Niddah 138

ותמני לזיבה אתאי קמן בלילותא יהבינן לה תמני לנדה ושב לזיבה זיבה תמני בעיא

and eight in respect of <i>zibah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because each of the eight days might be the last of the seven clean days that followed a zibah discharge that had extended over three days. No immersion is necessary on the ninth day because even if the very day of the woman's arrival had been the last of the three days on which her zibah discharge had been making its appearance seven clean days have elapsed since that day. ');">¹</span>

אלא אידי ואידי שב לנדה ותמני לזיבה בלילותא תמני לנדה בעי

and if she appeared before us at night we allow her eight in respect of menstruation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the first night of her arrival and on the following six nights immersion is necessary because each might be the night following the seventh day, while on the eighth immersion is required on account of the possibility of the discharge having appeared on the very night of her arrival which caused the day following to be regarded as the first of the prescribed seven days of menstruation. ');">²</span>

זיבה דפסיקא ליה דלא שנא כי אתיא קמן ביממא לא שנא כי אתיא קמן בליליא חשיב לה

and seven in respect of <i>zibah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed presently. ');">³</span>

נדה דלא פסיקא ליה דכי אתיא קמן בלילותא בעי תמני ביממא לא קבעי תמני לא קחשיב לה

But does not menstruation require eight days?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained supra. ');">⁴</span>

ואי ס"ד ספורין לפנינו בעינן כל הני טבילות למה לי

— Rather say: In either case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the woman arrived at night or in the day time. ');">⁵</span>

תספור ז' והדר תטבול

seven in respect of menstruation and eight in respect of <i>zibah</i>. But if she appeared at night, does she not require<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained supra. ');">⁴</span>

אלא לאו שמע מינה רבנן היא דאמרי לא בעינן ספורין לפנינו

eight in respect of menstruation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course she does. ');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב יוסף לרב אשי

— In respect of <i>zibah</i> where the number of immersions is fixed, since it does not vary whether she appeared before us in the day time or at night, [the eighth immersion] was counted, but in respect of menstruation where the number is not fixed, for only where she appeared before us at night does she require eight immersions while if she appeared before us in the day time she does not require eight [the eighth immersion] was not counted. Now, if it could be entertained that it is necessary for all the counting to take place in our presence, what need is there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of zibah, ');">⁷</span>

לאו תרוצי קמתרצינן לה

for all these immersions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the woman is expected to perform in the day time. ');">⁸</span>

תריץ ואימא הכי ספרתי ואיני יודעת כמה ספרתי אם בימי נדה ספרתי ואם בימי זיבה ספרתי מטבילין אותה ט"ו טבילות

Should she not rather count the seven days and then undergo immersion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not before; since even if her seven clean days have terminated she, owing to her neglect of examining herself, is not fit for immersion, ');">⁹</span>

ספרתי ואיני יודעת כמה ספרתי חד יומא מיהא אי אפשר דלא ספרה חסרה לה טבילה

Consequently it may be inferred from here that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As submitted supra 69a. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אימא

it is the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who differ from R. Akiba. ');">¹¹</span>

איני יודעת אם ספרתי אם לא ספרתי

who hold that it is not necessary for the counting to take place in our presence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And Rab in his ruling supra follows their view. ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הזב והזבה והנדה והיולדת והמצורע שמתו מטמאין במשא עד שימוק הבשר

Said R. Aha son of R. Joseph to R. Ashi, Have we not had recourse to explanations of this ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We had; since in the absence of explanations it bristles with difficulties, ');">¹³</span>

עובד כוכבים שמת טהור מלטמא

Explain it then in the following manner and read thus: If a woman states, 'I counted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. she examined herself on certain days and ascertained that she was then clean. ');">¹⁴</span>

בית שמאי אומרים

and know not how many days I counted and whether I counted them during the period of menstruation or during that of zibah', she is to undergo fifteen immersions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained supra. ');">¹⁵</span>

כל הנשים מתות נדות

But if she stated, 'I counted and know not how many days I counted', it is at any rate impossible that she should not have counted one day, at least, is she then not short of one immersion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously she is; why then was the number given fifteen and not fourteen? ');">¹⁶</span>

וב"ה אומרים

Rather read: If she states, 'I know not whether I did or did not count'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it is possible that she did not count even one clean day. ');">¹⁷</span>

אין נדה אלא שמתה נדה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A <i>ZAB</i>, A ZABAH, A MENSTRUANT, A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH OR A LEPER HAVE DIED [THEIR CORPSES] CONVEY UNCLEANNESS BY CARRIAGE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed in the Gemara infra. ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי במשא

UNTIL THE FLESH HAS DECAYED. IF AN IDOLATER HAS DIED HE CONVEYS NO UNCLEANNESS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'clean from causing uncleanness'. ');">¹⁹</span>

אילימא במשא ממש אטו כל מת מי לא מטמא במשא

BETH SHAMMAI RULED: ALL WOMEN DIE AS MENSTRUANTS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed in the Gemara infra. ');">¹⁸</span>

אלא

BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: A WOMAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who died. ');">²⁰</span>

מאי במשא

CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A MENSTRUANT UNLESS SHE DIED WHILE SHE WAS IN MENSTRUATION.

באבן מסמא דכתיב

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is the meaning of BY CARRIAGE? If it be suggested: By actual carriage, [the objection would arise:] Does not in fact every corpse convey uncleanness by carriage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it does; why then did our Mishnah restrict it to the classes specified? ');">²¹</span>

(דניאל ו, יח) והיתית אבן חדא ושומת על פום גובא

— Rather say that BY CARRIAGE means<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but what by carriage'. ');">²²</span>

מאי טעמא

through a heavy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mesamma, lit., 'closing' (cf. foll. n.). ');">²³</span>

אמר רב

stone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One used for closing up a pit. If the corpse lay on such a heavy stone, and certain objects rested under it, the latter contract the uncleanness though the weight of the corpse can hardly be perceptible. ');">²⁴</span>

גזרה שמא יתעלפה

for<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The following explains the etymology of mesamma ('heavy'). ');">²⁵</span>

תנא משום ר' אליעזר אמרו

it is written, And a stone was brought, and laid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wesumath, a word of a sound similar to mesamma (v. prev. n. but two). ');">²⁶</span>

עד שיבקע כריסו

upon the mouth of the den.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dan. VI, 18. ');">²⁷</span>

עובד כוכבים שמת [כו']

What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the corpses enumerated in our Mishnah convey uncleanness through the stone mentioned while others do not. ');">²⁸</span>

תניא אמר רבי

— Rab replied: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The enactment that the corpses enumerated in our Mishnah shall convey uncleanness even through a heavy stone. ');">²⁹</span>

מפני מה אמרו עובד כוכבים שמת טהור מלטמא במשא לפי שאין טומאתו מחיים מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים

is a preventive measure against the case where they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The persons mentioned. ');">³⁰</span>

ת"ר

swoon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As such persons when alive, if they sit on such a stone, convey uncleanness to objects under it, in accordance with Pentateuchal law, a Rabbinic enactment has imposed a similar restriction when they are dead in case they might be merely in a swoon and mistaken for a corpse. Were the objects to be deemed clean in 'the case of a corpse they might erroneously be deemed clean even when the person is alive. ');">³¹</span>

שנים עשר דברים שאלו אנשי אלכסנדריא את רבי יהושע בן חיננא

One taught: In the name of R. Eliezer it was stated, This possibility must be taken into consideration until his stomach bursts.

ג' דברי חכמה ג' דברי הגדה ג' דברי בורות ג' דברי דרך ארץ

IF AN IDOLATER HAS DIED etc. It was taught: Rabbi stated, On what ground did they rule that if an idolater has died he conveys no uncleanness by carriage? Because his uncleanness when alive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through zibah, for instance. ');">³²</span>

ג' דברי חכמה

is not Pentateuchal, but Rabbinical.

הזב והזבה והנדה והיולדת והמצורע שמתו עד מתי מטמאין במשא

Our Rabbis taught: Twelve questions did the Alexandrians address to R. Joshua b. Hananiah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. marg. Glos. and Bomb. ed. Cur. edd., 'Hinena'. ');">³³</span>

אמר להן

Three were of a scientific nature,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halachah, ');">³⁴</span>

עד שימוק הבשר

three were matters of aggada, three were mere nonsense and three were matters of conduct.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the way of the earth', worldly affairs. ');">³⁵</span>

בת משולחת מה היא לכהן

'Three were of a scientific nature': If a <i>zab</i>, a zabah, a menstruant, a woman after childbirth or a leper have died, how long do their corpses convey uncleanness by carriage? He replied: Until the flesh has decayed. Is the daughter of a woman that was divorced and remarried by her first husband<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After she had been married and divorced by a second husband. Such a marriage is forbidden according to Deut. XXIV, 1-4. ');">³⁶</span>

מי אמרינן קל וחומר

allowed to marry a priest? Do we say that this might be inferred a minori ad majus: If the son of a widow who was married to a High priest, who is not forbidden to all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A widow being forbidden to a High Priest only (v. Lev. XXI, 14). ');">³⁷</span>

ומה אלמנה לכ"ג שאין איסורה שוה בכל בנה פגום זו שאיסורה שוה בכל אינו דין שבנה פגום

is nevertheless tainted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though not actually a bastard he would be, if of priestly stock, disqualified from the priesthood. ');">³⁸</span>

או דילמא

how much more so the offspring of her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A remarried divorcee after she had been married and divorced by another man. ');">³⁹</span>

מה לאלמנה לכהן גדול שהיא עצמה מתחללת

who is forbidden to all;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Non-priests as well as priests. ');">⁴⁰</span>

אמר להן

or is it possible to refute the argument, thus: The case of a widow married to a High Priest is different because she herself is profaned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the High Priest to whom she was unlawfully married dies she may not marry even a common priest, and if she was a priest's daughter she is henceforth forbidden to eat terumah. No such restrictions are imposed on the woman who was remarried after her divorcement. ');">⁴¹</span> He replied: