Niddah 119

הרואה

who once experienced a discharge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who sees'. ');">¹</span>

ממאי

Whence is this derived? From the fact that she is placed on a par with A MENSTRUANT. As the menstruant is a woman who experienced a discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who sees'. ');">¹</span>

דומיא דנדה מה נדה דקחזיא אף נכרית דקא חזיא

so must the GENTILE WOMAN be one who experienced a discharge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who sees'. ');">¹</span>

אמר רב ששת

R. Shesheth remarked, Rab must have made this statement when he was lying down and about to doze, for it was taught: 'She may attribute it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A stain found on her shirt. ');">²</span>

כי ניים ושכיב רב אמרה להא שמעתא

to the gentile woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus remain clean. ');">³</span>

דתניא

R. Meir said, To the gentile woman who is capable of a menstrual discharge',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. one of mature age. ');">⁴</span>

תולה בנכרית

Now even R. Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who seems to be more restrictive than the first Tanna. ');">⁵</span>

רבי מאיר אומר

only spoke of one who is 'capable of a menstrual discharge' but did not require one who actually experienced a discharge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Much less (cf. prev. n.) would the Rabbis (the first Tanna) require that the gentile woman should be one who actually experienced a discharge once before. ');">⁶</span>

בנכרית הראויה לראות

Raba retorted: But do you understand R. Meir to restrict the law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' More than the Rabbis. V. p. 421, nn. 12, 13. ');">⁷</span>

ואפילו ר"מ לא קאמר אלא בראויה לראות אבל רואה לא איצטריך

R. Meir in fact relaxes it. For it was taught: 'She may not attribute it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A stain found on her shirt. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבא

to the gentile woman. R. Meir ruled: She may attribute it to her'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the first Tanna restricts the law he may well uphold also the restriction imposed by Rab. ');">⁹</span>

ותסברא ר"מ לחומרא

But, then, does not a difficulty arise<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the Baraitha cited by Raba from which it is evident that R. Meir is more lenient than the Rabbis. ');">¹⁰</span>

רבי מאיר לקולא

from the former?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that', the Baraitha cited by R. Shesheth from which it appears that R. Meir is more restrictive. ');">¹¹</span>

דתניא

— Explain thus:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha cited by R. Shesheth, according to which the first Tanna ruled that 'she may attribute it to a gentile woman'. ');">¹²</span>

אינה תולה בנכרית

Only when she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The gentile woman. ');">¹³</span>

רבי מאיר אומר

experienced a discharge once before; and R. Meir said, If she is capable of a menstrual discharge even though she never yet experienced one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Similarly the Baraitha cited by Raba is to be explained that the first Tanna holds that 'she may not attribute it to the gentile woman' unless the latter had experienced a discharge once before, while R. Meir maintains that it may be attributed to her even if she is only capable of a discharge, though she had not experienced one. Both Baraithas thus give the same rulings in different words, and Rab's view is upheld by that of the first Tanna in each. ');">¹⁴</span>

תולה

Our Rabbis taught: A woman may attribute a stain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Found on her underclothing. ');">¹⁵</span>

ואלא קשיא הך

to another woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom she had previously lent it. ');">¹⁶</span>

תריץ הכי

who was awaiting a day for a day, if it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The day on which the latter had worn it. ');">¹⁷</span>

והיא שרואה

was the latter's second day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the day during a zibah period following the one on which she observed a discharge, though on that day none had been observed. This assumption in favour of the former is permitted (despite the slight disadvantage to the latter of having to wait another day) because of the latter's known condition of uncleanness. ');">¹⁸</span>

ר' מאיר אומר בראויה לראות ואף ע"פ שאינה רואה

and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a similar reason (cf. prev. n. second clause). ');">¹⁹</span>

ת"ר

to a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom she had previously lent it. ');">¹⁶</span>

תולה בשומרת יום כנגד יום בשני שלה ובסופרת שבעה שלא טבלה

who counted seven days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After an established zibah. ');">²⁰</span>

לפיכך היא מתוקנת

before she had performed ritual immersion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the latter would in consequence have to count again a new period of seven days. ');">²¹</span>

וחברתה מקולקלת דברי רשב"ג

Hence she is at an advantage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'repaired', 'sound', sc. she remains clean. ');">²²</span>

רבי אומר

while her friend is at a disadvantage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'spoilt', 'damaged'; the one having to wait an additional day (cf. supra n. 12) and the other to count another seven days (cf. prev. n. but one). ');">²³</span>

אינה תולה לפיכך שתיהן מקולקלות

so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Rabbi ruled, She<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since her attribution would be a disadvantage to her friend. ');">²⁴</span>

ושוין שתולה בשומרת יום כנגד יום בראשון שלה וביושבת על דם טוהר ובבתולה שדמיה טהורין

may not so attribute it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though she herself would in consequence be regarded as unclean. ');">²⁵</span>

לפיכך דרשב"ג למה לי

Hence both are at a disadvantage. They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. ');">²⁶</span>

משום דרבי

agree, however, that she may attribute a stain to a woman who was awaiting a day for a day if it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The day on which the latter had worn it. ');">²⁷</span>

לפיכך דרבי למה לי

was the latter's first day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the assumption that the stain was due to her would impose no additional uncleanness upon her. ');">²⁸</span>

מהו דתימא

and to a woman who was abiding in her clean blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the eighth to the fortieth day after the birth of a male child and from the fifteenth to the eightieth after the birth of a female child. Cf. prev. n. ');">²⁹</span>

ההיא דאשתכח כתם גבה תתקלקל אידך לא תתקלקל קמשמע לן

and to a virgin whose blood is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 10b and prev. n. but one. ');">³⁰</span>

אמר רב חסדא

Why was it necessary to state the 'hence' of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. in view of his specific statement that the stain may be attributed to the other woman who was already in a state of uncleanness, is it not obvious that the former is at an advantage while the latter is at a disadvantage? ');">³¹</span>

טמא וטהור שהלכו בשני שבילין אחד טהור ואחד טמא באנו למחלוקת רבי ורשב"ג

— On account of the ruling of Rabbi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which both women are at a disadvantage. ');">³²</span>

מתקיף לה רב אדא

Why was it necessary to state the 'hence' of Rabbi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut. ');">³³</span>

עד כאן לא קאמר רבי התם אלא דתרוייהו כי הדדי נינהו הכא מאי נפקא לן מינה

— It might have been presumed that only the woman on whom the stain was found shall be at a disadvantage while the other shall not be disadvantaged, hence we were informed that both are at a disadvantage.

ורב חסדא סוף סוף איהי טבילה בעיא

R. Hisda stated: If a clean and an unclean person walked respectively in two paths one of which was clean and the other unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is unknown who walked in which. ');">³⁴</span>

איתמר א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא

we arrive at the dispute between Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the latter, who ruled that a stain found on a clean woman may be attributed by her to a woman who was known to be unclean while she herself remains clean, it may be here assumed that the clean person walked in the clean path and the unclean walked in the unclean one; while according to Rabbi no such assumption could be allowed and both persons must be regarded as unclean. ');">³⁵</span>

טמא וטהור ואפילו טהור ותלוי שהלכו בשני שבילין אחד טמא ואחד טהור תולה טמא בתלוי וטהור בטהור לדברי הכל

R. Adda demurred: Rabbi may have maintained his view only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until here Rabbi only said'. ');">³⁶</span>

בעא מיניה ר' יוחנן מרבי יהודה בר ליואי

there, because both are in similar conditions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since even the woman who was hitherto unclean could, by performing immersion, attain cleanness on the day the stain was found. The assumption would consequently place her at an undeserved disadvantage. ');">³⁷</span>

מהו לתלות כתם בכתם

but what difference [to the unclean person in this case] could our assumption make?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None; since whatever the assumption he is unclean. As the assumption would not place him under any disadvantage Rabbi in this case may well agree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. ');">³⁸</span>

אליבא דרבי לא תבעי לך השתא ומה התם דקא חזיא מגופה אמרת אינה תולה הכא דמעלמא קא אתי לא כל שכן

And R. Hisda?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How in view of this argument could he maintain his statement? ');">³⁹</span>

כי תבעי לך אליבא דרשב"ג התם הוא דקא חזיא מגופה תליא הכא דמעלמא קאתי לא תליא או דלמא לא שנא

— After all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Granted the woman could attain to cleanness by immersion. ');">⁴⁰</span>

א"ל

she has yet to perform the immersion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before doing which she is still unclean in all respects. As Rabbi nevertheless rules out the assumption that the stain was due to her, it is obvious that he would equally rule out the assumption that it was the unclean person who walked in the unclean path. ');">⁴¹</span>

אין תולין

It was stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with R. Adda's view that even according to Rabbi it may be assumed that the clean person walked in the clean path and the unclean person in the unclean one. ');">⁴²</span>

מה טעם

R. Jose son of R. Hanina ruled, If a clean and an unclean person, and even if a clean, and a doubtfully clean person walked respectively in two paths one of which was unclean and the other clean, it may be assumed, according to the opinion of all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. even according to Rabbi. ');">⁴³</span>

לפי שאין תולין

that the unclean path was taken by the doubtfully clean person and the clean path by the clean one.

איתיביה

R. Johanan enquired of R. Judah b. Liwai: May a stain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Found on the under garment of a woman who was known to be clean. ');">⁴⁴</span>

אין תולין כתם בכתם

be attributed to [another woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had previously worn that garment. ');">⁴⁵</span>

השאילה חלוקה לנכרית או ליושבת על הכתם הרי זו תולה בה

who was unclean on account of] a stain? So far as Rabbi's view is concerned the question does not arise; for, since in that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Discussed supra. Lit., 'there'. ');">⁴⁶</span>

הא גופה קשיא

where the woman had observed a discharge from her own body<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A case of certain uncleanness. ');">⁴⁷</span>

רישא אמרת אין תולין סיפא אמרת תולין

you said [that the other woman's stain] may not be attributed [to her], how much less then may this be done in this case where the stain may have originated from an external cause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'where it came from the world'; a case of doubtful uncleanness. ');">⁴⁸</span>

הא לא קשיא הא רבי והא רשב"ג

The question arises only in connection with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: Is it only in that case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Discussed supra. Lit., 'there'. ');">⁴⁶</span>

איכא דאמרי

where the woman had observed a discharge from her own body,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A case of certain uncleanness. ');">⁴⁷</span>

הא והא רבי הא בראשון שלה הא בשני שלה

that the other woman's stain may be attributed to her, but here, where the stain may have originated from an external cause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'where it came from the world'; a case of doubtful uncleanness. ');">⁴⁸</span>

רב אשי אמר

she may not so attribute it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And both women are, therefore, unclean. ');">⁴⁹</span>

הא והא רשב"ג ולא קשיא

or is it possible that no difference is made between the two cases? — The other replied: One may not so attribute it. What is the reason? — Because [there is a tradition that]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the uncleanness that is due to a stain is merely of a doubtful nature, it being possible that the stain originated from an external cause, and the woman cannot in consequence be regarded as prone to a discharge. ');">⁵⁰</span> one may not so attribute it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And both women are, therefore, unclean. ');">⁵¹</span> He pointed out to him the following objection: 'Is it not permissible to attribute a stain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Found on the under garment of a woman who was known to be clean. ');">⁵²</span> to [another woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had previously worn that garment. ');">⁵³</span> who was unclean on account of] a stain. If a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who discovered the stain. ');">⁵⁴</span> had lent her shirt to a gentile woman or to one who continued unclean by reason of a stain, she may attribute its to her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The stain she discovered. ');">⁵⁵</span> (But is not this Baraitha self contradictory: In the first clause you stated, 'it is not permissible to attribute' while in the final clause you stated that it was permissible to attribute? — This is no difficulty: The former is the view of Rabbi while the latter is that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. There are some who read: The latter as well as the former represents the view of Rabbi, but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the apparent contradiction. ');">⁵⁶</span> the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'It is permissible to attribute'. ');">⁵⁷</span> applies to her first day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the stain was discovered by the woman on the same day on which the other (to whom the garment had been lent) had found a stain on an under garment of hers which caused her to be unclean on that day and also imposed upon her the restriction of remaining unclean until a second day (a day for a day) had passed. Since she has in any case to lose a second day, the attribution does not cause her any disadvantage. ');">⁵⁸</span> while the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does not allow the attribution. ');">⁵⁹</span> applies to her second day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the attribution would place her under a disadvantage by extending her uncleanness to the third day. ');">⁶⁰</span> R. Ashi replied: The former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does not allow the attribution. ');">⁶¹</span> as well as the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'It is permissible to attribute'. ');">⁵⁷</span> represents the view of R; Simeon b. Gamaliel and yet there is no difficulty,