Niddah 31

Chapter 31

א כמין נפל

1 'a kind of premature child'.1

ב והא לידע אם זכר אם נקבה קתני

2 But was it not stated, 'To ascertain whether it was male or female'?2

ג ה"ק ובא כהן והציץ בו לידע אם נפל הפילה אם רוח הפילה ואת"ל נפל הפילה לידע אם זכר אם נקבה

3 — It is this that was meant: And a priest came and gazed into it to ascertain whether she had aborted an inflated object or a premature child and, if some ground could be found for assuming that she aborted a premature child, to ascertain whether it was male or female. And if you prefer I might reply: Since weasels and martens are commonly found there they had certainly dragged it away.3 An enquiry was addressed to4

ד ואיבעית אימא כיון דחולדה וברדלס מצויים שם ודאי גררוהו

4 R. Nahman: [Is the examination at] regular menstrual periods Pentateuchal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if a woman failed to make the examination at the proper time she is deemed to be unclean (on the ground that the discharge had appeared at its usual time) even though she observed no blood when she examined herself some time later (since it might have dropped on the ground and been lost). ');">5 or only Rabbinical?6

ה בעו מיניה מרב נחמן וסתות דאורייתא או דרבנן

5 The latter replied: Since our colleague Huna citing Rab ruled, If a woman who has a settled period did not make an examination when that period arrived but later on7 observed a discharge, she must take into consideration the possibility [of a discharge] on the date of the settled period,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it was due prior to the period of twenty-four hours immediately preceding the observation. Her uncleanness in such a case extends backward to the time of the settled period. ');">8

ו אמר להו מדאמר הונא חברין משמיה דרב אשה שיש לה וסת והגיע שעת וסתה ולא בדקה ולבסוף ראתה חוששת לוסתה וחוששת לראייתה אלמא וסתות דאורייתא

6 and also the possibility of [twenty-four hours retrospective uncleanness] on account of her observation.9 Thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the possibility of a discharge at the time of the settled period is taken into consideration presumably even where no subsequent discharge had been observed. It is now assumed that 'discharge' was mentioned only on account of the second clause, 'the possibility … on account of her observation'. ');">10

ז איכא דאמרי הכי קא"ל טעמא דראתה הא לא ראתה אין חוששין אלמא וסתות דרבנן

7 it clearly follows that [the examination at] regular menstrual periods is Pentateuchal. There are others who say that he11 replied thus: The reason then12

ח איתמר אשה שיש לה וסת והגיע שעת וסתה ולא בדקה ולבסוף בדקה אמר רב בדקה ומצאת טמאה טמאה טהורה טהורה ושמואל אמר אפילו בדקה ומצאת טהורה נמי טמאה מפני שאורח בזמנו בא

8 is that she had 'observed a discharge,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being assumed that as she discovered a discharge on examination she might also have discovered one if she had made an examination at the time of her settled period. ');">13 but if she had not observed one the possibility14 need not be taken into consideration. Thus15 it follows clearly that [the examination at] regular menstrual periods is only Rabbinical. It was stated: If a woman had a settled period, and when the time of that period arrived she did not make the examination and later she did make one, Rab ruled: If on examination she found that she was unclean she is unclean but if she found that she was clean she remains clean. Samuel, however, ruled, Even if on examination she found herself clean she is deemed unclean, since the guest16 comes at the usual time. Must it be assumed that they17

ט לימא בוסתות קמיפלגי דמ"ס דאורייתא ומ"ס דרבנן

9 differ on [the question of the necessity for an examination at] regular menstrual periods, one Master18

י אמר ר' זירא דכ"ע וסתות דאורייתא כאן שבדקה עצמה כשיעור וסת כאן שלא בדקה עצמה כשיעור וסת

10 holding that it is Pentateuchal19

יא ר"נ בר יצחק אמר בוסתות גופייהו קמיפלגי דמ"ס וסתות דאורייתא ומר סבר וסתות דרבנן

11 and the other Master20 maintaining that it is only Rabbinical?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut. But how could this be reconciled with the first version of R. Nahman supra according to which Rab is of the opinion that the examination is Pentateuchal? ');">21

יב אמר רב ששת כתנאי ר' אליעזר אומר טמאה נדה

12 R. Zera replied: Both17 may agree that22

יג ורבי יהושע אומר תבדק והני תנאי כי הני תנאי דתניא רבי מאיר אומר טמאה נדה וחכ"א תבדק

13 [the examination at] regular menstrual periods is Pentateuchal, but23 one ruling24 refers to a woman who examined herself within the period of the duration of her menstruation25

יד אמר אביי אף אנן נמי תנינא דתנן ר"מ אומר אם היתה במחבא והגיע שעת וסתה ולא בדקה טהורה שחרדה מסלקת את הדמים טעמא דאיכא חרדה הא ליכא חרדה טמאה אלמא וסתות דאורייתא

14 while the other26 refers to a woman who did not examine herself within the period of the duration of her menstruation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But did so later on. As it is quite likely that earlier, during the period of menstruation, there was a discharge, the woman must well be deemed unclean. An old ed. inserts here: 'And there are others who say that one Master spoke of one particular case and the other spoke of another particular case and there is in fact no difference of opinion between them' (v. Maharsha and marginal gloss). ');">27 R. Nahman b. Isaac maintained: They17 differ on the very question of [the necessity for an examination at] the regular menstrual periods, one Master28

טו לימא הני תנאי בהא נמי פליגי דתניא הרואה דם מחמת מכה אפילו בתוך ימי נדתה טהורה דברי רשב"ג

15 holding that it is Pentateuchal29 while the other Master30

טז רבי אומר אם יש לה וסת חוששת לוסתה

16 maintains that it is only Rabbinical. R. Shesheth observed: [The discussion here] is analogous to that of the following Tannas: [For it was taught:] R. Eliezer31

יז מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר וסתות דאורייתא ומר סבר וסתות דרבנן

17 ruled, She32

יח אמר רבינא לא דכ"ע וסתות דרבנן והכא במקור מקומו טמא קמיפלגי

18 is to be regarded as menstrually unclean,33 while R. Joshua34

יט רשב"ג סבר אשה טהורה ודם טמא דקאתי דרך מקור

19 ruled: Let her be examined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though her period of menstruation had passed. If on examination she finds herself to be clean she is regarded as clean (despite the possibility of an earlier discharge) and if she finds herself unclean, the uncleanness is retrospective from the time her settled period was due. ');">35 And these Tannas36

כ ואמר ליה רבי אי חיישת לוסת אשה נמי טמאה ואי לא חיישת לוסת מקור מקומו טהור הוא

20 differ on the same principle as the following Tannas. For it was taught: R. Meir ruled, She37 is to be regarded as menstrually unclean,38

כא <big>מתני׳</big> בית שמאי אומרים צריכה ב' עדים על כל תשמיש ותשמיש או תשמש לאור הנר בית הלל אומרים דיה בשני עדים כל הלילה:

21 while the Sages34 ruled, Let her be examined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though her period of menstruation had passed. If on examination she finds herself to be clean she is regarded as clean (despite the possibility of an earlier discharge) and if she finds herself unclean, the uncleanness is retrospective from the time her settled period was due. ');">35 Abaye observed, We also learnt to the same effect. For we learnt: R. Meir ruled, If a woman was in a hiding place39 when the time of her regular period arrived and she did not examine herself, she is nevertheless clean, because fear suspends the menstrual flow.40 The reason then41 is that there was fear, but if there had been no fear she would have been deemed unclean. Thus it clearly follows [that the necessity for an examination at] regular periods is Pentateuchal. May it be assumed that the following Tannas also differ on the same principle? For it was taught: If a woman observed some blood [that might be] due to a wound,42 even if this occurred during her usual period of menstruation, she is deemed to be clean;43 so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Rabbi ruled: If she has a regular period44 she45 must take her period into consideration.46 Now do they not differ on this principle, one Master47 holding that [the examinations at] the regular periods are Pentateuchal, while the other Master48 holds that they are only Rabbinical? — Rabina replied: No; both may agree that [the examinations at] the regular periods are only Rabbinical, but it is on the question whether the interior of the uterus is unclean49 that they differ. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds that the woman is clean50 but the blood51 is unclean because it comes through the uterus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it contracts an uncleanness (a 'father of uncleanness') which causes it to impart a one day's uncleanness to a human being, so that any object touched by the woman on that day becomes unclean. ');">52 and Rabbi53 in effect said to him: If54 you take into consideration the possibility of her usual menstrual flow, the woman also should be unclean,55 and if56 you do not take into consideration the possibility of her usual menstrual flow, [the blood also should be clean since] the interior of the uterus57 is clean. MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: A WOMAN NEEDS TWO58 TESTING-RAGS FOR EVERY INTERCOURSE,59 OR SHE MUST PERFORM IT IN THE LIGHT OF A LAMP.60 BETH HILLEL RULED: TWO TESTING-RAGS61 SUFFICE HER FOR THE WHOLE NIGHT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being sufficient to determine whether she is menstrually unclean and whether she is to convey uncleanness to any clean object she may have handled. (So Rashi; cf., however, Tosaf. and Tosaf. Asheri for a different interpretation.) ');">62

Previous Chapter Next Chapter