Niddah 42

Chapter 42

א הרי זו ספק לידה ספק זיבה מביאה קרבן ואינו נאכל

1 her case is one of doubtful childbirth and doubtful zibah, 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

ב רבי יהושע אומר מביאה קרבן ונאכל שאי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם

2 she must, therefore, bring a sacrifice2 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

ג לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא טימא רבי יהודה אלא בחתיכה של ארבעה מיני דמים אבל של שאר מיני דמים טהורה

3 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 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.5

ד איני והא כי אתא רב הושעיא מנהרדעא אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה המפלת חתיכה אדומה ושחורה ירוקה ולבנה אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה ורבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך טמאה

4 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]: For6 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,7 it thus follows, does differ?8 — Rather, said R. Johanan,9

ה קתני אדומה ושחורה ירוקה ולבנה ופליג ר' יהודה

5 the point at issue between them is the question whether it is possible for the uterus to open without bleeding.5

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

6 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 zibah, 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.5 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 it10

ז אילימא לרבנן השתא אדומה ושחורה קא מטהרי רבנן ירוקה ולבנה מיבעיא אלא לאו לר' יהודה ופליג

7 is the woman unclean11 but not where it was only within it,12

ח אלא אמר רב יהודה באפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם קמיפלגי ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא קשתה שנים ולשלישי הפילה ואינה יודעת מה הפילה הרי זו ספק לידה ספק זיבה מביאה קרבן ואינו נאכל

8 while Symmachus holds that [the woman is unclean] even if the blood was only within it.12 Another [Baraitha] taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object. R. Aha ruled: It must be split, and if its interior shows red,13

ט רבי יהושע אומר מביאה קרבן ונאכל לפי שאי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם

9 the woman is unclean, otherwise she is clean. This is in agreement with Symmachus,14 but also more restrictive than the ruling of Symmachus.15

י ת"ר המפלת חתיכה סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר וכן היה רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר כדבריו קורעה אם יש דם בתוכה טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

10 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 R. Hisda explained: This applies only to a white object.17 So also when a pair [of scholars]18

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

11 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 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, otherwise19

יב ותניא אידך המפלת חתיכה ר' אחא אומר קורעה אם תוכה מאדים טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

12 she is clean. This is in agreement with Symmachus20 but is also the most lenient of all the previous rulings.21

יג כסומכוס ועדיפא מסומכוס

13 R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Zera: What is the ruling where a woman observed a discharge of blood in a tube?22

יד ותניא אידך המפלת חתיכה רבי בנימין אומר קורעה אם יש בה עצם אמו טמאה לידה אמר רב חסדא ובחתיכה לבנה וכן כי אתא זוגא דמן חדייב אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה המפלת חתיכה לבנה קורעה אם יש בה עצם אמו טמאה לידה

14 Since the All Merciful has said, In her flesh23 He implied: But not in a tube,24 or is it possible that the text, 'In her flesh', was required for the deduction that it25 causes uncleanness within26 as well as without?27 — The other replied: The All Merciful said, In her flesh23

טו אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי המפלת חתיכה קורעה אם יש בה דם אגור טמאה ואם לאו טהורה כסומכוס וקילא מכולהו

15 implying: But not in a tube; for if the expression 'In her flesh' had been required for the deduction that it25 causes uncleanness within as well as without, Scripture should have said, Her flesh,28 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?29

טז בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא הרואה דם בשפופרת מהו (ויקרא טו:ז) בבשרה אמר רחמנא ולא בשפופרת או דלמא האי בבשרה מיבעי ליה שמטמאה מבפנים כבחוץ

16 — What a comparison!30 In that case it is usual for a woman to observe blood in a shapeless abortion,31 but in this case it is not usual for a woman to observe blood in a tube.32

יז אמר ליה בבשרה אמר רחמנא ולא בשפופרת דאי בבשרה מבעי ליה שמטמאה מבפנים כבחוץ א"כ נימא קרא (בבשר) מאי בבשרה שמע מינה תרתי

17 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 it33 that the woman is unclean; otherwise she is clean. R. Eliezer ruled: 'In her flesh'23 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?34

יח והא"ר יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי המפלת חתיכה קורעה אם יש בה דם אגור טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

18 — 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.35 Now does not the first Tanna also declare her clean?36

יט הכי השתא התם דרכה של אשה לראות דם בחתיכה הכא אין דרכה של אשה לראות דם בשפופרת

19 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,37 and the same applies also to a tube.37

כ לימא שפופרת תנאי היא דתניא המפלת חתיכה אף על פי שמלאה דם אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה רבי אליעזר אומר בבשרה ולא בשפיר ולא בחתיכה

20 This, however, holds good only where it38 was smooth,39 but if it was chapped40 the woman is unclean. What is his reason? It may be described as 'In her flesh'.41 Thereupon the Rabbis came to declare: Although it38

כא ר' אליעזר היינו תנא קמא אימא שרבי אליעזר אומר בבשרה ולא בשפיר ולא בחתיכה

21 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 Menstrual blood, however, is undoubtedly a cause of uncleanness43 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

כב וחכמים אומרים אין זה דם נדה אלא דם חתיכה תנא קמא נמי טהורי מטהר אלא דפלי פלויי איכא בינייהו

22 — Abaye replied: As regards a tube all45 agree that the woman is clean,46

כג תנא קמא סבר בבשרה ולא בשפיר ולא בחתיכה והוא הדין לשפופרת והני מילי היכא דשיעא אבל פלי פלויי טמאה מאי טעמיה בבשרה קרינא ביה

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

כה אמר אביי בשפופרת כולי עלמא לא פליגי דטהורה

Previous Chapter Next Chapter