Niddah 119

Chapter 119

א הרואה

1 who once experienced a discharge.1

ב ממאי דומיא דנדה מה נדה דקחזיא אף נכרית דקא חזיא

2 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 discharge1 so must the GENTILE WOMAN be one who experienced a discharge.1

ג אמר רב ששת כי ניים ושכיב רב אמרה להא שמעתא דתניא תולה בנכרית רבי מאיר אומר בנכרית הראויה לראות ואפילו ר"מ לא קאמר אלא בראויה לראות אבל רואה לא איצטריך

3 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 it2 to the gentile woman.3 R. Meir said, To the gentile woman who is capable of a menstrual discharge',4 Now even R. Meir5 only spoke of one who is 'capable of a menstrual discharge' but did not require one who actually experienced a discharge.6 Raba retorted: But do you understand R. Meir to restrict the law?7 R. Meir in fact relaxes it. For it was taught: 'She may not attribute it8

ד אמר רבא ותסברא ר"מ לחומרא רבי מאיר לקולא

4 to the gentile woman. R. Meir ruled: She may attribute it to her'.9 But, then, does not a difficulty arise10 from the former?11

ה דתניא אינה תולה בנכרית רבי מאיר אומר תולה ואלא קשיא הך תריץ הכי והיא שרואה ר' מאיר אומר בראויה לראות ואף ע"פ שאינה רואה

5 — Explain thus:12 Only when she13 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 Our Rabbis taught: A woman may attribute a stain15 to another woman16 who was awaiting a day for a day, if it17 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 and19

ו ת"ר תולה בשומרת יום כנגד יום בשני שלה

6 to a woman16 who counted seven days20

ז ובסופרת שבעה שלא טבלה לפיכך היא מתוקנת וחברתה מקולקלת דברי רשב"ג רבי אומר אינה תולה לפיכך שתיהן מקולקלות

7 before she had performed ritual immersion.21 Hence she is at an advantage22 while her friend is at a disadvantage;23 so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Rabbi ruled, She24

ח ושוין שתולה בשומרת יום כנגד יום בראשון שלה

8 may not so attribute it.25

ט וביושבת על דם טוהר ובבתולה שדמיה טהורין

י לפיכך דרשב"ג למה לי משום דרבי

10 Hence both are at a disadvantage. They26 agree, however, that she may attribute a stain to a woman who was awaiting a day for a day if it27

יא לפיכך דרבי למה לי מהו דתימא ההיא דאשתכח כתם גבה תתקלקל אידך לא תתקלקל קמשמע לן

11 was the latter's first day,28 and to a woman who was abiding in her clean blood,29 and to a virgin whose blood is clean.30

יב אמר רב חסדא טמא וטהור שהלכו בשני שבילין אחד טהור ואחד טמא באנו למחלוקת רבי ורשב"ג

12 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 — On account of the ruling of Rabbi.32

יג מתקיף לה רב אדא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי התם אלא דתרוייהו כי הדדי נינהו הכא מאי נפקא לן מינה

13 Why was it necessary to state the 'hence' of Rabbi?33 — 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.

יד ורב חסדא סוף סוף איהי טבילה בעיא

14 R. Hisda stated: If a clean and an unclean person walked respectively in two paths one of which was clean and the other unclean,34

טו איתמר א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא טמא וטהור ואפילו טהור ותלוי שהלכו בשני שבילין אחד טמא ואחד טהור תולה טמא בתלוי וטהור בטהור לדברי הכל

15 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 R. Adda demurred: Rabbi may have maintained his view only36

טז בעא מיניה ר' יוחנן מרבי יהודה בר ליואי מהו לתלות כתם בכתם אליבא דרבי לא תבעי לך

16 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 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 And R. Hisda?39

יז השתא ומה התם דקא חזיא מגופה אמרת אינה תולה הכא דמעלמא קא אתי לא כל שכן

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

18 — After all40

יט א"ל אין תולין מה טעם לפי שאין תולין

19 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 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 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,43 that the unclean path was taken by the doubtfully clean person and the clean path by the clean one.

כ איתיביה אין תולין כתם בכתם השאילה חלוקה לנכרית או ליושבת על הכתם הרי זו תולה בה

20 R. Johanan enquired of R. Judah b. Liwai: May a stain44 be attributed to [another woman45 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 case46

כא הא גופה קשיא רישא אמרת אין תולין סיפא אמרת תולין הא לא קשיא הא רבי והא רשב"ג

21 where the woman had observed a discharge from her own body47 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.48 The question arises only in connection with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: Is it only in that case,46

כב איכא דאמרי הא והא רבי הא בראשון שלה הא בשני שלה

22 where the woman had observed a discharge from her own body,47 that the other woman's stain may be attributed to her, but here, where the stain may have originated from an external cause,48

כג רב אשי אמר הא והא רשב"ג ולא קשיא

23 she may not so attribute it,49 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 one may not so attribute it.51 He pointed out to him the following objection: 'Is it not permissible to attribute a stain52 to [another woman53 who was unclean on account of] a stain. If a woman54 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.55 (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, but56 the latter57 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 while the former59 applies to her second day.60 R. Ashi replied: The former61 as well as the latter57 represents the view of R; Simeon b. Gamaliel and yet there is no difficulty,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter