Niddah 112

Chapter 112

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

1 Or also in the case where the creeping thing was found in a hole.1 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.2

ב וכן הכתם וכו' איבעיא להו עד שעת כבוס חזקתו בדוק או דלמא חזקתו מתכבס

2 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,3 or is it possible that it is in the presumptive state of having been properly washed?4 And in what case could this5

ג למאי נפקא מינה דאמר כיבס ולא בדק אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק הא לא בדק אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבס הא מתכבס

3 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,6 but if you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been properly washed', surely, it had been properly washed.7

ד אי נמי דאשתכחה בסטרא אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק מאן דבדק בסטרא נמי בדיק אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבס בסטרא לא מתכבס

4 Or also in the case where the stain was discovered in a fold.8 If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined', anyone engaged in an examination examines also the folds,9 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.10

ה מאי תא שמע דתניא א"ר מאיר מפני מה אמרו השרץ שנמצא במבוי מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את המבוי הזה ולא היה בו שרץ או עד שעת כיבוד מפני שחזקת בני ישראל בודקין מבואותיהן בשעת כבודיהם ואם לא בדקו הפסידוהו למפרע

5 Now what is the decision? — Come and hear: For it was taught: R. Meir stated, Why did they11 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?12 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.13 And why did they11

ו ומפני מה אמרו כתם שנמצא בחלוק מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את החלוק ולא היה בו כתם או עד שעת הכבוס מפני שחזקת בנות ישראל בודקות חלוקיהן בשעת כבוסיהן ואם לא בדקו הפסידו למפרע

6 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?14 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.15

ז ר' אחא אמר תחזור ותכבסנו אם נדחה מראיתו בידוע שלאחר כבוס ואם לאו בידוע שלפני הכבוס

7 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 wash it again. If its colour fades17

ח רבי אומר אינו דומה כתם שלאחר הכבוס לכתם שלפני הכבוס שזה מקדיר וזה מגליד ש"מ חזקתו בדוק ש"מ

8 it may be taken for granted18 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 but if it does not fade it may be taken for granted18 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 inferred20

ט ומטמא בין לח וכו' א"ר אלעזר לא שנו אלא שרץ אבל כתם לח נמי מטמא למפרע אימר יבש היה ומיא נפיל עליה

9 that21 there is presumption that it was duly examined. This is conclusive. AND IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS WET etc. R. Eleazar explained: This22

י שרץ נמי אימר יבש היה ומיא נפיל עליה אם איתא דהכי הוא אמרטוטי אימרטט

10 was learnt only concerning the dead creeping thing, but a wet bloodstain also causes uncleanness retrospectively,23 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.24 MISHNAH. ALL BLOODSTAINS25

יא <big>מתני׳</big> כל הכתמין הבאין מרקם טהורין רבי יהודה מטמא מפני שהם גרים וטועין הבאין מבין העובדי כוכבים טהורין מבין ישראל ומבין הכותים רבי מאיר מטמא וחכמים מטהרים מפני שלא נחשדו על כתמיהן

11 THAT COME FROM REKEM26 ARE CLEAN.27 R. JUDAH DECLARES THEM UNCLEAN, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE ARE PROSELYTES28 THOUGH MISGUIDED.29

יב <big>גמ׳</big> קפסיק ותני אפילו מתרמוד א"ר יוחנן זאת אומרת מקבלין גרים מתרמוד

12 THOSE30 THAT COME FROM THE HEATHENS31 ARE CLEAN.32

יג איני והא רבי יוחנן וסביא דאמרי תרוייהו אין מקבלין גרים מתרמוד

13 THOSE THAT COME FROM ISRAELITES OR FROM SAMARITANS, R. MEIR DECLARES, ARE UNCLEAN, BUT THE SAGES DECLARED THEM CLEAN33 BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER NO SUSPICION33

יד וכי תימא זאת ולא סבירא ליה והאמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה

14 IN REGARD TO THEIR STAINS. GEMARA. Since the statement34 was made categorically35

טו אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יוחנן

15 it follows, does it not, that it applies even to those from Tarmod?36

טז מבין ישראל וכו' ורבנן אי דישראל מטהרי דמאן מטמו

16 — R. Johanan replied: This proves that proselytes may be accepted from Tarmod.37 But can this be right38

יז חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני מבין ישראל טמא מבין הכותים רבי מאיר מטמא דכותים גרי אמת הן וחכמים מטהרין דכותים גרי אריות הן

17 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',39 but he himself40 does not hold this view [it could be retorted]: Did not R. Johanan lay down, 'The halachah is in accordance with an anonymous Mishnah'?41 — It is a question in dispute between Amoras as to what was actually R. Johanan's view.

יח אי הכי שלא נחשדו על כתמיהן גרי אריות מבעי ליה

18 FROM ISRAELITES etc. As to the Rabbis,42

יט אלא הכי קאמר מבין ישראל ומבין הכותים טמאין דכותים גרי אמת הן הנמצאין בערי ישראל טהורין שלא נחשדו על כתמיהם ואצנועי מצנעי להו

19 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,43 BUT THE SAGES DECLARED THEM CLEAN because, in their opinion, Samaritans are merely lion-proselytes.44 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 cities45

כ הנמצאין בערי כותים רבי מאיר מטמא דנחשדו על כתמיהם וחכמים מטהרין שלא נחשדו על כתמיהן

20 are clean since they are not suspected of leaving their stains exposed, for they rather keep them in privacy; and those that are found45 in Samaritan cities, R. MEIR DECLARES, ARE UNCLEAN because they are suspected of leaving their stains exposed, BUT THE SAGES DECLARED THEM CLEAN BECAUSE THEY46

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

21 ARE UNDER NO SUSPICION IN REGARD TO THEIR STAINS.

כב בית הטמאות של כותים מטמאין באהל מפני שהם קוברין שם את הנפלים ר' יהודה אומר לא היו קוברין אלא משליכין וחיה גוררתו

22 MISHNAH. ALL BLOODSTAINS, WHERESOEVER THEY ARE FOUND,47 ARE CLEAN, EXCEPT THOSE THAT ARE FOUND INDOORS48 OR ROUND ABOUT A CHAMBER FOR49

כג נאמנים לומר קברנו שם את הנפלים או לא קברנו נאמנים לומר על הבהמה אם בכרה אם לא בכרה נאמנים על ציון קברות

23 UNCLEAN WOMEN.50 A CHAMBER FOR49 UNCLEAN SAMARITAN WOMEN CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BY OVERSHADOWING51

כד ואין נאמנין לא על הסככות ולא על הפרעות ולא על בית הפרס

כה זה הכלל דבר שחשודים בו אין נאמנין עליו <big>גמ׳</big>

25 BECAUSE THEY BURY MISCARRIAGES THERE. R. JUDAH STATED, THEY DID NOT BURY THEM BUT THREW THEM AWAY AND THE WILD BEASTS DRAGGED THEM OFF. THEY52 ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY DECLARE, 'WE BURIED MISCARRIAGES THERE', OR 'WE DID NOT BURY THEM'. THEY52 ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY DECLARE CONCERNING — A BEAST WHETHER IT HAD GIVEN BIRTH TO A FIRSTLING53 OR HAD NOT GIVEN BIRTH TO ONE. THEY52 ARE BELIEVED WHEN GIVING INFORMATION ON THE MARKING OF GRAVES,54 BUT THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED EITHER IN REGARD TO OVERHANGING BRANCHES,55 OR PROTRUDING STONES55 OR A BETH HA-PERAS.55 THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: IN ANY MATTER WHERE THEY ARE UNDER SUSPICION THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter