Niddah 30

לא שנו אלא שאין לה וסת לימים אלא יש לה וסת לימים ולקפיצות כיון דבמעשה תליא מילתא אימא לא קפיץ ולא חזאי

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the woman is presumed to be clean even if the date of her settled period had already arrived. ');">¹</span>

אבל יש לה וסת לימים אסורה לשמש קסבר וסתות דאורייתא

was learnt only of a woman who had no settled period that was determinable by days alone but one that was determinable by both days and leaps, so that since the period depends on some specific act it might well be presumed, that she did not leap and that, therefore, did not observe any discharge. Where, however, she has a settled period that was determinable by the days alone, she must have no intercourse, for he is of the opinion that the restrictions relating to settled periods are Pentateuchal. Rabbah b. Bar Hana ruled: Even if she has a settled period that was determined by the days alone, she is permitted intercourse, for he holds the opinion that [the restrictions relating to] settled periods are only Rabbinical.

רבה בר בר חנה אמר

R. Samuel citing R. Johanan ruled: If a woman has a settled period, her husband<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having been out of town for seven days after that period. ');">²</span>

אפילו יש לה וסת לימים מותרת קסבר וסתות דרבנן

may<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On returning home during the days in which she had the opportunity of performing immersion and attain cleanness. ');">³</span>

אמר רב שמואל משמיה דרבי יוחנן

calculate the days of that period and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without asking her whether she had made use of her opportunity (cf. prev. n.). ');">⁴</span>

אשה שיש לה וסת בעלה מחשב ימי וסתה ובא עליה

come in unto her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the assumption that she had duly performed immersion and is now clean. ');">⁵</span>

אמר ליה רב שמואל בר ייבא לרבי אבא

Said R. Samuel b. Yeba to R. Abba: Did R. Johanan refer also to a young wife who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless urged by her husband. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן אפילו ילדה דבזיזא למטבל

is too shy to perform immersion? — The other replied: Did then R. Johanan speak of one who had actually<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'certainly'. ');">⁷</span>

אמר ליה

observed a discharge? It may [in fact be held] that R. Johanan spoke<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the woman need not be asked. ');">⁸</span>

אטו ודאי ראתה מי אמר רבי יוחנן

only of a case where it is doubtful whether or not the woman did observe a discharge and where, [so that] even if some reason could be found for assuming that she did observe one, it may also be assumed that she had since performed immersions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since R. Johanan's ruling is based on the existence of these doubts there can be no distinction between a younger and an older woman. ');">⁹</span>

אימר דאמר רבי יוחנן ספק ראתה ספק לא ראתה ואם תמצא לומר ראתה אימא טבלה אבל ודאי ראתה מי יימר דטבלה

but in a case where it is certain that she had observed a discharge, who could say that she had since performed immersion? And, seeing that it is a question of a doubt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to whether there was immersion in consequence of which she would be clean. ');">¹⁰</span>

הוה ליה ספק וודאי ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי

being opposed by a certainty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a discharge which renders her unclean. ');">¹¹</span>

ולא

[she must be deemed unclean] since a doubt cannot take one out of a certainty. But does it not? Was it not in fact taught: If a haber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹²</span>

והתניא

died and left a store-room full of fruits, even if they were only then due to be tithed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sons of their day'. ');">¹³</span>

חבר שמת והניח מגורה מלאה פירות אפילו הן בני יומן הרי הן בחזקת מתוקנין

they are presumed to have been properly prepared.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A.Z. 41b; i.e., that the priestly and levitical dues have been duly set aside for them. ');">¹⁴</span>

והא הכא ודאי טבל ספק מעושר ספק אינו מעושר וקאתי ספק ומוציא מידי ודאי

Now here it is a case of certain <i>tebel</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Since the fruit had reached a stage when it was liable to the dues (cf. prev. n.). ');">¹⁵</span>

התם ודאי וודאי הוא כדרב חנינא חוזאה

and there is only the doubt as to whether or not it was tithed, and the doubt nevertheless sets aside the certainty? — No, there it is a case of a certainty against a certainty, in agreement with a statement of R. Hanina of Hozae,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A district on the eastern side of the Tigris. ');">¹⁶</span>

דאמר רב חנינא חוזאה

for R. Hanina of Hozae said: It is presumed with a haber that he does not allow anything to pass out of his control unless it has been duly prepared. And if you prefer I might say: It is a case of doubt against doubt, since [the man might have acted] in accordance with a suggestion of R. Oshaia, for R. Oshaia said: A man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Desirous of avoiding tithes. ');">¹⁷</span>

חזקה על חבר שאינו מוציא מתחת ידו דבר שאינו מתוקן

may resort to a device with his produce and store it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and brings it in'. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואיבעית אימא

together with its chaff<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only corn that had been winnowed before it was brought into the store-room within the house is liable to tithe. ');">¹⁹</span>

ספק וספק הוא וכדרבי אושעיא

so that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was brought in unwinnowed (cf. prev. n.). ');">²⁰</span>

דא"ר אושעיא

his cattle may eat of it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after its subsequent winnowing. A human being, though permitted to eat it in accordance with Pentateuchal law, may not do so in accordance with a Rabbinic measure. ');">²¹</span>

מערים אדם על תבואתו ומכניסה במוץ שלה כדי שתהא בהמתו אוכלת ופטורה מן המעשר

and it is exempt from the tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even Rabbinically. Now since it is possible that the produce was taken to the store-room in accordance with R. Oshaia's suggestion (a case of doubtful tebel) and it is also possible that it had been duly tithed, we have here a case of doubt against doubt. As a haber is presumed not to allow anything to pass out of his hand unless it had been duly prepared the Rabbis in this case waived aside their restriction and allowed a human being also to eat of the produce. ');">²²</span>

ואכתי אין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי

But does not a doubt set aside a certainty? Surely it has been taught: It once happened that the handmaid of a certain tax-collector in Rimmon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A town near Jerusalem. ');">²³</span>

והתניא

threw the body of a premature child into a pit, and a priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was ignorant of the laws of uncleanness (cf. Rashi's fourth interpretation and Tosaf.) and unaware that by bending over the pit just above the embryo he would contract uncleanness. ');">²⁴</span>

מעשה בשפחתו של מסיק אחד ברימון שהטילה נפל לבור ובא כהן והציץ בו לידע אם זכר אם נקבה ובא מעשה לפני חכמים וטהרוהו מפני שחולדה וברדלס מצויים שם

came and gazed into it to ascertain whether it was male or female,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The period of a woman's uncleanness after childbirth is twice as long in the case of the latter as in that of the former (cf. Lev. XII, 2ff). ');">²⁵</span>

והא הכא דודאי הטילה נפל ספק גררוהו ספק לא גררוהו וקאתי ספק ומוציא מידי ודאי

and when the matter came before the Sages<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To decide whether the priest contracted uncleanness by bending over the pit and thus 'overshadowing' the dead body. ');">²⁶</span>

לא תימא הטילה נפל לבור אלא אימא

they pronounced him clean because weasels and martens are commonly found there.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In pits. Tosef. Oh. XVI. These creatures might be presumed to have devoured or dragged away the body so that there was no 'overshadowing' on the part of the priest. ');">²⁷</span> Now here, surely, it is a certainty that the woman had thrown a premature child into the pit and a doubt whether they had dragged it away or not, and yet does not the doubt set aside the certainty? — Do not read, 'Threw the body of a premature child into a pit' but