Niddah 115

Chapter 115

א מדרבנן

1 according to Rabbinic law.1

ב רב אשי אמר שמואל הוא דאמר כר' נחמיה דתנן ר' נחמיה אומר כל דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה אינו מקבל כתמים

2 R. Ashi2 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 According to R. Ashi one can well see the reason why he4 mentioned 'ground',5

ג בשלמא לרב אשי היינו דקאמר קרקע אלא לרב ירמיה מאי איריא קרקע אפילו גלימא נמי לא מיבעיא קאמר

3 but according to R. Jeremiah of Difti,6 what was the point of mentioning 'ground', seeing that even in the case of a cloak7 the woman is subject to the same law? — This is a case of an implied climax:8

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

ה על עקבה ועל ראש גודלה טמאה וכו' בשלמא עקבה עביד דנגע באותו מקום אלא ראש גודלה מאי טעמא וכי תימא זימנין דנגע בעקבה ומי מחזקינן טומאה ממקום למקום

5 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,9 but even [where she sat on] the ground which can well be thoroughly examined,9 and where10 it might justifiably be assumed that it emanated from her body, she is nevertheless regarded as clean.

ו והתניא היתה לה מכה בצוארה שתוכל לתלות תולה על כתפה שאינה יכולה לתלות אינה תולה

6 ON HER HEEL OR ON THE TIP OF HER GREAT TOE. SHE IS UNCLEAN etc. One can well concede that HER HEEL11 is likely12

ז ואין אומרים שמא בידה נטלתו והביאתו לשם אלא שאני ראש גודלה דבהדי דפסעה עביד דמתרמי

7 to come in contact with that place,13 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 she14

ח ולא מחזקינן טומאה ממקום למקום והתניא נמצאת על קשרי אצבעותיה טמאה מפני שידים עסקניות הן

8 had a wound on her neck in a position to which the blood stain might be attributed,15 she may so attribute it;16 if it was on her shoulder, in which case she cannot so attribute it,17

ט מאי טעמא לאו משום דאמרינן בדקה בחד ידא ונגעה באידך ידא לא שאני ידה דכולה עבידא דנגעה

9 she must not so attribute it; and we do not suggest that it is possible that she had taken it18 with her hand and transferred it there?19 — The fact rather is that THE TIP OF HER TOE is in a different category.20

י על שוקה ועל פרסותיה מבפנים וכו' מבפנים עד היכא אמרי דבי רבי ינאי עד מקום חבק

10 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 it21 was found on her finger joints.22 she is unclean, because hands are active.23 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

יא איבעיא להו מקום חבק כלפנים או כלחוץ ת"ש דתני רב קטינא עד מקום חבק וחבק עצמו כלפנים רב חייא בריה דרב אויא מתני לה בהדיא אמרי דבי רבי ינאי עד מקום חבק וחבק עצמו כלפנים

11 Is it not this: That we assume that she had examined herself with one hand25 and then touched it with her other hand?26 — No, her hand is different20 since all of it might come in direct contact27 [with the menstrual source]. ON HER THIGH OR ON HER FEET, IF ON THEIR INNER SIDE etc. How far28

יב בעי רבי ירמיה כשיר מהו כשורה מהו טיפין טיפין מהו לרוחב ירכה מהו

12 ON THEIR INNER SIDE?29 — 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

יג ת"ש על בשרה ספק טמא ספק טהור טמא על בשרה מאי לאו כי האי גוונא לא דלמא דעביד כרצועה

13 The question was asked: Is the place of the hebek.31 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 this32 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. R. Jeremiah enquired: What is the ruling33

יד ההיא איתתא דאשתכח לה דמא במשתיתא אתאי לקמיה דרבי ינאי אמר לה תיזיל ותיתי

14 where a bloodstain had the shape of a ring, of a straight line of drops,34 or of a splash of drops.35

טו והתניא אין שונין בטהרות כי אמרינן אין שונין לקולא אבל לחומרא שונין

15 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.36 A woman once found blood on her web. When she came to R. Jannai37 he told her to experiment by repeating38

טז היתה פושטתו וכו' תניא אר"א בר' יוסי דבר זה הוריתי בעיר רומי לאיסור וכשבאתי אצל חכמים שבדרום אמרו לי יפה הוריתה

16 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 But was it not taught: No repetition [test is recognized] in questions of cleanness?40 — We say that no repetition test is recognized only41 where the law would thereby42

יז ת"ר ארוכה שלבשה חלוקה של קצרה וקצרה שלבשה חלוקה של ארוכה אם מגיע כנגד בית התורפה של ארוכה שתיהן טמאות ואם לאו ארוכה טהורה וקצרה טמאה

17 be relaxed, but where it is thereby restricted we do recognize a test of repetition.43 IF SHE TAKES IT OFF etc. It was taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Jose stated, In such a case44 I gave a ruling in the city of Rome imposing a prohibition,45

יח תניא אידך בדקה חלוקה והשאילתו לחבירתה היא טהורה וחבירתה תולה בה אמר רב ששת ולענין דינא תנן אבל לענין טומאה היא טהורה וחבירתה טמאה

18 and when I came to the Sages of the South they said to me, 'You have given the right decision. Our Rabbis taught: Where a tall woman put on the shirt46 of a short woman or if a short one put on the shirt46 of a tall one, if [a blood stain]47 corresponds to the position of the pudenda of the tall one, they are both unclean, but if it does not correspond to it,48 the tall one is clean while the short one is unclean. Another Baraitha taught: If a woman examined her shirt49 and then50 lent it to her friend,51 she is clean, but her friend may attribute it52 to her. R. Shesheth explained: This53 was learnt only in regard to the civil law,54 but as regards the law of uncleanness the lender is clean while her friend is unclean.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter