Niddah 141

ויקדש עצמו בשעת תשמיש

and conduct himself in modesty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Rashi. Lit., 'and sanctify himself'. ');">¹</span>

אמרו

at the time of marital intercourse. Did not many, they said to him, act in this manner but it did not avail them? — Rather, let him pray for mercy from Him to whom are the children, for it is said, Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. CXXVII, 3. ');">²</span>

הרבה עשו כן ולא הועילו

What then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that one has in any case to pray for mercy. ');">³</span>

אלא

does he teach us? That one without the other does not suffice. What is exactly meant by 'the fruit of the womb is a reward'? — R. Hama son of R. Hanina replied: As a reward for containing oneself during intercourse in the womb, in order that one's wife may emit the semen first, the Holy One, blessed be He, gives one the reward of the fruit of the womb.

יבקש רחמים ממי שהבנים שלו שנאמר

BETH SHAMMAI RULED etc. What is Beth Shammai's reason? If it be suggested: Because it is written, And the queen was exceedingly pained,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Est. IV, 4, ');">⁴</span>

(תהלים קכז, ג) הנה נחלת ה' בנים שכר פרי הבטן

and Rab explained, 'This teaches that she had experienced a menstrual discharge', so that here also,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of dying women spoken of in our Mishnah. ');">⁵</span>

מאי קא משמע לן דהא בלא הא לא סגי

owing to the fright of the angel of death, she experiences a discharge [it could be retorted]: Have we not in fact learnt that fear causes blood to disappear?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 39a, Sot. 20b. ');">⁶</span>

מאי שכר פרי הבטן

— This is no difficulty since fear<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 39a, Sot. 20b. ');">⁶</span>

א"ר חמא ברבי חנינא

detains it while sudden fright<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was the case with Esther or with a dying woman who sees the angel of death. ');">⁷</span>

בשכר שמשהין עצמן בבטן כדי שתזריע אשתו תחילה נותן לו הקב"ה שכר פרי הבטן

loosens it. But [then what of] that which was taught,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. Cur. edd., 'we have learnt'. ');">⁸</span>

בית שמאי אומרים [וכו']

'Beth Shammai stated: All men die as zabs and Beth Hillel stated: No dying man is deemed to be a <i>zab</i> unless he died when he was actually one', why<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Beth Shammai, if in their opinion the discharge is due to the fright of the angel of death. ');">⁹</span>

מאי טעמייהו דבית שמאי

should not one apply here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The discharge of a dying man. ');">¹⁰</span>

אי נימא משום דכתיב (אסתר ד, ד) ותתחלחל המלכה ואמר רב

the text, Out of his flesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 2; only in that case is the man unclean. ');">¹¹</span>

מלמד שפרסה נדה הכא נמי אגב ביעתותא דמלאכא דמותא חזיא

but not on account of a mishap?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case he is clean; and since a discharge that is due to the fright of the angel of death is evidently a mishap, why should the man be unclean? ');">¹²</span>

והאנן תנן

— Beth Shammai's reason is rather as it was taught: Formerly they were wont to subject to ritual immersion all utensils that had been used by dying menstruants,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since uncleanness is conveyed from the person to the utensils. ');">¹³</span>

שחרדה מסלקת את הדמים

but as living menstruants felt ashamed in consequence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For being differentiated from all other women even when dying. ');">¹⁴</span>

הא לא קשיא פחדא צמית ביעתותא מרפיא

it was enacted that utensils used by all dying women should be subject to immersion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though they did not come in contact with them after death. ');">¹⁵</span>

אלא הא דתנן ב"ש אומרים

out of a deference to the living menstruants. Formerly they were wont to subject to ritual immersion utensils used by dying zabs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 492, n. 12. ');">¹⁶</span>

כל האנשים מתים זבין וב"ה אומרים

but as living zabs felt ashamed in consequence it was enacted that utensils used by all dying men<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 492, n. 14. ');">¹⁷</span>

אין זב אלא מי שמת זב

should be subject to ritual immersion, out of deference to the living zabs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Nid. IX, M.K. 27b; from which it follows that the reason for the uncleanness of the utensils any dying person had used is a Rabbinical enactment instituted in deference to the feeling of living menstruants and zabs. This reason is also that of Beth Shammai in our Mishnah. ');">¹⁸</span>

אקרי כאן מבשרו ולא מחמת אונסו

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A WOMAN DIED AND A QUARTER OF A <i>LOG</i> OF BLOOD ISSUED FROM HER, IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the minutest drop of the blood. ');">¹⁹</span>

אלא טעמא דב"ש כדתניא

CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a menstrual discharge. As the blood of a corpse it could convey no uncleanness unless it consisted of no less a quantity than a quarter of a log. ');">²⁰</span>

בראשונה היו מטבילין כלים על גבי נדות מתות והיו נדות חיות מתביישות

AND IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If all the quarter-log is accumulated. ');">²¹</span>

התקינו שיהו מטבילין על גבי כל הנשים מפני כבודן של נדות חיות

ALSO CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BY OVERSHADOWING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the blood of a corpse. ');">²²</span>

בראשונה היו מטבילין על גבי זבין מתין והיו זבין חיין מתביישין

R. JUDAH RULED: IT DOES NOT CONVEY UNCLEANNESS AS A STAIN, SINCE IT WAS DETACHED AFTER SHE HAD DIED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When menstrual uncleanness does not apply. ');">²³</span>

התקינו שיהו מטבילין על גבי כל האנשים מפני כבודן של זבין חיים

R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, AGREES THAT WHERE A WOMAN SITTING ON THE TRAVAILING STOOL DIED AND A QUARTER OF A <i>LOG</i> OF BLOOD ISSUED FROM HER, IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was detached while the woman was still alive. ');">²⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האשה שמתה ויצאה ממנה רביעית דם מטמאה משום כתם ומטמאה באהל

CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a menstrual discharge. As the blood of a corpse it could convey no uncleanness unless it consisted of no less a quantity than a quarter of a log. ');">²⁰</span>

רבי יהודה אומר

R. JOSE RULED: HENCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was detached while the woman was still alive. ');">²⁴</span>

אינה מטמאה משום כתם מפני שנעקר משמתה

IT CONVEYS NO UNCLEANNESS BY OVERSHADOWING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only a corpse or the prescribed minimum of a part of it conveys uncleanness in this manner. ');">²⁵</span>

ומודה רבי יהודה ביושבת על משבר ומתה ויצאה ממנה רביעית דם שהיא מטמאה משום כתם

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Does it then follow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From R. Judah's ruling. ');">²⁶</span>

אמר רבי יוסי

that the first Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From whom R. Judah obviously differs. ');">²⁷</span>

לפיכך אינה מטמאה באהל

holds that even though blood was detached after she died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When menstrual uncleanness does not apply. ');">²⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מכלל דתנא קמא סבר

it conveys uncleanness as a bloodstain?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But on what ground could such a view be justified? ');">²⁹</span>

אף על גב דנעקר דם משמתה מטמאה משום כתם

— Ze'iri<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. Cur. edd. in parenthesis add, 'R.' ');">³⁰</span>

אמר (רבי) זעירי מקור מקומו טמא איכא בינייהו

replied: The difference between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah and the first Tanna. ');">³¹</span>

ומודה רבי יהודה

is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not the point whether the blood is menstrual or not. ');">³²</span>

מכלל דתנא קמא

the question whether the interior of the uterus is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first Tanna it is unclean, hence the uncleanness of the blood that was within it when the woman was alive though when it emerged the woman was dead and no longer subject to the uncleanness of menstruation. According to R. Judah it is clean. ');">³³</span>

סבר באהל נמי מטמא

R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, AGREES. Does it then follow that the first Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With whom R. Judah agrees only on the one point mentioned. Rashi and Meharsha read 'R. Jose' for 'the first Tanna'. ');">³⁴</span>

אמר רב יהודה

holds that it conveys uncleanness by overshadowing also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But how could uncleanness be conveyed in this manner, seeing that the blood issued when the woman was still alive? ');">³⁵</span>

דם תבוסה איכא בינייהו

— Rab Judah replied: The difference between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah and the first Tanna. ');">³⁶</span>

דתניא איזהו דם תבוסה

is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not, as has been assumed, the question whether the blood is subject to corpse uncleanness. ');">³⁷</span>

פירש ר"א ברבי יהודה

the question of mingled blood;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the blood of a corpse mingled with that of a living person. According to R. Judah, since it is doubtful whether all the blood was detached while the woman was still alive or whether part of it was detached after she died, it is regarded as mingled blood which Rabbinically conveys uncleanness by overshadowing (though Pentateuchally it cannot do so unless the prescribed minimum had been detached after death), while the first Tanna (or R. Jose according to Rashi and Meharsha) maintains that, since the woman was in travail, all the blood that issued may be presumed to have been detached while she was alive so that the question of mingled blood does not arise. ');">³⁸</span>

הרוג שיצא ממנו דם בין בחייו בין במותו ספק בחייו יצא ספק במותו יצא ספק בחייו ובמותו זהו דם תבוסה

for it was taught: What is meant by 'mingled blood'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The corpse uncleanness of which is Rabbinic, and is conveyed by overshadowing. ');">³⁹</span>

וחכמים אומרים

R. Eleazar son of R. Judah explained: If blood issued from a slain man both while he was still alive and when he was dead and it is doubtful whether [a full quarter of a <i>log</i>] issued while he was still alive or when he was already dead or whether it partly issued while he was alive and partly while he was dead, such is mingled blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The corpse uncleanness of which is Rabbinic, and is conveyed by overshadowing. ');">³⁹</span>

ברה"י ספקו טמא ברה"ר ספקו טהור

But the Sages<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that in such a case, since one must take into account the possibility that all the quarter of a log may have issued after death, a possible Pentateuchal uncleanness is involved. ');">⁴⁰</span>

אלא איזהו דם תבוסה הרוג שיצא הימנו רביעית דם בחייו ובמותו ועדיין לא פסק ספק רובו בחייו ומיעוטו במותו ספק מיעוטו בחייו ורובו במותו זהו דם תבוסה

ruled: In a private domain such a case of doubt is unclean while in a public domain such a case of doubt is clean. What then is meant by 'mingled blood'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The corpse uncleanness of which is Rabbinic, and is conveyed by overshadowing. ');">³⁹</span>

רבי יהודה אומר

If a quarter of a <i>log</i> of blood issued from a slain man both while he was still alive and when he was dead and the flow had not yet ceased<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it is yet possible for the quantity of blood to increase to the prescribed minimum of a quarter of a log. Where the flow ceased, so that it is certain that the blood issuing after death will never make up the prescribed minimum, not even a Rabbinical prohibition is imposed (cf. Tosaf. Asheri). ');">⁴¹</span>

הרוג שיצא ממנו רביעית דם והיה מוטל במטה ודמו מטפטף לגומא טמא מפני שהטפה של מיתה מעורבת בו

and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is certain that a full quarter of a log of blood did not issue after death. ');">⁴²</span>

וחכמים מטהרין מפני

it is doubtful whether the greater part<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the quarter. ');">⁴³</span> issued while he was alive and the lesser part when he was dead or whether the lesser part issued while he was alive and the greater part when he was dead, such is mingled blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 494, n. 6. ');">⁴⁴</span> R. Judah ruled: The blood of a slain man, from whom a quarter of a <i>log</i> of blood issued while he was lying in a bed with his blood dripping into a hole, is unclean, because the drop of death is mingled with it, but the Sages hold it to be clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the greater part issued after his death. ');">⁴⁵</span> because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the blood did not emerge in a continuous flow but in single drops. ');">⁴⁶</span>