Niddah 142

Chapter 142

א שראשון ראשון נפסק שפיר קאמרי ליה רבנן לר' יהודה ר' יהודה לטעמיה דאמר אין דם מבטל דם

1 each single drop1 is detached from the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so soon as it drops into the hole it becomes neutralized in the clean blood that issued while the man was still alive. Only where the flow of the blood is continuous and the man lies on the ground, so that there is no mingling of the two kinds of blood, is corpse uncleanness imposed by the Rabbis where the greater part issued after death. ');">2 But did not the Rabbis speak well to R. Judah?3

ב ר"ש אומר צלוב על העץ שדמו שותת לארץ ונמצא תחתיו רביעית דם טמא רבי יהודה מטהר שאני אומר טפה של מיתה עומדת לו על גב העץ

2 — R. Judah follows his own principle, for he laid down that no blood can neutralize other blood.4 R. Simeon ruled: If the blood of a man crucified upon the beam was flowing slowly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a continuous stream. Had it been falling in drops each drop would have been neutralized as it fell into the clean blood that issued earlier while the man was still alive. ');">5 to the ground, and a quarter of a log of blood was found under him, it is unclean.6

ג ורבי יהודה נימא איהו לנפשיה שאני אומר טפה של מיתה עומדת על גב המטה שאני במטה דמחלחלה

3 R. Judah declared it clean, since it might be held7 that the drop of death remained on the beam. But why should not R. Judah say to himself8 'Since it might be held7

ד <big>מתני׳</big> בראשונה היו אומרים היושבת על דם טהור היתה מערה מים לפסח

4 that the drop of death remained on the bed'? — [The case of blood] in a bed is different9 since it percolates.10

ה חזרו לומר הרי היא כמגע טמא מת לקדשים כדברי ב"ה ב"ש אומרים אף כטמא מת

5 MISHNAH. FORMERLY IT WAS RULED: A WOMAN WHO ABIDES IN CLEAN BLOOD11 MAY POUR OUT12 WATER13

ו <big>גמ׳</big> מערה אין נוגעת לא אלמא חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש כקדש דמו

6 FOR [WASHING OF] THE PASCHAL LAMB.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. she is subject to the second grade of uncleanness like a tebul yom (v. Glos.), since her immersion was performed at the end of the seven, and the fourteen days respectively, and the sunset prior to the first day of her complete cleanness will not occur before the fortieth and eightieth day respectively. One who is subject to second grade of uncleanness conveys a third grade of uncleanness to foodstuffs only but not to vessels. ');">14 SUBSEQUENTLY THEY CHANGED THEIR VIEW: IN RESPECT OF CONSECRATED FOOD SHE IS LIKE ONE WHO CAME IN CONTACT WITH A PERSON THAT WAS SUBJECT TO CORPSE UNCLEANNESS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. her uncleanness in this respect is of the first grade. In regard to unconsecrated things, however, she is still subject to the second grade of uncleanness only. ');">15

ז אימא סיפא חזרו לומר הרי היא כמגע טמא מת לקדשים לקדשים אין לחולין לא אלמא חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש לאו כקדש דמו

7 THIS ACCORDING TO THE VIEW OF BETH HILLEL. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: EVEN AS ONE WHO IS SUBJECT TO CORPSE UNCLEANNESS.16 GEMARA. 'SHE MAY POUR OUT' only, but may not touch it.17 It is thus evident18

ח מתני' מני אבא שאול היא דתניא אבא שאול אומר טבול יום תחילה לקדש לטמא שנים ולפסול אחד

8 that unconsecrated foodstuffs prepared in conditions of holiness19 are treated as holy. But then read the final clause: SUBSEQUENTLY THEY CHANGED THEIR VIEW: IN RESPECT OF CONSECRATED FOOD SHE IS LIKE ONE WHO CAME IN CONTACT WITH A PERSON THAT WAS SUBJECT TO CORPSE UNCLEANNESS. Thus only20

ט <big>מתני׳</big> ומודים שהיא אוכלת במעשר וקוצה לה חלה ומקפת וקורא לה שם

9 IN RESPECT OF CONSECRATED FOOD but not in respect of unconsecrated food.21

י ואם נפל מרוקה ומדם טהרה על ככר של תרומה שהוא טהור

יא ב"ש אומרים צריכה טבילה באחרונה ובית הלל אומרים אינה צריכה טבילה באחרונה

11 It is thus evident, is it not, that unconsecrated foodstuffs prepared in conditions of holiness19 are not treated as holy? — Who is the author of our Mishnah?22 It is Abba Saul; for it was taught: Abba Saul ruled, A tebul yom is unclean in the first grade in respect of consecrated food to cause two further grades of uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The consecrated food that comes in contact with him is unclean in the second grade and that which comes in contact with this food is unclean in the third grade. ');">23

יב <big>גמ׳</big> דאמר מר טבל ועלה אוכל במעשר

12 and one grade of disqualification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If terumah, for instance, came in contact with the food that is unclean in the third grade (cf. prev. n.) it becomes disqualified but cannot convey any uncleanness to other foodstuffs. ');">24 MISHNAH. BUT THEY25

יג וקוצה לה חלה חולין הטבולין לחלה לאו כחלה דמו

13 AGREE THAT SHE26 MAY EAT27

יד ומקפת דאמר מר מצוה לתרום מן המוקף

14 SECOND TITHE; SHE MAY SET ASIDE HER28 DOUGH-OFFERING,29 BRING IT NEAR30

טו וקורא לה שם סד"א נגזור דלמא אתי למנגע בה מאבראי קמ"ל

15 TO THE DOUGH31 AND DESIGNATE IT AS SUCH;32

טז ואם נפל מרוקה דתנן משקה טבול יום (משקין היוצאין ממנו) כמשקין הנוגע בהם ואלו ואלו אינן מטמאין חוץ ממשקה הזב שהוא אב הטומאה

16 AND THAT IF ANY OF HER SPITTLE OR OF THE BLOOD OF HER PURIFICATION33 FELL ON A LOAF OF TERUMAH THE LATTER REMAINS CLEAN. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE REQUIRES IMMERSION AT THE END [OF HER DAYS OF PURIFICATION],34 AND BETH HILLEL RULED: SHE REQUIRES NO IMMERSION AT THE END.

יז בית שמאי מאי בינייהו אמר רב קטינא טבול יום ארוך איכא בינייהו

17 GEMARA. Because35 a Master ruled: If a person performed immersion and came up [from his bathing] he may36 eat of second tithe. SHE MAY SET ASIDE HER DOUGH-OFFERING. For unconsecrated dough that is tebel37

יח <big>מתני׳</big> הרואה יום אחד עשר וטבלה לערב ומשמשה

18 in respect of the dough-offering38

יט ב"ש אומר מטמאין משכב ומושב וחייבין בקרבן

19 is not treated like the dough-offering.39 BRING IT NEAR. Because a Master stated: It is a religious duty to set aside the offering from dough that is in close proximity to that for which it is set aside. AND DESIGNATE IT AS SUCH. Since it might have been presumed that this should be forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of her touching the dough40 from the outside,41 we were informed [that this is permitted]. AND IF ANY OF HER SPITTLE … FELL. For we have learnt: The liquid [issues] of a tebul yom42 are like the liquids that he touches, neither of them conveying uncleanness. The exception is the liquid issue of a zab43 which is a father of uncleanness. BETH SHAMMAI. What is the point at issue between them?44 — R. Kattina replied: The point at issue between them is the necessity for immersion45 at the end of a long day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That terminated a period of uncleanness. The forty as well as the eighty days (cf. supra p. 496, n. 1) are regarded as one long day in the course of which (on the seventh and the fourteenth day respectively) immersion had already been performed. ');">46 MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN OBSERVED A DISCHARGE ON THE ELEVENTH DAY47 AND PERFORMED IMMERSION IN THE EVENING AND THEN HAD MARITAL INTERCOURSE, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: THEY48 CONVEY UNCLEANNESS49 TO COUCH AND SEAT50 AND THEY ARE LIABLE TO A SACRIFICE,51

Previous Chapter Next Chapter