Niddah 6

Chapter 6

א איכא בינייהו למרמי חבית ומקוה ומבוי להאיך לישנא איכא למרמינהו להני לישני ליכא למרמי

1 — 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:1 According to the former explanation such an incongruity may justifiably be pointed out1 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 Abaye2

ב ומאי איכא בין האי לישנא להאיך לישנא לאביי איכא מוך

2 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 and according to Raba2

ג לרבא איכא מוך דחוק

ד תניא כי האי לישנא דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי אמר לו הלל לשמאי אי אתה מודה בקופה שנשתמשו בה טהרות בזוית זו ונמצא שרץ בזוית אחרת שטהרות הראשונות טמאות אמר לו אבל

4 there is the case of the absorbent tightly packed.4 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 found5 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 — 'Indeed', the other replied. 'Then [Hillel rejoined] what is the difference between the one case and the other?'7

ה ומה הפרש בין זו לזו לזו יש לה שולים לזו אין לה שולים

5 — 'The one8 [Shammai replied] has a bottom,9

ו רבא אמר טעמא דשמאי משום בטול פריה ורביה תניא נמי הכי אמר לו שמאי להלל א"כ בטלת בנות ישראל מפריה ורביה

6 the other10 has none.'11 Raba stated: Shammai's reason12 is to avoid13

ז ומאן דתני האי לישנא הא תניא כי האיך לישנא דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי התם הלל הוא דקטעי הוא סבר טעמא דשמאי דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי וקא מקשי ליה קופה

7 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 So it was also taught: Shammai said to Hillel, 'If so,15 you cause the daughters of Israel the neglect of marital life'.16

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

8 Now according to him17 who taught this explanation18

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

9 [it may be objected:] Was it not taught,19

י הכי קאמר ליה הלל לשמאי אין טעמא קאמרת דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי ומיהו עשה סייג לדבריך דמאי שנא מכל התורה כולה דעבדינן סייג

10 in agreement with the former explanation,18 that 'if in fact any blood were there it would have flowed out earlier'? — There19

יא אמר ליה א"כ בטלת בנות ישראל מפריה ורביה והלל מפריה ורביה מי קאמינא לטהרות הוא דקאמינא

11 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 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.21 But according to him who taught22 the first explanation23

יב ושמאי לטהרות נמי לא דאם כן לבו נוקפו ופורש

12 [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 fence24

יג (שולי"ם בדוקי"ן מכוסי"ן בזוי"ת סימ"ן) איתמר קופה שנשתמשו בה טהרות בזוית זו ונמצא שרץ בזוית אחרת חזקיה אמר טהרות הראשונות טהורות רבי יוחנן אמר טהרות הראשונות טמאות והא (בית) שמאי והלל מודו בקופה דטהרות הראשונות טמאות

13 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,25 you would cause the daughters of Israel to neglect marital life'.26 And Hillel?27 — 'Do I [he can reply] speak of marital life?28 I only speak of levitical cleanness'. And Shammai?29 — [Restrictions, he holds, must] not [be imposed] even as regards levitical cleanness, since otherwise30 the man might have scruples31 and keep away altogether.32

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

14 (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

טו אין לה שולים מ"ט דר' יוחנן אין לה שולים ויש לה אוגנים

15 Bottom examined covered in a corner.) 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 formerly34

טז והתניא המדלה עשרה דליים מים בזה אחר זה ונמצא שרץ באחד מהן הוא טמא וכולן טהורין ואמר ריש לקיש משום רבי ינאי לא שנו אלא שאין לה אוגנים אבל יש לה אוגנים כולן טמאין

16 clean remain clean. R. Johanan ruled: The objects that were formerly35 clean are now regarded as retrospectively unclean. But do not Shammai36 and Hillel in fact agree37

יז לימא חזקיה לית ליה דר' ינאי מיא שרקי פירי לא שרקי

17 in the case of a basket that the objects that were formerly clean are deemed to be retrospectively unclean?38 — Shammai and Hillel agree39

יח אי נמי מיא לא קפיד עלייהו פירי קפיד עלייהו

18 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 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

יט ואי בעית אימא כי מודו שמאי והלל בקופה שאינה בדוקה

19 But if the basket had no bottom what could be R. Johanan's reason?42 — It had no bottom, but it had43 a rim.44 But surely, it was taught:45 'If a man drew46 ten buckets of water one after the other47 and a creeping thing was found in one of them, this one48 is unclean and all the others49 remain clean';50 and in connection with this Resh Lakish citing R. Jannai stated, 'This51 was taught only in a case where the bucket had no rim52 but if it had a rim53 all the buckets of water are deemed to be unclean.' Now must it be assumed that Hezekiah54 does not adopt the view of R. Jannai?55 — [No, since] water56 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 while fruits58 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 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 but with fruit one is particular.61 And if you prefer I might reply: Shammai and Hillel agree62 only in respect of a basket that was not [previously]63 examined64

Previous Chapter Next Chapter