Niddah 118

מתני׳ <big><strong>האשה</strong></big> שהיא עושה צרכיה וראתה דם

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A WOMAN WHEN ATTENDING TO HER NEEDS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Making water. ');">¹</span>

רבי מאיר אומר

OBSERVED AN ISSUE OF BLOOD, R. MEIR RULED: IF SHE WAS STANDING SHE IS UNCLEAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed in the Gemara infra. ');">²</span>

אם עומדת טמאה ואם יושבת טהורה

BUT IF SHE WAS SITTING SHE REMAINS CLEAN. R. JOSE RULED: IN EITHER CASE SHE REMAINS CLEAN. IF A MAN AND A WOMAN ATTENDED TO THEIR NEEDS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Making water. ');">¹</span>

ר' יוסי אומר

IN THE SAME BOWL AND BLOOD WAS FOUND ON THE WATER, R. JOSE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who regards the blood as clean even where, as in the first clause, only one doubt is involved, viz., whether the blood originated in the menstrual source or in a wound in the bladder. ');">³</span>

בין כך ובין כך טהורה

RULED THAT IT WAS CLEAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in addition to the doubt mentioned (cf. prev. n.) there is also the one whether the blood issued from the woman or from the man. The necessity for this ruling will be discussed infra in the Gemara. ');">⁴</span>

איש ואשה שעשו צרכיהן לתוך הספל ונמצא דם על המים רבי יוסי מטהר ורבי שמעון מטמא שאין דרך האיש להוציא דם אלא שחזקת דמים מן האשה

WHILE R. SIMEON RULED THAT IT WAS UNCLEAN, SINCE IT IS NOT USUAL FOR A MAN TO DISCHARGE BLOOD, BUT THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT BLOOD ISSUES FROM THE WOMAN.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי שנא עומדת דאמרינן מי רגלים הדור למקור ואייתי דם יושבת נמי נימא מי רגלים הדור למקור ואייתי דם

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Wherein does the case where the woman WAS STANDING differ [from that of sitting]? [Obviously] in that we presume that the urine had returned to the source<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence the menstrual blood issues. ');">⁵</span>

אמר שמואל

and brought back blood with it. But then, even where SHE WAS SITTING why should it not also be assumed that the urine had returned to the source and brought back blood with it? — Samuel replied: The reference is to a woman who discharges in a gush.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. in the natural manner, no strain being involved in the process. Only when a strain is involved (as where the woman is standing or where the discharge is slow) is it likely for the urine to return to the source and to re-issue mixed with blood, but not where the discharge is flowing normally and easily. ');">⁶</span>

במזנקת

But even where a discharge is gushing is it not possible that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the urine does not return to the source. ');">⁷</span>

מזנקת נמי דלמא בתר דתמו מיא אתא דם

the blood issued<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the menstrual source, independently of the other discharge. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ר' אבא

after the water had ceased to flow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then is the woman regarded as clean? ');">⁹</span>

ביושבת על שפת הספל ומזנקת בתוך הספל ונמצא דם בתוך הספל

— R. Abba replied. The reference is to a woman who sat on the rim of a bowl, discharging into the bowl, and blood was found within the bowl, [in which case it is obvious] that if the blood had issued after the water had ceased to flow it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the discharge of blood is not bow-shaped. ');">¹⁰</span>

דאם איתא דבתר דתמו מיא אתא על שפת הספל איבעי ליה לאשתכוחי

should have been found on the rim of the bowl.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, however, it was found within the bowl it must be assumed to have found its way there together with the water. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר שמואל ואמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל

Samuel ruled or, as some say, Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Jose; and also R. Abba gave a ruling to Kala:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A person who sought 'his opinion on the question. ');">¹²</span>

הלכה כר' יוסי

The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Jose.

וכן אורי ליה רבי אבא לקלא

IF A MAN AND A WOMAN etc. The question was asked: Where both the man and the woman were standing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When attending to their needs; and blood was found in the bowl. ');">¹³</span>

הלכה כרבי יוסי

what, pray tell me, is the ruling of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'what, to me, said'. ');">¹⁴</span>

איש ואשה [כו']

R. Meir?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who (v. our Mishnah) regards a woman as unclean if she was standing alone. ');">¹⁵</span>

איבעיא להו

Did R. Meir maintain his view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' cf. prev. n. ');">¹⁶</span>

איש ואשה עומדין

only where one doubt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the blood emanated from the menstrual source or from a wound in the bladder. ');">¹⁷</span>

מה לי א"ר מאיר

is involved, but where a double doubt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'doubt of a doubt'. Firstly there is the doubt whether the blood emanated from the woman or from the man; and secondly, even if it emanated from the woman, there remains the doubt previously mentioned (cf. prev. n.). ');">¹⁸</span>

כי אמר רבי מאיר בחד ספקא אבל בספק ספקא לא מטמא או דלמא לא שנא

is involved he does not hold the woman to be unclean, or is it possible that there is no difference? — Resh Lakish replied: His ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the woman is unclean. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר ריש לקיש

is the same in both. Whence is this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish's statement. ');">²⁰</span>

היא היא ממאי מדלא קתני ר' מאיר ורבי יוסי מטהרין

inferred? — Since it was not stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah in the case where A MAN AND A WOMAN ATTENDED etc. ');">²¹</span>

א"ה השתא רבי מאיר בספק ספקא מטמא בחד ספקא מיבעיא

R. Meir and R. Jose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of the latter name alone. ');">²²</span>

להודיעך כחו דרבי יוסי דאפילו בחד ספקא מטהר

ruled that she remains clean'. If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even in the latter case, where a double doubt is involved (cf. n. 11). R. Meir holds the woman to be unclean. ');">²³</span>

ואדמיפלגי בחד ספק להודיעך כחו דר' יוסי ליפלגו בספק ספקא להודיעך כחו דר' מאיר

[the difficulty arises:] Now that R. Meir holds the woman to be unclean where a double doubt is involved,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. ');">²⁴</span>

כח דהיתרא עדיף ליה

was there any need for his ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause of our Mishnah. ');">²⁵</span>

ור' יוחנן אמר

where only one doubt is involved?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently not. For if the woman is unclean in the case of a double doubt it is obvious that she is unclean in the case of one doubt. Why then was R. Meir's ruling given in the first clause, from which the second cannot be derived, instead of in the second clause from which the first would be self-evident? ');">²⁶</span>

כי קאמר רבי מאיר בחד ספקא

— Yes, in order to inform you how far reaching is the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the power'. ');">²⁷</span>

אבל בספק ספקא לא אמר

of R: Jose who laid down that the woman is clean even where only one doubt is involved. But, instead of disputing about such a case involving only one doubt in order to inform you how far reaching is the ruling of R. Jose, why should they not dispute about a case involving a double doubt in order to inform you how far reaching is the ruling of R. Meir?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who even in such a case regards the woman as unclean. ');">²⁸</span>

אם כן ליתני ר"מ ור' יוסי מטהרין

The power of a lenient view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is that of R. Jose who holds the woman to be clean. ');">²⁹</span>

אין הכי נמי ואיידי דסליק מרבי יוסי פתח בדרבי יוסי

is preferred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To that which is more restrictive. While the former must be the result of careful study and conviction the latter may be due to mere indecision and doubt. ');">³⁰</span>

ורבי יוסי בחד ספקא מטהר בספק ספקא מיבעיא

R. Johanan, however, replied: R. Meir gave his ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the woman is unclean. ');">³¹</span>

מהו דתימא

only where one doubt is involved, but where a double doubt is involved<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of A MAN AND A WOMAN etc. ');">³²</span>

הני מילי דיעבד אבל לכתחלה לא קא משמע לן

he did not maintain his view. But if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in the latter case (cf. prev. n.). R. Meir is of the same opinion as R. Jose that the woman is clean. ');">³³</span>

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן

why was it not stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah in the case where A MAN AND A WOMAN ATTENDED etc. ');">³⁴</span>

איש ואשה שעשו צרכיהן לתוך הספל ונמצא דם על המים רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי מטהרין ור' שמעון מטמא

R. Meir and R. Jose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of the latter name alone. ');">³⁵</span>

איבעיא להו

ruled that she remains clean? — This should indeed have been done,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes, thus also'. ');">³⁶</span>

אשה יושבת מה לי אמר רבי שמעון

but since he had just left R. Jose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the conclusion of the preceding clause. ');">³⁷</span>

כי אמר רבי שמעון בעומדת דדחיק לה עלמא אבל יושבת לא

he also began<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The clause under discussion. ');">³⁸</span>

או דלמא לא שנא

With R. Jose. As to R. Jose, however, since he holds the woman clean where only one doubt is involved,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause of our Mishnah. ');">³⁹</span>

ת"ש

was there any need for his ruling where a double doubt is involved?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 418, n. 11. ');">⁴⁰</span>

דתניא יושבת תולה עומדת אינה תולה דברי ר"מ

— As it might have been presumed that his ruling applied only ex post facto<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the woman, for instance, had already handled clean things. ');">⁴¹</span>

רבי יוסי אומר

but not ab initio,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if she had not yet come in contact with clean things she is to be ordered to keep away from them. ');">⁴²</span>

בין כך ובין כך תולה

we were informed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the additional and apparently superfluous clause. ');">⁴³</span>

ר"ש אומר

that the ruling applied even ab initio. It was taught in agreement with R. Johanan: If a man and a woman attended to their needs in the same bowl and blood was found on the water, R. Meir and R. Jose declared it clean and R. Simeon declared it unclean.

בין כך ובין כך אינה תולה

The question was raised: Where a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Alone. ');">⁴⁴</span>

איבעיא להו

was sitting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When attending to her needs; and blood was found in the bowl. ');">⁴⁵</span>

איש ואשה יושבין

what, pray tell me, is the ruling of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what, to me, said'. ');">⁴⁶</span>

מה לי א"ר שמעון

R. Simeon? Did R. Simeon maintain his view only where she is standing, since her passage is then compressed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the world is pressed for her'. As a result of the narrowness of the passage blood from the menstrual source might well be presumed to issue together with the returned urine, and since this presumption almost amounts to a certainty there remains no more than one doubt, as to whether the blood emanated from the man or the woman, which well justifies R. Simeon's ruling that the blood is unclean. ');">⁴⁷</span>

כי אמר רבי שמעון עומדת דדחיק לה עלמא ויושבת דחד ספק אבל בספק ספקא לא אמר

but not where she was sitting;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the passage allowed of the free movement of the urine. Any blood discharged in this case might well be attributed to a wound in the bladder, and, therefore, regarded as clean. ');">⁴⁸</span>

או דלמא לא שנה

or is it possible that there is no difference? — Come and hear what was taught: If she was sitting she may attribute [any discharge of blood to an internal wound], but if she was standing she may not attribute [it to it]; so R. Meir. R. Jose ruled: In either case she may attribute [it to it]. R. Simeon ruled: In either case she may not attribute [it to it].

ת"ש

The question was raised: Where a man and a woman were sitting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When attending to their needs; and blood was found in the bowl. ');">⁴⁹</span>

כיון דא"ר שמעון חזקת דמים מן האשה ל"ש עומדין ולא שנא יושבין

what, pray tell me, is the ruling of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what, to me, said'. ');">⁴⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השאילה חלוקה לנכרית או לנדה הרי זו תולה בה

R. Simeon? Did R. Simeon maintain his view only where the woman was standing, since her passage is then compressed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the presumption that the blood emanated from the menstrual source is then so strong that, despite the double doubt involved, R. Simeon, disregarding one of the doubts, maintains his view. ');">⁵⁰</span>

ג' נשים שלבשו חלוק אחד או שישבו על ספסל אחד ונמצא עליו דם כולן טמאות

or where she was sitting, since only one doubt is involved, but not where a double doubt is involved;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether (a) the blood issued from the woman or the man and (b) if from the woman whether from the menstrual source or from some internal wound. ');">⁵¹</span>

ישבו על ספסל של אבן או על האיצטבא של מרחץ רבי נחמיה מטהר

or is it possible that there is no difference? — Come and hear: Since R. Simeon ruled, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT BLOOD ISSUES FROM THE WOMAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which clearly indicates that he never attributes it to the man. ');">⁵²</span>

שהיה רבי נחמיה אומר

no distinction is to be made between an issue when they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man and the woman. ');">⁵³</span>

כל דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה אינו מקבל כתמים

were standing and one when they were sitting.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF SHE LENT HER SHIRT TO A GENTILE WOMAN OR TO A MENSTRUANT SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE A STAIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was found on it after she herself had worn it. ');">⁵⁴</span>

בנכרית

TO EITHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on her'; and she remains clean. Such a presumption is permitted since neither the gentile woman nor the menstruant is thereby placed at a disadvantage, the former being free from the restrictions in any case while the latter is already in a state of uncleanness. ');">⁵⁵</span> IF THREE WOMEN HAD WORN THE SAME SHIRT OR HAD SAT ON THE SAME WOODEN BENCH AND SUBSEQUENTLY BLOOD WAS FOUND ON IT, ALL ARE REGARDED AS UNCLEAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since each one might be presumed to have been the cause. ');">⁵⁶</span> IF THEY HAD SAT ON A STONE BENCH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, unlike a wooden one, is not susceptible to uncleanness. ');">⁵⁷</span> OR ON THE PROJECTION WITHIN THE COLONNADE OF A BATH HOUSE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, unlike a wooden one, is not susceptible to uncleanness. ');">⁵⁷</span> R. NEHEMIAH RULES THAT THEY ARE CLEAN;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The same applies to one woman sitting on a stone bench etc. The plural is used here in continuation of the preceding clause. v. Strashun]. ');">⁵⁸</span> FOR R. NEHEMIAH HAS LAID DOWN: ANY THING THAT IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO STAINS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. no uncleanness of the person is assumed by reason of a stain that was found on it. This is further explained in the Gemara infra. ');">⁵⁹</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab explained: The reference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');">⁶⁰</span> is to a GENTILE WOMAN