Niddah 117

היו עליה טיפי דמים למטה וטיפי דמים למעלה תולה בעליון עד כגריס

If a woman had drops of blood on her body below her belt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Tosaf. and Tosaf. Asheri, (contra Rashi) whose interpretation is here followed. ');">¹</span>

מאי לאו כגריס מלמטה

and drops of blood above it, she may attribute [the former to the blood that is assumed to be the cause of the drops] on the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on the upper'. As the drops above the belt may be attributed to blood from a source external to her body so may also the drops below it. ');">²</span>

לא כגריס מלמעלה

up to the size of a split bean. Now does not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prescribed 'size of a split bean'. ');">³</span>

איתמר נמצא עליה כגריס ועוד ואותו עוד רצופה בו מאכולת ר' חנינא אומר

mean a stain of the size of a split bean below her belt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if so, it would follow that only where there are bloodstains above the belt are stains of the size of a split bean below it regarded as originating from the same extraneous source as those above and, therefore, treated as clean, but that where there are no drops of blood above the belt, even a stain of the size of a split bean below it is regarded as unclean. An objection against R. Hisda who ruled that a stain of such size is invariably attributed to vermin and is, therefore, clean. ');">⁴</span>

טמאה

— No, a stain of the size of a split bean above the belt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. so long as the stain above is not smaller than the size of a split bean the stain below, though bigger than the size of a split bean, may be attributed to the same cause as that of the stain above. When the stain below, however, is no bigger than the size of a split bean, it is invariably clean irrespective of whether the body above was or was not stained with drops of blood. ');">⁵</span>

ר' ינאי אומר

It was stated: If on the body of a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'upon her'. ');">⁶</span>

טהורה

was found a stain of the size of a split bean plus some addition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and more'. ');">⁷</span>

רבי חנינא אומר

and to that addition clung a louse, R. Hanina ruled: She is unclean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being regarded as due to menstrual blood. ');">⁸</span>

טמאה כי תליא בכגריס בכגריס ועוד לא תליא

and R. Jannai ruled: She is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it is not attributed to blood of menstruation. ');">⁹</span>

רבי ינאי אומר

'R. Hanina ruled: She is unclean', since she may attribute a stain to a louse only where the former is of the size of a split bean but not where it is of the size of a split bean plus. 'R. Jannai ruled: She is clean', since this restriction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That only a stain no bigger than a split bean is attributed to a louse. ');">¹⁰</span>

טהורה הני מילי היכא דלא רצופה בו מאכולת אבל היכא דרצופה בו מאכולת מוכחא מילתא דהאי ועוד דם מאכולת הוא

applies only where no louse clings to the addition, but where a louse clings to it, it is quite evident that the addition is the blood of a louse, so that only a stain of the size of a split bean remains;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In doubt as to its origin. ');">¹¹</span>

פש ליה כגריס כיון דבעלמא תליא הכא נמי תליא

and since such a size may elsewhere<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is no addition to it. ');">¹²</span>

בעי רבי ירמיה

be attributed to a louse it may also here be so attributed.

נתעסקה בכגריס ונמצא עליה בכגריס ועוד מהו

R. Jeremiah enquired: What is the ruling where a woman handled some blood of the bulk of a split bean but on her body was found a bloodstain of the size of a split bean and a little more? This question arises according to R. Hanina and it also arises according to R. Jannai. 'This question arises according to R. Hanina', since R. Hanina may have maintained his view there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the statement just cited. ');">¹³</span>

תבעי לר' חנינא תבעי לר' ינאי

that the woman was unclean, only because she did not handle any blood, but here, where she did handle some, she may well attribute [the stain to an extraneous cause].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One part of the stain, to the extent of the size of a bean, might be attributed to the blood of the same quantity that she had previously handled while the remainder might be attributed to some vermin. ');">¹⁴</span>

תבעי לר' חנינא עד כאן לא קאמר ר' חנינא התם טמאה אלא דלא נתעסקה אבל הכא דנתעסקה תליא

or is it possible that, even according to R. Jannai who ruled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the statement just cited. ');">¹³</span>

או דלמא

that she was clean, the ruling applies only where a louse clings to the stain, but where no louse clings to it, the stain may not be attributed to it? — Come and hear: If she was handling red stuff she may not attribute to it a black stain; if she was handling a small quantity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the blood of a bird (cf. infra). ');">¹⁵</span>

אפילו לרבי ינאי דאמר טהורה הני מילי היכא דרצופה בו מאכולת אבל היכא דאין רצופה בו מאכולת לא תליא

she may not attribute to it a large stain. Now how is one to imagine the circumstances?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the latter case. ');">¹⁶</span>

תא שמע

Would you not agree that they were of the same nature?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the case submitted by R. Jeremiah. Would then a solution be forthcoming from here? ');">¹⁷</span>

נתעסקה באדום אין תולה בה שחור במועט אין תולה בו מרובה

— No, this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the latter case. ');">¹⁶</span>

היכי דמי

might be a case, for instance, where she handled a quantity of blood of the bulk of a split bean while on her body was found a stain of the size of two split beans and a little more in excess.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the excess over the size of a split bean amounts to more than a split bean, it cannot possibly be attributed to vermin. Hence the uncleanness. ');">¹⁸</span>

לאו כי האי גוונא

But if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. ');">¹⁹</span>

לא כגון דנתעסקה בכגריס ונמצא עליה שני גריסין ועוד

what was the need of mentioning it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ruling that is self-evident. ');">²⁰</span>

אי הכי מאי למימרא

— It might have been presumed that one takes the part of the stain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The size of one split bean. ');">²¹</span>

מהו דתימא

that may be attributed to the blood of the bird<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 5. ');">²²</span>

שקול כגריס צפור שדי בי מצעי זיל הכא ליכא שיעורא זיל הכא ליכא שיעורא קמ"ל

to be in the middle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'take like the size of a split bean; threw it in the middle' of the stained area. ');">²³</span>

אמר רבא

so that there remains less than the prescribed minimum on either of its sides,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'go here there is no prescribed size (bis)'. As the stain is thus smaller than the size prescribed it might have been presumed to be clean. ');">²⁴</span>

נמצא עליה מין אחד תולה בו כמה מינין

hence we were informed [that the stain cannot be attributed to it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood of the bird. ');">²⁵</span>

מיתיבי

at all].

נתעסקה באדום אין תולה בו שחור

Raba ruled: If one kind of material<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Collyrium or sap, for instance, which leaves a stain after it is removed. ');">²⁶</span>

נתעסקה שאני

was found upon a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'upon her'. ');">²⁷</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רבא

she may attribute to it any kind of stain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she subsequently discovers; though the latter is not of the same colour as the material to which it is attributed. ');">²⁸</span>

נתעסקה במין אחד תולה בו כמה מינין

It was objected: If she was handling red stuff she may not attribute to it a black stain!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then can Raba maintain that a stain of any colour may be attributed to any stuff that was previously found on the woman? ');">²⁹</span>

מיתיבי

— A case where she had handled the stuff is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From where, unknown to herself, something had clung to her body. In this latter case, since she was unaware of the particular stuff that clung to her, she may well be presumed to have been unaware also of the presence upon her of the substance from which the stain had originated. In the former case, however, where she had handled a red substance and was fully aware of it no ground for such an assumption exists. ');">³⁰</span>

נתעסקה באדום אין תולה בו שחור

There are some who say: Raba ruled, If a woman was handling one kind of material, she may attribute to it any kinds of stain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she subsequently discovers; though the latter is not of the same colour as the material to which it is attributed. ');">²⁸</span>

כי קאמר רבא דאתעסקה בתרנגולת דאית בה כמה מיני דמא

It was objected: If she was handling red stuff she may not attribute to it a black stain!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut. ');">³¹</span>

מעשה באשה [וכו']

— When Raba laid down his ruling he referred to a woman who was handling a hen which contains several kinds of blood.

והתניא

A WOMAN ONCE etc. But was it not taught: Seeing that the Sages did not lay down the rule in order to relax the law but rather to restrict it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An objection against R. Akiba. ');">³²</span>

לא אמרו חכמים את הדבר להקל אלא להחמיר

— Rabina replied: The meaning is that they did not lay down the rule to relax Pentateuchal laws,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding menstruation. ');">³³</span>

אמר רבינא

but rather to add restrictions to them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. by declaring certain stains (which are Pentateuchally clean) to be unclean they have added restrictions to the Pentateuchal laws. ');">³⁴</span>

לא להקל על דברי תורה אלא להחמיר על דברי תורה וכתמים עצמן דרבנן

but the uncleanness of bloodstains is altogether a Rabbinical enactment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence wherever it is possible to attribute one to a cause that would exempt it from uncleanness the lenient course must be followed. ');">³⁵</span>

עד שהוא נתון

IF ON A TESTING RAG THAT WAS PLACED. The question was raised: Do the Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok or not? — Come and hear: A long stain is counted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'combined', sc. is regarded as compact in respect of the prescribed size of a split bean. ');">³⁶</span>

איבעיא להו

but scattered drops are not combined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. ');">³⁷</span>

מי פליגי רבנן עליה דר"א ברבי צדוק או לא

Now whose view does this represent? If it be suggested: That of R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok [the difficulty would arise:] Why was there need<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' in the case of a long stain. ');">³⁸</span>

תא שמע

for the combination, seeing that he ruled that even a stain that was only slightly elongated is unclean. Must we not then conclude that it represents the view of the Rabbis? Thus it follows, does it not, that they differ from his view? — No, this may indeed represent the view of R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok, for he laid down the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even a stain that is only slightly elongated is unclean. ');">³⁹</span>

כתם ארוך מצטרף טפין טפין אין מצטרפין

in regard to a testing rag<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An elongated stain on which is obviously the natural shape of one obtained in the course of the test. ');">⁴⁰</span>

מני

but not in regard to a bloodstain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he does not regard as unclean unless it was no less in size than a split bean. ');">⁴¹</span>

אי רבי אליעזר בר' צדוק למה לי צירוף

Come and hear<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reply to the question whether the Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok. ');">⁴²</span>

האמר

what Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: 'The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok'. Now since the <i>halachah</i> had to be declared it follows that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis. ');">⁴³</span>

משוך כל שהוא טמא

differ from him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had they been in agreement with him the question of the halachah would not have arisen. ');">⁴⁴</span>

אלא לאו רבנן שמע מינה

This is conclusive.

פליגי

לא לעולם ר' אליעזר ברבי צדוק וכי אמר רבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק בעד אבל בכתם לא

ת"ש דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל

הלכה כרבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק

הלכה מכלל דפליגי שמע מינה

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הרואה כתם</strong></big><br><br>