REGARD TO OVERHANGING BRANCHES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra. ');">⁵⁵</span> OR PROTRUDING STONES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra. ');">⁵⁵</span> OR A BETH HA-PERAS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra. ');">⁵⁵</span> THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: IN ANY MATTER WHERE THEY ARE UNDER SUSPICION THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED.