Niddah 124

אמר ליה רבי אבא לרב אשי

Said R. Abba to R. Ashi: Does then the uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thing'. ');">¹</span>

מידי בקפידא תליא מילתא

depend on whether one is particular? — Yes, the other replied, for it was taught, 'R. Hiyya ruled: To that which is certain menstrual blood one may apply the seven substances and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the stain is still slightly visible. ');">²</span>

א"ל

thereby<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the application of the substances destroys its natural and original appearance. ');">³</span>

אין דתניא רבי חייא אומר

neutralize it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no one minds such a faint stain it becomes clean. ');">⁴</span>

דם הנדה ודאי מעביר עליו ז' סמנין ומבטלו ואמאי

But why should this be so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. ');">⁵</span>

הא דם נדה הוא

seeing that it is menstrual blood? It is obvious then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the fact that it is regarded as clean. ');">⁶</span>

אלמא בקפידא תליא מילתא ה"נ בקפידא תליא מילתא

that uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thing'. ');">¹</span>

תנן התם

depends<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case of R. Hiyya. ');">⁷</span>

חרסין שנשתמש בהן זב שבלעו משקין ונפלו לאויר התנור והוסק התנור התנור טמא שסוף משקה לצאת

on whether one is particular. Here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case supra 62a ad fin. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ר"ל

then uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thing'. ');">¹</span>

לא שנו אלא משקין קלים אבל משקין חמורין טמא אע"פ שלא הוסק התנור

may depend on whether one is particular.

רבי יוחנן אמר

Elsewhere we learnt: If potsherds which a <i>zab</i> has used<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus rendered unclean. ');">⁹</span>

אחד משקין קלין ואחד משקין חמורין אם הוסק התנור אין אי לא לא

absorbed liquids and then fell into the air-space of an oven,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without touching the oven itself. ');">¹⁰</span>

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש

and the oven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was an earthen vessel, that contracts uncleanness through its air-space. ');">¹¹</span>

הטבילו ועשה על גביו טהרות והעביר עליו ז' סמנין ולא עבר הרי זה צבע וטהרותיו טהורות ואין צריך להטביל

was heated, the oven becomes unclean, because the liquid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has contracted uncleanness from the unclean potsherd into which it was absorbed. ');">¹²</span>

אמר ליה

would<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to the heat of the oven which warms up the potsherds. ');">¹³</span>

הנח לכתמים דרבנן

ultimately emerge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the air-space and thus convey uncleanness to the oven. Cf. Kel. IX, 5, where this Mishnah occurs with some variations. ');">¹⁴</span>

והתני רבי חייא

Resh Lakish stated: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That uncleanness is conveyed to the oven only where it was heated, but if it was not heated the absorbed liquids convey no uncleanness to it. ');">¹⁵</span>

דם הנדה ודאי מעביר עליו ז' סמנין ומבטלו

was learnt only in regard to liquids of a minor uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that are not 'father of uncleanness' as for instance, a zab's tears. Since the uncleanness that such liquids convey to a vessel is only Rabbinical the oven remains clean when the liquids are in an absorbed state. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר ליה

but in the case of liquids of a major uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which convey uncleanness to a vessel even according to Pentateuchal law. ');">¹⁷</span>

רבי לא שנה רבי חייא מנא ליה

the oven becomes unclean even though it was not heated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no liquid has emerged. Since heat causes it to emerge the liquid cannot be regarded as an absorbed uncleanness. ');">¹⁸</span>

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש

R. Johanan stated: Whether the liquids were subject to a minor or a major uncleanness the oven is unclean only if it was heated but not otherwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if the oven was heated yes; if not, not', since an absorbed uncleanness (cf. Hul. 71a) conveys no uncleanness. ');">¹⁹</span>

רביעית דם שנבלע בבית הבית טמא

R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: IF ONE IMMERSED IT 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 AGAIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now if it be granted (with R. Johanan) that an absorbed uncleanness, though it emerges under certain special conditions, is treated as clean, the assumption here that the stain was one of dye and, therefore, clean is well justified; for even though it was blood it would (being absorbed) convey no uncleanness. But if it is maintained (with Resh Lakish) that even an absorbed uncleanness, wherever it would emerge under certain conditions, conveys uncleanness, how could the law be relaxed in this case where the possibility of blood cannot be ruled out? ');">²⁰</span>

ואמרי לה

The other replied: Leave alone the laws of stains<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With which our Mishnah deals. ');">²¹</span>

הבית טהור ולא פליגי הא בכלים דמעיקרא הא בכלים דבסוף

which are merely Rabbinical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And may be relaxed. Pentateuchally no uncleanness is involved unless blood was found on the woman's body. ');">²²</span>

נבלעה בכסות אם מתכבסת ויוצא ממנה רביעית דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

But [R. Johanan objected] did not R. Hiyya teach, 'To that which is certain menstrual blood one may apply the seven substances and thereby neutralize it'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra q.v. notes. This shows that even actual blood, if it is in an absorbed state, though it would emerge under an application of soap, is regarded as clean. How then could Resh Lakish maintain that where the oven was not heated, uncleanness is conveyed by the absorbed liquids? ');">²³</span>

אמר רב כהנא

— The other replied: If Rabbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The compiler of the Mishnah. ');">²⁴</span>

מקולי רביעיות שנו כאן שאני דם תבוסה דרבנן

has not taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his authoritative compilation. ');">²⁵</span>

איתיביה ר"ל לרבי יוחנן

it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya's ruling. ');">²⁶</span>

כל הבלוע שאינו יכול לצאת טהור הא יכול לצאת טמא ואף ע"ג דלא נפיק

whence could R. Hiyya<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was the disciple of Rabbi. ');">²⁷</span>

א"ר פפא

know it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is obvious that he could not. The Baraitha cited must, therefore, be treated as spurious. ');">²⁸</span>

כל היכא דאין יכול לצאת ולא הקפיד עליו דברי הכל טהור יכול לצאת והקפיד עליו דברי הכל טמא כי פליגי דיכול לצאת ולא הקפיד עליו

R. Johanan pointed out another objection against Resh Lakish: 'If a quarter of a <i>log</i> of blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a corpse. ');">²⁹</span>

מר סבר

was absorbed in the floor of a house [all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is susceptible to uncleanness. ');">³⁰</span>

כיון דיכול לצאת אף על גב דלא הקפיד עליו

that is in] the house becomes unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the blood of a corpse of the quantity prescribed conveys uncleanness by overshadowing as the corpse itself. ');">³¹</span>

ומר סבר

but others say: [All that is in] the house remains clean. These two versions, however, do not essentially differ, since the former refers to vessels that were there originally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the blood was absorbed, and thus contracted uncleanness by overshadowing. ');">³²</span>

אע"ג דיכול לצאת

while the latter refers to vessels that were brought in subsequently.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the blood had been absorbed, when it conveys uncleanness no longer. ');">³³</span> Where 'blood was absorbed in a garment, and on being washed, a quarter of a <i>log</i> of blood would emerge from it, it is unclean, but otherwise it is clean!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Oh. III, 2; though a full quarter of a log of blood is absorbed in it. Those two rulings prove that an absorbed uncleanness, though it would emerge under special conditions, is regarded as clean. An objection against Resh Lakish. ');">³⁴</span> — R. Kahana replied: Here they have learnt some of the more lenient rulings concerning quarters of a <i>log</i> [both referring to a mixture of clean and unclean blood]; [and the law of] mixed blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dam tebusah (defined infra 71a) whose uncleanness is doubtful. ');">³⁵</span> is different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From blood that is definitely unclean. ');">³⁶</span> since it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in an unabsorbed condition. ');">³⁷</span> is only Rabbinical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence 'the relaxation of the law when it is absorbed. ');">³⁸</span> Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan: Any absorbed uncleanness that cannot emerge is regarded as clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Oh. III, 2. ');">³⁹</span> Thus it follows, does it not, that if it can emerge it is unclean even though it had not yet emerged?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could R. Johanan maintain in the case of the potsherd that the oven is unclean only when the liquids emerged? ');">⁴⁰</span> — R. Papa replied: Wherever it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The unclean substance. ');">⁴¹</span> cannot emerge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the object that absorbed it. ');">⁴²</span> and the owner did not mind absorption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M., Maharsha, and some old edd. omit the last eight words. ');">⁴³</span> all agree that it is regarded as clean. If it can emerge and the owner does mind the absorption, all agree that it is unclean. They only differ where it can emerge but the owner does not mind its absorption. One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish. ');">⁴⁴</span> holds the view that since it can emerge [it is unclean], though the owner did not mind its absorption;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his ruling in the case of the potsherd where the liquid would emerge if the oven were heated. ');">⁴⁵</span> and the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan. ');">⁴⁶</span> holds that although it can emerge