Niddah 116

Chapter 116

א מאי שנא מהא דתניא שתי נשים שנתעסקו בצפור אחד ואין בו אלא כסלע דם ונמצא כסלע על זו וכסלע על זו שתיהן טמאות שאני התם דאיכא סלע יתירה
1 But why is this case different from the following where it was taught: If two women were engaged in the preparation of one bird which contained no more than one <i>sela'</i> of blood, and then a stain of the size of a <i>sela'</i> was found on each, they are both unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. as in this case, though one stain could well be attributed to the bird, both women are unclean, so also in the former case, since it is possible that the lender did not properly examine her shirt, both lender and borrower should be unclean. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> — There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter case. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> the law is different since there was an additional <i>sela'</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which cannot possibly be attributed to the bird. As the stain of one woman at least must be an unclean one, and since it cannot be ascertained which one it is, uncleanness must be imposed on both women. In the former case, however, where one woman examined the shirt and the other did not, uncleanness may well be imposed on the latter only. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב ת"ר לבשה שלשה חלוקות הבדוקין לה אם יכולה לתלות תולה ואפילו בתחתון אין יכולה לתלות אינה תולה ואפי' בעליון
2 Our Rabbis taught: Where a woman put on three shirts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One on the top of the other. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> that she had previously examined<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that are examined to her'. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> [and then found blood on one of them]. if she is in a position to attribute [the blood to an external source]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ג כיצד עברה בשוק של טבחים תולה אפילו בתחתון לא עברה בשוק של טבחים אף בעליון אינה תולה
3 she may do so even though [the blood was found] on the lowest shirt, but if she is not in a position to attribute [it to an external cause]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> she may not do so even though [the blood was found] on the uppermost shirt. How so? If she passed through a butchers' market she may attribute the blood to it even though it was found on the lowest shirt, but if she did not pass through a butchers' market she may not attribute the blood to it even if it was found on the uppermost.
ד <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ותולה בכל דבר שהיא יכולה לתלות שחטה בהמה חיה ועוף נתעסקה בכתמים או שישבה בצד העסוקין בהן הרגה מאכולת הרי זו תולה בה
4 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [A WOMAN] MAY ATTRIBUTE [A BLOODSTAIN] TO ANY [EXTERNAL] CAUSE TO WHICH SHE CAN POSSIBLY ATTRIBUTE IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus regard herself as clean. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> IF [FOR INSTANCE] SHE HAD SLAIN A DOMESTIC BEAST, A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD, IF SHE WAS HANDLING BLOODSTAINS OR SAT BESIDE THOSE WHO HANDLED THEM. OR IF SHE KILLED A LOUSE. SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE THE BLOODSTAIN TO IT. HOW LARGE A STAIN MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO A LOUSE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., until how much may she attribute?' ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה עד כמה תולה רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר עד כגריס של פול ואף ע"פ שלא הרגה ותולה בבנה או בבעלה אם יש בה מכה והיא יכולה להגלע ולהוציא דם הרי זו תולה
5 R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS REPLIED: ONE UP TO THE SIZE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed infra in the Gemara. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> OF A SPLIT BEAN; [AND IT MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO A LOUSE] EVEN THOUGH SHE DID NOT KILL IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Contrary to the view of the Rabbis. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> SHE MAY ALSO ATTRIBUTE IT TO HER SON OR TO HER HUSBAND.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If any of them had a wound. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> IF SHE HERSELF HAD A WOUND THAT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is already dry. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> COULD OPEN AGAIN AND BLEED SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE IT TO IT. A WOMAN ONCE CAME TO R. AKIBA AND SAID TO HIM: I HAVE OBSERVED A BLOODSTAIN'. 'HAD YOU PERHAPS', HE SAID TO HER. 'A WOUND?' YES'. SHE REPLIED, 'BUT IT HAS HEALED'. IS IT POSSIBLE HE AGAIN ASKED HER, THAT IT COULD OPEN AGAIN AND BLEED?' 'YES', SHE REPLIED; AND R. AKIBA DECLARED HER CLEAN. OBSERVING THAT HIS DISCIPLES LOOKED AT EACH OTHER IN ASTONISHMENT. HE SAID TO THEM, 'WHY DO YOU FIND THIS DIFFICULT, SEEING THAT THE SAGES DID NOT LAY DOWN THE RULE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' About bloodstains. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ו מעשה באשה אחת שבאת לפני ר"ע אמרה לו ראיתי כתם אמר לה שמא מכה היתה ביך אמרה לו הן וחיתה אמר לה שמא יכולה להגלע ולהוציא דם אמרה לו הן וטהרה ר"ע
6 IN ORDER TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS BUT RATHER TO RELAX THEM, FOR IT IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE, AND IF A WOMAN HAVE AN ISSUE, AND HER ISSUE IN HER FLESH BE BLOOD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 19. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> ONLY BLOOD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Causes uncleanness. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> BUT NOT A BLOODSTAIN. IF ON A TESTING RAG THAT WAS PLACED UNDER A PILLOW SOME BLOOD WAS FOUND, IF THE STAIN IS ROUND IT IS CLEAN BUT IF IT IS ELONGATED IT IS UNCLEAN; SO R. ELIEZER SON OF R. ZADOK. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Thus we have here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> learnt what our Rabbis taught elsewhere: It once happened that R. Meir attributed it to collyrium, and Rabbi attributed it to the sap of a sycamore.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 19b f q.v. notes. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> OR SAT. Only where SHE SAT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does the law apply. Lit., 'yes'. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> but not [where she believes that] she did not sit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it might well be possible that she did sit there without being conscious of the fact (cf. Rashi and Tosaf. Asheri). ');"><sup>19</sup></span> Thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the possibility of an unconscious act is here disregarded. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> we have here learnt what our Rabbis taught elsewhere: If a woman passed through a butchers' market, and it is a matter of doubt whether any blood was or was not squirted on her she may attribute [any bloodstain on her to a possible contingency]; but if it is doubtful whether she did or did not pass the market she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If any bloodstain was found on her. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but two mut. mut. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> IF SHE KILLED A LOUSE. Only where SHE KILLED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does the law apply. Lit., 'yes'. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ז ראה תלמידיו מסתכלין זה בזה אמר להם מה הדבר קשה בעיניכם שלא אמרו חכמים הדבר להחמיר אלא להקל שנאמר (ויקרא טו, יט) ואשה כי תהיה זבה דם יהיה זובה בבשרה דם ולא כתם
7 but not where she did not kill any. Whose view then does our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the anonymous ruling which is contrary to the view of R. Hanina b. Antigonus. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> represent? — That of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. For it was taught: If she killed a louse she may attribute a bloodstain to it, but if she did not kill any she may not so attribute it; so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. But the Sages ruled: In either case she may attribute the one to the other. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: According to my view there is no limit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> and according to the view of my colleagues there is no end.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> 'According to my view there is no limit' since you could hardly find<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'since you have not'. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
ח עד שהוא נתון תחת הכר ונמצא עליו דם עגול טהור משוך טמא דברי ר"א ברבי צדוק
8 a woman who could be regarded as clean for her husband, seeing that there is hardly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'since you have not'. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
ט <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנינא להא דת"ר מעשה ותלה ר"מ בקילור ורבי תלה בשרף שקמה
9 a bed that does not contain ever so many drops of louse blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the woman, unless she was certain that she killed one, would always be unclean, however minute the speck of blood. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> 'According to the view of my colleagues there is no end', since there is hardly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'since you have not'. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
י או שישבה ישבה אין לא ישבה לא
10 a woman who could be regarded as unclean for her husband, seeing that there is hardly a sheet on which there are not ever so many drops of blood;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And these can be attributed to lice, however big the stain. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> but the view of R. Hanina b. Antigonus is more feasible than mine and theirs, for he has laid down, 'How large a stain may be attributed to a louse? One not bigger than the size of a split bean',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if she killed nothing; while if it is bigger it is unclean even though a louse was killed. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
יא תנינא להא דת"ר עברה בשוק של טבחים ספק ניתז עליה ספק לא ניתז עליה תולה ספק עברה ספק לא עברה טמאה:
11 and we rule in agreement with his view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Elijah Wilna. Cf. MS.M. Cur. edd., 'and we agree with his view'. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> But according to the Rabbis who ruled, SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if she is not aware of killing anything. ');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יב הרגה מאכולת: הרגה אין לא הרגה לא מתני' מני רשב"ג היא דתניא הרגה תולה לא הרגה אינה תולה דברי רשב"ג וחכ"א בין כך ובין כך תולה
12 how large may be the stain?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be regarded as clean. If it is very big it could not obviously be attributed to a louse. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: She may attribute it to a bed-bug even if it is as big as a lupine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> Our Rabbis taught: A<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> bed-bug is of the same length and breadth and the taste of it is like its odour. Whosoever crushes it cannot help<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a covenant is made for it'. sc. a protection for its preservation. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> smelling it. It was stated to be of 'the same length and breadth' in regard to bloodstains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A stain, though bigger than a split bean, may be regarded as clean if its length is equal to its breadth since it may be attributed to a bug. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> 'The taste of it is like its odour' has been stated in regard to <i>terumah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the same applies to unconsecrated produce. Terumah was mentioned because the Mishnah of Ter. cited happens to deal with terumah. ');"><sup>36</sup></span>
יג אמר רשב"ג לדברי אין קץ ולדברי חברי אין סוף
13 For we have learnt: 'Or if he tasted the flavour of a bed-bug in his mouth he must spit it out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. VIII, 2. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> But how could he know this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The taste of vermin. ');"><sup>38</sup></span>
יד לדברי אין קץ שאין לך אשה שטהורה לבעלה שאין לך כל מטה ומטה שאין בה כמה טיפי דם מאכולת
14 Because 'the taste of it is like its odour'. But still, whence could he know this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its odour. ');"><sup>39</sup></span>
טו לדברי חברי אין סוף שאין לך אשה שאינה טהורה לבעלה שאין לך כל סדין וסדין שאין בו כמה טיפי דם
15 [Because] 'whosoever crushes it cannot help<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a covenant is made for it'. sc. a protection for its preservation. ');"><sup>34</sup></span>
טז אבל נראין דברי ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס מדברי ומדבריהם שהיה אומר עד כמה היא תולה עד כגריס של פול ולדבריו אנו מודים ולרבנן דאמרי תולה עד כמה אמר ר"נ בר יצחק תולה בפשפש ועד כתורמוס
16 smelling it'. R. Ashi ruled: In a town in which there are pigs there is no need to consider the possibility of menstrual bloodstains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the pigs, eating all sorts of creeping things and vermin, scatter about their blood. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> R. Nahman b. Isaac stated: The condition of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and that of'. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> Dokereth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Darankat on the Tigris. v. Obermeyer p. 197. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it had many butchers' shops and swarmed with dung hills and vermin. ');"><sup>43</sup></span>
יז ת"ר פשפש זה ארכו כרחבו וטעמו כריחו ברית כרותה לו שכל המוללו מריח בו ארכו כרחבו לענין כתמים
17 like that of a town in which there are pigs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but three. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> HOW LARGE A STAIN MAY BE ATTRIBUTED etc. R. Huna explained: If the stain is equal in size to a split bean it may not be attributed to a louse; if it is smaller in size than a split bean it may be attributed to it. R. Hisda, however, explained: If it was of the same size as a split bean it may be attributed to it, but if it was bigger than the size of a split bean it may not be attributed to it. Must it be assumed that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Huna and R. Hisda. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> differ on the question whether UP TO' is meant to include the terminus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until and until included'. ');"><sup>46</sup></span>
יח טעמו כריחו לענין תרומה דתנן או שטעם טעם פשפש בפיו ה"ז יפלוט מנא ידע טעמו כריחו ואכתי מנא ידע ברית כרותה לו שכל המוללו מריח בו
18 R. Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that a stain that is equal in size to a split bean may not be attributed to vermin. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> holding the opinion that 'up to' does not include the terminus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is (cf. our Mishnah) 'THE SIZE OF A SPLIT BEAN'. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> while R. Hisda<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that a stain of the size of a split bean may be attributed to vermin. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> holds that 'up to' is inclusive of the terminus?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if so how could each respectively reconcile his view with (cf. Hul. 55a) the cases to the contrary? ');"><sup>50</sup></span> — R. Huna can answer you: 'Up to' may sometimes include the terminus and sometimes exclude it, but in either case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and here&nbsp;… and here'. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> the meaning must be one that leads to a restriction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of stains here under discussion the law is restricted by excluding the terminus, he justifiably maintains that the stain of the size of a split bean is excluded. ');"><sup>52</sup></span>
יט אמר רב אשי עיר שיש בה חזירים אין חוששין לכתמים אמר ר"נ בר יצחק והא דדוקרת כעיר שיש בה חזירים דמיא
19 while R. Hisda can answer you: Elsewhere I agree with you<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'In the world I will tell you'. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> that we adopt a meaning that leads to a restriction and not one that leads to a relaxation, but here the meaning must be in agreement with a ruling of R. Abbahu, R. Abbahu having ruled: All prescribed minima of the Sages are intended to impose restrictions, except the prescribed size of a split bean in the case of bloodstains which is intended to relax the law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the inclusion of the terminus in the ruling of our Mishnah. ');"><sup>54</sup></span> There are others who give this tradition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dispute between R. Huna and R. Hisda. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> as an independent statement:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. not as an explanation of our Mishnah. ');"><sup>56</sup></span>
כ עד כמה היא תולה וכו' אמר רב הונא כגריס אינה תולה פחות מכגריס תולה ורב חסדא אמר כגריס תולה יתר מכגריס אינה תולה
20 R. Huna ruled, A bloodstain of the size of a split bean is treated as one bigger than the size of a split bean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. is regarded as unclean. ');"><sup>57</sup></span> while R. Hisda ruled, One of the size of a split bean is treated as one that is less than the size of a split bean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is regarded as clean. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> but they differ on the interpretation of UP TO here, as has just been explained.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Huna, here as elsewhere, adopting the meaning that leads to a restriction while R. Hisda regards the meaning here as an exception in agreement with R. Abbahu's ruling. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> An objection was raised:
כא לימא בעד ועד בכלל קא מיפלגי דרב הונא סבר עד ולא עד בכלל ורב חסדא סבר עד ועד בכלל
21 
כב אמר לך רב הונא איכא עד ועד בכלל ואיכא עד ולא עד בכלל והכא לחומרא והכא לחומרא
22 
כג ורב חסדא אמר לך בעלמא אימא לך לחומרא אמרינן לקולא לא אמרינן והכא כדרבי אבהו דא"ר אבהו כל שיעורי חכמים להחמיר חוץ מכגריס של כתמים להקל
23 
כד איכא דאמרי לה להא שמעתא באפי נפשה רב הונא אמר כגריס כיתר מכגריס ורב חסדא אמר כגריס כפחות מכגריס וקמיפלגי בעד ועד דהכא כדאמרינן מיתיבי
24 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter