Niddah 136

Chapter 136

א וכן תנא לוי במתניתא אחר הימים בין בדקה ומצאה טהורה בין בדקה ומצאה טמאה הרי זו ספק זבה
1 Levi also taught the same ruling in a Baraitha: After these days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referred to in the second clause of our Mishnah (cf. prev. n. but five). ');"><sup>1</sup></span> irrespective of whether she examined herself and found that she was clean or whether she examined herself and found that she was unclean, behold she is to be regarded as a doubtful zabah.
ב ומטמאה מעת לעת לימא תהוי תיובתא דרבא דאמר רבא לומר שאין האשה מטמאה מעת לעת בתוך ימי זיבתה
2 SHE CONVEYS, HOWEVER, UNCLEANNESS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS RETROSPECTIVELY. Must it be conceded that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that if after the passing of her menstruation period a woman found that she was unclean (the first clause in our' Mishnah) her uncleanness is retrospective for twenty-four hours (the third clause of our Mishnah which, as explained supra, is an interpretation of the first). ');"><sup>2</sup></span> represents an objection against a view of Raba, since Raba stated: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clause of the second Mishnah supra 38b: Throughout all the eleven days a woman is in a presumptive state of cleanness. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> tells that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since during the zibah period the menstrual flow is suspended. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> a woman during the days of her <i>zibah</i> does not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the first discharge. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ג ולאו אותביניה לרבא חדא זימנא הכי קאמרינן לימא תהוי תיובתא דרבא נמי מהא
3 cause twenty-four hours retrospective uncleanness? — But was not an objection against Raba raised once before?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it was, supra 39a where the objection remained unsolved. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> — It is this that we meant: Must it be conceded that an objection may be raised against Raba from this Mishnah also? — Raba can answer you: When it was stated, SHE CONVEYS, HOWEVER, UNCLEANNESS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS RETROSPECTIVELY, the reference was to the beginning of this chapter, viz., to a girl who observed a discharge while she was still in her father's house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 64b. In such a case Beth Hillel ruled that intercourse is permitted all night, and to this our Mishnah adds that if the woman found subsequently that she was unclean, her uncleanness is retrospective for twenty-four hours. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> As it might have been presumed that, since clean days intervened, the discharge should be regarded as one at the beginning of her menstruation and she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a virgin who experienced a discharge for the first time. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ד אמר לך רבא כי קתני מטמאה מעת לעת אריש פרקין קאי אראתה ועודה בבית אביה
4 should in consequence convey no retrospective uncleanness for twenty-four hours, hence we were informed [that she does]. BUT IF SHE HAS A SETTLED PERIOD. Must it be conceded that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That IF SHE HAS A SETTLED PERIOD and she observed a discharge at that period in the days of her zibah, IT SUFFICES FOR HER TO BE DEEMED UNCLEAN FROM THE TIME OF HER DISCHARGE, It is now assumed that this ruling of our Mishnah referred to the case where AFTER SOME DAYS (viz., after the termination of the menstruation period and during one of zibah) SHE EXAMINED HERSELF AND FOUND THAT SHE WAS UNCLEAN. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ה סד"א כיון דמפסקי להו ימים טהורין כתחלת נדתה דמיא ולא תטמא מעת לעת קמ"ל
5 presents an objection against the view of R. Huna b. Hiyya cited in the name of Samuel, since R. Huna b. Hiyya citing Samuel stated: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clause of the second Mishnah supra 38b: Throughout all the eleven days a woman is in a presumptive state of cleanness. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו אם יש לה וסת נימא תהוי תיובתא דרב הונא בר חייא אמר שמואל דאמר רב הונא בר חייא אמר שמואל לומר שאין האשה קובעת לה וסת בימי זיבתה
6 tells that a woman cannot establish for herself a regular period<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though menstruation began on the same date in three consecutive months. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> during the days of her <i>zibah</i>? — R. Huna b. Hiyya can answer you: When we ruled that 'a woman cannot establish for herself a regular period during the days of her zibah' we meant that it is not necessary for her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the days of her zibah. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> to have a change of period three times for the purpose of abolishing a settled period because we maintain that her blood is suspended; and, since her blood is suspended, IT SUFFICES FOR HER TO BE DEEMED UNCLEAN FROM THE TIME OF HER DISCHARGE.
ז אמר לך רב הונא בר חייא כי אמרינן אין אשה קובעת לה וסת בימי זיבתה דלא בעיא תלתא זימני למיעקר דאמרינן דמיה מסולקין וכיון דדמיה מסולקין דיה שעתה
7 R. JUDAH RULED. It was taught: They said to R. Judah, Had her hands been lying in her eyes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Euphemism. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> throughout twilight you would have spoken well, but now, since it might be assumed that she experienced a discharge as soon as she removed her hands, what practical difference is there between the case where she ascertained her separation to a state of cleanness on the seventh day following the afternoon and that where she has ascertained her separation to a state of cleanness on the first day? 'On the first day'! Is there any authority who holds such a view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an examination whereby uncleanness was established on the first day has the same validity as one on the seventh day. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> — Yes; and so it was taught: Rabbi stated, 'I once asked R. Jose and R. Simeon when they were underway: What is the law where a menstruant examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From her state of uncleanness to that of cleanness. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ח רבי יהודה אומר תניא אמרו לו לר' יהודה אלמלי ידיה מונחות בעיניה כל בין השמשות יפה אתה אומר
8 and after some days she examined herself and found that she was unclean? And they replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they said to me' (Emden). Cur. edd. 'they said to him'. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> Behold such a woman is in a presumptive state of cleanness. What, I asked, is the law where she examined herself on the sixth, fifth, fourth, third or second? And they replied: There is no difference. As regards an examination on the first day I did not ask, but it was a mistake on my part that I did not ask. For is she not on all these days in a state of presumptive uncleanness and yet as soon as the discharge ceased it is deemed to have completely ceased, so also in regard to the first day as soon as the discharge ceased it may be deemed to have ceased completely'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A question as to the first day might consequently have elicited the same reply as the one concerning the other days mentioned. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> What view, however, did he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ט עכשיו אימר עם סלוק ידיה ראתה מה לי הפרישה בטהרה בז' מן המנחה ולמעלה מה לי הפרישה בטהרה בראשון
9 
י בראשון מי איכא למאן דאמר
10 hold at first?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he was reluctant to put the question to them. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יא אין והתניא אמר רבי שאלתי את רבי יוסי ור' שמעון כשהיו מהלכים בדרך נדה שבדקה עצמה יום ז' שחרית ומצאה טהורה ובין השמשות לא הפרישה ולאחר הימים בדקה ומצאה טמאה מהו
11 — [That the woman is unclean] since there is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the first day. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> the presumption of an open source.
יב אמרו לו הרי זו בחזקת טהרה ששי חמישי רביעי שלישי שני מאי א"ל לא שנא
12 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A <i>ZAB</i> AND A ZABAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose discharge has ceased. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> EXAMINED THEMSELVES ON THE FIRST DAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the prescribed seven days. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> AND FOUND THEMSELVES CLEAN AND ON THE SEVENTH DAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the prescribed seven days. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> ALSO AND FOUND THEMSELVES CLEAN, BUT DID NOT EXAMINE THEMSELVES DURING THE OTHER, INTERVENING, DAYS, R. ELIEZER RULED: BEHOLD THESE ARE IN A PRESUMPTIVE CONDITION OF CLEANNESS. R. JOSHUA RULED: THEY ARE ENTITLED [TO RECKON AS CLEAN] ONLY THE FIRST DAY AND THE SEVENTH DAY. R. AKIBA RULED: THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RECKON AS CLEAN THE SEVENTH DAY ALONE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is possible that during the intervening days they have experienced a discharge which caused the counting of the previous days to be null and void. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was taught: Said R. Eliezer to R. Joshua, According to your view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the first and the seventh days are counted, ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
יג בראשון לא שאלתי וטעיתי שלא שאלתי אטו כולהו לאו בחזקת טומאה קיימי וכיון דפסק פסק ראשון נמי כיון דפסק פסק
13 you would be counting with interruptions; but did not the Torah state, After that she shall be clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, XV, 28. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> 'after' meaning 'after all of them', implying that no uncleanness may intervene between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could the five days that are presumably unclean be allowed to intervene? ');"><sup>26</sup></span> — Said R. Joshua to him: But do you not agree that a <i>zab</i> who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While he was counting, after the termination of his zibah, the prescribed number of seven days. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
יד ומעיקרא מאי סבר הואיל והוחזק מעין פתוח
14 observed an emission of semen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which renders him unclean for one day while on the following day he resumes his counting from the interrupted number. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> or a nazirite who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While counting the thirty days prescribed for him. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
טו <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הזב והזבה שבדקו עצמן ביום ראשון ומצאו טהור וביום השביעי ומצאו טהור ושאר ימים שבינתיים לא בדקו רבי אליעזר אומר הרי הן בחזקת טהרה ר' יהושע אומר אין להם אלא יום ראשון ויום שביעי בלבד ר' עקיבא אומר אין להם אלא יום ז' בלבד
15 walked under overshadowing branches or mural projections<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Under which lay parts of a corpse. As the branches and the projections have the character of a doubtful 'tent' the nazirite is subject to uncleanness for one day only, and on the following one he continues his interrupted counting. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> counts with interruptions though the Torah said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a longer uncleanness interrupted the counting. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> But the former days shall be void?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num, VI, 12. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> And R. Eliezer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How in view of this argument of R. Joshua can he maintain his ruling? ');"><sup>33</sup></span> — All is well there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of a zab who emitted semen where an interrupted counting is allowed. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> since the All Merciful has said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' About such an uncleanness. ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
טז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תניא אמר לו רבי אליעזר לר' יהושע לדבריך אתה מונה בסירוגין והתורה אמרה (ויקרא טו, כח) אחר תטהר אחר אחר לכולן שלא תהא טומאה מפסקת ביניהן
16 So that he is unclean thereby,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 32, emphasis on the last word. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> implying that it renders void one day only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its day'. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
יז אמר לו רבי יהושע ואתה אי אתה מודה בזב שראה קרי ובנזיר שהילך סככות ופרעות שמונה בסירוגין והתורה אמרה (במדבר ו, יב) והימים הראשונים יפלו
17 And if the imposition of a restriction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That interrupted counting should not be allowed, ');"><sup>38</sup></span> be suggested, on account of the possibility of mistaking one uncleanness for another,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, as a result, such interrupted counting would also be allowed in the case of a discharge of zibah. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> it could be retorted: A <i>zab</i> would not be mistaken for one who emitted semen. All is also well<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the permission for interrupted counting. ');"><sup>40</sup></span>
יח ורבי אליעזר בשלמא התם (ויקרא טו, לב) לטמאה בה אמר רחמנא שאינה סותרת אלא יומה ואי משום איחלופי זב בבעל קרי לא מיחלף
18 with a nazirite who walked under overshadowing branches or mural projections, since Pentateuchally it is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If corpse uncleanness is to be conveyed by overshadowing. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> that the [overshadowing] tent shall be a proper one and it is only the Rabbis who enacted the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even an imperfect 'tent' conveyed uncleanness for one day. ');"><sup>42</sup></span>
יט נזיר שהילך על גבי סככות ופרעות נמי מדאורייתא אהל מעליא בעינן ורבנן הוא דגזור ורבנן בדאורייתא לא מיחלף
19 as a preventive measure, and no one would mistake a Rabbinic law for a Pentateuchal one; but here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case discussed by R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. ');"><sup>43</sup></span>
כ אבל הכא אי חיישינן דלמא חזאי בספק אתי לאיחלופי בודאי
20 if we were to take into consideration the possibility of a doubtful observation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the days on which no examination took place; and, in consequence, those days would not be counted, ');"><sup>44</sup></span>
כא תני ר' יוסי ור' שמעון אמרי נראין דברי רבי אליעזר מדברי רבי יהושע ודברי רבי עקיבא מדברי כולן אבל הלכה כרבי אליעזר
21 one might mistake this case for one of a certain observation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, assuming that on the uncounted days the woman was definitely unclean, one would also allow interrupted counting in the case of the intervention of a certain uncleanness. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> It was taught: R. Jose and R. Simeon stated, The view of R. Eliezer is more feasible than that of R. Joshua, and the view of R. Akiba is more acceptable than those of all of them, but the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer.
כב איבעיא להו הזב והזבה שבדקו עצמן יום ראשון ויום שמיני ומצאו טהור ושאר הימים לא בדקו
22 The question was raised: If a <i>zab</i> or a zabah examined themselves on the first day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the seven that must be counted after a zibah before cleanness is attained. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> and on the eighth day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. The eighth day is the one that follows the period of the seven prescribed days in which obviously it is not included. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> and found that they were clean while on the other days they did not examine themselves,