Niddah 12

Chapter 12

א בשעת הדחק והוינן בה מאי לאחר שנזכר אילימא לאחר שנזכר דאין הלכה כרבי אליעזר אלא כרבנן בשעת הדחק היכי עביד כותיה

1 in an emergency'.1 And the point was raised, What could be the meaning of 'after he reminded himself'? If it be explained, 'After he remembered that the halachah was not in agreement with R. Eliezer but in agreement with the Rabbis', [the difficulty would arise:] How could he act according to the former's ruling2 even in an emergency? Hence,3 [it means after he recalled] that it was not stated whether the law was in agreement with the one Master or with the other Master, and having recalled that it was not an individual that differed from him4

ב אלא (לאו) דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר וכיון שנזכר דלאו יחיד פליג עליה אלא רבים פליגי עליה אמר כדי הוא רבי אליעזר לסמוך עליו בשעת הדחק

2 but that many differ from him he observed, 'R. Eliezer deserves to be relied upon in an emergency'.1

ג אי אמרת בשלמא לתרומה היינו דהואי תרומה בימי רבי אלא אי אמרת לקדש קדש בימי רבי מי הואי

3 Now if it is granted [that retrospective uncleanness applies also] to terumah5

ד כדעולא דאמר עולא חבריא מדכן בגלילא הכא נמי בימי רבי

4 one can well understand the incident6 since terumah was in existence in the days of Rabbi, but if it is maintained [that retrospective uncleanness is applicable only] to hallowed things7

ה ת"ש מעשה בשפחתו של רבן גמליאל שהיתה אופה ככרות של תרומה ובין כל אחת ואחת מדיחה ידה במים ובודקת באחרונה בדקה ומצאה טמאה ובאת ושאלה את רבן גמליאל ואמר לה כולן טמאות אמרה לו רבי והלא בדיקה היתה לי בין כל אחת ואחת אמר לה א"כ היא טמאה וכולן טהורות

5 [the objection would arise:] Were there hallowed things in the days of Rabbi?8 — [This may be explained] on the lines of a statement of 'Ullah. As 'Ulla stated, 'The Associates'9 in Galilee10 keep their things11 in levitical cleanness';12 so they may have done it in the days of Rabbi.

ו קתני מיהת ככרות של תרומה מאי תרומה תרומת לחמי תודה תרומת לחמי תודה באפיה מאי בעיא

6 Come and hear: It once happened that R. Gamaliel's13 maid was baking bread loaves of terumah and after each14 she rinsed her hands with water and held an examination. After the last one when she held the examination she found herself to be unclean and she came and asked R. Gamaliel who told her that they were all unclean.15 'Master', she said to him, 'did I not hold an examination after each one'?14

ז דאפרשינהו בלישייהו וכי הא דאמר רב טובי בר רב קטינא לחמי תודה שאפאן ד' חלות יצא והוינן בה והא בעינן ארבעים למצוה

7 'If so', he told her, 'the last16 is unclean17 while all the others are clean'. At all events was it not here stated, 'bread loaves of terumah'?18 — By terumah was meant19 the bread loaves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the four loaves (one from each of the four kinds) which are given to the priest and are subject to the restrictions of hallowed things though they are called terumah (cf. Lev. VII, 14). ');">20 of a thanksgiving-offering.21

ח והא בעינן אפרושי תרומה מינייהו וכי תימא דמפריש פרוסה מכל חד וחד אחד אמר רחמנא שלא יטול פרוסה ואמרינן דאפרשינהו בלישייהו הכא נמי דאפרשינהו בלישייהו

8 But how does it come about that the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering22 should require to be baked?23 This is a case where they24 were set aside25

ט ת"ש שוב מעשה בשפחה של רבן גמליאל שהיתה גפה חביות של יין ובין כל אחת ואחת מדיחה ידיה במים ובודקת ובאחרונה בדקה ומצאה טמאה ובאת ושאלה לרבן גמליאל ואמר לה כולן טמאות אמרה לו והלא בדיקה היתה לי בין כל אחת ואחת אמר לה אם כן היא טמאה וכולן טהורות

9 while they were being kneaded,26 this being in line with what R. Tobi b. Kattina27 ruled: 'If a man baked the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering in four loaves28 he has performed his duty'. [For when] the objection was raised, 'Do we not require forty loaves',29 [the reply was that] this30 is just a religious requirement.31 But, surely, [it was asked,] is it not necessary to separate terumah25

י אי אמרת בשלמא חדא דקדש וחדא דתרומה היא היינו דהדרה ושיילה אלא אי אמרת אידי ואידי דקדש למה לה למהדר ולשייליה מעשה שהיה בשתי שפחות היה

10 from each?32 And should you reply that one might break off a piece from each33

יא לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה אמר רב הונא מעת לעת שבנדה מטמאה בין לקדש ובין לתרומה ממאי מדלא קתני לה גבי מעלות א"ל רב נחמן והא תני תנא לקדש אבל לא לתרומה

11 [it could be retorted that:] The All Merciful said, one34 which implies that one must not break off a piece.25 [To this] it was replied that 'they were set aside while they were being kneaded';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One loaf from each kind was set aside for the priest while nine of each were left for the owner, and subsequently each of the four small and the four large (representing nine small) loaves were duly baked. ');">35 so here also36 it may be explained that they were separated while they were being kneaded.37

יב קבלה מיניה רב שמואל בר רב יצחק בחולין שנעשו על טהרת קדש ולא בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה

12 Come and hear: Another incident took place when R. Gamaliel's maid was sealing wine jars with clay that after each she rinsed her hands with water and held an examination. After the last one when she held the examination and found herself to be unclean she came and asked R. Gamaliel who told her that they were all unclean. 'But, surely', she said to him, 'I held an examination after each one'. 'If so', he told her, 'the last38 is unclean while all the others are clean'. Now if it is conceded that one incident39

יג תנן התם נולד לה ספק טומאה עד שלא גלגלה תעשה בטומאה משגלגלה תעשה בטהרה

13 concerned hallowed things and the other terumah, it can be well understood why she asked a second time, but if it is contended that the former as well as the latter concerned hallowed things, why should she have asked him a second time? — [Each] incident occurred with a different maid.40 Another version: R. Huna ruled, [The retrospective uncleanness during] the twenty-four hours [preceding the observation] of a menstrual flow is conveyed both to hallowed things and to terumah. Whence is this41

יד עד שלא גלגלה תעשה בטומאה חולין נינהו ומותר לגרום טומאה לחולין שבארץ ישראל משגלגלה תעשה בטהרה חולין הטבולין לחלה כחלה דמו ואסור לגרום טומאה לחלה

14 inferred? From its omission in the enumeration of42 the various grades [of sanctity].43

טו תנא

15 Said R. Nahman to him: Surely, a Tanna44 recited [that the retrospective uncleanness]45 applies only to hallowed things and not to terumah. R. Samuel son of R. Isaac accepted this [teaching]46 from him [and explained it] as applying to common food that was prepared under conditions of hallowed things and not to common food that was prepared in conditions of terumah.47 We learnt elsewhere: If a question of doubtful uncleanness has arisen about a dough48 before it was rolled49 it may be prepared in uncleanness,50 [but if the doubt has arisen] after it had been rolled51 it must be prepared in cleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hal. III, 2; since it is forbidden to cause uncleanness to a hallowed thing (cf. Bek. 34a) though the dough in question could not in any case be eaten on account of its doubtful condition of uncleanness. ');">52 'Before it was rolled it may be prepared in uncleanness', because it is common food and it is permitted to cause uncleanness to common food in Erez Israel. 'After it had been rolled it must be prepared in cleanness', because common food that is in a condition of tebel53 in respect of the dough-offering is regarded as dough-offering, and it is forbidden to cause uncleanness to the dough-offering. A Tanna taught:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter