Niddah 42

הרי זו ספק לידה ספק זיבה מביאה קרבן ואינו נאכל

her case is one of doubtful childbirth and doubtful <i>zibah</i>, and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not known whether (a) the abortion was an embryo in consequence of which, whether there was bleeding or not, she is to bring the sacrifice prescribed for a woman in childbirth; or (b) a mere lump of flesh, in which case, if there was no bleeding, no such sacrifice is due; or (c) there was a discharge of blood with (b) in which case (being that of a discharge on three consecutive days) she must bring the sacrifice prescribed for zibah. ');">¹</span>

רבי יהושע אומר

she must, therefore, bring a sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To provide (cf. prev. n.) against the possibility of (a) or (c). ');">²</span>

מביאה קרבן ונאכל שאי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם

which may not be eaten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is possible, as explained in note 3(b), that she is neither in the position of one in childbirth nor in that of one in zibah, in consequence of which she is not liable to either sacrifice, and the bird that she brought as a sin-offering, having had its head pinched off in accordance with the ritual prescribed for such a sacrifice, is (owing to the possibility that it is no sacrifice at all and that it is, therefore, subject to the rules of slaughter appertaining to unconsecrated animals) thus forbidden to be eaten as the flesh of nebelah. ');">³</span>

לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל

R. Joshua ruled: She must bring a sacrifice and it may be eaten, since it is impossible for the uterus to open without some bleeding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that a sacrifice is due in either case: If she gave birth to an embryo she has to bring the sacrifice prescribed for one in childbirth, and if she merely aborted a lump of flesh, since this was inevitably accompanied by bleeding, she (cf. supra n. 4) is regarded as a zabah and is liable to bring the one prescribed for zibah. ');">⁴</span>

לא טימא רבי יהודה אלא בחתיכה של ארבעה מיני דמים אבל של שאר מיני דמים טהורה

Another version reads as follows. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: R. Judah declared the woman unclean only where the object had the colour of one of the four kinds of blood, but if it had that of any of the other kinds of blood she is clean. But is this correct? 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, if there was blood with it, she is unclean, otherwise she is clean; but R. Judah ruled: In either case she is unclean. Now here red, black, green and white were mentioned and R. Judah nevertheless disagrees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. notes on prev. version. ');">⁵</span>

איני והא כי אתא רב הושעיא מנהרדעא אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה

And should you reply that R. Judah differs only in respect of red and black but not in that of green and white [the question would arise]: For<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH. ');">⁶</span>

המפלת חתיכה אדומה ושחורה ירוקה ולבנה אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

whose benefit then was green and white mentioned? If it be suggested: For that of the Rabbis [it could be retorted]: Since the Rabbis declared the woman clean even in the case of red and black blood, was it any longer necessary to state that the same law applies also to green and white? Must it not then be conceded that these were mentioned for the benefit of R. Judah who,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he ruled, 'In either case she is unclean'. ');">⁷</span>

ורבי יהודה אומר

it thus follows, does differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the Rabbis who declared the woman clean. How then could Samuel maintain that 'if it had that of any of the other kinds of blood she is clean'? ');">⁸</span>

בין כך ובין כך טמאה

— Rather, said R. Johanan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Rashal. Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'Rab Judah'. ');">⁹</span>

קתני אדומה ושחורה ירוקה ולבנה ופליג ר' יהודה

the point at issue between them is the question whether it is possible for the uterus to open without bleeding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. notes on prev. version. ');">⁵</span>

וכי תימא

They 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 and on the third she aborted and she does not know what she had aborted, her case is one of doubtful childbirth and doubtful <i>zibah</i>, and she must, therefore, bring a sacrifice which may not be eaten. R. Joshua ruled: She must bring a sacrifice, and it may be eaten, since it is impossible for the uterus to open without some bleeding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. notes on prev. version. ');">⁵</span>

כי פליג ר' יהודה אאדומה ושחורה אבל ירוקה ולבנה לא אלא ירוקה ולבנה מאן קתני לה

Our Rabbis taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object. Symmachus ruled in the name of R. Meir, and R. Simeon b. Menasia likewise gave the same ruling: It must be split, and if there was blood in it the woman is unclean and if there is none in it she is clean. This is in agreement with the Rabbis but also more restrictive than the ruling of the Rabbis. It is 'in agreement with the Rabbis' who ruled that it was possible for the uterus to open without bleeding; but it is 'also more restrictive than the ruling of the Rabbis', since they hold that only where the blood was with it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Externally, sc. the passing out of the abortion was accompanied by bleeding. ');">¹⁰</span>

אילימא לרבנן השתא אדומה ושחורה קא מטהרי רבנן ירוקה ולבנה מיבעיא

is the woman unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא לאו לר' יהודה ופליג אלא אמר רב יהודה

but not where it was only within it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The object. ');">¹²</span>

באפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם קמיפלגי ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא

while Symmachus holds that [the woman is unclean] even if the blood was only within it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The object. ');">¹²</span>

קשתה שנים ולשלישי הפילה ואינה יודעת מה הפילה הרי זו ספק לידה ספק זיבה מביאה קרבן ואינו נאכל

Another [Baraitha] taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object. R. Aha ruled: It must be split, and if its interior shows red,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it contained no collected blood ');">¹³</span>

רבי יהושע אומר

the woman is unclean, otherwise she is clean. This is in agreement with Symmachus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who laid down supra that blood in the interior of the object causes the same uncleanness as external blood that was discharged with it. ');">¹⁴</span>

מביאה קרבן ונאכל לפי שאי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם

but also more restrictive than the ruling of Symmachus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He required accumulated blood while here mere redness is regarded as a cause of uncleanness. ');">¹⁵</span>

ת"ר

Again another [Baraitha] taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object, R. Benjamin ruled: It must be split, and if there was a bone in it, its mother is unclean by reason of childbirth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And she is subject to the restrictions of the laws of the prescribed days of both uncleanness and cleanness. Her period of uncleanness extends over fourteen days (prescribed for the birth of a female, and not seven as for a male) while her period of cleanness terminates on the fortieth day (prescribed for a male and not on the eightieth prescribed for a female). ');">¹⁶</span>

המפלת חתיכה סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר וכן היה רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר כדבריו

R. Hisda explained: This applies only to a white object.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is regarded as a kind of flesh. ');">¹⁷</span>

קורעה אם יש דם בתוכה טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

So also when a pair [of scholars]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zuga. Var. lec. 'Zuza' and 'Zuwa'. (prop. noun). ');">¹⁸</span>

כרבנן ועדיפא מדרבנן כרבנן דאמרי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם ועדיפא מדרבנן דאינהו סברי עמה אין בתוכה לא וסומכוס סבר

from Adiabene arrived they came [into the schoolhouse] and brought with them the following Baraitha: If a woman aborted a white shapeless object it must be split and if there was a bone in it the mother is unclean by reason of childbirth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And she is subject to the restrictions of the laws of the prescribed days of both uncleanness and cleanness. Her period of uncleanness extends over fourteen days (prescribed for the birth of a female, and not seven as for a male) while her period of cleanness terminates on the fortieth day (prescribed for a male and not on the eightieth prescribed for a female). ');">¹⁶</span>

אפילו בתוכה

R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai ruled: If a woman aborted a shapeless object it must be split, and if it contained a quantity of accumulated blood she is unclean, otherwise<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if the blood is not accumulated in a considerable quantity. ');">¹⁹</span>

ותניא אידך המפלת חתיכה ר' אחא אומר

she is clean. This is in agreement with Symmachus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled that blood in the interior is a cause of menstrual uncleanness as external blood. ');">²⁰</span>

קורעה אם תוכה מאדים טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

but is also the most lenient of all the previous rulings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to it blood that is not accumulated (contrary to Symmachus) and a red interior (contrary to R. Aha) are no causes of uncleanness. ');">²¹</span>

כסומכוס ועדיפא מסומכוס

R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Zera: What is the ruling where a woman observed a discharge of blood in a tube?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was inserted in the uterus. ');">²²</span>

ותניא אידך המפלת חתיכה רבי בנימין אומר

Since the All Merciful has said, In her flesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 19, dealing with the menstruant. ');">²³</span>

קורעה אם יש בה עצם אמו טמאה לידה

He implied: But not in a tube,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman is consequently clean. ');">²⁴</span>

אמר רב חסדא

or is it possible that the text, 'In her flesh', was required for the deduction that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Menstrual blood. ');">²⁵</span>

ובחתיכה לבנה

causes uncleanness within<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the vagina after it had left the uterus. ');">²⁶</span>

וכן כי אתא זוגא דמן חדייב אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה

as well as without?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. when it had completely left the body. In the case of zibah and the emission of semen there can be no uncleanness before the discharge had left the body. ');">²⁷</span>

המפלת חתיכה לבנה קורעה אם יש בה עצם אמו טמאה לידה

— The other replied: The All Merciful said, In her flesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 19, dealing with the menstruant. ');">²³</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי

implying: But not in a tube; for if the expression 'In her flesh' had been required for the deduction that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Menstrual blood. ');">²⁵</span>

המפלת חתיכה קורעה אם יש בה דם אגור טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

causes uncleanness within as well as without, Scripture should have said, Her flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. marg. gl. Cur. edd. in parenthesis 'in flesh'. ');">²⁸</span>

כסומכוס וקילא מכולהו

why then did it say, 'In her flesh'? Both rulings may, therefore, be deduced. But did not R. Johanan rule in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: If a woman aborted a shapeless object it must be split, and if there was in it a quantity of accumulated blood she is unclean, otherwise she is clean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. Now if the blood in the abortion causes uncleanness why should not also blood in a tube? ');">²⁹</span>

בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא

— What a comparison!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus, now'. ');">³⁰</span>

הרואה דם בשפופרת מהו

In that case it is usual for a woman to observe blood in a shapeless abortion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It comes, therefore, under the description 'in her flesh'; hence the woman's uncleanness. ');">³¹</span>

(ויקרא טו:ז) בבשרה אמר רחמנא ולא בשפופרת או דלמא האי בבשרה מיבעי ליה שמטמאה מבפנים כבחוץ

but in this case it is not usual for a woman to observe blood in a tube.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence R. Zera's ruling that the woman is clean. ');">³²</span>

אמר ליה

May it be suggested that the question of blood in a tube is a point at issue between Tannas? For it was taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object, even though it is full of blood, it is only where there was a discharge of blood with it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it passed out. ');">³³</span>

בבשרה אמר רחמנא ולא בשפופרת

that the woman is unclean; otherwise she is clean. R. Eliezer ruled: 'In her flesh'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 19, dealing with the menstruant. ');">²³</span>

דאי בבשרה מבעי ליה שמטמאה מבפנים כבחוץ א"כ נימא קרא (בבשר) מאי בבשרה שמע מינה תרתי

implies: But not [where the blood was] within a sac or within any shapeless abortion. (Is not R. Eliezer's ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously it is. Why then should R. Eliezer merely repeat another authority's statement? ');">³⁴</span>

והא"ר יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי

— Read: For R. Eliezer ruled, 'In her flesh' implies: But not [where the blood was] within a sac or within any shapeless abortion). But the Sages ruled: This is not menstrual blood but the blood of a shapeless object.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman is consequently clean. ');">³⁵</span>

המפלת חתיכה קורעה אם יש בה דם אגור טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

Now does not the first Tanna also declare her clean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. What then is the difference between their respective views? ');">³⁶</span>

הכי השתא

But the fact is that the difference between them is the case where the abortion was chapped. The first Tanna is of the opinion that 'In her flesh' implies: But not [where the blood was] in a sac or in a shapeless object,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in these cases there is an interposition between the woman's body ('her flesh') and the blood. ');">³⁷</span>

התם דרכה של אשה לראות דם בחתיכה הכא אין דרכה של אשה לראות דם בשפופרת

and the same applies also to a tube.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in these cases there is an interposition between the woman's body ('her flesh') and the blood. ');">³⁷</span>

לימא שפופרת תנאי היא

This, however, holds good only where it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The abortion. ');">³⁸</span>

דתניא

was smooth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that all the blood within it is completely separated from the woman's body. ');">³⁹</span>

המפלת חתיכה אף על פי שמלאה דם אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

but if it was chapped<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which some of the blood and the woman's body come in direct contact. ');">⁴⁰</span>

רבי אליעזר אומר

the woman is unclean. What is his reason? It may be described as 'In her flesh'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being a Pentateuchal ordinance that when the blood was in direct contact with the woman's body uncleanness is caused. ');">⁴¹</span>

בבשרה ולא בשפיר ולא בחתיכה

Thereupon the Rabbis came to declare: Although it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The abortion. ');">³⁸</span>

ר' אליעזר היינו תנא קמא

was chapped [the woman is clean since] the discharge is not menstrual but that of the shapeless object.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is not menstrual at all it matters little whether it did, or did not come in contact with the body of the woman who, consequently, is in either case regarded as clean. ');">⁴²</span>

אימא

Menstrual blood, however, is undoubtedly a cause of uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the discharge came from the uterus. ');">⁴³</span>

שרבי אליעזר אומר בבשרה ולא בשפיר ולא בחתיכה וחכמים אומרים

even if it was in a tube!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It thus follows that R. Zera's view is that of the first Tanna while the Rabbis opposed this view. Is it likely, however, that R. Zera adopted the view of the first Tanna, an individual, when it was opposed by the Rabbis who were in the majority? ');">⁴⁴</span>

אין זה דם נדה אלא דם חתיכה

— Abaye replied: As regards a tube all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the Rabbis. ');">⁴⁵</span>

תנא קמא נמי טהורי מטהר

agree that the woman is clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Scriptural text 'In her flesh' cannot be applied to it (Rashal). ');">⁴⁶</span>

אלא דפלי פלויי איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר

בבשרה ולא בשפיר ולא בחתיכה והוא הדין לשפופרת

והני מילי היכא דשיעא אבל פלי פלויי טמאה מאי טעמיה בבשרה קרינא ביה

ואתו רבנן למימר

אף על גב דפלי פלויי אין זה דם נדה אלא דם חתיכה הא דם נדה ודאי טמא ואפילו בשפופרת נמי

אמר אביי

בשפופרת כולי עלמא לא פליגי דטהורה