Niddah 120

כאן למפרע כאן להבא

for the former applies to retrospective uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. to a case where the owner of the shirt discovered the stain on it before the other to whom she had lent it had discovered the stain on her own under garment, Though the other subsequently discovered the stain, she cannot be regarded as unclean retrospectively (from the time the owner of the shirt had discovered the stain) since at that time she was still in a condition of cleanness (cf. Tosaf. and Tosaf. Asheri, contra Rashi). ');">¹</span>

מכל מקום קשיא

while the latter applies to future uncleanness.)2 At all events does not a difficulty arise?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently it does; for since, according to the Baraitha cited, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel allows the attribution how could R. Judah b. Liwai maintain that he does not. ');">³</span>

אמר רבינא

— Rabina replied: This is no difficulty for it is this that was meant:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the Baraitha under discussion. ');">⁴</span>

לא קשיא הכי קאמר

If she had lent her shirt to a gentile woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who experienced a discharge. ');">⁵</span>

השאילה חלוקה לנכרית בעלת כתם הרי זו תולה בה והא או ליושבת על הכתם קתני

she who discovered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the owner of'. ');">⁶</span>

הכי קאמר

the stain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the Israelitish woman. ');">⁷</span>

או ליושבת על דם טוהר בעלת כתם תולה בה

may attribute it to her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The gentile, who loses thereby nothing, while the Israelitish woman remains clean. ');">⁸</span>

שלש שלבשו כו' שהיה ר' נחמיה כו'

But was it not stated, 'or to one who continued unclean by reason of a stain'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it was. Now if the reference is to the woman who just discovered the stain, how could the expression 'continued' (which implies that the counting of the clean days had already begun) be used? ');">⁹</span>

אמר רב מתנה

— It is this that was meant: Or to one who continued clean owing to clean blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., either to a gentile woman who is free from the restrictions of uncleanness or to an Israelitish woman who for the reason stated is exempt from uncleanness. ');">¹⁰</span>

מ"ט דר' נחמיה דכתיב (ישעיהו ג, כו) ונקתה לארץ תשב כיון שישבה לארץ נקתה

she who discovered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the owner of'. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב הונא אמר רבי חנינא

the stain may attribute it to her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since neither would thereby be adversely affected while she remains clean in consequence. ');">¹²</span>

מטהר היה רבי נחמיה אפילו באחורי כלי חרס

IF THREE WOMEN HAD WORN etc. FOR R. NEHEMIAH HAS etc. R. Mattenah stated: What is R. Nehemiah's reason? That it is written, And clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V., utterly bereft. ');">¹³</span>

פשיטא

she shall sit upon the ground,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. III, 26. ');">¹⁴</span>

מהו דתימא

provided she sat on the ground she is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a stain found on the ground does not render her unclean. ');">¹⁵</span>

ליגזור גבו אטו תוכו קמ"ל

R. Huna citing R. Hanina stated: R. Nehemiah rules that they are clean if they sat even on the back of an earthenware vessel. But is not this obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently it is, since like a stone bench, the back of an earthenware vessel is not susceptible to uncleanness. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר אביי

— It might have been presumed that a restriction shall be imposed on its back as a preventive measure against the possible relaxation of the law in regard to its inside,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is susceptible to uncleanness, and a stain on which would in accordance with Rabbinic law subject a woman to uncleanness. ');">¹⁷</span>

מטהר היה ר' נחמיה במטלניות שאין בהן שלש על שלש דלא חזיין לא לעניים ולא לעשירים

hence we were informed that on the back of an earthenware vessel they are clean. Abaye stated: R. Nehemiah holds them to be clean if they sat on strips of cloth that were less than three by three fingerbreadths, since such are unsuitable for use either by the poor or the rich.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And hence unsusceptible to uncleanness. ');">¹⁸</span>

דרש רב חייא בר רב מתנה משמיה דרב

R. Hiyya son of R. Mattenah citing Rab stated in his discourse: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Nehemiah. Said R. Nahman to him: Abba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abba Arika or Rab. 'My father' (Golds.), MS.M., 'ana' ('I'). ');">¹⁹</span>

הלכה כר' נחמיה

learnt, 'A case was once submitted to the Sages and they declared the woman concerned to be unclean' and you state, 'the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Nehemiah'? — What was that case? — The one concerning which it was taught: If two women were grinding with a hand mill and blood was found under the inner one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one nearer to the mill. ');">²⁰</span>

אמר ליה רב נחמן

both are unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the other who sits behind her would naturally shift her position towards the mill and, assuming sometimes the same position as the inner one, would be as likely as she to be the cause of the stain in that spot. As it is thus uncertain which of the two was the cause both must be regarded as unclean. ');">²¹</span>

אבא תני מעשה בא לפני חכמים וטמאום ואת אמרת הלכה כרבי נחמיה

If it was found under the outer one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A position which the inner one would never occupy, the tendency being to come up as close as possible to the mill. ');">²²</span>

מאי היא

the outer one is unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she may have been the cause of the stain. ');">²³</span>

דתניא

but the inner one remains clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one. ');">²⁴</span>

שתי נשים שהיו טוחנות ברחיים של יד ונמצא דם תחת הפנימית שתיהן טמאות תחת החיצונה החיצונה טמאה והפנימית טהורה בינתים שתיהן טמאות

If it was found between the two, both are unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because either might have been the cause. ');">²⁵</span>

היה מעשה ונמצא דם על שפתה של אמבטי ועל עלה של זית בשעה שמסיקות את התנור ובא מעשה לפני חכמים וטמאום

It once happened that blood was found on the edge of a bath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which two women were using. ');">²⁶</span>

תנאי היא דתניא

and on an olive leaf while they were making a fire in an oven, and when the case was submitted to the Sages they declared them to be unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now an olive leaf is not susceptible to uncleanness and yet the Sages (the majority) ruled that a stain on it causes uncleanness. How then could it be said that the halachah agrees with R. Nehemiah who was only an individual? ');">²⁷</span>

ר' יעקב מטמא ורבי נחמיה מטהר והורו חכמים כרבי נחמיה

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether R. Nehemiah is opposed by an individual authority or by a majority. ');">²⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שלש נשים שהיו ישנות במטה אחת ונמצא דם תחת אחת מהן כולן טמאות

is a point at issue between Tannas. For it was taught: R. Jacob<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An individual. ');">²⁹</span>

בדקה אחת מהן ונמצאת טמאה היא טמאה ושתיהן טהורות

ruled that they were unclean and R. Nehemiah ruled that they were clean, and the Sages<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The majority. ');">³⁰</span>

ותולות זו בזו ואם לא היו ראוין לראות רואין אותן כאילו הן ראויות

ruled in agreement with R. Nehemiah.

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

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF THREE WOMEN SLEPT IN ONE BED AND BLOOD WAS FOUND UNDER ONE OF THEM, THEY ARE ALL UNCLEAN. IF ONE OF THEM EXAMINED HERSELF AND WAS FOUND TO BE UNCLEAN, SHE ALONE IS UNCLEAN WHILE THE TWO OTHERS ARE CLEAN. THEY MAY ALSO ATTRIBUTE THE BLOOD TO ONE ANOTHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra. ');">³¹</span>

והוא שבדקה עצמה בשיעור וסת

AND IF THEY WERE NOT LIKELY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'suitable'. ');">³²</span>

סבר לה כבר פדא דאמר

TO OBSERVE A DISCHARGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra. ');">³¹</span>

כל שבעלה בחטאת טהרותיה טמאות בעלה באשם תלוי טהרותיה תלויות בעלה פטור טהרותיה טהורות

THEY MUST BE REGARDED AS THOUGH THEY WERE LIKELY TO OBSERVE ONE.

ורבי אושעיא אמר

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab Judah citing Rab explained: But this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That IF ONE OF THEM EXAMINED HERSELF&nbsp;… SHE ALONE IS UNCLEAN WHILE THE TWO OTHERS ARE CLEAN. ');">³³</span>

אפילו בעלה בחטאת טהרותיה תלויות

applies only where she examined herself immediately [after the discovery of the blood],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, however, her examination had been delayed the others too are unclean. ');">³⁴</span>

בשלמא התם אימר שמש עכביה לדם [אבל] הכא אם איתא דהוי דם מאן עכביה

He is of the same opinion as Bar Pada who laid down: Whenever her husband is liable to a sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case, for instance, where she discovered menstrual blood immediately after their intercourse, when it is assumed that the discharge had occurred during intercourse. ');">³⁵</span>

א"ר ירמיה

her clean things<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terumah, for instance, which may be eaten only when clean. ');">³⁶</span>

משל דר' אושעיא למה הדבר דומה לילד וזקן שהיו מהלכין בדרך כל זמן שהיו בדרך ילד שוהא לבא נכנסו לעיר ילד ממהר לבא

are<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she discovered menstrual blood immediately after her contact with them. ');">³⁷</span>

ואמר אביי

to be unclean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being assumed (cf. prev. n. but two) that the discharge occurred while she was still handling the clean things. In such a case the uncleanness is regarded as certain and the things she handled must be burnt. ');">³⁸</span>

משל דר' אושעיא למה הדבר דומה לאדם שנותן אצבע בעין כל זמן שאצבע בעין דמעה שוהא לבא נטל האצבע דמעה ממהרת לבא

where her husband is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the case where she discovered the blood after an interval had elapsed during which she could descend from the bed and wash her genitals it being doubtful whether the discharge had occurred during or after intercourse. ');">³⁹</span>

ותולות זו בזו

her clean things<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she discovered the blood after such an interval (cf. prev. n.) had passed since she handled them. ');">⁴⁰</span>

ת"ר

are regarded as being in a suspended state of uncleanness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. they may be neither eaten nor burnt. ');">⁴¹</span>

כיצד תולות זו בזו

and where her husband is exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where the longer interval (cf. prev. n. but two) had passed before the blood was discovered, when it is regarded as certain hat the discharge occurred after intercourse. ');">⁴²</span>

עוברה ושאינה עוברה תולה עוברה בשאינה עוברה מניקה ושאינה מניקה תולה מניקה בשאינה מניקה זקנה ושאינה זקנה תולה זקנה בשאינה זקנה בתולה ושאינה בתולה תולה בתולה בשאינה בתולה

her clean things<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a similar interval (cf. prev. n.) had elapsed between the time she has handled them and the discovery of the blood. ');">⁴³</span>

היו שתיהן עוברות שתיהן מניקות שתיהן זקנות שתיהן בתולות זו היא ששנינו לא היו ראויות לראות רואין

remain clean. But R. Oshaia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that even if a discovery of blood was made immediately after she handled the clean things one cannot be sure that the discharge had occurred earlier when she was still handling them. ');">⁴⁴</span> ruled: Even where her husband is liable to a sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2. ');">⁴⁵</span> her clean things are<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the doubt. ');">⁴⁶</span> deemed to be in a suspended state.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it follows that our Mishnah which ruled that only the woman who found herself on examination to be unclean is regarded as the cause of the blood while the two others remain clean, upholds the opinion of Bar Pada who, where the examination took place immediately after the clean things had been handled, regards the things as definitely unclean. It must be contrary to the view of R. Oshaia who, even in such a case (an examination after the shortest interval), regards the clean things as being merely in a suspected state. ');">⁴⁷</span> One can see the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why it may be assumed that the discharge occurred earlier during intercourse. ');">⁴⁸</span> there, since it might well be assumed that the waiter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Euphemism. ');">⁴⁹</span> had caused the obstruction of the blood; but, in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The handling of clean things. ');">⁵⁰</span> if it were a fact that the blood was there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the discharge occurred earlier. ');">⁵¹</span> what could have caused its obstruction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously nothing. Hence it is only in the case of intercourse (where the assumption is possible) that the husband becomes liable for a sin-offering, but in the case of clean things (where no such assumption is possible) no certain uncleanness may be presumed and only that of a doubtful nature may be imposed upon them Rabbinically for twenty-four hours retrospectively. ');">⁵²</span> R. Jeremiah observed: As to R. Oshaia's metaphor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The waiter had caused the obstruction of the blood'. ');">⁵³</span> to what may this be compared? To an old man and a child who were walking together on a road. While they are underway the child restrains his gait.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'delays to come', waiting for the lead of the old man. ');">⁵⁴</span> but after they enter the town<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When they walk in different directions to their own respective homes. ');">⁵⁵</span> the child accelerates his pace.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hastens to come'. ');">⁵⁶</span> Abaye on the other hand observed: As to the metaphor of R. Oshaia, to what may this be compared? To a man who puts his finger on his eye. While the finger is on the eye the tears are held back, but as soon as the finger is removed the tears quickly come forth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hastens to come'. ');">⁵⁶</span> THEY MAY ALSO ATTRIBUTE THE BLOOD TO ONE ANOTHER. Our Rabbis taught: In what manner do they attribute it to one another? If one was a pregnant woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'delays to come', waiting for the lead of the old man. ');">⁵⁴</span> and the other was not pregnant, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was a nursing woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who usually loses her menstrual flow. ');">⁵⁷</span> and the other was not a nursing woman, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was an old woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who usually loses her menstrual flow. ');">⁵⁷</span> and the other was not an old woman, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was a virgin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a young woman (whether unmarried or married) who had not yet experienced any menstrual discharge (cf. supra 8b). ');">⁵⁸</span> and the other was no virgin, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If both were pregnant, nursing, old or virgins — it is [a case like] this concerning which we have learnt, IF THEY WERE NOT LIKELY TO OBSERVE A DISCHARGE, THEY MUST BE REGARDED