Niddah 44

Chapter 44

א אם נמוחו טמאה אי הכי בלא נמוחו נמי אמר רבה כי לא נמוחו בריה בפני עצמה היא

1 AND IF IT DISSOLVES SHE IS UNCLEAN.1 But if so,2 [should not uncleanness be caused] even if the object was not dissolved? — Rabbah replied: If it is not dissolved it is an independent creature.3 But is there such a phenomenon?4

ב ומי איכא כי האי גוונא אין והתניא א"ר אלעזר בר' צדוק שני מעשים העלה אבא מטבעין ליבנה

2 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'in5 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 wart6

ג מעשה באשה שהיתה מפלת כמין קליפות אדומות ובאו ושאלו את אבא ואבא שאל לחכמים וחכמים שאלו לרופאים ואמרו להם אשה זו מכה יש לה בתוך מעיה שממנה מפלת כמין קליפות תטיל למים אם נמוחו טמאה

3 in her internal organs and that that was the cause of her aborting objects like red hairs.7 LET8

ד ושוב מעשה באשה שהיתה מפלת כמין שערות אדומות ובאה ושאלה את אבא ואבא שאל לחכמים וחכמים לרופאים ואמרו להם שומא יש לה בתוך מעיה שממנה מפלת כמין שערות אדומות תטיל למים אם נמוחו טמאה

4 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 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?10

ה אמר ריש לקיש ובפושרין תניא נמי הכי תטיל למים ובפושרין רשב"ג אומר ממעכתו ברוק על גבי הצפורן מאי בינייהו אמר רבינא מעוך על ידי הדחק איכא בינייהו

5 — 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 Elsewhere we have learnt: How long must they12 be soaked in the lukewarm water?13 Twenty-four hours.14 Now in this case,15 what length of time is required? Do we require a period of twenty-four hours or not?16 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.17 IF AN ABORTION WAS IN THE SHAPE OF FISHES. But why does not R. Judah18 disagree19

ו התם תנן כמה היא שרייתן בפושרין מעת לעת הכא מאי מי בעינא מעת לעת או לא

6 in this case also?20 — Resh Lakish replied: This21 was indeed learnt as a controversial ruling,22

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

7 and it21 represents only the opinion of the Rabbis. R. Johanan, however, replied: It23

ח המפלת כמין דגים וליפלוג נמי רבי יהודה בהא

8 may even be said to agree with R. Judah,24 for R. Judah gave his ruling25

ט אמר ריש לקיש במחלוקת שנויה ורבנן היא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא רבי יהודה עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהודה התם אלא גבי חתיכה דעביד דם דקריש והוי חתיכה אבל בריה לא הוי

9 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 but [not here,27 since] it28 can never assume the form of a creature.29 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',30

י ולהך לישנא דא"ר יוחנן באי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם קמיפלגי לפלוג נמי ר' יהודה בהא

10 should not R. Judah31 have disagreed in this case also? — He who learnt that version32

יא מאן דמתני הך לישנא מתני הכי רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו במחלוקת שנויה ורבנן היא

11 reads here: Both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish replied: This33 was learnt as a controversial ruling,34

יב המפלת כמין בהמה [וכו']

12 and it33

יג אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מ"ט דר' מאיר הואיל ונאמרה בו יצירה כאדם

13 represents only the view of the Rabbis. 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 case35

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

14 an expression of forming36

טו אמרי דנין יצירה מיצירה ואין דנין בריאה מיצירה

15 is used as in that of man.37 Now then, if an abortion was in the likeness of a sea-monster38

טז מאי נפקא מינה הא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא יד:לט) ושב הכהן (ויקרא יד, מד) ובא הכהן זו היא שיבה זו היא ביאה

16 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 created39 the great sea-monsters?40 — I can answer: An expression of forming41

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

17 may be deduced from another expression of forming42 but one of creating43

יח אמרי ויברא לגופיה וייצר לאפנויי ודנין יצירה מיצירה

18 may not be deduced from one of forming.44 But where lies the practical difference between the two expressions? Surely the School of R. Ishmael taught: And the priest shall return,45

יט אדרבה וייצר לגופיה ויברא לאפנויי ודנין בריאה מבריאה

19 and the priest shall come,46 '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

כ אלא וייצר מופנה משני צדדין מופנה גבי אדם ומופנה גבי בהמה ויברא גבי אדם מופנה גבי תנינים אינו מופנה

20 Furthermore, why should not one expression of 'creating'43 be deduced from another expression of 'creating', it being written, And God created man in His own image?48 — I can answer: 'And … created'48

כא מאי מופנה גבי בהמה 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

21 is required for its own context while 'and … formed is available for deduction, hence it is that the expression of 'forming'49 may be deducted from the similar one of 'forming'.44

כב רמש דכתיב התם דיבשה הוא ומאי נפקא מינה בין מופנה מצד אחד למופנה משני צדדין

22 On the contrary [might it not be submitted that] 'And … formed'44 was required for its own context while 'and … created'48

כג נפקא מינה דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רבי ישמעאל כל גזרה שוה שאינה מופנה כל עיקר אין למדין הימנה מופנה מצד אחד לרבי ישמעאל למדין ואין מושיבין לרבנן למדין ומשיבין מופנה משני צדדין דברי הכל למדין ואין משיבין

23 is available for deduction, hence the expression of 'creating'43 may be deduced from 'creating'?48 — The fact is that the expression 'And … formed' is available for deduction on the two sides: It is available in the case of man50 and it is also available in that of beast;51

כד ורבי ישמעאל מאי איכא בין מופנה מצד אחד למופנה משני צדדין נפקא מינה דהיכא דאיכא מופנה מצד אחד ומופנה משני צדדין שבקינן מופנה מצד אחד

24 but the expression of 'And … created' is available for deduction only in the case of man52 but it is not available for the purpose in that of sea-monsters.53 But why is it54 regarded available for deduction in the case of beast? If it be suggested because it is written, And God made the beast of the earth55 and it is also written, And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field,56 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 … and every thing that creepeth upon the ground,57 and it is also written, And God created the great seamonsters?58 — '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?59 — The practical difference is the statement Rab Judah made in the name of Samuel who had it from R. Ishmael:60 From any gezerah shawah61 neither of whose terms is available for deduction62 no deduction may be made;63 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 made64 but a refutation65 may be offered; and if both terms are available for deduction, all66 agree that deduction may be made and no refutation may be offered. As to R. Ishmael, however, what is the practical difference between a gezerah shawah 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

Previous Chapter Next Chapter