Niddah 118

Chapter 118

א מתני׳ <big>האשה</big> שהיא עושה צרכיה וראתה דם רבי מאיר אומר אם עומדת טמאה ואם יושבת טהורה ר' יוסי אומר בין כך ובין כך טהורה

1 MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN WHEN ATTENDING TO HER NEEDS1 OBSERVED AN ISSUE OF BLOOD, R. MEIR RULED: IF SHE WAS STANDING SHE IS UNCLEAN2 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 NEEDS1 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 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

ב 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

2 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.

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

3 GEMARA. 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 source5

ד אמר שמואל במזנקת מזנקת נמי דלמא בתר דתמו מיא אתא דם

4 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 But even where a discharge is gushing is it not possible that7 the blood issued8

ה אמר ר' אבא ביושבת על שפת הספל ומזנקת בתוך הספל ונמצא דם בתוך הספל דאם איתא דבתר דתמו מיא אתא על שפת הספל איבעי ליה לאשתכוחי

5 after the water had ceased to flow?9 — 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 it10 should have been found on the rim of the bowl.11

ו אמר שמואל ואמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' יוסי וכן אורי ליה רבי אבא לקלא הלכה כרבי יוסי

6 Samuel ruled or, as some say, Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose; and also R. Abba gave a ruling to Kala:12 The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose. IF A MAN AND A WOMAN etc. The question was asked: Where both the man and the woman were standing.13 what, pray tell me, is the ruling of14

ז איש ואשה [כו'] איבעיא להו איש ואשה עומדין מה לי א"ר מאיר

7 R. Meir?15 Did R. Meir maintain his view16 only where one doubt17 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

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

8 is involved he does not hold the woman to be unclean, or is it possible that there is no difference? — Resh Lakish replied: His ruling19

ט אמר ריש לקיש היא היא ממאי מדלא קתני ר' מאיר ורבי יוסי מטהרין

9 is the same in both. Whence is this20 inferred? — Since it was not stated:21

י א"ה השתא רבי מאיר בספק ספקא מטמא בחד ספקא מיבעיא להודיעך כחו דרבי יוסי דאפילו בחד ספקא מטהר

10 R. Meir and R. Jose22 ruled that she remains clean'. If so,23

יא ואדמיפלגי בחד ספק להודיעך כחו דר' יוסי ליפלגו בספק ספקא להודיעך כחו דר' מאיר כח דהיתרא עדיף ליה

11 [the difficulty arises:] Now that R. Meir holds the woman to be unclean where a double doubt is involved,24 was there any need for his ruling25

יב ור' יוחנן אמר כי קאמר רבי מאיר בחד ספקא אבל בספק ספקא לא אמר אם כן ליתני ר"מ ור' יוסי מטהרין אין הכי נמי ואיידי דסליק מרבי יוסי פתח בדרבי יוסי

12 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 — Yes, in order to inform you how far reaching is the ruling27 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?28 The power of a lenient view29 is preferred.30

יג ורבי יוסי בחד ספקא מטהר בספק ספקא מיבעיא מהו דתימא הני מילי דיעבד אבל לכתחלה לא קא משמע לן

13 R. Johanan, however, replied: R. Meir gave his ruling31 only where one doubt is involved, but where a double doubt is involved32 he did not maintain his view. But if so,33

יד תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן איש ואשה שעשו צרכיהן לתוך הספל ונמצא דם על המים רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי מטהרין ור' שמעון מטמא

14 why was it not stated:34 R. Meir and R. Jose35

טו איבעיא להו אשה יושבת מה לי אמר רבי שמעון כי אמר רבי שמעון בעומדת דדחיק לה עלמא אבל יושבת לא או דלמא לא שנא

15 ruled that she remains clean? — This should indeed have been done,36 but since he had just left R. Jose37 he also began38 With R. Jose. As to R. Jose, however, since he holds the woman clean where only one doubt is involved,39

טז ת"ש דתניא יושבת תולה עומדת אינה תולה דברי ר"מ רבי יוסי אומר בין כך ובין כך תולה ר"ש אומר בין כך ובין כך אינה תולה

16 was there any need for his ruling where a double doubt is involved?40 — As it might have been presumed that his ruling applied only ex post facto41 but not ab initio,42 we were informed43 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. The question was raised: Where a woman44

יז איבעיא להו איש ואשה יושבין מה לי א"ר שמעון כי אמר רבי שמעון עומדת דדחיק לה עלמא ויושבת דחד ספק אבל בספק ספקא לא אמר או דלמא לא שנה

17 was sitting,45 what, pray tell me, is the ruling of46 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 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 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].

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

18 The question was raised: Where a man and a woman were sitting.49 what, pray tell me, is the ruling of46

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

19 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

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

20 or where she was sitting, since only one doubt is involved, but not where a double doubt is involved;51

כא ישבו על ספסל של אבן או על האיצטבא של מרחץ רבי נחמיה מטהר שהיה רבי נחמיה אומר כל דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה אינו מקבל כתמים

21 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,52 no distinction is to be made between an issue when they53 were standing and one when they were sitting.

כב <big>גמ׳</big> אמר רב בנכרית

22 MISHNAH. IF SHE LENT HER SHIRT TO A GENTILE WOMAN OR TO A MENSTRUANT SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE A STAIN54 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 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.56 IF THEY HAD SAT ON A STONE BENCH57 OR ON THE PROJECTION WITHIN THE COLONNADE OF A BATH HOUSE,57 R. NEHEMIAH RULES THAT THEY ARE CLEAN;58 FOR R. NEHEMIAH HAS LAID DOWN: ANY THING THAT IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO STAINS.59 GEMARA. Rab explained: The reference60 is to a GENTILE WOMAN

Previous Chapter Next Chapter