Niddah 115

מדרבנן

according to Rabbinic law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling cited in objection to Samuel being also Rabbinical only. Samuel's ruling, however, was concerned with the Pentateuchal law. ');">¹</span>

רב אשי אמר

R. Ashi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that Samuel's ruling is not at all based on the principle that the woman must feel the discharge. ');">²</span>

שמואל הוא דאמר כר' נחמיה

replied: Samuel gave his ruling in accordance with the view of R. Nehemiah. For we learnt: R. Nehemiah ruled, Any thing that is not susceptible to uncleanness is not susceptible to stains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 59b, sc. a stain found on such an object is no cause of uncleanness to the person in whom it may possibly have originated. As the ground on which the woman sat is not susceptible to uncleanness the woman also, despite the stain found, remains clean. All the rulings cited in objection to Samuel based on the principle of 'feeling', are, therefore, irrelevant. ');">³</span>

דתנן ר' נחמיה אומר

According to R. Ashi one can well see the reason why he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel. ');">⁴</span>

כל דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה אינו מקבל כתמים

mentioned 'ground',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the ground is not susceptible to uncleanness. ');">⁵</span>

בשלמא לרב אשי היינו דקאמר קרקע אלא לרב ירמיה מאי איריא קרקע

but according to R. Jeremiah of Difti,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, as appears from his reply, accepted the view that Samuel based his ruling on the absence of sensation. ');">⁶</span>

אפילו גלימא נמי

what was the point of mentioning 'ground', seeing that even in the case of a cloak<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, while sitting on it, the woman experienced no sensation of a discharge. ');">⁷</span>

לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא גלימא דלא מבדק שפיר ואיכא למימר מעלמא אתא אלא אפילו קרקע דמבדק שפיר דאיכא למימר מגופה אתיא טהור

the woman is subject to the same law? — This is a case of an implied climax:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is no question, he implied'. ');">⁸</span>

על עקבה ועל ראש גודלה טמאה וכו'

There is no question [that the woman is clean where she sat on] a cloak since it cannot be thoroughly examined and one may, therefore, well assume [that the stain] emanated from an external source,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the woman sat on it. ');">⁹</span>

בשלמא עקבה עביד דנגע באותו מקום אלא ראש גודלה מאי טעמא

but even [where she sat on] the ground which can well be thoroughly examined,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the woman sat on it. ');">⁹</span>

וכי תימא

and where<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no stain was noticed before she sat down but was found after she rose. ');">¹⁰</span>

זימנין דנגע בעקבה ומי מחזקינן טומאה ממקום למקום

it might justifiably be assumed that it emanated from her body, she is nevertheless regarded as clean.

והתניא

ON HER HEEL OR ON THE TIP OF HER GREAT TOE. SHE IS UNCLEAN etc. One can well concede that HER HEEL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When she sits with her legs folded under her body in eastern fashion. ');">¹¹</span>

היתה לה מכה בצוארה שתוכל לתלות תולה על כתפה שאינה יכולה לתלות אינה תולה ואין אומרים שמא בידה נטלתו והביאתו לשם

is likely<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'does'. ');">¹²</span>

אלא

to come in contact with that place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Euphemism. Hence the uncleanness. ');">¹³</span>

שאני ראש גודלה דבהדי דפסעה עביד דמתרמי

but what is the reason for the uncleanness in the case of a stain on THE TIP OF HER GREAT TOE? And should you reply: It might sometimes touch her heel [the objection would arise]: Do we [as regards] uncleanness presume transfer from place to place? Was it not in fact taught: If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman who discovered a bloodstain near her pudenda. ');">¹⁴</span>

ולא מחזקינן טומאה ממקום למקום

had a wound on her neck in a position to which the blood stain might be attributed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if the position of the wound was such that when the woman bends down some blood might drop from it on to the spot where the stain was discovered. ');">¹⁵</span>

והתניא

she may so attribute it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And remain clean. ');">¹⁶</span>

נמצאת על קשרי אצבעותיה טמאה מפני שידים עסקניות הן

if it was on her shoulder, in which case she cannot so attribute it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because even when she bends her head low the blood from the shoulder would not fall on the spot (cf. prev. n. but two) where the stain was discovered. ');">¹⁷</span>

מאי טעמא לאו משום דאמרינן

she must not so attribute it; and we do not suggest that it is possible that she had taken it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood from the shoulder wound. ');">¹⁸</span>

בדקה בחד ידא ונגעה באידך ידא

with her hand and transferred it there?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could it be suggested here that the blood might have been transferred from the heel to the toe? ');">¹⁹</span>

לא שאני ידה דכולה עבידא דנגעה

— The fact rather is that THE TIP OF HER TOE is in a different category.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the shoulder. ');">²⁰</span>

על שוקה ועל פרסותיה מבפנים וכו'

because [direct dropping of blood] might occur while she is walking. But do we not [as regards] uncleanness presume transfer from place to place? Was it not in fact taught: If it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A bloodstain. ');">²¹</span>

מבפנים עד היכא

was found on her finger joints.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the back of her hand. ');">²²</span>

אמרי דבי רבי ינאי

she is unclean, because hands are active.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And might, though the woman was not conscious of the fact, have touched menstrual blood. ');">²³</span>

עד מקום חבק

Now what is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That blood on the back of the hand (cf. prev. n. but one), which one would not expect to come in contact with the menstrual source, even in the course of an examination, should be regarded as unclean. ');">²⁴</span>

איבעיא להו

Is it not this: That we assume that she had examined herself with one hand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The palm of which became soiled in the process. ');">²⁵</span>

מקום חבק כלפנים או כלחוץ

and then touched it with her other hand?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves, does it not, that we do presume transfer as regards uncleanness? ');">²⁶</span>

ת"ש דתני רב קטינא

— No, her hand is different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the shoulder. ');">²⁰</span>

עד מקום חבק וחבק עצמו כלפנים

since all of it might come in direct contact<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'does that it touches'. ');">²⁷</span>

רב חייא בריה דרב אויא מתני לה בהדיא אמרי דבי רבי ינאי

[with the menstrual source].

עד מקום חבק וחבק עצמו כלפנים

ON HER THIGH OR ON HER FEET, IF ON THEIR INNER SIDE etc. How far<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From their front and back. ');">²⁸</span>

בעי רבי ירמיה

ON THEIR INNER SIDE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. at what distance from their front and back is a stain regarded as being on their inner side. ');">²⁹</span>

כשיר מהו כשורה מהו טיפין טיפין מהו לרוחב ירכה מהו

— The school of R. Jannai replied: As far as the place of hebek.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sinews that connect the thigh and the leg. The part of the leg beneath this junction and the part of the thigh above it are regarded as the INNER SIDE (cf. Rashi and Tosaf. Asheri). Aliter: The place where the leg meets the thigh when the woman squats (Aruk); the part of the leg to the place where the (ankle) loop sits (Jast.). ');">³⁰</span>

ת"ש

The question was asked: Is the place of the hebek.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the sinews themselves (cf. Rashi and Tosaf. Asheri). Aliter: The ankle itself (Jast.). ');">³¹</span>

על בשרה ספק טמא ספק טהור טמא

regarded as the inner, or as the outer side? — Come and hear what R. Kattina learnt: As far as the place of the hebek, and the hebek itself is regarded as the inner side. R. Hiyya son of R. Iwya taught this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that was just given in the form of a question and answer. ');">³²</span>

על בשרה מאי לאו כי האי גוונא

explicitly: The School of R. Jannai ruled, As far as the place of the hebek and the hebek itself is regarded as in the inner side.

לא דלמא דעביד כרצועה

R. Jeremiah enquired: What is the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As regards menstrual uncleanness. ');">³³</span>

ההיא איתתא דאשתכח לה דמא במשתיתא אתאי לקמיה דרבי ינאי אמר לה

where a bloodstain had the shape of a ring, of a straight line of drops,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Tosaf. and Tosaf. Asheri. ');">³⁴</span>

תיזיל ותיתי

or of a splash of drops.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'drops, drops'. ');">³⁵</span>

והתניא

or where it runs across the breadth of her thigh? — Come and hear: 'A bloodstain on her body concerning which there is doubt whether it is unclean or clean, is regarded as unclean'. Now does not 'on her body' imply stains of such shapes? — No, it might only refer to one that is shaped like a stripe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Running downwards, which is the natural shape that may be expected if the blood was menstrual. ');">³⁶</span>

אין שונין בטהרות

A woman once found blood on her web. When she came to R. Jannai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To enquire whether the stain was to be regarded as menstrual. ');">³⁷</span>

כי אמרינן אין שונין לקולא אבל לחומרא שונין

he told her to experiment by repeating<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the loom. ');">³⁸</span>

היתה פושטתו וכו'

her forward and backward movements.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'let her go and come'. By repeating the process several times she would be able to ascertain whether the web comes sometimes in contact with the menstrual source. ');">³⁹</span>

תניא אר"א בר' יוסי

But was it not taught: No repetition [test is recognized] in questions of cleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 5b q.v. notes. ');">⁴⁰</span>

דבר זה הוריתי בעיר רומי לאיסור

— We say that no repetition test is recognized only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., when do we say'. ');">⁴¹</span>

וכשבאתי אצל חכמים שבדרום אמרו לי יפה הוריתה

where the law would thereby<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By sanctioning the test. ');">⁴²</span>

ת"ר

be relaxed, but where it is thereby restricted we do recognize a test of repetition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because here, since it was found neither on her body nor shirt, in the absence of evidence we assume her to be clean. ');">⁴³</span>

ארוכה שלבשה חלוקה של קצרה וקצרה שלבשה חלוקה של ארוכה אם מגיע כנגד בית התורפה של ארוכה שתיהן טמאות

IF SHE TAKES IT OFF etc. It was taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Jose stated, In such a case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this thing', a shirt that a woman used at night as a covering (v. our Mishnah). ');">⁴⁴</span>

ואם לאו ארוכה טהורה וקצרה טמאה

I gave a ruling in the city of Rome imposing a prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the blood is regarded as menstrual and that the woman is consequently unclean. ');">⁴⁵</span>

תניא אידך

and when I came to the Sages of the South they said to me, 'You have given the right decision.

בדקה חלוקה והשאילתו לחבירתה היא טהורה וחבירתה תולה בה

Our Rabbis taught: Where a tall woman put on the shirt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without previously examining it. ');">⁴⁶</span>

אמר רב ששת

of a short woman or if a short one put on the shirt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without previously examining it. ');">⁴⁶</span>

ולענין דינא תנן אבל לענין טומאה היא טהורה וחבירתה טמאה

of a tall one, if [a blood stain]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Discovered subsequently. ');">⁴⁷</span> corresponds to the position of the pudenda of the tall one, they are both unclean, but if it does not correspond to it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not reaching so low. ');">⁴⁸</span> the tall one is clean while the short one is unclean. Another Baraitha taught: If a woman examined her shirt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec., 'herself and her shirt' (v. BaH.). ');">⁴⁹</span> and then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having made sure that it was clean. ');">⁵⁰</span> lent it to her friend,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And subsequently a stain was found on it. ');">⁵¹</span> she is clean, but her friend may attribute it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The stain. ');">⁵²</span> to her. R. Shesheth explained: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the borrower may attribute the stain to the lender. ');">⁵³</span> was learnt only in regard to the civil law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the lender, having no valid proof that the shirt was clean when she had lent it to the other, has no legal claim on the other for the cost of washing. ');">⁵⁴</span> but as regards the law of uncleanness the lender is clean while her friend is unclean.