Niddah 67

Chapter 67

א רגל הוה וטומאת עם הארץ ברגל כטהרה שוינהו רבנן דכתיב (שופטים כ, יא) ויאסף כל איש ישראל אל העיר כאיש אחד חברים הכתוב עשאן כולן חברים
1 The incident occurred during a festival and the uncleanness of an 'am ha-arez<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was no Sadducee and whose wife as a rule properly observed the laws of menstruation. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> during a festival the Rabbis treated as clean; for it is written, So all the men of Israel were gathered again against the city, knit together<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Haberim, plural of haber. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> דם עובדת כוכבים ודם טהרה של מצורעת ב"ש מטהרים ובית הלל אומרים כרוקה וכמימי רגליה
2 as one man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges XX, 11. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> the text thus treated them all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When assembled together. as is also the case on a festival. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג דם היולדת שלא טבלה ב"ש אומרים כרוקה וכמימי רגליה וב"ה אומרים מטמא לח ויבש
3 as haberim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but two. Haberim meticulously observe all the laws of uncleanness. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE BLOOD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XV, 19 and 25. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> OF AN IDOLATRESS AND THE CLEAN BLOOD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood of purification (Lev. XII, 5). ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ד ומודים ביולדת בזוב שהיא מטמאה לח ויבש
4 OF A LEPROUS WOMAN, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE CLEAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed in the Gemara infra. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ולית להו לב"ש (ויקרא טו, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם איש איש כי יהיה זב בני ישראל מטמאין בזיבה ואין העובדי כוכבים מטמאין בזיבה אבל גזרו עליהן שיהו כזבין לכל דבריהם
5 AND BETH HILLEL HOLD THAT IT IS LIKE HER SPITTLE OR HER URINE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which conveys uncleanness when wet but not when dry. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ו אמרי לך ב"ש (ההוא בזכרים איתמר דאי בנקבות) היכי לעביד ליטמא לח ויבש עשיתו כשל תורה ליטמי לח ולא ליטמי יבש חלקת בשל תורה
6 THE BLOOD OF A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH WHO DID NOT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seven days after the birth of a male child or fourteen days after that of a female child (cf. Lev. XII, 2, 5). ');"><sup>10</sup></span> UNDERGO RITUAL IMMERSION, BETH SHAMMAI RULED, IS LIKE HER SPITTLE OR HER URINE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which conveys uncleanness when wet but not when dry. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY, THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ז אי הכי רוקה ומימי רגליה נמי כיון דעבדינן היכרא בדמה מידע ידיע דרוקה ומימי רגליה דרבנן
7 AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT IF SHE GAVE BIRTH WHILE IN <i>ZIBAH</i>, IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But do not Beth Shammai uphold the tradition: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, when any man hath an issue,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, XV, 2. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ח ולעביד היכרא ברוקה ומימי רגליה ולטמויי לדמה רוקה ומימי רגליה דשכיחי גזרו בהו רבנן דמה דלא שכיחא לא גזרו ביה רבנן
8 only the children of Israel convey uncleanness by <i>zibah</i> and idolaters do not convey uncleanness by <i>zibah</i>, but a preventive measure has been enacted against them that they should be regarded as zabim in all respects?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 83a; how then could Beth Shammai in our Mishnah declare their blood clean? ');"><sup>13</sup></span> — Beth Shammai can answer you:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Maharsha and old edd. Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis 'that was stated about males, for if about females'. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ט אמר רבא זובו טמא אפילו לב"ש קריו טהור אפילו לב"ה
9 How should it act? If it were to convey uncleanness both when wet and when dry, you would treat it as a Pentateuchal uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this might lead to the erroneous assumption that it also causes the burning of terumah and other sacred things. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> If it were to convey uncleanness only when wet and not when dry, you might also make the same distinction in a Pentateuchal uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of an Israelite woman. By ruling that it is clean such erroneous conclusions are avoided. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
י זובו טמא אפילו לב"ש דהא איכא למעבד היכרא בקריו
10 If so, should not the same provision<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To regard it as clean. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יא קריו טהור אפי' לב"ה עבוד ביה רבנן היכרא כי היכי דלא לשרוף עליה תרומה וקדשים
11 
יב ולעביד היכרא בזובו ולטמויי לקריו זובו דלא תלי במעשה גזרו ביה רבנן קריו דתלי במעשה לא גזרו ביה רבנן
12 be made in the case of her spittle and her urine also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since otherwise the same erroneous conclusion might be drawn. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> — Since a distinguishing rule has been laid down in regard to her blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By imposing upon it an uncleanness that is less restrictive than that of Pentateuchal uncleanness. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יג לימא מסייע ליה עובדת כוכבים שפלטה שכבת זרע מישראל טמאה ובת ישראל שפלטה שכבת זרע מן העובד כוכבי' טהורה מאי לאו טהורה גמורה לא טהורה מדאורייתא טמאה מדרבנן
13 it is sufficiently known that her spittle and her urine are only Rabbinically unclean. And why should no distinguishing rule be laid down in respect of her spittle or her urine while her blood should be ruled to be unclean? — Concerning her spittle and her urine, since they are frequently discharged, the Rabbis have enacted a preventive measure, but concerning her blood which is not frequently discharged the Rabbis have enacted no preventive measure. Raba ruled: His<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An idolater's. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> discharge' in <i>zibah</i> is unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Conveying it by contact. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> even according to Beth Shammai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in our Mishnah relax the law in regard to an idolatrous woman. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
יד ת"ש נמצאת אומר שכבת זרע של ישראל טמאה בכל מקום
14 and his discharge of semen is clean even according to Beth Hillel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> 'His discharge in <i>zibah</i> is unclean even according to Beth Shammai' since a distinguishing rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby it is indicated that the uncleanness of an idolater is merely Rabbinical. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> can be made in connection with the discharge of his semen. 'His discharge of semen is clean even according to Beth Hillel', since the Rabbis have enacted a distinguishing rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby it is indicated that the uncleanness of an idolater is merely Rabbinical. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> in order that <i>terumah</i> or other holy things shall not be burnt on its account.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the absence of the distinction it might have been presumed that the uncleanness is Pentateuchal and that, therefore, even terumah and other holy things must be burnt if they came in contact with it. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> But why should not the distinguishing rule be enacted in regard to his discharge in <i>zibah</i> while his discharge of semen should be declared unclean? — Concerning his discharge in <i>zibah</i> which is not dependent on an act of his the Rabbis have enacted a preventive measure, but concerning a discharge of his semen which does depend on an act of his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sexual excitement. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure. May it be suggested that the following provides support to his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba's. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> ruling: If an idolatress discharged the semen of an Israelite, it is unclean; but if the daughter of an Israelite discharged the semen of an idolater, it is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mik. VIII, 4. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> Now does not this mean that it is completely clean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with Raba. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> — No; clean Pentateuchally but unclean Rabbinically. Come and hear: It thus follows<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'you are found saying'. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> that the semen of an Israelite is unclean everywhere,
Previous ChapterNext Chapter