Niddah 141

Chapter 141

א ויקדש עצמו בשעת תשמיש

1 and conduct himself in modesty1

ב אמרו הרבה עשו כן ולא הועילו אלא יבקש רחמים ממי שהבנים שלו שנאמר (תהלים קכז, ג) הנה נחלת ה' בנים שכר פרי הבטן

2 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.2 What then3 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. BETH SHAMMAI RULED etc. What is Beth Shammai's reason? If it be suggested: Because it is written, And the queen was exceedingly pained,4 and Rab explained, 'This teaches that she had experienced a menstrual discharge', so that here also,5

ג מאי קא משמע לן דהא בלא הא לא סגי

3 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?6

ד מאי שכר פרי הבטן א"ר חמא ברבי חנינא בשכר שמשהין עצמן בבטן כדי שתזריע אשתו תחילה נותן לו הקב"ה שכר פרי הבטן

4 — This is no difficulty since fear6 detains it while sudden fright7 loosens it. But [then what of] that which was taught,8

ה בית שמאי אומרים [וכו'] מאי טעמייהו דבית שמאי אי נימא משום דכתיב (אסתר ד, ד) ותתחלחל המלכה ואמר רב מלמד שפרסה נדה הכא נמי אגב ביעתותא דמלאכא דמותא חזיא והאנן תנן שחרדה מסלקת את הדמים הא לא קשיא פחדא צמית ביעתותא מרפיא

5 'Beth Shammai stated: All men die as zabs and Beth Hillel stated: No dying man is deemed to be a zab unless he died when he was actually one', why9 should not one apply here10 the text, Out of his flesh11 but not on account of a mishap?12 — 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,13 but as living menstruants felt ashamed in consequence14 it was enacted that utensils used by all dying women should be subject to immersion,15

ו אלא הא דתנן ב"ש אומרים כל האנשים מתים זבין וב"ה אומרים אין זב אלא מי שמת זב

6 out of a deference to the living menstruants. Formerly they were wont to subject to ritual immersion utensils used by dying zabs,16 but as living zabs felt ashamed in consequence it was enacted that utensils used by all dying men17 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

ז אקרי כאן מבשרו ולא מחמת אונסו

7 MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN DIED AND A QUARTER OF A LOG OF BLOOD ISSUED FROM HER, IT19

ח אלא טעמא דב"ש כדתניא בראשונה היו מטבילין כלים על גבי נדות מתות והיו נדות חיות מתביישות התקינו שיהו מטבילין על גבי כל הנשים מפני כבודן של נדות חיות

8 CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN20 AND IT21 ALSO CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BY OVERSHADOWING.22

ט בראשונה היו מטבילין על גבי זבין מתין והיו זבין חיין מתביישין התקינו שיהו מטבילין על גבי כל האנשים מפני כבודן של זבין חיים

9 R. JUDAH RULED: IT DOES NOT CONVEY UNCLEANNESS AS A STAIN, SINCE IT WAS DETACHED AFTER SHE HAD DIED.23 R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, AGREES THAT WHERE A WOMAN SITTING ON THE TRAVAILING STOOL DIED AND A QUARTER OF A LOG OF BLOOD ISSUED FROM HER, IT24

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

10 CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN.20

יא רבי יהודה אומר אינה מטמאה משום כתם מפני שנעקר משמתה ומודה רבי יהודה ביושבת על משבר ומתה ויצאה ממנה רביעית דם שהיא מטמאה משום כתם אמר רבי יוסי לפיכך אינה מטמאה באהל

11 R. JOSE RULED: HENCE24 IT CONVEYS NO UNCLEANNESS BY OVERSHADOWING.25 GEMARA. Does it then follow26 that the first Tanna27 holds that even though blood was detached after she died28

יב <big>גמ׳</big> מכלל דתנא קמא סבר אף על גב דנעקר דם משמתה מטמאה משום כתם

12 it conveys uncleanness as a bloodstain?29 — Ze'iri30

יג אמר (רבי) זעירי מקור מקומו טמא איכא בינייהו

13 replied: The difference between them31

יד ומודה רבי יהודה

14 is32

טו מכלל דתנא קמא סבר באהל נמי מטמא אמר רב יהודה דם תבוסה איכא בינייהו

15 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 R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, AGREES. Does it then follow that the first Tanna34 holds that it conveys uncleanness by overshadowing also?35 — Rab Judah replied: The difference between them36

טז דתניא איזהו דם תבוסה פירש ר"א ברבי יהודה הרוג שיצא ממנו דם בין בחייו בין במותו ספק בחייו יצא ספק במותו יצא ספק בחייו ובמותו זהו דם תבוסה

16 is37 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 for it was taught: What is meant by 'mingled blood'?39

יז וחכמים אומרים ברה"י ספקו טמא ברה"ר ספקו טהור

17 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 log] 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.39 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

יח 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

18 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'?39

יט רבי יהודה אומר הרוג שיצא ממנו רביעית דם והיה מוטל במטה ודמו מטפטף לגומא טמא מפני שהטפה של מיתה מעורבת בו וחכמים מטהרין מפני

19 If a quarter of a log 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 and42 it is doubtful whether the greater part43 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.44 R. Judah ruled: The blood of a slain man, from whom a quarter of a log 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 clean45 because46

Previous Chapter Next Chapter