Niddah 71

Chapter 71

א אלא ללוי דאמר שני מעינות הן למה לי שבעה במשהו סגיא

1 but according to Levi, who said that the sources were two, why should it be necessary to count seven days, seeing that the slightest [break]1 should suffice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the closing up of the unclean source. As all the blood that is discharged subsequently emanates from the clean source it should suffice for the woman to wait after the unclean period no more than seven days and attain cleanness at their termination, irrespective of whether she observed any discharge during these days or not. ');">2

ב הכי קאמר צריכה שתפסוק משהו שיעלו לה לשבעה נקיים

2 — It is this that was meant: It is necessary for her that3 there shall be a slight [break]4

ג ת"ש ימי עיבורה עולים לה לימי מניקותה וימי מניקותה עולים לה לימי עיבורה

3 in order that [the following days] shall be counted as her seven clean ones. Come and hear: The days of her pregnancy supplement those of her nursing,5

ד כיצד הפסיקה שתים בימי עיבורה ואחת בימי מניקותה שתים בימי מניקותה ואחת בימי עיבורה אחת ומחצה בימי עיבורה ואחת ומחצה בימי מניקותה עולין לה לג' עונות

4 and the days of her nursing supplement those of her pregnancy. In what manner? If there was a break of two 'onahs during her pregnancy and of one during her nursing, or of two during her nursing and of one during her pregnancy, or of one and a half during her pregnancy and of one and a half during her nursing, they are all combined into a series of three 'onahs.6 Now according to Rab who said that there was only one source this ruling is quite justified, for it is for this reason7

ה בשלמא לרב דאמר מעין אחד הוא משום הכי בעי הפסק שלש עונות אלא ללוי דאמר שני מעינות הן למה לי הפסק שלש עונות במשהו סגי

5 that there must be a break of three 'onahs,8 but according to Levi who said that there were two sources why9

ו הכי קאמר צריכה שתפסוק משהו כדי שיעלו לה לשלש עונות

6 should a break of three 'onahs be required, seeing that the slightest [break] should suffice?10 — It is this that was meant: It is necessary for her that there shall be a slight [break] in order that [the following days] shall be counted for her11

ז ת"ש ושוין ברואה אחר דם טוהר שדיה שעתה

7 as three 'onahs. Come and hear: Both,12

ח בשלמא ללוי דאמר שני מעינות הן משום הכי דיה שעתה אלא לרב דאמר מעין אחד הוא אמאי דיה שעתה תטמא מעת לעת

8 however, are of the same opinion that where a woman observed a discharge after her clean blood period13 it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time of her observation. Now according to Levi who said that there exist two sources one may well concede this ruling since it is for this reason14

ט דליכא שהות

9 that15

י ותטמא מפקידה לפקידה כיון דמעת לעת ליכא מפקידה לפקידה נמי לא גזרו בה רבנן

10 it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time of her observation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which (cf. prev. n.) is rightly regarded as a first discharge after many days from the unclean source. A first discharge in the case of a nursing-woman, as in that of another three categories of woman, does not cause any retrospective uncleanness. ');">16 but according to Rab who said that there existed only one source, why should it suffice for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time of her observation seeing that17

יא תא שמע יולדת בזוב שספרה ולא טבלה וראתה הלכו ב"ש לשיטתן ובית הלל לשיטתן

11 she should have become unclean for twenty-four hours retrospectively? — This is a case where there was not time enough.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. less than a twenty-four hours interval has elapsed between the end of the clean period and the observation of the discharge. Hence even if the blood discharged had been in the outer chamber twenty-four hours previously the woman (since her blood at that time was still clean) could not be deemed unclean. ');">18 But why should she not be unclean from her previous examination to her last examination?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, for instance, on examining herself in the morning she observed a discharge, her uncleanness should be retrospective and all objects she handled during the night should be regarded as unclean. The previous answer that 'there was not time enough' cannot be given here, since in such a case there would have been no necessity whatsoever to state, what is so obvious, that in such a case it suffices to reckon the uncleanness from the time of observation. ');">19

יב בשלמא לרב דאמר מעין אחד הוא משום הכי מטמא לח ויבש אלא ללוי דאמר שני מעינות הן אמאי מטמא לח ויבש

12 — As there was no interval of twenty-four hours20

יג אמר לך לוי אנא דאמרי כתנא דשוין

13 the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure even in regard to uncleanness from the previous examination to the last examination. Come and hear: If a woman who was in childbirth during zibah had counted the prescribed number of clean days but did not undergo ritual immersion, and then observed a discharge, Beth Shammai gave their ruling in accordance with their own view and Beth Hillel ruled in accordance with their own view.21

יד ואיבעית אימא בשופעת והא ספרה קתני

14 Now according to Rab who said that there was only one source this ruling is quite justified, since it is for this reason22 that23 the discharge causes uncleanness both when wet and when dry; but according to Levi who said that there were two sources, why24

טו הכא ביולדת נקבה בזוב עסקינן דשבוע קמא פסקה שבוע בתרא לא פסקה וקסבר ימי לידתה שאין רואה בהן עולין לה לספירת זיבתה

15 does the discharge cause uncleanness both when wet and when dry? — Levi can answer you: I maintain the same view as the Tanna who stated that 'both, however, are of the same opinion'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if there was a discharge after the termination of the clean blood period, even though (as explained supra) more than twenty-four hours intervened, it suffices for the woman to be unclean from the time she observed a discharge; which shows that he also holds that there exist two sources. ');">25 And if you prefer I might reply that here we are dealing with one whose discharge is continuous. But was it not stated that she had counted?26

טז אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי אמר לן רב שמן מסכרא אקלע מר זוטרא לאתרין ודרש הילכתא כוותיה דרב לחומרא והלכתא כוותיה דלוי לחומרא

16 — Here we are dealing with one who gave birth to a female child while in zibah and whose discharge ceased during the first week27 but continued again28

יז רב אשי אמר הלכתא כוותיה דרב בין לקולא בין לחומרא דריש מרימר הלכתא כוותיה דרב בין לקולא בין לחומרא והלכתא כוותיה דרב בין לקולא בין לחומרא

17 in the second week,27 he being of the opinion that the unclean days of childbirth in which no discharge is observed are counted among the clean days of one's zibah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the statement that 'she had counted'. As in the second week, however, the discharge began again and continued into the third week, it conveys uncleanness, according to Beth Hillel, both when wet and when dry, since it emanates from an unclean source which the Torah did not regard as clean before the prescribed number of days had been counted and immersion had been performed. ');">29 Rabina said to R. Ashi: R. Shamen of Sikara30 told us, 'Mar Zutra once visited our place when he delivered a discourse In which he laid down: The law is to be restricted in agreement with Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if the discharge was continuous from within the clean period into the unclean one following, it conveys uncleanness as if it had emanated from an unclean source. ');">31 and it is also to be restricted in agreement with Levi'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where a discharge continued from within the clean days period into the clean one that follows, it is not regarded as clean blood since the continuous discharge is an indication that the unclean source had not yet closed up. ');">32 R. Ashi stated: The law is in agreement with Rab both in his relaxations<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where the discharge continued from within the unclean period into the clean one following, it is regarded as clean after the last unclean day, despite its continuity. ');">33 and his restrictions.34 Meremar in his discourse laid down: The law is in agreement with Rab both in his relaxations<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where the discharge continued from within the unclean period into the clean one following, it is regarded as clean after the last unclean day, despite its continuity. ');">33 and restrictions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if the discharge was continuous from within the clean period into the unclean one following, it conveys uncleanness as if it had emanated from an unclean source. ');">31 And the law is in agreement with Rab both in his relaxations<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where the discharge continued from within the unclean period into the clean one following, it is regarded as clean after the last unclean day, despite its continuity. ');">33 and restrictions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if the discharge was continuous from within the clean period into the unclean one following, it conveys uncleanness as if it had emanated from an unclean source. ');">31

Previous Chapter Next Chapter