Niddah 17

Chapter 17

א קושי סמוך ללידה רחמנא טהריה אמר רב פפי הנח מעת לעת דרבנן

1 did not the All Merciful [it may be objected] ordain that [a flow of blood in] painful labour immediately before birth1 is regarded as clean?2 — R. Papi replied: Leave alone the question of the twenty-four hours retrospective uncleanness3

ב רב פפא אמר מידי הוא טעמא אלא משום דראשה כבד עליה ואבריה כבדין עליה הכא נמי ראשה ואבריה כבדין עליה

2 which only involves a Rabbinical enactment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And could, therefore, be relaxed even in the case of a pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage. As regards the pentateuchal uncleanness of a zabah, however, a miscarriage of the nature spoken of in the last cited Baraitha cannot be regarded as a proper birth. ');">4 R. Papa replied: The actual reason5 is that the woman6

ג בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא ראתה ואח"כ הוכר עוברה מהו כיון דבעידנא דחזאי לא הוכר עוברה מטמיא או דלמא כיון דסמוך לה חזאי לא מטמיא

3 feels a heaviness in her head and limbs;7 well then, here also8 she feels a heaviness in her head and in her limbs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is obvious, therefore, that she also suffers from the same malady (cf. prev. n. but one) in consequence of which she is entitled to the same privileges (cf. supra n. 10). ');">9 R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Zera: What is the ruling10

ד א"ל מידי הוא טעמא אלא משום דראשה כבד עליה ואבריה כבדין עליה בעידנא דחזאי אין ראשה כבד עליה ואין אבריה כבדין עליה

4 where a woman observed a flow and immediately after her pregnancy was discerned? Is she retrospectively unclean because her pregnancy was not known at the time she observed the flow or is she not retrospectively unclean since she observed it immediately before she became aware of her pregnancy? — The other replied: The sole reason11 is that she12

ה בעא מיניה ההוא סבא מר' יוחנן הגיע עת וסתה בימי עבורה ולא בדקה מהו קא מיבעיא לי אליבא דמ"ד וסתות דאורייתא מאי כיון דוסתות דאורייתא בעיא בדיקה או דלמא כיון דדמיה מסולקין לא בעיא בדיקה

5 feels a heaviness in her head and limbs13 but14 at the time she observed the flow she felt no heaviness either in her head or in her limbs.15 A certain old man asked R. Johanan: 'What is the ruling if, when the time of her fixed period had come during the days of her pregnancy and she did not examine herself? I am raising this question on the view of the authority who laid down [that a woman's duty to hold an examination on the arrival of her] fixed periods is an ordinance of the Torah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a traditional halachah handed down from the time of Moses (Rashi), so that since the flow may be expected to make its appearance on the regular day, a woman who did not examine herself at such a period, must be regarded as unclean (v. infra 16a). ');">16 What is the ruling [I ask]? Must she17

ו א"ל תניתוה רבי מאיר אומר אם היתה במחבא והגיע שעת וסתה ולא בדקה טהורה שחרדה מסלקת את הדמים טעמא דאיכא חרדה הא ליכא חרדה והגיע וסתה ולא בדקה טמאה

6 examine herself since [the duty of holding an examination on the arrival of] the fixed periods is an ordinance of the Torah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a traditional halachah handed down from the time of Moses (Rashi), so that since the flow may be expected to make its appearance on the regular day, a woman who did not examine herself at such a period, must be regarded as unclean (v. infra 16a). ');">16 or is it possible that since18 her menstrual blood is suspended,19

ז אלמא וסתות דאורייתא וכיון דאיכא חרדה דמיה מסולקין ולא בעיא בדיקה הכא נמי דמיה מסולקין ולא בעיא בדיקה

7 she requires no examination'?20 — The other21 replied, You have learnt it: R. Meir ruled, If a woman was in a hiding-place22

ח מניקה עד שתגמול וכו' ת"ר מניקה שמת בנה בתוך עשרים וארבע חדש הרי היא ככל הנשים ומטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה לפיכך אם היתה מניקתו והולכת ארבע או חמש שנים דיה שעתה דברי ר"מ

8 when the time of her fixed period arrived and she did not examine herself she is nevertheless clean because fear suspends the menstrual flow.23 Now the reason is24 that there was fear, but if there had been no fear and the time of her fixed period had arrived and she did not examine herself she would have been deemed unclean. It is thus clear25 [that a woman's duty to examine herself at the time of the arrival of her] fixed periods is an ordinance of the Torah and that, nevertheless, since there was fear, her menstrual blood is deemed to be suspended and she requires no exemption; so also here,26

ט רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אומרים דיין שעתן כל עשרים וארבע חדש לפיכך אם היתה מניקתו ארבע וחמש שנים מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה

9 since her menstrual blood is suspended she requires no examination. 'A NURSING WOMAN'? A WOMAN BEFORE SHE HAS WEANED etc. Our Rabbis taught: A nursing mother whose child died within twenty-four months27

י כשתמצא לומר לדברי ר"מ דם נעכר ונעשה חלב לדברי רבי יוסי ורבי יהודה ורבי שמעון אבריה מתפרקין ואין נפשה חוזרת עד עשרים וארבע חדש

10 is in exactly the same position as all other women<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are not pregnant or nursing; because the menstrual flow is suspended only on account of its transformation into the mother's milk, but when the child dies and the milk is no longer used the blood changes into its original condition. ');">28

יא לפיכך דר"מ למה לי משום לפיכך דרבי יוסי

11 and causes retrospective uncleanness for a period of twenty-four hours or from the previous to the last examination. If, therefore,29 she continued to suck it for four or five years it suffices for her to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she has observed the flow; so R. Meir. R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simeon ruled: Only during the twenty-four months30

יב ולפיכך דרבי יוסי למה לי מהו דתימא רבי יוסי תרתי אית ליה קמ"ל

12 does it suffice for women to reckon their uncleanness from the time they have observed a flow.31 Therefore,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is the process of bearing and not the suckling of the child (cf. prev. n.) that causes the suspension of the blood and since that suspension does not continue longer than twenty-four months. ');">32 even if she suckled it for four or five years she causes uncleanness retrospectively for twenty-four hours or from the previous to the last examination.33

יג תניא נמי הכי דם נעכר ונעשה חלב דברי ר"מ רבי יוסי אומר אבריה מתפרקין ואין נפשה חוזרת עליה עד עשרים וארבע חדש א"ר אלעאי מאי טעמא דר"מ דכתיב (איוב יד, ד) מי יתן טהור מטמא לא אחד

13 Now if you will carefully consider [the views just expressed] you will find that34 according to the view of R. Meir the menstrual blood is decomposed and turns into milk while according to the view of R. Jose, R. Judah and R. Simeon the woman's limbs35 are disjointed and her natural vigour36 does not return before the lapse of twenty-four months. Why the necessity for the 'therefore'37 of R. Meir?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. since R. Meir ruled that the death of the child causes its mother to resume the status of an ordinary non-nursing woman it obviously follows that the main cause of her former exemption from retrospective uncleanness was her suckling of the child, what need then was there to specify an inference (cf. prev. n.) which is all too obvious? ');">38 — On account of the 'therefore'39 of R. Jose. But why the necessity for the 'therefore' of R. Jose?40

יד ורבנן א"ר יוחנן זו שכבת זרע שהוא טמא ואדם הנוצר ממנו טהור

14 — It might have been assumed that R. Jose maintains that41 there are two [causes];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (a) The blood turns into milk and (b) the woman's limbs are disjointed on account of (b) the woman is exempt from retrospective uncleanness during the twenty-four months following her childbearing, irrespective of whether the child is suckled or not, while on account of (a) she should be similarly exempt throughout the time she is suckling the child. ');">42

טו ור"א אומר אלו מי הנדה שהמזה ומזין עליו טהור ונוגע טמא ומזה טהור והכתיב (במדבר יט, כא) ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו מאי מזה נוגע

15 hence we were informed43 [that he upholds the one cause only].44 So it was also taught: The menstrual blood45 is decomposed and turns into milk; so R. Meir. R. Jose stated: Her limbs46 are disjointed and her natural strength does not return before twenty-four months.47 R. Elai explained: What is R. Meir's reason?48

טז והכתיב מזה והכתיב נוגע ועוד מזה בעי כבוס נוגע לא בעי כבוס אלא מאי מזה נושא

16 That it is written, Who can bring a clean thing49 from out of an unclean?50 Is it not the Only One?51 And the Rabbis?52

יז וליכתוב נושא קמ"ל דעד דדרי כשיעור הזאה הניחא למ"ד הזאה צריכה שיעור אלא למ"ד אין צריכה שיעור מאי איכא למימר

17 — R. Johanan replied: The reference53 is to semen which is unclean, while the man who is created from it is clean; and R. Eleazar replied: The reference53 is to the water of sprinkling54

יח אפילו למ"ד אינה צריכה שיעור ה"מ אגבא דגברא אבל במנא בעינא שיעור כדתנן כמה יהיו במים ויהא בהן כדי הזאה כדי שיטבול ראשי גבעולין ויזה

18 in the case of which the man who sprinkles it as well as the man upon whom it is sprinkled is clean while he who touches it is unclean. But is the man who sprinkles it clean? Is it not in fact written, And he that sprinkleth the water of sprinkling shall wash his clothes?55 — What is meant by 'He that sprinkleth'? He that touches it. But is it not actually written, 'He that sprinkleth'55 and also 'He that toucheth'?55 Furthermore, is not 'He that sprinkleth' required to wash his clothes55

יט והיינו דאמר שלמה (קהלת ז, כג) אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני

19 while 'He that toucheth' is not required to do so?55 — Rather say: What is meant by 'He that sprinkleth'? He that carries.56

כ איזו היא זקנה כל שעברו עליה שלש עונות [סמוך לזקנתה] היכי דמי סמוך לזקנתה אמר רב יהודה כל שחברותיה אומרות עליה זקנה היא ורבי שמעון אומר

20 Then why was it not written, 'He that carries'? — We were informed57 that uncleanness is not contracted unless one carried the minimum quantity prescribed for sprinkling. This is a satisfactory explanation according to him who holds58 that sprinkling must be performed with a prescribed minimum of the water.59 What, however, can be said according to him who holds that no prescribed minimum is required?58 — Even according to him who holds that no prescribed quantity is required the ruling refers only to the quantity applied to the body of the man but as regards that which is in the vessel a prescribed quantity is required; as we have learnt: What must be the quantity of water59 that it shall suffice for a sprinkling? As much as suffices for both the dipping therein of the tops of the stalks and for the sprinkling.60 It is, in fact, in view of such laws61 that Solomon observed, I said: 'I will get wisdom'; but it was far from me.62 WHO IS REGARDED 'AN OLD WOMAN'? ANY WOMAN OVER WHOM THREE ONAHS HAVE PASSED NEAR THE TIME OF HER OLD AGE. What is to be understood by NEAR THE TIME OF HER OLD AGE? — Rab Judah replied: The age when her women friends speak of her as an old woman; and R. Simeon63 replied:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter