Niddah 41

Chapter 41

א השרוני נידון ככרמלי חי ולא מזוג חדש ולא ישן

1 Sharon wine1

ב אמר רב יצחק בר אבודימי וכולן אין בודקין אותן אלא בכוס טבריא פשוט מאי טעמא אמר אביי של כל העולם כולו מחזיק לוג עושין אותו ממנה שני לוגין עושין אותו ממאתים כוס טבריא פשוט אפי' מחזיק שני לוגין עושין אותו ממנה ואיידי דקליש ידיע ביה טפי

2 [diluted] is regarded2 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. ');">3 R. Isaac b. Abudemi ruled: All these4 must be examined only in a plain Tiberian cup.5 What is the reason? — Abaye replied: Generally6 a cup that contains a log is made of a maneh7 and one that contains two log is made of two hundred zuz, but the plain Tiberian cup, even if it contains two log, is made of one maneh, and since it is so thin [the colour of the wine can] be recognized better [than in any other kind of cup].

ג <big>הדרן עלך כל היד</big>

3 MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN ABORTED A SHAPELESS OBJECT,8

ד מתני׳ <big>המפלת</big> חתיכה אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה ר' יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך טמאה

4 IF THERE WAS BLOOD WITH IT, SHE IS UNCLEAN,9 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. ');">10 R. JUDAH RULED: IN EITHER CASE SHE IS UNCLEAN.11

ה המפלת כמין קליפה כמין שערה כמין עפר כמין יבחושין אדומים תטיל למים אם נמוחו טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

5 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 DISSOLVES12

ו המפלת כמין דגים חגבים שקצים ורמשים אם יש עמהם דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

6 SHE IS UNCLEAN,9

ז המפלת מין בהמה חיה ועוף בין טמאין בין טהורין אם זכר תשב לזכר ואם נקבה תשב לנקבה

7 BUT IF IT DOES NOT SHE IS CLEAN.13

ח ואם אין ידוע תשב לזכר ולנקבה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים כל שאין בו מצורת אדם אינו ולד

8 IF AN ABORTION WAS IN THE SHAPE OF FISHES, LOCUSTS, OR ANY FORBIDDEN ANIMALS OR CREEPING THINGS, IF THERE WAS BLOOD WITH THEM SHE IS UNCLEAN,9 OTHERWISE SHE IS CLEAN.13

ט <big>גמ׳</big> אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא טימא רבי יהודה אלא בחתיכה של ארבעת מיני דמים אבל של שאר מיני דמים טהורה

9 IF AN ABORTION HAD THE SHAPE OF A BEAST, A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD, WHETHER CLEAN OR UNCLEAN,14 IF IT WAS A MALE SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR A MALE,15

י ור' יוחנן אמר של ארבעת מיני דמים דברי הכל טמאה של שאר מיני דמים דברי הכל טהורה

10 AND IF IT WAS A FEMALE SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR A FEMALE,16 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). ');">17

יא לא נחלקו אלא שהפילה ואינה יודעת מה הפילה רבי יהודה סבר זיל בתר רוב חתיכות ורוב חתיכות של (מיני) ארבעת מיני דמים הויין ורבנן סברי לא אמרינן רוב חתיכות של ארבעת מיני דמים

11 SO R. MEIR. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: ANYTHING THAT HAS NOT THE SHAPE OF A HUMAN BEING CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A HUMAN CHILD. GEMARA. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: R. Judah declared the woman18 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. ');">19 but if it had that of any of the other kinds of blood20 she is clean.21

יב איני והא כי אתא רב הושעיא מנהרדעא אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה המפלת חתיכה אדומה שחורה ירוקה ולבנה אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה רבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך טמאה קשיא לשמואל בחדא ולרבי יוחנן בתרתי

12 R. Johanan, however, stated: [If the object had the colour] of one of the four kinds of blood22 all23 agree that the woman is unclean and if it had the colour of any of the other kinds of blood all24 agree that she is clean; they25

יג לשמואל בחדא דאמר שמואל לא טימא רבי יהודה אלא בחתיכה של ארבעת מיני דמים והא קתני ירוקה ולבנה ופליג רבי יהודה

13 differ only in the case where she aborted something and she does not know what she aborted.26 [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?27

יד וכי תימא כי פליג רבי יהודה אאדומה ושחורה ואירוקה ולבנה לא אלא ירוקה ולבנה למאן קתני לה

14 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,28 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'29

טו אילימא רבנן השתא אדומה ושחורה מטהרי רבנן ירוקה ולבנה מיבעיא אלא לאו לרבי יהודה ופליג

15 were mentioned and R. Judah nevertheless disagrees.30 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,31

טז ותו לרבי יוחנן דאמר של ארבעת מיני דמים דברי הכל טמאה הא קתני אדומה ושחורה ופליגי רבנן

16 [it could be retorted:] Since the Rabbis declared the woman clean even in the case of red and black blood,32 was it any longer necessary to state that the same law applies also to green and white?29

יז וכי תימא כי פליגי רבנן אירוקה ולבנה אבל אאדומה ושחורה לא אלא אדומה ושחורה למאן קתני לה

17 Must it not then be conceded that these33 were mentioned for the benefit of R. Judah34

יח אילימא רבי יהודה השתא ירוקה ולבנה טמאה אדומה ושחורה מיבעיא אלא לאו רבנן ופליגי

18 who, it thus follows, does differ.35 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. ');">36

יט אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק באפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם קמיפלגי ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא קשתה שנים ולשלישי הפילה ואינה יודעת מה הפילה

19 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.37 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?37 — Rather, explained R. Nahman b. Isaac: The point at issue between them38 is the question whether it is possible for the uterus39 to open40 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. ');">41 They38 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 days42 and on the third she aborted and43 does not know what she had aborted44

Previous Chapter Next Chapter