Niddah 117

Chapter 117

א היו עליה טיפי דמים למטה וטיפי דמים למעלה תולה בעליון עד כגריס מאי לאו כגריס מלמטה לא כגריס מלמעלה

1 If a woman had drops of blood on her body below her belt1 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 latter2 up to the size of a split bean. Now does not this3

ב איתמר נמצא עליה כגריס ועוד ואותו עוד רצופה בו מאכולת ר' חנינא אומר טמאה ר' ינאי אומר טהורה רבי חנינא אומר טמאה כי תליא בכגריס בכגריס ועוד לא תליא

2 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 — 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 It was stated: If on the body of a woman6 was found a stain of the size of a split bean plus some addition,7 and to that addition clung a louse, R. Hanina ruled: She is unclean;8 and R. Jannai ruled: She is clean.9

ג רבי ינאי אומר טהורה הני מילי היכא דלא רצופה בו מאכולת אבל היכא דרצופה בו מאכולת מוכחא מילתא דהאי ועוד דם מאכולת הוא פש ליה כגריס כיון דבעלמא תליא הכא נמי תליא

3 '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 restriction10 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;11 and since such a size may elsewhere12

ד בעי רבי ירמיה נתעסקה בכגריס ונמצא עליה בכגריס ועוד מהו תבעי לר' חנינא תבעי לר' ינאי

4 be attributed to a louse it may also here be so attributed. 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 there13 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

ה תבעי לר' חנינא עד כאן לא קאמר ר' חנינא התם טמאה אלא דלא נתעסקה אבל הכא דנתעסקה תליא או דלמא אפילו לרבי ינאי דאמר טהורה הני מילי היכא דרצופה בו מאכולת אבל היכא דאין רצופה בו מאכולת לא תליא

5 or is it possible that, even according to R. Jannai who ruled13 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 quantity15 she may not attribute to it a large stain. Now how is one to imagine the circumstances?16

ו תא שמע נתעסקה באדום אין תולה בה שחור במועט אין תולה בו מרובה היכי דמי לאו כי האי גוונא

6 Would you not agree that they were of the same nature?17 — No, this16 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.18 But if so,19

ז לא כגון דנתעסקה בכגריס ונמצא עליה שני גריסין ועוד אי הכי מאי למימרא

7 what was the need of mentioning it?20 — It might have been presumed that one takes the part of the stain21

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

8 that may be attributed to the blood of the bird22 to be in the middle23

ט אמר רבא נמצא עליה מין אחד תולה בו כמה מינין מיתיבי נתעסקה באדום אין תולה בו שחור נתעסקה שאני

9 so that there remains less than the prescribed minimum on either of its sides,24 hence we were informed [that the stain cannot be attributed to it25 at all]. Raba ruled: If one kind of material26 was found upon a woman27

י איכא דאמרי אמר רבא נתעסקה במין אחד תולה בו כמה מינין מיתיבי נתעסקה באדום אין תולה בו שחור כי קאמר רבא דאתעסקה בתרנגולת דאית בה כמה מיני דמא

10 she may attribute to it any kind of stain.28 It was objected: If she was handling red stuff she may not attribute to it a black stain!29 — 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 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.28 It was objected: If she was handling red stuff she may not attribute to it a black stain!31

יא מעשה באשה [וכו'] והתניא לא אמרו חכמים את הדבר להקל אלא להחמיר

11 — When Raba laid down his ruling he referred to a woman who was handling a hen which contains several kinds of blood. 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?32 — Rabina replied: The meaning is that they did not lay down the rule to relax Pentateuchal laws,33

יב אמר רבינא לא להקל על דברי תורה אלא להחמיר על דברי תורה וכתמים עצמן דרבנן

12 but rather to add restrictions to them;34 but the uncleanness of bloodstains is altogether a Rabbinical enactment.35

יג עד שהוא נתון איבעיא להו מי פליגי רבנן עליה דר"א ברבי צדוק או לא

13 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 counted36 but scattered drops are not combined.37 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 need38

יד תא שמע כתם ארוך מצטרף טפין טפין אין מצטרפין מני אי רבי אליעזר בר' צדוק למה לי צירוף האמר משוך כל שהוא טמא

14 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 law39 in regard to a testing rag40 but not in regard to a bloodstain.41 Come and hear42 what Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok'. Now since the halachah had to be declared it follows that they43 differ from him.44

טו אלא לאו רבנן שמע מינה פליגי לא לעולם ר' אליעזר ברבי צדוק וכי אמר רבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק בעד אבל בכתם לא

15 This is conclusive.

טז ת"ש דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק הלכה מכלל דפליגי שמע מינה

יז <big>הדרן עלך הרואה כתם</big>

Previous Chapter Next Chapter