Niddah 44

אם נמוחו טמאה

AND IF IT DISSOLVES SHE IS UNCLEAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is regarded as unclean blood though when she first observed the object it was as dry, for instance, as earth. ');">¹</span>

אי הכי בלא נמוחו נמי

But if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That dry blood also causes uncleanness. ');">²</span>

אמר רבה

[should not uncleanness be caused] even if the object was not dissolved? — Rabbah replied: If it is not dissolved it is an independent creature.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And cannot be regarded as congealed blood. ');">³</span>

כי לא נמוחו בריה בפני עצמה היא

But is there such a phenomenon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An abortion LIKE A RIND OR LIKE A HAIR. ');">⁴</span>

ומי איכא כי האי גוונא

Yes; and so it was taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok stated, A report of the following two incidents was brought up by my father from Tib'in<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Galilee west of Sepphoris. ');">⁵</span>

אין והתניא א"ר אלעזר בר' צדוק שני מעשים העלה אבא מטבעין ליבנה

to Jamnia. It once happened that a woman was aborting objects like pieces of red rind and the people came and asked my father, and my father asked the Sages, and the Sages asked the physicians who explained to them that that woman had an internal sore [the crust] of which she cast out in the shape of the pieces of red rind. [It was ruled that] she should put them in water and if they dissolved she should be declared unclean. And yet another incident occurred when a woman was aborting objects like red hairs, and she came and asked my father, and my father asked the Sages, and the Sages asked the physicians who explained to them that the woman had a wart<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which grew hairs. ');">⁶</span>

מעשה באשה שהיתה מפלת כמין קליפות אדומות ובאו ושאלו את אבא ואבא שאל לחכמים וחכמים שאלו לרופאים ואמרו להם

in her internal organs and that that was the cause of her aborting objects like red hairs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Nid. IV. ');">⁷</span>

אשה זו מכה יש לה בתוך מעיה שממנה מפלת כמין קליפות תטיל למים אם נמוחו טמאה

LET<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Bomb. ed. Cur. edd. do not indicate that this is a quotation from our Mishnah. ');">⁸</span>

ושוב מעשה באשה שהיתה מפלת כמין שערות אדומות ובאה ושאלה את אבא ואבא שאל לחכמים וחכמים לרופאים ואמרו להם

HER PUT IT IN WATER AND IF IT DISSOLVES SHE IS UNCLEAN. Resh Lakish ruled: And [this must be done] with lukewarm water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resistance to which is proof that it is no mass of congealed blood. Resistance to cold water alone is no proof that it is not congealed blood, since it is possible that it would dissolve in lukewarm water and the woman, therefore, cannot be declared clean. ');">⁹</span>

שומא יש לה בתוך מעיה שממנה מפלת כמין שערות אדומות תטיל למים אם נמוחו טמאה

So it was also taught: Let her put it in water, viz., in lukewarm water. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: She [must attempt to] crush it with spittle on her nail. What is the practical difference between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the first Tanna. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ריש לקיש

— Rabina replied: The practical difference between them is [an abortion that can be] crushed by the exercise of pressure.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But cannot be dissolved by mere immersion in lukewarm water. According to the first Tanna, since lukewarm water cannot dissolve it, it cannot be regarded as blood, while according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, since it may be squashed by pressure, it must be regarded as blood. ');">¹¹</span>

ובפושרין

Elsewhere we have learnt: How long must they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unclean things such, for instance, as a dead creeping thing and carrion which have become dry. ');">¹²</span>

תניא נמי הכי

be soaked in the lukewarm water?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To restore them to their original condition of freshness. These (as stated infra) convey uncleanness only when fresh but not when dry. ');">¹³</span>

תטיל למים ובפושרין

Twenty-four hours.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 54b. ');">¹⁴</span>

רשב"ג אומר

Now in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' RIND, HAIR, EARTH etc. spoken of in our Mishnah. ');">¹⁵</span>

ממעכתו ברוק על גבי הצפורן

what length of time is required? Do we require a period of twenty-four hours or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. even a lesser period suffices to establish that they are masses of congealed blood. ');">¹⁶</span>

מאי בינייהו

Is it only in regard to a creeping thing and carrion, which are tough, that a twenty-four hours' soaking is required but not in that of blood, which is soft, or is it possible that there is no difference? — This is undecided.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teku. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבינא

IF AN ABORTION WAS IN THE SHAPE OF FISHES. But why does not R. Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in an earlier clause of our Mishnah ruled, IN EITHER CASE SHE IS UNCLEAN. ');">¹⁸</span>

מעוך על ידי הדחק איכא בינייהו

disagree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the ruling that, OTHERWISE SHE IS CLEAN. ');">¹⁹</span>

התם תנן

in this case also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. why does he not here also maintain that the woman is unclean in either case? ');">²⁰</span>

כמה היא שרייתן בפושרין מעת לעת הכא מאי

— Resh Lakish replied: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The anonymous ruling under discussion. ');">²¹</span>

מי בעינא מעת לעת או לא

was indeed learnt as a controversial ruling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah and the Rabbis being in disagreement on it. ');">²²</span>

שרץ ונבלה דאקושי בעינן מעת לעת אבל דם דרכיך לא או דלמא לא שנא

and it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The anonymous ruling under discussion. ');">²¹</span>

תיקו

represents only the opinion of the Rabbis. R. Johanan, however, replied: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The anonymous ruling under discussion. ');">²³</span>

המפלת כמין דגים

may even be said to agree with R. Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in this case is of the same opinion as the Rabbis. ');">²⁴</span>

וליפלוג נמי רבי יהודה בהא

for R. Judah gave his ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That IN EITHER CASE SHE IS UNCLEAN. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר ריש לקיש

only there, in the case of a SHAPELESS OBJECT, since it is the nature of blood to congeal and to assume the form of a shapeless object,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his ruling (cf. prev. n.) whenever the object had the colour of one of the four kinds of unclean blood. His ruling is thus entirely independent of the question whether the uterus does or does not open without bleeding. ');">²⁶</span>

במחלוקת שנויה ורבנן היא

but [not here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of an abortion of FISHES, LOCUSTS etc. ');">²⁷</span>

ורבי יוחנן אמר

since] it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Blood. ');">²⁸</span>

אפילו תימא רבי יהודה

can never assume the form of a creature.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the abortion under discussion did assume the form of a creature, R. Judah agrees with the Rabbis that OTHERWISE SHE IS CLEAN. ');">²⁹</span>

עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהודה התם אלא גבי חתיכה דעביד דם דקריש והוי חתיכה אבל בריה לא הוי

According, however, to that version in which R. Johanan stated that 'the point at issue between them is the question whether it is possible for the uterus to open without bleedings',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 21b. ');">³⁰</span>

ולהך לישנא דא"ר יוחנן

should not R. Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the character of the abortion itself is of no consequence. ');">³¹</span>

באי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם קמיפלגי לפלוג נמי ר' יהודה בהא

have disagreed in this case also? — He who learnt that version<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one just referred to. ');">³²</span>

מאן דמתני הך לישנא מתני הכי

reads here: Both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish replied: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The anonymous ruling under discussion. ');">³³</span>

רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו במחלוקת שנויה ורבנן היא

was learnt as a controversial ruling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah and the Rabbis being in disagreement on it. ');">³⁴</span>

המפלת כמין בהמה [וכו']

and it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The anonymous ruling under discussion. ');">³³</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל

represents only the view of the Rabbis.

מ"ט דר' מאיר הואיל ונאמרה בו יצירה כאדם

IF AN ABORTION HAD THE SHAPE OF A BEAST etc. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: What is the reason of R. Meir? Since in their case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beasts and birds. ');">³⁵</span>

אלא מעתה המפלת דמות תנין תהא אמו טמאה לידה הואיל ונאמר בו יצירה כאדם שנאמר (בראשית א, כא) ויברא אלהים את התנינים הגדולים

an expression of forming<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And&nbsp;… the Lord God formed every beast&nbsp;… and every fowl (Gen. II, 19). ');">³⁶</span>

אמרי

is used as in that of man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then the Lord God formed man (ibid. 7). ');">³⁷</span>

דנין יצירה מיצירה ואין דנין בריאה מיצירה

Now then, if an abortion was in the likeness of a sea-monster<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which may be classed as a kind of fish. ');">³⁸</span>

מאי נפקא מינה

would its mother be unclean by reason of child-birth, since an expression of forming was used in its case as in that of man, it having been said, And God created<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is now assumed to be analogous to an expression of 'forming'. ');">³⁹</span>

הא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל

the great sea-monsters?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I, 21. The answer being presumably in the affirmative, how could our Mishnah rule that IF AN ABORTION WAS IN THE SHAPE OF FISHES&nbsp;… SHE IS CLEAN? ');">⁴⁰</span>

(ויקרא יד:לט) ושב הכהן (ויקרא יד, מד) ובא הכהן זו היא שיבה זו היא ביאה

— I can answer: An expression of forming<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And&nbsp;… the Lord God formed every beast&nbsp;… and every fowl (Gen. II, 19). ');">⁴¹</span>

ועוד

may be deduced from another expression of forming<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then the Lord God formed man (ibid. 7). ');">⁴²</span>

נגמר בריאה מבריאה דכתיב (בראשית א:כז) ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמו

but one of creating<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used about sea-monsters in Gen. I, 21. ');">⁴³</span>

אמרי

may not be deduced from one of forming.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then the Lord God formed man (ibid. II, 7). ');">⁴⁴</span>

ויברא לגופיה וייצר לאפנויי ודנין יצירה מיצירה

But where lies the practical difference between the two expressions? Surely the School of R. Ishmael taught: And the priest shall return,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 39. ');">⁴⁵</span>

אדרבה

and the priest shall come,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 44. ');">⁴⁶</span>

וייצר לגופיה ויברא לאפנויי ודנין בריאה מבריאה

'returning' and 'coming' are the same thing!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And an analogy between them may be drawn, though they are derived from different roots, v. Hul. 85a. Why then should no analogy be drawn between 'forming' and 'creating'? ');">⁴⁷</span>

אלא

Furthermore, why should not one expression of 'creating'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used about sea-monsters in Gen. I, 21. ');">⁴³</span>

וייצר מופנה משני צדדין מופנה גבי אדם ומופנה גבי בהמה

be deduced from another expression of 'creating', it being written, And God created man in His own image?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I, 27. ');">⁴⁸</span>

ויברא גבי אדם מופנה גבי תנינים אינו מופנה

— I can answer: 'And&nbsp;… created'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I, 27. ');">⁴⁸</span>

מאי מופנה גבי בהמה

is required for its own context while 'and&nbsp;… formed is available for deduction, hence it is that the expression of 'forming'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And&nbsp;… the Lord God formed every beast&nbsp;… and every fowl (Gen. II, 19). ');">⁴⁹</span>

אילימא מדכתיב (בראשית א:כה) ויעש אלהים את חית הארץ וכתיב {בראשית ב } ויצר [ה'] אלהים מן האדמה כל חית השדה גבי תנין נמי אפנויי מופנה דכתיב (בראשית א:כה) ואת כל רמש האדמה וכתיב (בראשית א:כא) ויברא אלהים את התנינים הגדולים

may be deducted from the similar one of 'forming'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then the Lord God formed man (ibid. II, 7). ');">⁴⁴</span>

רמש דכתיב התם דיבשה הוא

On the contrary [might it not be submitted that] 'And … formed'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then the Lord God formed man (ibid. II, 7). ');">⁴⁴</span>

ומאי נפקא מינה בין מופנה מצד אחד למופנה משני צדדין

was required for its own context while 'and&nbsp;… created'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I, 27. ');">⁴⁸</span>

נפקא מינה דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רבי ישמעאל

is available for deduction, hence the expression of 'creating'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used about sea-monsters in Gen. I, 21. ');">⁴³</span>

כל גזרה שוה שאינה מופנה כל עיקר אין למדין הימנה

may be deduced from 'creating'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I, 27. ');">⁴⁸</span>

מופנה מצד אחד לרבי ישמעאל למדין ואין מושיבין לרבנן למדין ומשיבין

— The fact is that the expression 'And&nbsp;… formed' is available for deduction on the two sides: It is available in the case of man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expression of 'creating' (Gen. I, 27) has also been used about him. ');">⁵⁰</span>

מופנה משני צדדין דברי הכל למדין ואין משיבין

and it is also available in that of beast;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As will be explained presently. ');">⁵¹</span>

ורבי ישמעאל מאי איכא בין מופנה מצד אחד למופנה משני צדדין

but the expression of 'And&nbsp;… created' is available for deduction only in the case of man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning whom there is also the expression of 'forming' (Gen. II, 7). ');">⁵²</span>

נפקא מינה דהיכא דאיכא מופנה מצד אחד ומופנה משני צדדין שבקינן מופנה מצד אחד

but it is not available for the purpose in that of sea-monsters.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture contains no other similar expression about them. ');">⁵³</span> But why is it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression of 'forming'. ');">⁵⁴</span> regarded available for deduction in the case of beast? If it be suggested because it is written, And God made the beast of the earth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I, 25; an expression of 'making'. ');">⁵⁵</span> and it is also written, And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 19; expression of 'forming'. ');">⁵⁶</span> is not a similar expression [it may be retorted] also available for deduction in the case of a sea-monster, since it is written, And God made&nbsp;… and every thing that creepeth upon the ground,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. I, 25, an expression of 'making' which presumably includes the sea-monsters. ');">⁵⁷</span> and it is also written, And God created the great seamonsters?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I, 21, an expression of 'creating' which is superfluous in view of that of 'making' (cf. prev. n.) and, therefore, available for deduction. ');">⁵⁸</span> — 'Every thing that creepeth' that was written in the previously mentioned verse refers to those on the dry land. What, however, is the practical difference between an expression that is available for deduction on one side and one that is available for deduction on two sides?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., why is deduction in the latter case preferable to the former? ');">⁵⁹</span> — The practical difference is the statement Rab Judah made in the name of Samuel who had it from R. Ishmael:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The last six words apparently require emendation. ');">⁶⁰</span> From any <i>gezerah shawah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁶¹</span> neither of whose terms is available for deduction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that is not vacant at all'. ');">⁶²</span> no deduction may be made;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where no refutation can be offered. ');">⁶³</span> if one of the terms is available for the purpose, then according to R. Ishmael, a deduction may be made and no refutation may be offered, while according to the Rabbis deduction may be made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If no refutation can be offered against it. ');">⁶⁴</span> but a refutation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one can be suggested. ');">⁶⁵</span> may be offered; and if both terms are available for deduction, all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the Rabbis. ');">⁶⁶</span> agree that deduction may be made and no refutation may be offered. As to R. Ishmael, however, what is the practical difference between a <i>gezerah shawah</i> one of whose terms only is available for deduction and one both of whose terms are available for the purpose? — The practical difference is that where there is one of which one term only is available for deduction and another both of which both terms are available for deduction we must leave the former