Niddah 5

Chapter 5

א ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מסוטה

1 And both1

ב רבנן סברי כי סוטה מה סוטה ספק היא ועשאוה כודאי הכא נמי ספק ועשאוה כודאי

2 deduced it2 from no other law than that of sotah.3

ג אי מסוטה אימא כי סוטה מה סוטה ברה"ר טהור הכא נמי ברה"ר טהור

3 The Rabbis4

ד הכי השתא התם משום סתירה הוא וסתירה ברה"ר ליכא הכא משום חסר הוא מה לי חסר ברה"ר מה לי חסר ברה"י

4 hold [that the law of the ritual bath is the same] as that of sotah; as [the offence of] the sotah is a matter of doubt and is regarded as a certainty5 so here also6

ה וכי תימא הא כל ספק טומאה ברה"ר טהור כיון דאיכא תרתי לריעותא כודאי טומאה דמי

5 [where the uncleanness is] a matter of doubt it is regarded as a certainty. If [the inference, however, is made] from the sotah might it not be argued: It is like the sotah in this respect, viz., that as the sotah is clean [if she is suspected of an offence] in a public domain7 so should [all the purifications effected in] this case also6 be regarded as clean [if the bath was] in a public domain? — What a comparison!8

ו ורבי שמעון סבר כי סוטה מה סוטה ברה"ר טהור הכא נמי ברה"ר טהור

6 There9 the cause10

ז אי מסוטה אימא כי סוטה מה סוטה ברה"י טמאה ודאי הכא נמי ברה"י טמאה ודאי

7 is seclusion11 but seclusion in a public domain is impossible,12 but here,6

ח הכי השתא התם יש רגלים לדבר שהרי קינא לה ונסתרה הכא מאי רגלים לדבר איכא

8 the cause13

ט ואי בעית אימא היינו טעמא דרבי שמעון גמר סוף טומאה מתחלת טומאה

9 being the deficiency,14 what matters it whether the deficiency takes place in a public, or in a private domain?15

י מה תחלת טומאה ספק נגע ספק לא נגע ברה"ר טהור אף סוף טומאה ספק טבל ספק לא טבל ברה"ר טהור

10 And should you argue: Is not every doubtful case of ritual uncleanness in a public domain regarded as clean [it could be retorted:] Since [in the case of the bath] there are two unfavourable factors16

יא ורבנן הכי השתא התם גברא בחזקת טהרה קאי מספקא לא מחתינן ליה לטומאה הכא גברא בחזקת טומאה קאי מספקא לא מפקינן ליה מטומאתו

11 it is regarded as certain uncleanness. R. Simeon, however, holds [that the law of the ritual bath is the same as that of sotah [in this respect]: As the sotah is regarded as clean [where she is suspected of an offence] in a public domain so also here17 [are all the purifications effected regarded as] clean [if the bath was] In a public domain. If [the inference, however, is made] from the sotah, might it not be argued: It is like the sotah in this respect viz., that as the sotah [if suspected of the offence] in a private domain is regarded as definitely unclean so should also [all purifications effected in this case] be deemed to be definitely unclean [where the bath was] in a private domain? — What a comparison!18 In that case19

יב ומאי שנא ממבוי דתנן השרץ שנמצא במבוי מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את המבוי הזה ולא היה בו שרץ או עד שעת הכיבוד

12 there is some basis for the suspicion,20 seeing that he21 had warned her and she had secluded herself with the stranger; what basis for uncleanness,20

יג התם נמי כיון דאיכא שרצים דגופיה ושרצים דאתו מעלמא כתרתי לריעותא דמי

13 however, is there here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the bath. As there is no basis whatever for the assumption that this deficiency occurred before the purifications had been effected it may well be assumed that it occurred afterwards immediately before the bath was measured. It has thus been shown, as R. Hanina replied supra, that according to R. Simeon all cases of doubtful uncleanness in a private domain where there is no basis for the affirmation of the uncleanness, are regarded as being in suspense. ');">22

יד ואב"א היינו טעמא דשמאי הואיל ואשה מרגשת בעצמה והלל כסבורה הרגשת מי רגלים היא

14 And if you prefer I might say that this is R. Simeon's reason:23 He infers the law of the termination of uncleanness24 from that of the inception of uncleanness;25

טו ולשמאי האיכא ישנה ישנה נמי אגב צערה מיתערא מידי דהוה אהרגשת מי רגלים

15 as with the inception of uncleanness if it is doubtful whether an object has or has not touched an uncleanness in a public domain it is deemed to be clean, so also with the termination of uncleanness, if it is doubtful whether an object had been duly immersed or not, in a public domain it is deemed to be clean. And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, in view of R. Simeon's inference, could they maintain (v. supra 2b ad fin.) that 'all purifications … whether it was in a public or in a private domain, are unclean'? ');">26 — What an inference!27

טז והאיכא שוטה מודה שמאי בשוטה הא כל הנשים קתני כל הנשים פקחות

16 There,28 since the man is in the presumptive status of ritual cleanness, we cannot on account of a doubt transfer him to a state of uncleanness, but here,29 seeing that the man is in the presumptive status of uncleanness, we cannot on account of a doubt release him from his uncleanness. Wherein, however, does this30

יז וליתני נשים לאפוקי מדרבי אליעזר דא"ר אליעזר ארבע נשים ותו לא קמ"ל כל הנשים

17 essentially differ31 from the case of an alley of which we learnt: If a dead creeping thing was found in an alley it causes ritual uncleanness retrospectively32 to such time as one can testify, 'I examined this alley and there was no creeping thing in it',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. only clean objects that were in the alley prior to that examination are ritually clean since the examination has established that during that time there was no creeping thing in the alley. ');">33 or to such time as it was last swept?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 56a; and no creeping thing was found. The sweeping, which is presumably accompanied by a search for any unclean things, has the same force as a direct examination. Hence (cf. prev. n.) only objects that were in the alley prior to the sweeping are clean while those that were there after the sweeping, since a creeping thing may have fallen into the alley immediately after the sweeping was over, are regarded as unclean. Now seeing that here uncleanness in a doubtful case is caused retrospectively, why does Shammai in our Mishnah restrict the period of uncleanness to the time of THEIR DISCOVERING only? ');">34

יח והאיכא כתמים לימא תנן כתמים דלא כשמאי אמר אביי מודה שמאי בכתמים מ"ט בצפור לא נתעסקה בשוק של טבחים לא עברה האי דם מהיכא אתי

18 — There35 also, since there are creeping things from the alley itself and also creeping things that make their way into it from the outside world, the case is the same as one that has two unfavourable factors. And if you prefer I might reply,36 This is Shammai's reason:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his ruling that menstruants begin their period of uncleanness from the time OF THEIR DISCOVERING OF THE FLOW only and not, as in the case of the alley, retrospectively. ');">37

יט אי בעית אימא היינו טעמיה דשמאי דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי והלל כותלי בית הרחם העמידוהו ושמאי כותלי בית הרחם לא מוקמי דם

19 Because a woman is herself conscious [when she suffers a flow].38 And Hillel?39 — She might have thought that the sensation40 was that of urine. As to Shammai, is there not [the possibility of suffering a flow while] asleep?41

כ משמשת במוך מאי איכא למימר אמר אביי מודה שמאי במשמשת במוך

20 — A woman asleep too would42 awake on account of the pain,43 as is the case where one feels a discharge of urine.44

כא רבא אמר מוך נמי אגב זיעה מכויץ כויץ ומודה רבא במוך דחוק

21 But is there not the case of an imbecile?45 — Shammai agrees46 in the case of an imbecile. But did he not state, ALL WOMEN?47

כב ומאי איכא בין הני לישני להאיך לישנא

22 — [He meant:] All sensible women. Then why did he not merely state WOMEN?48 — He intended to indicate that the law is not in agreement with R. Eliezer; for R. Eliezer mentioned 'Four classes of women'49 and no more, hence he50 informed us [that the law applies to] ALL WOMEN. But is there not the case of stains?51 Must we then52 assume that we learnt the Mishnah about stains53 in disagreement with Shammai? — Abaye replied: Shammai agrees54 in the case of stains. What is the reason? — Since she was neither handling a slaughtered bird nor was she passing through the butchers' market, whence could that blood have come?55 And56 if you prefer I might reply, This is Shammai's reason: If in fact any blood were there57 it would have flowed out earlier.58 And Hillel?59 — The walls of the womb may have held it back.60 And Shammai?61 — The walls of the womb do not hold blood back. But what can be said for a woman62 who63 uses an absorbent in her marital intercourse?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the material used would also absorb any menstrual blood, there could be no proof that the discharge did not begin prior to the discovery. How then could Shammai rule that the menstrual uncleanness begins only at 'THE TIME OF THEIR DISCOVERING THE FLOW'? ');">64 — Abaye replied: Shammai agrees65 in the case of one who uses an absorbent,66 Raba replied: An absorbent too [does not affect Shammai's ruling, since] perspiration causes it to shrink.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of perspiration it inevitably shrinks' and consequently, enables the blood to pass out. As no blood appeared prior to the discovery Shammai may well maintain that the uncleanness does not begin prior to the DISCOVERING OF THE FLOW. ');">67 Raba, however, agrees68 in the case of a tightly packed absorbent.69 What, however, is the practical difference between the latter explanations70 and the former explanation?71

Previous Chapter Next Chapter