Niddah 123

קמוניא ואשלג הטבילו ועשה על גביו טהרות העביר עליו שבעה סמנין ולא עבר הרי זה צבע הטהרות טהורות ואינו צריך להטביל

CIMOLIAN EARTH, AND LION'S LEAF. IF ONE IMMERSED IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The garment with the suspicious stain. ');">¹</span>

עבר או שדיהה הרי זה כתם והטהרות טמאות וצריך להטביל

AND, HAVING HANDLED CLEAN THINGS ON IT, APPLIED TO IT THE SEVEN SUBSTANCES AND THE STAIN DID NOT FADE AWAY IT MUST BE A DYE; AND THE CLEAN THINGS REMAIN CLEAN AND THERE IS NO NEED TO IMMERSE IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The garment with the suspicious stain. ');">²</span>

איזהו רוק תפל כל שלא טעם כלום

AGAIN. IF THE STAIN FADED AWAY OR GREW FAINTER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a result of the application of the seven substances. ');">³</span>

מי גריסין לעיסת גריסין של פול חלוקת נפש

IT MUST BE A BLOODSTAIN AND THE CLEAN THINGS ARE UNCLEAN AND IT IS NECESSARY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now that the stain had disappeared. ');">⁴</span>

מי רגלים שהחמיצו

TO PERFORM IMMERSION AGAIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first immersion when the stain was still on the garment being of no avail. ');">⁵</span>

וצריך לכסכס שלש פעמים לכל אחד ואחד

WHAT IS MEANT BY TASTELESS SPITTLE'? THAT OF A MAN WHO ON THAT DAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all who'. This is discussed in the Gemara infra. ');">⁶</span>

העבירן שלא כסדרן או שהעביר שבעה סמנין כאחת לא עשה ולא כלום

TASTED NOTHING. THE LIQUID OF CRUSHED BEANS'? PASTE MADE OF CRUSHED BEANS THAT WERE NATURALLY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. not by human hands. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנא

PEELED OFF. URINE'? THIS REFERS TO SUCH AS HAS FERMENTED. ONE MUST SCOUR THE STAIN THREE TIMES WITH EACH OF THE SUBSTANCES. IF THEY WERE NOT APPLIED IN THE PRESCRIBED ORDER, OR IF THE SEVEN SUBSTANCES WERE APPLIED SIMULTANEOUSLY, NOTHING USEFUL HAS THEREBY BEEN DONE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he did not do anything'. ');">⁸</span>

נתר אלכסנדרית ולא נתר אנטפטרית

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. One taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to NATRON in our Mishnah. ');">⁹</span>

בורית

The Alexandrian natron and not the Antipatrian one.

אמר רב יהודה

BORITH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rendered supra LYE. ');">¹⁰</span>

זה אהלא

Rab Judah stated: This means ahala.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An alcalic plant used as soap. ');">¹¹</span>

והתניא

But was it not taught: The borith and the ahal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ahal and ahala being the same, how could Rab Judah maintain that ahala is synonymous with borith seeing that the latter is placed in juxtaposition with ahal? ');">¹²</span>

הבורית והאהל

— The fact is that borith means sulphur. An incongruity was pointed out: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis. ');">¹³</span>

אלא מאי בורית כבריתא

added to them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fruits that are subject to the restrictions of the Sabbatical year. ');">¹⁴</span>

ורמינהי

the bulb of ornithogalum<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'Bethlehem-star'. ');">¹⁵</span>

הוסיפו עליהן הלביצין והלעונין הבורית והאהל

and garden-orache,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'orach'. ');">¹⁶</span>

ואי בורית כבריתא מי אית ליה שביעית

the borith and the ahal. Now if 'borith' means sulphur [the objection would arise:] Is it subject to the restrictions of the Sabbatical year, seeing that it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. marg. gl. Cur. edd., 'We learnt'. ');">¹⁷</span>

והתנן זה הכלל

This is the general rule, Whatsoever has a root<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of which it draws its nourishment from the ground. ');">¹⁸</span>

כל שיש לו עיקר יש לו שביעית וכל שאין לו עיקר אין לו שביעית

is subject to the restrictions of the Sabbatical year and whatsoever has no root is not subject to the restrictions of the Sabbatical year? — What then do you suggest: That borith means ahala? But was it not taught: 'The borith and the ahal'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 436, n. 11. ');">¹⁹</span>

אלא מאי בורית אהלא

— There are two kinds of ahala.

והתניא

KIMONIA.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rendered supra CIMOLIAN EARTH. ');">²⁰</span>

הבורית והאהל

Rab Judah explained: Shelof-doz.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'pull out, stick in', the popular name for Cimolian earth. ');">²¹</span>

תרי גווני אהלא

And eshlag.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rendered LION'S LEAF supra. ');">²²</span>

קמוניא

Samuel stated: I enquired of the seamen and they told me that its name was eshlaga, that it was to be found between the cracks of pearls and that it was extracted with an iron nail.

אמר רב יהודה

IF ONE IMMERSED IT AND, HAVING HANDLED etc. Our Rabbis taught: If one applied to it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A stain on a woman's garment. ');">²³</span>

שלוף דוץ

the seven substances<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enumerated in our Mishnah. ');">²⁴</span>

ואשלג

and it did not fade away and then applied to it soap and it disappeared, one's clean things are unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the disappearance of the stain under the application is evidence that it was one of blood. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר שמואל

But does not soap remove dye also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It does. What proof then is there that the stain was not one of dye? ');">²⁶</span>

שאלתינהו לנחותי ימא ואמרו

— Rather read: If one applied to it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A stain on a woman's garment. ');">²³</span>

אשלגא שמיה ומשתכח ביני נקבי מרגניתא ומפקי לה ברמצא דפרזלא

six of the substances and it did not fade away and when soap had been applied it disappeared, his clean things are unclean, since it is possible that if one had first applied to it the seventh substance it might also have disappeared.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And any stain that disappears under an application of the seven substances can only be a bloodstain. ');">²⁷</span>

הטבילו ועשה [כו']

Another [Baraitha] taught: If one applied to it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A stain on a woman's garment. ');">²³</span>

תנו רבנן

the seven substances and it did not fade away but when one applied them a second time it disappeared, one's clean things remain clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the stain must be one of dye. Had it been a bloodstain it would have disappeared after the first application. ');">²⁸</span>

העביר עליו שבעה סמנין ולא עבר

R. Zera stated: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'the clean things remain clean'. ');">²⁹</span>

צפון ועבר טהרותיו טמאות

was taught only in regard to clean things that were handled between the first and the second wash;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'the clean things remain clean'. ');">²⁹</span>

צפון צבע נמי מעבר

but the clean things that were handled after the second wash<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the application of the substances. ');">³⁰</span>

אלא

are unclean, since the person was particular about it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The stain; as is evidenced by his second attempt to remove it. ');">³¹</span>

העביר עליו ששה סמנין ולא עבר העביר עליו צפון ועבר טהרותיו טמאות שאם העביר שביעי מתחילה שמא עבר

and it had disappeared.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a result of the second application, which brings it within the category of bloodstains that disappear under the application of the seven substances. ');">³²</span>

תניא אידך

העביר עליו שבעה סמנין ולא עבר שנאן ועבר טהרותיו טהורות

א"ר זירא

לא שנו אלא הטהרות שנעשו בין תכבוסת ראשונה לשניה אבל טהרות שנעשו אחר תכבוסת שניה טהרותיו טמאות שהרי הקפיד עליו ועבר