Niddah 6

איכא בינייהו

— The practical difference between them is the possibility of pointing out an incongruity [between the ruling in our Mishnah and the rulings concerning] the jug, the ritual bath and the alley:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 2b and 3a. ');">¹</span>

למרמי חבית ומקוה ומבוי

According to the former explanation such an incongruity may justifiably be pointed out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 2b and 3a. ');">¹</span>

להאיך לישנא איכא למרמינהו להני לישני ליכא למרמי

while according to the latter explanations such an incongruity does not exist. But what practical difference is there [in the case of the latter] between the one and the other explanation? — According to Abaye<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 3a ad fin. ');">²</span>

ומאי איכא בין האי לישנא להאיך לישנא

there is the case of the absorbent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the explanation is that 'a woman feels' the period of menstrual uncleanness would begin at the time of the discovery of the blood even where a woman used an absorbent, while if the explanation is that 'it would have flowed out earlier' uncleanness would begin retrospectively since the discharge might have begun earlier but was soaked up by the absorbent. ');">³</span>

לאביי איכא מוך לרבא איכא מוך דחוק

and according to Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 3a ad fin. ');">²</span>

תניא כי האי לישנא דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי אמר לו הלל לשמאי

there is the case of the absorbent tightly packed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. note. ');">⁴</span>

אי אתה מודה בקופה שנשתמשו בה טהרות בזוית זו ונמצא שרץ בזוית אחרת שטהרות הראשונות טמאות

It was taught in agreement with that explanation that 'if in fact any blood were there it would have flowed out earlier': Hillel said to Shammai, 'Do you not agree that in the case of a basket one corner of which was used for levitically clean objects while in another corner was found<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the clean objects had been removed from the basket. ');">⁵</span>

אמר לו

a dead creeping thing, the objects that were formerly clean are regarded as unclean retrospectively?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the former clean are unclean', because it is possible that the creeping thing was in the basket before the objects had been removed and that it consequently imparted uncleanness to the basket from which it was conveyed to the objects. If the creeping thing, it may be added, had been found in the same corner in which the objects were previously kept there could be no question that the latter remain clean, since it may be regarded as certain that they had been removed before the creeping thing had fallen into the basket. For if it had been there earlier it would have been discovered at the time the objects were being removed. ');">⁶</span>

אבל

— 'Indeed', the other replied. 'Then [Hillel rejoined] what is the difference between the one case and the other?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. why is the uncleanness deemed to be retrospective in the case of the basket and not in that of the menstruant? ');">⁷</span>

ומה הפרש בין זו לזו

— 'The one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The basket. ');">⁸</span>

לזו יש לה שולים לזו אין לה שולים

[Shammai replied] has a bottom,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the creeping thing may well have rested quite unobserved by the person who removed the objects. ');">⁹</span>

רבא אמר

the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The menstruant. ');">¹⁰</span>

טעמא דשמאי משום בטול פריה ורביה

has none.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. had any blood found its way to the ante-chamber it would inevitably have flowed out. ');">¹¹</span>

תניא נמי הכי אמר לו שמאי להלל

Raba stated: Shammai's reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his ruling in the first clause of our Mishnah that the uncleanness is not retrospective. ');">¹²</span>

א"כ בטלת בנות ישראל מפריה ורביה

is to avoid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of'. ');">¹³</span>

ומאן דתני האי לישנא הא תניא כי האיך לישנא דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי

neglect of marital life.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., propagation'. Were it to be assumed that blood can make its way to the vagina even when the woman is unconscious of it, men would abstain from all marital intercourse in order to avoid possible complications of uncleanness. ');">¹⁴</span>

התם הלל הוא דקטעי הוא סבר

So it was also taught: Shammai said to Hillel, 'If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That menstrual uncleanness is to be retrospective (v. our Mishnah). ');">¹⁵</span>

טעמא דשמאי דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי וקא מקשי ליה קופה

you cause the daughters of Israel the neglect of marital life'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. note 10. ');">¹⁶</span>

ואמר ליה שמאי

Now according to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba. ');">¹⁷</span>

טעמא דידי משום בטול פריה ורביה ולמאי דקטעית נמי דקמקשית קופה לזו יש לה שולים ולזו אין לה שולים

who taught this explanation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Shammai's reason. ');">¹⁸</span>

ולמאן דתני האי לישנא הא תניא כי האיך לישנא משום בטול פריה ורביה

[it may be objected:] Was it not taught,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. ');">¹⁹</span>

הכי קאמר ליה הלל לשמאי

in agreement with the former explanation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Shammai's reason. ');">¹⁸</span>

אין טעמא קאמרת דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי ומיהו עשה סייג לדבריך דמאי שנא מכל התורה כולה דעבדינן סייג

that 'if in fact any blood were there it would have flowed out earlier'? — There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר ליה

it was Hillel who erred. He thought that Shammai's reason was that if any blood had been there it would have flowed out earlier and, therefore, he raised an objection against him from the case of the basket,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it is not assumed (on the analogy of the blood of the menstruant) that if a creeping thing had been there it would have come out together with the objects when the basket had been cleared. ');">²⁰</span>

א"כ בטלת בנות ישראל מפריה ורביה

but Shammai answered him, 'My reason is the avoidance of the neglect of marital life; and as regards your erroneous assumption too, in consequence of which you raised an objection from the case of the basket, the latter has a bottom while the former has none.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. notes supra. ');">²¹</span>

והלל מפריה ורביה מי קאמינא

But according to him who taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. ');">²²</span>

לטהרות הוא דקאמינא

the first explanation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Shammai's reason is that if any blood had been in the vagina it would have flowed out earlier. ');">²³</span>

ושמאי לטהרות נמי לא דאם כן לבו נוקפו ופורש

[it may be objected:] Was it not in fact taught, in agreement with the latter version, that the reason is to avoid the neglect of propagation? It is this that Hillel in fact said to Shammai, 'Even if you give as your reason that "if in fact any blood were there it would have flowed out earlier," you must nevertheless make a fence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., add some restriction (retrospective uncleanness) in order to avoid possible transgression of the law itself. ');">²⁴</span>

(שולי"ם בדוקי"ן מכוסי"ן בזוי"ת סימ"ן)

for your ruling, for why should this law be different from all the Torah for which a fence is made?' To this the other replied, 'If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That menstrual uncleanness is to be retrospective (v. our Mishnah). ');">²⁵</span>

איתמר

you would cause the daughters of Israel to neglect marital life'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 11 n. 10. ');">²⁶</span>

קופה שנשתמשו בה טהרות בזוית זו ונמצא שרץ בזוית אחרת

And Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, in view of this reply, could he maintain his ruling. ');">²⁷</span>

חזקיה אמר

— 'Do I [he can reply] speak of marital life?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No. He did not say that any marital relations were to be affected. ');">²⁸</span>

טהרות הראשונות טהורות

I only speak of levitical cleanness'. And Shammai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. note 8 mut. mut. ');">²⁹</span>

רבי יוחנן אמר

— [Restrictions, he holds, must] not [be imposed] even as regards levitical cleanness, since otherwise<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for if so', were retrospective uncleanness to be imposed. ');">³⁰</span>

טהרות הראשונות טמאות

the man might have scruples<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to the possibility of some flow of blood in the vagina. ');">³¹</span>

והא (בית) שמאי והלל מודו בקופה דטהרות הראשונות טמאות

and keep away altogether.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his heart beats him and he separates (from his wife)'. ');">³²</span>

כי מודו שמאי והלל בקופה שיש לה שולים כי פליגי חזקיה ורבי יוחנן בקופה שאין לה שולים

(Mnemonic:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Containing striking words or phrases from each of the four following explanations of the points on which Shammai and Hillel on the one hand and Hezekiah and R. Johanan on the other differ. ');">³³</span>

אין לה שולים מ"ט דר' יוחנן

<i>Bottom examined covered in a corner</i>.)

אין לה שולים ויש לה אוגנים

It was stated: If one corner of a basket was used for levitically clean objects and a dead creeping thing was found in another corner, Hezekiah ruled that the objects that were formerly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the first'. ');">³⁴</span>

והתניא המדלה עשרה דליים מים בזה אחר זה ונמצא שרץ באחד מהן הוא טמא וכולן טהורין

clean remain clean. R. Johanan ruled: The objects that were formerly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the first'. ');">³⁵</span>

ואמר ריש לקיש משום רבי ינאי

clean are now regarded as retrospectively unclean. But do not Shammai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH. and MS.M. Cur. edd. in parenthesis insert 'Beth'. ');">³⁶</span>

לא שנו אלא שאין לה אוגנים אבל יש לה אוגנים כולן טמאין

and Hillel in fact agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. — MS.M. reads, 'Does not Shammai agree with Hillel'. ');">³⁷</span>

לימא חזקיה לית ליה דר' ינאי

in the case of a basket that the objects that were formerly clean are deemed to be retrospectively unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then can Hezekiah differ from the unanimous ruling of both? ');">³⁸</span>

מיא שרקי פירי לא שרקי

— Shammai and Hillel agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'Shammai agrees with Hillel' (MS.M.). ');">³⁹</span>

אי נמי

only in the case of a basket that had a bottom,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the objects were removed through the open top, so that it was quite possible for the creeping thing to be at the time of the removal at the bottom of the basket and thus to have escaped observation. ');">⁴⁰</span>

מיא לא קפיד עלייהו פירי קפיד עלייהו

while Hezekiah and R. Johanan differ in that of a basket that had no bottom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that was used while it was lying on its side. In such circumstances the objects would be removed by inverting the basket in which case all its contents, including any creeping thing that might have been there, would fall out. ');">⁴¹</span>

ואי בעית אימא

But if the basket had no bottom what could be R. Johanan's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For treating the objects as unclean. ');">⁴²</span>

כי מודו שמאי והלל בקופה שאינה בדוקה

— It had no bottom, but it had<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Near the position of the bottom. ');">⁴³</span> a rim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Turning inwards, so that the creeping thing might have been caught by it and there remained unobserved. ');">⁴⁴</span> But surely, it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec., 'we learnt' (BaH. citing Toh. IV, 4, which, however, differs slightly from the version here cited). ');">⁴⁵</span> 'If a man drew<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the same bucket. ');">⁴⁶</span> ten buckets of water one after the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All of which were poured into one large tank. ');">⁴⁷</span> and a creeping thing was found in one of them, this one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which the creeping thing was found. ');">⁴⁸</span> is unclean and all the others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no creeping thing was observed to be in them when they were being emptied into the tank. ');">⁴⁹</span> remain clean';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being assumed that the creeping thing had not fallen into the bucket until it was filled for the last time. ');">⁵⁰</span> and in connection with this Resh Lakish citing R. Jannai stated, 'This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That all the others remain clean. ');">⁵¹</span> was taught only in a case where the bucket had no rim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Turning inwards so that the creeping thing could not possibly have remained in the bucket when it was tipped over the tank. ');">⁵²</span> but if it had a rim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which the creeping thing might have been caught and remained unobserved at the time. ');">⁵³</span> all the buckets of water are deemed to be unclean.' Now must it be assumed that Hezekiah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, as explained supra in the case of the basket, holds the objects to be clean even where the basket had a rim. ');">⁵⁴</span> does not adopt the view of R. Jannai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is it likely, however, that Hezekiah would differ from such an authority? ');">⁵⁵</span> — [No, since] water<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the bucket is tipped. ');">⁵⁶</span> glides<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is not necessary to incline the bucket at too great an angle when it is being emptied. The creeping thing might, therefore, well have remained within the bucket, held by the rim and unobserved. ');">⁵⁷</span> while fruits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a basket. ');">⁵⁸</span> do not glide;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the basket is only slightly inclined. As it must consequently be turned upside down before all the fruit it contains can be emptied it is quite impossible for the creeping thing to have remained within. If, therefore, one was subsequently found in the basket it may be safely assumed that it fell in after the clean objects had been removed. ');">⁵⁹</span> or else [it may be replied] one is not particular with water<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And does not mind if some of it remains in the bucket. Hence one does not tip the bucket very much, and the creeping thing might consequently have remained within the bucket behind the rim. ');">⁶⁰</span> but with fruit one is particular.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And turns the bucket upside down in order to get out even the last fruit (cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut.). ');">⁶¹</span> And if you prefer I might reply: Shammai and Hillel agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'Shammai agrees with Hillel' (MS.M.). ');">⁶²</span> only in respect of a basket that was not [previously]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the clean objects were put into it. ');">⁶³</span> examined<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it cannot be regarded as having a presumptive state of cleanness. ');">⁶⁴</span>