Niddah 120

Chapter 120

א כאן למפרע כאן להבא

1 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

ב מכל מקום קשיא אמר רבינא לא קשיא הכי קאמר השאילה חלוקה לנכרית בעלת כתם הרי זו תולה בה

2 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 — Rabina replied: This is no difficulty for it is this that was meant:4 If she had lent her shirt to a gentile woman,5 she who discovered6

ג והא או ליושבת על הכתם קתני הכי קאמר או ליושבת על דם טוהר בעלת כתם תולה בה

3 the stain7 may attribute it to her.8

ד שלש שלבשו כו' שהיה ר' נחמיה כו' אמר רב מתנה מ"ט דר' נחמיה דכתיב (ישעיהו ג, כו) ונקתה לארץ תשב כיון שישבה לארץ נקתה

4 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 — 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 she who discovered11

ה אמר רב הונא אמר רבי חנינא מטהר היה רבי נחמיה אפילו באחורי כלי חרס פשיטא

5 the stain may attribute it to her.12 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 clean13 she shall sit upon the ground,14

ו מהו דתימא ליגזור גבו אטו תוכו קמ"ל

6 provided she sat on the ground she is clean.15 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?16

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

7 — 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,17 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.18

ח דרש רב חייא בר רב מתנה משמיה דרב הלכה כר' נחמיה אמר ליה רב נחמן אבא תני מעשה בא לפני חכמים וטמאום ואת אמרת הלכה כרבי נחמיה

8 R. Hiyya son of R. Mattenah citing Rab stated in his discourse: The halachah is in agreement with R. Nehemiah. Said R. Nahman to him: Abba19 learnt, 'A case was once submitted to the Sages and they declared the woman concerned to be unclean' and you state, 'the halachah 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,20 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 If it was found under the outer one,22

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

9 the outer one is unclean23 but the inner one remains clean.24 If it was found between the two, both are unclean.25

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

10 It once happened that blood was found on the edge of a bath,26

יא תנאי היא דתניא ר' יעקב מטמא ורבי נחמיה מטהר והורו חכמים כרבי נחמיה

11 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 This28

יב <big>מתני׳</big> שלש נשים שהיו ישנות במטה אחת ונמצא דם תחת אחת מהן כולן טמאות בדקה אחת מהן ונמצאת טמאה היא טמאה ושתיהן טהורות ותולות זו בזו ואם לא היו ראוין לראות רואין אותן כאילו הן ראויות

12 is a point at issue between Tannas. For it was taught: R. Jacob29 ruled that they were unclean and R. Nehemiah ruled that they were clean, and the Sages30 ruled in agreement with R. Nehemiah.

יג <big>גמ׳</big> אמר רב יהודה אמר רב והוא שבדקה עצמה בשיעור וסת

13 MISHNAH. 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.31 AND IF THEY WERE NOT LIKELY32

יד סבר לה כבר פדא דאמר כל שבעלה בחטאת טהרותיה טמאות

14 TO OBSERVE A DISCHARGE,31 THEY MUST BE REGARDED AS THOUGH THEY WERE LIKELY TO OBSERVE ONE.

טו בעלה באשם תלוי טהרותיה תלויות בעלה פטור טהרותיה טהורות

טז ורבי אושעיא אמר אפילו בעלה בחטאת טהרותיה תלויות

16 GEMARA. Rab Judah citing Rab explained: But this33 applies only where she examined herself immediately [after the discovery of the blood],34

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

17 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

יח א"ר ירמיה משל דר' אושעיא למה הדבר דומה לילד וזקן שהיו מהלכין בדרך כל זמן שהיו בדרך ילד שוהא לבא נכנסו לעיר ילד ממהר לבא ואמר אביי משל דר' אושעיא למה הדבר דומה לאדם שנותן אצבע בעין כל זמן שאצבע בעין דמעה שוהא לבא נטל האצבע דמעה ממהרת לבא

18 her clean things36 are37 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 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

יט ותולות זו בזו ת"ר כיצד תולות זו בזו עוברה ושאינה עוברה תולה עוברה בשאינה עוברה

19 her clean things40 are regarded as being in a suspended state of uncleanness;41 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 her clean things43

כ מניקה ושאינה מניקה תולה מניקה בשאינה מניקה זקנה ושאינה זקנה תולה זקנה בשאינה זקנה בתולה ושאינה בתולה תולה בתולה בשאינה בתולה

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

21 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 ruled: Even where her husband is liable to a sin-offering,45 her clean things are46 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 One can see the reason48 there, since it might well be assumed that the waiter49 had caused the obstruction of the blood; but, in this case,50 if it were a fact that the blood was there,51 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 R. Jeremiah observed: As to R. Oshaia's metaphor53 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.54 but after they enter the town55 the child accelerates his pace.56 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.56 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 woman54 and the other was not pregnant, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was a nursing woman57 and the other was not a nursing woman, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was an old woman57 and the other was not an old woman, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was a virgin58 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

Previous Chapter Next Chapter