Niddah 4

כיון דמגופה קחזיא לא אמרינן אוקמה אחזקתה

since what she observes [is a discharge] from her own body, it cannot be held that she is presumed to have her usual status.

ומאי שנא ממקוה

Wherein, however, does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the menstruant. ');">¹</span>

דתנן

essentially differ<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both according to Shammai and Hillel. ');">²</span>

מקוה שנמדד ונמצא חסר כל טהרות שנעשו על גביו למפרע בין בר"ה בין ברה"י טמאות

from that of a ritual bath of which we learnt: If a ritual bath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which must contain a minimum of forty se'ah of water. ');">³</span>

לשמאי קשיא למפרע

was measured and found lacking, all purifications that have heretofore been effected through it, whether it was in a public<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a case of doubtful uncleanness is elsewhere regarded as clean. ');">⁴</span>

להלל קשיא ודאי דאילו מעת לעת שבנדה תולין לא אוכלין ולא שורפין ואילו הכא טומאה ודאי

or in a private domain,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a doubtful case is regarded as unclean (cf. prev. n.). ');">⁵</span>

התם משום דאיכא למימר

are regarded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the bath is now ritually invalid. ');">⁶</span>

העמד טמא על חזקתו ואימא לא טבל

as unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mik. II, 2. ');">⁷</span>

אדרבה העמד מקוה על חזקתו ואימא לא חסר

According to Shammai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled that the period of uncleanness of menstruant women begins FROM THE TIME OF THEIR DISCOVERY OF THE FLOW and not retrospectively. ');">⁸</span>

הרי חסר לפניך

the difficulty arises from 'heretofore'; while according to Hillel the difficulty arises, does it not, from the certainty; for, whereas in the case of the twenty-four hours' period<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the Sages; or the interval between her last and previous examinations according to Hillel (v. our Mishnah). ');">⁹</span>

הכא נמי

of the menstruant [any <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁰</span>

הרי דם לפניך

she touched] is only held in suspense, it being neither eaten nor burned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained infra 6a. ');">¹¹</span>

השתא הוא דחזאי

here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the ritual bath, where it is categorically stated 'are retrospectively unclean'. ');">¹²</span>

הכא נמי

the uncleanness is regarded as a certainty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the terumah must be burned. ');">¹³</span>

השתא הוא דחסר

— The reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the restrictions. ');">¹⁴</span>

הכי השתא

there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the ritual bath. ');">¹⁵</span>

התם איכא למימר חסר ואתא חסר ואתא הכא מי איכא למימר חזאי ואתא חזאי ואתא

is that it may be postulated that the unclean person shall be regarded as being in his presumptive status<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of uncleanness, which before valid immersion is a certainty. ');">¹⁶</span>

ומאי קושיא

and assumed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the discovered invalidity of the ritual bath he used. ');">¹⁷</span>

דלמא הגס הגס חזיתיה

not to have performed proper immersion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the invalidity may have begun at the time the immersion took place. ');">¹⁸</span>

התם איכא תרתי לריעותא הכא איכא חדא לריעותא

On the contrary! Why not postulate that the ritual bath shall be regarded as being in its presumptive status of validity and assume that it was not lacking?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time of the immersion. ');">¹⁹</span>

ומאי שנא מחבית

— Surely a lacking [bath] is before you. But in this case also,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the menstruant. ');">²⁰</span>

דתנן

is not blood before you? — She has only just now observed it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there is no need to assume that the flow began any earlier. ');">²¹</span>

היה בודק את החבית להיות מפריש עליה תרומה והולך ואח"כ נמצא חומץ כל ג' ימים (הראשונים) ודאי מכאן ואילך ספק

In that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ritual bath. ');">²²</span>

קשיא לשמאי

too, is it not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As far as is known. ');">²³</span>

התם משום דאיכא למימר

lacking only just now?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should it be assumed to have been lacking earlier? ');">²⁴</span>

העמד טבל על חזקתו ואימר לא נתקן

— What a comparison!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus, now'. ');">²⁵</span>

אדרבה העמד יין על חזקתו ואימר לא החמיץ

In that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ritual bath. ');">²²</span>

הרי החמיץ לפניך

it might well be presumed that the water was gradually diminishing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the presumptive state of validity has long ago been impaired. And since it is not known when the process began the restrictive ruling given is well justified. ');">²⁶</span>

הכא נמי הרי דם לפניך

but can it here also be presumed that she was gradually observing the flow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not. Hence it may well be assumed that the flow began only at the moment when it was discovered. ');">²⁷</span>

השתא הוא דחזאי

— What an objection is this! Is it not possible that she observed the blood only when it was coming in profusion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While in fact a particle of it which is quite sufficient to cause uncleanness (cf. infra 40) may have been in the antechamber long before she was aware of any flow. ');">²⁸</span>

התם נמי השתא הוא דהחמיץ

— In the former case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the ritual bath. ');">²⁹</span>

הכי השתא

there are two unfavourable factors<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assumption that the unclean person was in his confirmed status of uncleanness and the lacking condition of the bath. ');">³⁰</span>

התם איכא למימר

while in the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the menstruant. ');">³¹</span>

החמיץ ואתא החמיץ ואתא הכא מי איכא למימר

there is only one unfavourable factor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The present observation of the blood. Since against this factor there is the favourable one of the woman's previous condition of confirmed cleanness it may well be assumed that the flow began not earlier than the moment when it was observed. ');">³²</span>

חזאי ואתא חזאי ואתא

Wherein, however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Shammai. ');">³³</span>

ומאי קושיא דלמא הגס הגס חזיתיה

does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the menstruant. ');">³¹</span>

התם איכא תרתי לריעותא הכא איכא חדא לריעותא

differ from the case of the jug concerning which we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What follows is a Baraitha (Tosef. Ter. IV) and is quoted here as Mishnah. This is not an isolated instance. V. Higger Ozar ha Beraitoth, pp. 37ff. ');">³⁴</span>

ורמי חבית אמקוה

If one tested<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either by tasting some of its contents (Rashi) the terumah and tithe having been duly taken from it (Rashb. B.B. 96a) or by smelling it (Tosaf. l.c.). ');">³⁵</span>

מאי שנא הכא ודאי ומ"ש הכא ספק

a wine jug for the purpose of periodically taking from it <i>terumah</i> [for wine kept in other jugs]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order that he might be allowed to use the wine in the other jugs he keeps this one jug for the purpose of taking from it daily, or whenever required, the appropriate quantity of wine as terumah or tithe for the wine in the other jugs. ');">³⁶</span>

א"ר חנינא מסורא

and, subsequently,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After a month or two, for instance. ');">³⁷</span>

מאן תנא חבית ר"ש היא דלגבי מקוה נמי ספקא משוי ליה

it was found to contain vinegar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A liquid which (according to Rabbi, B.B. 84b) may not be used as terumah for wine. ');">³⁸</span>

דתנן

all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. and Rashal. Cur. edd. in parenthesis insert 'the first'. ');">³⁹</span>

מקוה שנמדד ונמצא חסר

three days it is certain,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. following note. ');">⁴⁰</span>

כל הטהרות שנעשו על גביו למפרע בין בר"ה בין ברה"י טמאות

and after that it is doubtful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Ter. IV. The meaning according to R. Johanan (B.B. 96a) is that during the first three days after the test the contents of the jug are regarded as 'certain' wine because in less than three days wine cannot turn into vinegar. Even if it be assumed that it began to turn sour immediately after the test it could not be called 'vinegar' until full three days had elapsed. The terumah given within these three days must inevitably have been wine and consequently have exempted the wine in the other jugs. After three days the contents are regarded as 'doubtful wine' since it is possible that the wine began to deteriorate only three days before it was found to be vinegar, into which it may have turned just at that moment. As the terumah is accordingly of a doubtful nature another portion must be set aside for the purpose. The meaning according to R. Joshua b. Levi (ibid.) is that during the last three days prior to the discovery that it had turned into vinegar, it is regarded as 'certain' vinegar because, in his opinion, the contents are deemed to be vinegar as soon as the wine begins to deteriorate in odour though its taste may still be that of wine. Since it is now proper vinegar the deterioration must have commenced at least three days earlier. Prior to the three days it is regarded as 'doubtful' because it is unknown when the deterioration had set in. ');">⁴¹</span>

ר"ש אומר

Now does not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the Baraitha cited according to which where unfavourable factors exist restrictions are applied retrospectively. ');">⁴²</span>

בר"ה טהורות ברה"י תולין

present an objection against Shammai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled in our Mishnah that menstruants are not deemed to have been unclean for any length of time retrospectively, but reckon their period of uncleanness only from the moment OF THEIR DISCOVERING THE FLOW. ');">⁴³</span> — The reason there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha cited. ');">⁴⁴</span> is that it can be postulated that the <i>tebel</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The untithed wine, v. Glos. ');">⁴⁵</span> shall be regarded as having its presumptive status, and then it may be presumed that it had not been ritually prepared.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the priestly and levitical dues have not been duly set aside for it. ');">⁴⁶</span> On the contrary! Why not postulate that the wine be regarded as having its presumptive status<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of being wine. ');">⁴⁷</span> and then it might be assumed that it had not become sour? — Surely it stands sour before you. But in that case also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the menstruant. ');">⁴⁸</span> is there not blood before you? — She has only just now observed it. But in that case too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the jug of wine. ');">⁴⁹</span> is it not sour only just now? — What a comparison! In the latter case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the jug of wine. ');">⁴⁹</span> it might well be presumed that the wine turned sour by degrees,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it lost its status long before it completely turned into vinegar. ');">⁵⁰</span> but can it also be said in the former case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the menstruant. ');">⁴⁸</span> that she observed the flow by degrees?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not. Hence the assumption that the flow began the moment it was discovered. ');">⁵¹</span> — What an objection is this! Is it not possible that she observed the blood only when it came in profusion? — In the former case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the jug of wine. ');">⁴⁹</span> there are two unfavourable factors<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The confirmed status of the wine as tebel and its present sour condition. ');">⁵²</span> while in the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the menstruant. ');">⁴⁸</span> there is only one such factor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The present observation of the blood. ');">⁵³</span> An incongruity, however, was pointed out between the case of the jug<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cited supra from Tosef. Ter. IV. ');">⁵⁴</span> and that of the ritual bath:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mik. II, 2, also cited supra. ');">⁵⁵</span> Wherein lies the essential difference between the two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both of which (as stated supra) there are equally two unfavourable factors. ');">⁵⁶</span> that in the latter case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mik. II, 2. ');">⁵⁷</span> [the retrospective uncleanness is regarded as] a certainty while in that of the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cited supra from Tosef. Ter. IV. ');">⁵⁸</span> [the uncleanness of the <i>terumah</i> is deemed] doubtful? — R. Hanina of Sura replied: Who is the author [of the ruling concerning the] jug? R. Simeon, who in respect of a ritual bath also regards [the retrospective uncleanness] as a matter of doubt; for it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So marg. gl. Cur. edd. 'we learnt'. ');">⁵⁹</span> If a ritual bath was measured and found lacking all purifications heretofore effected through it whether it was in a public or in a private domain, are regarded as unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra q.v. notes. ');">⁶⁰</span> R. Simeon ruled: In a public domain they are regarded as clean but in a private domain they are regarded as being in suspense.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Mik. I; the reason is discussed infra. ');">⁶¹</span>