Niddah 41
וכולן אין בודקין אותן אלא בכוס טבריא
as the Carmel wine in its natural undiluted state when it is new.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'new and not old'. According to an interpretation of Maimonides and Semag (cf. Maharsha) the Sharon wine, when used in an examination of blood, must first be new and undiluted and then mixed expressly for the purpose of the examination with two parts of water. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
כוס טבריא פשוט אפי' מחזיק שני לוגין עושין אותו ממנה ואיידי דקליש ידיע ביה טפי
and one that contains two <i>log</i> is made of two hundred <i>zuz</i>, but the plain Tiberian cup, even if it contains two <i>log</i>, is made of one <i>maneh</i>, and since it is so thin [the colour of the wine can] be recognized better [than in any other kind of cup].
ר' יהודה אומר
OTHERWISE SHE IS CLEAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, in the absence of blood, she cannot be regarded as a menstruant, and, since a shapeless object is no proper birth, she cannot be regarded as a woman in childbirth. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
המפלת כמין קליפה כמין שערה כמין עפר כמין יבחושין אדומים תטיל למים אם נמוחו טמאה ואם לאו טהורה
IF A WOMAN ABORTED AN OBJECT THAT WAS LIKE A RIND, LIKE A HAIR, LIKE EARTH, LIKE RED FLIES, LET HER PUT IT IN WATER AND IF IT DISSOLVES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into liquid blood. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
המפלת מין בהמה חיה ועוף בין טמאין בין טהורין אם זכר תשב לזכר ואם נקבה תשב לנקבה ואם אין ידוע תשב לזכר ולנקבה דברי רבי מאיר
BUT IF IT DOES NOT SHE IS CLEAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3 mut. mut. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
לא טימא רבי יהודה אלא בחתיכה של ארבעת מיני דמים אבל של שאר מיני דמים טהורה
IF IT WAS A MALE SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR A MALE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XII, 2-4. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
של ארבעת מיני דמים דברי הכל טמאה של שאר מיני דמים דברי הכל טהורה
BUT IF THE SEX IS UNKNOWN SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR BOTH MALE AND FEMALE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. she is subject to the restrictions of both: The period of her uncleanness is fourteen days (as for a female) and not seven (as for a male) while the subsequent period of her cleanness terminates on the fortieth day (as for a male) and not on the eightieth (as for a female). ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
זיל בתר רוב חתיכות ורוב חתיכות של (מיני) ארבעת מיני דמים הויין
unclean only where the object had the colour of one of the four kinds of blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Described in the Mishnah supra 19a as unclean. (Black and red which in the Mishnah are regarded as two different colours and, therefore, bring the total number of unclean colours to five, are here regarded as one colour since the former is but a deterioration of the latter). R. Judah holds that the shapeless object is but a piece of clotted blood. Hence, if its colour is that of unclean blood, the woman, though not in childbirth, must be deemed unclean as a menstruant. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
לא טימא רבי יהודה אלא בחתיכה של ארבעת מיני דמים והא קתני ירוקה ולבנה ופליג רבי יהודה
[In such a case.] R. Judah holds, one must be guided by the nature of most of shapeless objects, and most shapeless objects have the colour of one of the four kinds of blood, while the Rabbis hold that we do not say, 'most shapeless objects have the colour of one of the four kinds of blood'. But is this correct?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I am not'. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
וכי תימא
Surely when R. Hoshaia arrived from Nehardea he came [to the schoolhouse] and brought with him a Baraitha: If a woman aborted a shapeless object that was red, black, green or white,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first two are of the unclean colours while the last two are among the clean ones (cf. supra 19a). ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
כי פליג רבי יהודה אאדומה ושחורה ואירוקה ולבנה לא אלא ירוקה ולבנה למאן קתני לה
if there was blood with it, she is unclean, otherwise she is clean. R. Judah ruled: In either case she is unclean. Now does not this present a difficulty against Samuel in one respect and against R. Johanan in two respects? 'Against Samuel in one respect, since Samuel stated, 'R. Judah declared the woman unclean only where the shapeless object had the colour of one of the four kinds of blood' whereas here 'green and white'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are not of the four unclean kinds. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
אלא לאו לרבי יהודה ופליג
And were you to reply that R. Judah differs only in respect of red and black but not in that of green or white [the question would arise:] For whose benefit then was green and white mentioned? If it be suggested: For that of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to indicate that the Rabbis regard the woman in such cases as clean. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
של ארבעת מיני דמים דברי הכל טמאה הא קתני אדומה ושחורה ופליגי רבנן
was it any longer necessary to state that the same law applies also to green and white?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are not of the four unclean kinds. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
כי פליגי רבנן אירוקה ולבנה אבל אאדומה ושחורה לא אלא אדומה ושחורה למאן קתני לה
were mentioned for the benefit of R. Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that even with such colours R. Judah regards the woman as unclean. ');"><sup>34</sup></span>
אילימא רבי יהודה השתא ירוקה ולבנה טמאה אדומה ושחורה מיבעיא
who, it thus follows, does differ.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the Rabbis. How then could Samuel maintain that in such cases R. Judah regards the woman as clean? ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
אלא לאו רבנן ופליגי
Furthermore, according to R. Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against whom, since he stated that in the case of the other kinds of blood 'all agree that she is clean', the difficulty just pointed out against Samuel equally applies. ');"><sup>36</sup></span>
אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק
who also stated, '[If it had the colour] of one of the four kinds of blood all agree that she is unclean', [the additional difficulty arises:] Were not red and black also mentioned and the Rabbis nevertheless differ.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From R. Judah and declare it clean. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
באפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם קמיפלגי ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא
And should you reply that the Rabbis differ only in regard to green and white but not in that of red and black [the difficulty would arise:] For whose benefit, then, were red and black mentioned? If it be suggested: For that of R. Judah [it could be retorted:] Since green and white are regarded as unclean, was it at all necessary to mention red and black? Must it not then be conceded that these were mentioned for the benefit of the Rabbis who, it follows, do differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From R. Judah and declare it clean. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
קשתה שנים ולשלישי הפילה ואינה יודעת מה הפילה
— Rather, explained R. Nahman b. Isaac: The point at issue between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah and the Rabbis. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> is the question whether it is possible for the uterus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'grave'. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> to open<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When an embryo or any other object passes out. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> without bleeding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Blood of labour. Both R. Judah and the Rabbis regard the shapeless object as a piece of flesh, and not as a mass of congealed blood. Hence whatever its colour the woman cannot be regarded as a menstruant. R. Judah, however, maintains that the uterus never opens without some bleeding though this may sometimes escape observation. The woman is, therefore, unclean on account of the inevitable discharge of the blood of labour even though the object was green or white and no blood whatsoever had been observed. The Rabbis, on the other hand, maintain that the uterus sometimes opens without any accompanying bleeding and the woman is, therefore, clean whenever no discharge is observed. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah and the Rabbis. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> thus differ on the same principle as that on which the following Tannas differ. For it was taught: If a woman was in hard labour for two days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Within the eleven days' period intervening between the menstrual periods. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> and on the third she aborted and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Besides being uncertain whether the abortion was accompanied by bleeding. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> does not know what she had aborted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. whether it was an embryo or a mere lump of flesh. ');"><sup>44</sup></span>