Niddah 14

Chapter 14

א אבל הלכה כרבי אליעזר

1 THE HALACHAH, HOWEVER, IS IN AGREEMENT WITH R. ELIEZER.

ב איזו היא בתולה כל שלא ראתה דם מימיה אע"פ שנשואה מעוברת משיודע עוברה מניקה עד שתגמול את בנה נתנה בנה למניקה גמלתו או מת ר"מ אומר מטמאה מעת לעת וחכ"א דיה שעתה

2 WHO IS REGARDED AS 'VIRGIN'? ANY WOMAN, EVEN THOUGH SHE IS MARRIED, WHO HAS NEVER YET OBSERVED A FLOW. 'A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY'? ONE WHOSE EMBRYO CAN BE DISCERNED. 'A NURSING WOMAN'? A WOMAN BEFORE SHE HAS WEANED HER CHILD. IF SHE GAVE HER CHILD TO A NURSING WOMAN, IF SHE WEANED IT, OR IF IT DIED, R. MEIR RULED: SHE CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS;1 BUT THE SAGES RULED: IT SUFFICES FOR HER2 [TO RECKON HER PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME OF HER [OBSERVATION OF THE FLOW]. WHO IS REGARDED AS 'AN OLD WOMAN'? ANY WOMAN OVER WHOM THREE 'ONAHS3 HAVE PASSED4 NEAR THE TIME OF HER OLD AGE.5 R. ELIEZER6

ג איזוהי זקנה כל שעברו עליה שלש עונות סמוך לזקנתה רבי אליעזר אומר כל אשה שעברו עליה שלש עונות דיה שעתה רבי יוסי אומר מעוברת ומניקה שעברו עליהן שלש עונות דיין שעתן

3 RULED: FOR ANY WOMAN7 OVER WHOM HAVE PASSED4 THREE 'ONAHS IT SUFFICES [TO RECKON HER PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME OF HER [OBSERVING OF A FLOW]. R. JOSE RULED: FOR A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY AND A NURSING WOMAN OVER WHOM THREE 'ONAHS HAVE PASSED8 IT SUFFICES [TO RECKON THEIR PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME OF THEIR [OBSERVATION OF THE FLOW].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If three consecutive 'onahs, however, have not passed, there applies the law of retrospective uncleanness, contrary to the view of R. Eliezer and the first Tanna supra. ');">9 AND OF WHAT DID THEY10

ד ובמה אמר דיה שעתה בראייה ראשונה אבל בשניה מטמאה מעת לעת ואם ראתה הראשונה מאונס אף השניה דיה שעתה

4 SPEAK11 WHEN THEY LAID DOWN12

ה <big>גמ׳</big> תניא אמר לו רבי אליעזר לרבי יהושע אתה לא שמעת אני שמעתי אתה לא שמעת אלא אחת ואני שמעתי הרבה

5 THAT 'IT SUFFICES [FOR THEM TO RECKON] THEIR PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM THE TIME [OF THEIR DISCOVERING OF THE FLOW]'? OF A FIRST OBSERVATION,13 BUT AT A SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATION14 SHE CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. IF, HOWEVER, SHE SUFFERED THE FIRST FLOW ON ACCOUNT OF AN ACCIDENT15

ו אין אומרים למי שלא ראה את החדש יבא ויעיד אלא למי שראהו כל ימיו של רבי אליעזר היו עושין כרבי יהושע לאחר פטירתו של רבי אליעזר החזיר רבי יהושע את הדבר ליושנו

6 IT SUFFICES FOR HER EVEN AT A SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATION [TO RECKON HER UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME OF HER [OBSERVING OF THE FLOW]. GEMARA. It was taught: R. Eliezer said to R. Joshua, 'You have not heard16 but17

ז כרבי אליעזר בחייו מ"ט לא משום דרבי אליעזר שמותי הוא וסבר אי עבדינן כוותיה בחדא עבדינן כוותיה באחרנייתא

7 I have heard; you have only heard one tradition but I have heard many;18 people do not ask him who has not seen the new moon to come and tender evidence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he has seen it. Such evidence was essential to enable the Great Beth-din in Jerusalem (who regulated the lengths of the months and the fixation of the festival dates) to proclaim the beginning of a new month. ');">19 but only him who has seen it.' Throughout the lifetime of20

ח ומשום כבודו דר"א לא מצינן מחינן בהו לאחר פטירתו של ר"א דמצינו מחינן בהו החזיר את הדבר ליושנו

8 R. Eliezer the people acted in accordance with the ruling of R. Joshua, but after the passing away of R. Eliezer, R. Joshua re-introduced the earlier practice.21

ט אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי אליעזר בארבע חדא דאמרן

9 Why did he22 not follow R. Eliezer during his lifetime? — Because R. Eliezer was a disciple of Shammai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So R. Tam and Rashb. (contra Rashi who, referring to B.M. 59b, renders shamuthi 'one placed under the ban'). Wherever Beth Hillel differed from Beth Shammai the law (with a very few exceptions) is always in agreement with the former. ');">23 and he24

י ואידך המקשה כמה תשפה ותהא זבה מעת לעת דברי ר"א והלכה כדבריו

10 felt that if they25 would act in agreement with his ruling in one matter26

יא ואידך הזב והזבה שבדקו עצמן יום ראשון ומצאו טהור יום שביעי ומצאו טהור ושאר הימים לא בדקו רבי אליעזר אומר הרי אלו בחזקת טהרה רבי יהושע אומר אין להן אלא יום הראשון ויום השביעי בלבד

11 they25 would act in agreement with his rulings in other matters also27 and that out of respect for R. Eliezer no one could interfere28 with them; but after the passing away of R. Eliezer, when the people29 could well be interfered with, he24

יב רבי עקיבא אומר אין להם אלא יום שביעי בלבד ותניא ר"ש ורבי יוסי אומרים נראין דברי רבי אליעזר מדברי רבי יהושע ודברי ר"ע מדברי כולן אבל הלכה כר' אליעזר

12 re-introduced the original practice. Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four cases. One is that which has just been mentioned.30 The other is that about a woman who was in a hard travail<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For three days (during the 'eleven days' between the menstrual periods) on each of which there was a discharge of blood. If the discharge was not due to the travail she, having observed the blood on three consecutive days, would be subject to the restrictions of a zabah; but if it was due to travail she would be exempt from these restrictions. If a zabah she would have to count after childbirth seven days (as a zabah) in addition to the number of days prescribed for a woman after childbirth, and she would also have to bring two sacrifices one as a zabah and the other as one after childbirth. ');">31 [concerning whom it was stated:] For how long must she be relieved from pain32

יג ואידך דתנן אחורי כלים שנטמאו במשקין ר' אליעזר אומר מטמאין את המשקין ואין פוסלין את האוכלין מטמאין את המשקין ואפילו דחולין ואין פוסלין את האוכלין ואפילו דתרומה רבי יהושע אומר מטמאין את המשקין ופוסלין את האוכלין

13 so as to be regarded a zabah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Retrospectively, on account of the discharges on the three days. If the pain had continued until delivery it would have been obvious that the discharge on the three days mentioned was also due to the same cause, but if it ceased some considerable time before birth it may well be concluded that that discharge had no connection with the childbearing and the woman would consequently come within the category of zabah (cf. prev. n. but one). ');">33 Twenty-four hours;34 so R. Eliezer.35 And the halachah is in agreement with his view.36 And the third37

יד א"ר יהושע ק"ו ומה טבול יום שאין מטמא משקה חולין פוסל אוכלי תרומה אחורי כלים שמטמא משקה חולין אינו דין שפוסל אוכלי תרומה

14 is the following: If a zab and a zabah38 examined themselves on the first day39

טו ורבי אליעזר אחורי כלים דרבנן וטבול יום דאורייתא ורבנן מדאורייתא לא עבדינן קל וחומר דמדאורייתא אין אוכל מטמא כלי ואין משקה מטמא כלי

15 and found themselves clean and on the seventh day also40 and found themselves clean, but did not examine themselves during the other days,41

טז ורבנן הוא דגזור גזרה משום משקין דזב וזבה משקין דעלולין לקבל טומאה גזרו בהו רבנן אוכלין דאין עלולין לקבל טומאה לא גזרו בהו רבנן

16 R. Eliezer ruled: Behold these42

יז ומאי שנא אחורי כלים דנקט משום דקילי דתנן כלי שנטמא מאחוריו במשקין אחוריו טמא תוכו אזנו אוגנו ידיו טהורין נטמא תוכו כולו טמא

17 are in a presumptive condition of cleanness,43 and R. Joshua ruled: They are entitled [to reckon as clean] only the first day and the seventh day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. two days only. As the cleanness of the intermediate days is a matter of doubt they must count another five days to make up the prescribed number of seven. In the case of a certain discharge on any of the days all the prescribed seven days must, of course, be counted all over again. ');">44 while R. Akiba ruled: They are entitled [to reckon as clean] the seventh day alone,45

יח מאי קמ"ל שמואל בכולהו תנן הלכתא

18 and it was taught: R. Simeon and R. Jose stated, 'The view of R. Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is consistent in disregarding completely the possibility of a discharge on any of the five days that intervened between the first and last clean ones. Cf. following n. ');">46 is more feasible than that of R. Joshua,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who (cf. prev. n.) is inconsistent, seeing that he assumes the possibility of a discharge during the intermediate days and at the same time allows counting the first day as one of the seven clean days. ');">47

יט וכי תימא אחורי כלים קמ"ל דלא תנן ולימא הלכה כר"א באחורי כלים אלא הא קמ"ל שאין למדין הלכה מפי תלמוד

19 while that of R. Akiba is more feasible than those of both,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A possible, like a certain discharge (cf. supra n. 11, last clause) on the sixth day might quite reasonably be regarded as sufficient ground for cancelling all the previous days counted, including the first. ');">48 but the halachah agrees with that of R. Eliezer'.49 And the fourth is the following.50 For we have learnt: If the outer sides51 of vessels were rendered unclean52

כ ותו ליכא והאיכא דתנן ר"א אומר

20 by liquids,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through contracting uncleanness from a dead creeping thing. The latter being a primary uncleanness causes the liquids to be an uncleanness of the first grade which (though Pentateuchally, since their uncleanness is not a primary one, it cannot, as explained in Pes. 18a, convey uncleanness to vessels) renders the vessels unclean Rabbinically. As the uncleanness that is conveyed to vessels by liquids is merely Rabbinical, and as it was desired to make a distinction between Pentateuchal and Rabbinical uncleanness, it was enacted that, in such a case, only the outsides of vessels and not their insides shall contract the uncleanness. ');">53 R. Eliezer ruled, they convey uncleanness52 to other liquids<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because liquids are prone to uncleanness. In consequence they contract from the vessels a first grade of uncleanness, the same grade as that of the outer sides of the vessels themselves. ');">54 but they55 do not render foodstuffs unfit.56 'They convey uncleanness to liquids' even where the latter are common, but they 'do not render foodstuffs unfit', even where the latter are terumah. R. Joshua ruled: They convey uncleanness to liquids and also render foodstuffs unfit.57 Said R. Joshua: This may be inferred a minori ad majus: If a tebul yom who58 does not convey uncleanness to a common liquid,59 nevertheless renders foodstuffs of terumah unfit how much more then should the outsides of vessels which do convey uncleanness to an unconsecrated liquid render foodstuffs of terumah unfit. And R. Eliezer?60 — The uncleanness of the outsides of vessels61 is only Rabbinical62 while that of a tebul yom63 is pentateuchal;64 and, where it is a question of deducing a Rabbinical from a Pentateuchal law, no inference a minori ad majus can be applied.65 For in accordance with Pentateuchal law no foodstuff conveys uncleanness to a vessel and no liquid conveys uncleanness to a vessel, and it is only the Rabbis that have ordained such uncleanness as a preventive measure against possible laxity in the case of the fluid66 of a zab or a zabah;67 hence it is only in the case of liquids, which are prone to contract uncleanness, that the Rabbis have enacted a preventive measure, but in that of foodstuffs, since they are not prone to contract uncleanness, the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure. What, however, is the reason for the mention of the outsides of vessels?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wherein is the difference … that he took up', sc. why should not the Mishnah equally speak of the insides of vessels that similarly contracted from liquids Rabbinical uncleanness? ');">68 — Because their restrictions are lighter.69 For we have learnt: If the outside of a vessel came in contact with unclean liquids,70 its outside becomes unclean while its inside, its hanger,71 its rim and its handles remain clean, but if its inside has become unclean all of it is unclean.72 But what does Samuel teach us,73 seeing that in all these cases we learnt that the law [was in agreement with R. Eliezer]? And should you reply that he mainly informed us about the 'outsides of vessels' concerning which we did not learn [elsewhere what the law was], why [it could be retorted] did he not simply state, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in the case of the outsides of vessels'? — The fact is that it is this that he informed us:74 That the halachah may not be derived from a theoretical statement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Talmud, lit., 'learning'. All statements as to what is the halachah added by a Tanna to a ruling in a Mishnah or a Baraitha must be regarded as a mere opinion or theory which a disciple expressed with reference to a ruling of his master. It is only the carefully considered decisions of the later Amoras that, being based on a minute examination and thorough analysis of their predecessor's views that may be relied upon as authoritative in determining the halachah (cf. Rashi). ');">75 But are there no more [than the four rulings]?76 Is there not in fact another, since we have learnt: R. Eliezer ruled,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter