Niddah 37

ואינה יודעת מה הפילה

and she does not know what she has aborted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The object having been lost. ');">¹</span>

רבי יהודה סבר

[In such a case,] R. Judah holds, one must be guided by the nature of most of such shapeless objects, and most such objects have the colour of one of the four kinds of blood, while the Rabbis hold that we do not say that one must be guided by the nature of most such objects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they do not agree that most such objects have one or other of the colours of the unclean kinds of blood. R. Johanan, by his limitation to three (supra 18a) of the cases in which the majority rule is given the force of a certainty, has implicitly indicated that, in the case dealt with by R. Judah, the uncleanness of the woman, which is entirely dependent on the majority rule, is not one of certainty but one of a doubtful nature. Consequently terumah that had been touched by the woman may not be burnt. ');">²</span>

זיל בתר רוב חתיכות ורוב חתיכות של ארבע מיני דמים הויין

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. FIVE KINDS OF BLOOD IN A WOMAN ARE UNCLEAN: RED, BLACK, A COLOUR LIKE BRIGHT CROCUS, OR LIKE EARTHY WATER OR LIKE DILUTED WINE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mazug, wine mixed with water. ');">³</span>

ורבנן סברי

BETH SHAMMAI RULED: ALSO A COLOUR LIKE THAT OF FENUGREEK WATER OR THE JUICE OF ROASTED MEAT; BUT BETH HILLEL DECLARE THESE CLEAN. ONE THAT IS YELLOW, AKABIA B. MAHALALEL DECLARES UNCLEAN AND THE SAGES DECLARE CLEAN. R. MEIR SAID: EVEN IF IT DOES NOT CONVEY UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A LIQUID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra. ');">⁴</span>

זיל בתר רוב חתיכות לא אמרינן

R. JOSE RULED: IT DOES NEITHER THE ONE NOR THE OTHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'neither so nor so'. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חמשה דמים טמאים באשה

WHAT COLOUR IS REGARDED AS 'RED'? ONE LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra. ');">⁴</span>

האדום והשחור וכקרן כרכום וכמימי אדמה וכמזוג

'BLACK'? LIKE THE SEDIMENT OF INK; IF IT IS DARKER IT IS UNCLEAN AND IF LIGHTER IT IS CLEAN. 'BRIGHT CROCUS COLOUR'? LIKE THE BRIGHTEST SHADE IN IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra. ');">⁴</span>

בש"א

'A COLOUR LIKE EARTHY WATER'? EARTH FROM THE VALLEY OF BETH KEREM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Nid. III, 4. ');">⁶</span>

אף כמימי תלתן וכמימי בשר צלי וב"ה מטהרים

OVER WHICH WATER IS MADE TO FLOAT. 'ONE LIKE DILUTED WINE'? TWO PARTS OF WATER AND ONE OF WINE OF THE WINE OF SHARON.

הירוק עקביא בן מהללאל מטמא וחכמים מטהרין

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Whence is it deduced that there is clean discharge of blood in a woman? Is it not possible that all blood that issues from her is unclean? — R. Hama b. Joseph citing R. Oshaia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M., 'Joshua'. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבי מאיר

replied: Scripture says, If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 8. ');">⁸</span>

אם אינו מטמא משום כתם מטמא משום משקה

which implies between clean blood and unclean blood. But then, would the expression 'between a leprous stroke and a leprous stroke'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 8. ');">⁸</span>

רבי יוסי אומר

also mean between an unclean stroke and a clean one? And should you reply: This is so indeed, [it could be retorted:] Is there at all a leprous stroke that is clean? And should you reply, 'It is all turned white; he is clean',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIII, 13. ');">⁹</span>

לא כך ולא כך

[it could be retorted:] That is called a white scurf!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not a leprous stroke. ');">¹⁰</span>

איזהו אדום

Consequently it must mean: Between human leprosy and the leprosy of houses and the leprosy of garments, all of which are unclean; why then should it not be said heres also that the distinction implied is that between the blood of a menstruant and that of one suffering from gonorrhoea both of which are unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An objection against R. Oshaia's reply. ');">¹¹</span>

כדם המכה

— What a comparison! There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of leprosy. ');">¹²</span>

שחור

[the controversy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implied in Deut. XVII, 8. ');">¹³</span>

כחרת

is well justified<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though all leprosy is unclean. ');">¹⁴</span>

עמוק מכן טמא דיהה מכן טהור

since] a difference of opinion might arise in the case of human leprosy on the lines of that between R. Joshua and the Rabbis. For we have learnt: If the bright spot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In leprosy. Cf. Lev. XIII, 2-4. ');">¹⁵</span>

וכקרן כרכום

preceded the white hair, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man affected. ');">¹⁶</span>

כברור שבו

is unclean; if the reverse was the case, he is clean. If [the order of appearance is] a matter of doubt he is unclean; but R. Joshua said: It is as though darkened,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neg. IV, II. ');">¹⁷</span>

וכמימי אדמה

and in connection with this Rabbah explained: It is as though [the spot] darkened<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. If the plague be dim (or dark)&nbsp;… then the priest shall pronounce him clean (Lev. XIII, 6). ');">¹⁸</span>

מבקעת בית כרם ומיצף מים וכמזוג

and he is therefore clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dispute implied in Deut. XVII, 8, may consequently be analogous to the one between R. Joshua and the Rabbis. ');">¹⁹</span>

שני חלקים מים ואחד יין מן היין השרוני

As regards leprosy in houses the point at issue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implied in Deut. XVII, 8. ');">²⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנלן דאיכא דם טהור באשה

may be the one between R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and the Rabbis. For we have learnt: R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon ruled: A house never becomes unclean unless the leprosy appears in the size of two beans on two stones,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The size of one bean on each. ');">²¹</span>

דלמא כל דם דאתי מינה טמא

in two walls,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The size of one bean on each. ');">²¹</span>

אמר רבי חמא בר יוסף אמר רבי אושעיא אמר קרא

at a corner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the walls meet. ');">²²</span>

(דברים יז, ח) כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט בין דם לדם בין דם טהור לדם טמא

and it must be two beans in length and one bean in breadth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neg. Xli, 3; so that each stone is covered by leprosy of the size of one bean by one bean, which is the minimum required for effecting uncleanness. ');">²³</span>

אלא מעתה בין נגע לנגע הכי נמי בין נגע טמא לנגע טהור

What is R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's reason? — It is written<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of leprosy. ');">²⁴</span>

וכי תימא

wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 37. ');">²⁵</span>

ה"נ נגע טהור מי איכא

and it is also written walls,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">²⁶</span>

וכי תימא

now what wall is it that is like two walls? Admit that that is a corner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The divergence of view implied in Deut. XVII, 8, may consequently be one analogous to that between R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and the Rabbis. ');">²⁷</span>

(ויקרא יג, יג) כולו הפך לבן טהור הוא ההוא בוהק מקרי

As regards leprosy in garments the divergence of opinion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referred to in Deut. XVII, 8. ');">²⁸</span>

אלא

may be the one between R. Jonathan b. Abtolemos and the Rabbis. For it was taught: R. Jonathan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'Nathan' (v. Zeb. 49b). ');">²⁹</span>

בין נגעי אדם לנגעי בתים ולנגעי בגדים וכולן טמאין הכא נמי בין דם נדה לדם זיבה וכולן טמאין

b. Abtolemos stated, Whence is it deduced that leprosy that is spread over entire garments is clean? Since karahath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V., within, Lev. XIII, 55. ');">³⁰</span>

האי מאי

and gabahath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V., without, ibid. ');">³¹</span>

בשלמא התם איכא לאפלוגי בנגעי אדם ובפלוגתא דרבי יהושע ורבנן דתנן אם בהרת קודם לשער לבן טמא ואם שער לבן קודם לבהרת טהור ספק טמא ורבי יהושע אומר

are mentioned in respect of garments, and karahath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V., bald head, ibid. 42. ');">³²</span>

כהה

and gabahath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V. bold forehead, ibid. ');">³³</span>

ואמר רבה

are also mentioned in the case of human beings, as in the latter case if the leprosy spread over the whole body, he is clean so also in the former case if it spread over the whole garment it is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 87b, Zeb. 44b. The dispute implied in Deut. XVII, 8, may consequently be the one between R. Jonathan b. Abtolemos and the Rabbis. ');">³⁴</span>

כהה וטהור

Here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a divergence of view in respect of blood. ');">³⁵</span>

בנגעי בתים כי הא פלוגתא דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון ורבנן דתנן ר"א בר"ש אומר

however, if clean blood does not exist, what could be the point at issue between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The authorities in dispute regarding blood referred to in Deut. XVII, 8. Consequently it must be conceded that clean blood also exists. ');">³⁶</span>

לעולם אין הבית טמא עד שיראה כשני גריסין על שני אבנים בשני כותלים בקרן זוית ארכו כשני גריסין ורחבו כגריס

But whence is it inferred that these kinds of blood are clean and the others are unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. our Mishnah. ');">³⁷</span>

מ"ט דר"א בר"ש

— R. Abbahu replied: Since Scripture says, And the Moabites saw the water as red as blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Kings III, 22. ');">³⁸</span>

כתיב (ויקרא יד) קיר

which indicates that blood is red.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As red is the usual colour of blood, all blood which has one of the five colours enumerated in our Mishnah (all of which are shades of red) is unclean. ');">³⁹</span>

וכתיב קירות איזהו קיר שהוא כשני קירות הוי אומר

Might it not be suggested that only red blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if so, why does our Mishnah declare the others also to be unclean? ');">⁴⁰</span>

זה קרן זוית

is unclean but no other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One like that of a wound. ');">⁴¹</span>

בנגעי בגדים בפלוגתא דר' יונתן בן אבטולמוס ורבנן

— R. Abbahu replied: Scripture says; Her blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dameha, the plural form, Lev. Xli, 7. ');">⁴²</span>

דתניא ר' יונתן בן אבטולמוס אומר

Her blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XX, 18 (cf. prev. n.). ');">⁴³</span>

מנין לפריחת בגדים שהיא טהורה נאמר {ויקרא יג } קרחת וגבחת בבגדים ונאמר קרחת וגבחת באדם מה להלן פרח בכולו טהור אף כאן נמי פרח בכולו טהור

implying four kinds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Twice two (cf. prev. two notes). ');">⁴⁴</span>

אלא הכא אי דם טהור ליכא במאי פליגי

But have we not learnt, FIVE KINDS? — R. Hanina replied: Black blood is really red [blood] that had deteriorated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two colours may, therefore, be treated as one. ');">⁴⁵</span>

וממאי דהני טהורין והני טמאין

So it was also taught: Black blood is like the sediment of ink; if it is dark it is unclean, and if lighter, even though it has the colour of stibium, it is clean. And black blood is not black originally. It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being originally red. ');">⁴⁶</span>

אמר רבי אבהו דאמר קרא

assumes the black colour only after it is discharged, like the blood of a wound which becomes black after it had been discharged from it.

(מלכים ב ג:כב) ויראו מואב את המים אדומים כדם

BETH SHAMMAI RULED: ALSO A COLOUR LIKE THAT OF FENUGREEK. But do not Beth Shammai uphold the deduction from, Her blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dameha, the plural form, Lev. Xli, 7. ');">⁴²</span>

למימרא דדם אדום הוא אימא אדום ותו לא

her blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XX, 18 (cf. prev. n.). ');">⁴³</span>

א"ר אבהו

which imply four kinds?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Twice two (cf. prev. two notes). ');">⁴⁴</span>

אמר קרא {ויקרא יב } דמיה {ויקרא כ } דמיה הרי כאן ארבעה

— If you wish I may reply that they do not uphold it — And if you prefer I may reply that they do uphold it, but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the objection from the limitation of the number to five. ');">⁴⁷</span>

והא אנן חמשה תנן

did not R. Hanina explain, 'Black blood is really red [blood] that had deteriorated'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. Of course he did. ');">⁴⁸</span>

אמר רבי חנינא

Well, here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Blood of the colour of fenugreek. ');">⁴⁹</span>

שחור אדום הוא אלא שלקה

it may be explained that [the blood]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being originally red. ');">⁵⁰</span>

תניא נמי הכי

had merely deteriorated.

שחור כחרת עמוק מכן טמא דיהה אפי' ככחול טהור

BUT BETH HILLEL DECLARE THESE CLEAN. Is not this ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause of our Mishnah. ');">⁵¹</span>

ושחור זה לא מתחלתו הוא משחיר אלא כשנעקר הוא משחיר משל לדם מכה לכשנעקר הוא משחיר

— The practical difference between them is

בש"א

אף כמימי תלתן

ולית להו לב"ש דמיה דמיה הרי כאן ארבעה

אב"א

לית להו

ואב"א

אית להו מי לא א"ר חנינא שחור אדום הוא אלא שלקה ה"נ מלקא הוא דלקי

וב"ה מטהרין

היינו תנא קמא

איכא בינייהו