Niddah 8

'Because it is assumed that a clean person entered there and removed it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This assumption cannot, of course, be made in the case of the basket, with which R. Johanan deals, since the unclean object (the dead creeping thing) was actually found in it, and when it was found it was still in its state of uncleanness. ');">¹</span>

But why should it not be assumed here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the basket and the creeping thing. ');">²</span>

that a raven came and dropped [the creeping thing into the basket]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the clean objects had been removed from it and after it had been moved into its new position. ');">³</span>

— In the case of a man who acts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he removed the loaf from the sloping shelf. ');">⁴</span>

with intention such an assumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the man entered and moved the loaf to its present safer place. ');">⁵</span>

is made, but in that of a raven which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if it were to drop the creeping thing into the basket. ');">⁶</span>

does not act with intention such an assumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the raven dropped the thing after the clean objects had been removed etc. (cf. supra n. 11). ');">⁷</span>

is not made. But consider: The loaf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since (a) it is uncertain whether it touched the unclean object or not and (b) it was found within a house. ');">⁸</span>

is a case of doubtful uncleanness in a private domain. Now is not any case of doubtful uncleanness in a private domain regarded as unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer being in the affirmative, the difficulty arises, why is the loaf deemed to be clean? ');">⁹</span>

— [The loaf is deemed to be unclean] because it is a thing that possesses no intelligence to answer questions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to be asked', whether it came in contact with the unclean object or not. ');">¹⁰</span>

and any thing that possesses no intelligence to answer questions, irrespective of whether it was in a public or in a private domain, is in any doubtful case of uncleanness regarded as clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the rule that doubtful uncleanness in a private domain is deemed to be unclean is deduced from that of sotah (v. Glos.) and consequently only rational beings like the sotah herself (who is able to answer whether she was or was not defiled) are subject to the same restrictions. ');">¹¹</span>

And if you prefer I might reply: Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the loaf. ');">¹²</span>

we are dealing with a Rabbinical uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One, for instance, of those enumerated in Hag. 18b and 20b. A doubtful case of Rabbinical uncleanness is regarded as clean even in a private domain. ');">¹³</span>

A deduction [from the wording]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Tosef. Toh. IV cited. ');">¹⁴</span>

also supports this view, for the expression used is 'middaf'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rendered (supra 4a) 'an object of a minor degree of uncleanness'. ');">¹⁵</span>

which is analogous to the Scriptural phrase, 'a driven [niddaf] leaf'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVI, 36; the rt. of niddaf, and so also that of middaf implying something 'light', 'of minor importance', hence a 'minor degree of or Rabbinical uncleanness'. ');">¹⁶</span>

THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: [THE LAW IS] NEITHER IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OPINION OF THE FORMER NOR IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT OF THE LATTER etc. Our Rabbis taught: And the Sages ruled, [The law is] neither in agreement with the opinion of the former nor in agreement with that of the latter, neither [that is] in agreement with the opinion of Shammai who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having laid down that the period of uncleanness begins only 'FROM THE TIME OF THEIR DISCOVERING OF THE FLOW'. ');">¹⁷</span>

provided no fence for his ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., made no restriction whatever against the possible infringement of the actual law. ');">¹⁸</span>

nor in agreement with the opinion of Hillel who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Laying down that the period of uncleanness 'IS TO BE RECKONED RETROSPECTIVELY FROM THE PREVIOUS EXAMINATION'. ');">¹⁹</span>

restricted far too much,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who broke through beyond his measures. ');">²⁰</span>

but [the women are deemed to be unclean] during the preceding twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, and during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours. '[The women are deemed to be unclean] during the preceding twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination'. How is this to be understood? If a woman examined her body on a Sunday<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on the first of the week'. ');">²¹</span>

and found herself to be clean and then she spent Monday and Tuesday without holding any examination while on Wednesday she examined herself and found that she was unclean, it is not ruled that she should be deemed to be unclean retrospectively from the previous examination to the last examination but only [that she should be deemed to be unclean] during the preceding twenty-four hours. 'And during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours'. How is this to be understood? If the woman examined her body during the first hour of the day and found herself to be clean and then she spent the second and the third hour without holding any examination while in the fourth hour she examined herself and found that she was unclean, it is not ruled that she should be deemed to be unclean retrospectively for a period of twenty-four hours but only during the period from the previous examination to the last examination. But is it not obvious that, since she has examined herself during the first hour and found that she was clean, she is not to be deemed unclean retrospectively for twenty-four hours?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it is. Why then should such an obvious ruling have to be stated? ');">²²</span>

— As it was taught, 'during the preceding twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ruling that had to be enunciated, since otherwise it could have been argued that the flow began on the Sunday immediately after the examination. ');">²³</span>

it also stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a kind of antithesis. ');">²⁴</span>

'during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours'.

Rabbah stated: What is the reason of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fixing a twenty-four hours' period of uncleanness. The reason for Hillel's period, 'from examination to examination' (cf. our Mishnah), is quite intelligible since the flow may well have begun as soon as the previous examination was concluded, but the twenty-four hours' period appears to have no logical justification whatsoever. ');">²⁵</span>

Because a woman well feels herself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any flow. Had it begun immediately after the conclusion of her previous examination she would have been aware of it. ');">²⁶</span>

Said Abaye to him: If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a woman is aware of the flow as soon as it begins. ');">²⁷</span>

[a period of uncleanness from] the time of her observation of the flow should suffice!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being obvious that the flow began only at that moment, for if it had begun earlier she (cf. prev. n.) would have been aware of the fact. Why then should her period of uncleanness extend backwards for twenty-four hours? An objection against Rabbah. ');">²⁸</span>

And Rabbah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., why did he take up such an untenable position? ');">²⁹</span>

— He only wished to exercise Abaye's wits.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to sharpen (the mind) of Abaye'. Rabbah advanced the reason merely to afford an opportunity for Abaye, whose guardian and teacher he was, to prove it to be wrong. ');">³⁰</span>

What then is the reason of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 20. n. 5. ');">³¹</span>

— It is one such as that which Rab Judah gave in the name of Samuel: The Sages have ordained for the daughters of Israel that they should examine themselves in the morning and in the evening; 'in the morning', in order to verify the cleanness of objects they handled during the previous night,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a woman finds herself on examination to be clean it is thereby verified that all clean objects she handled during the previous night are to be regarded as clean; and should she discover any flow later at the evening examination the doubtful uncleanness would extend only to objects she handled during the day. ');">³²</span>

'and in the evening' in order to verify the cleanness of objects they handled during the previous day;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. ');">³³</span>

but this woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spoken of in our Mishnah, and in the Baraitha cited. ');">³⁴</span>

since she did not [regularly] examine her body,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In defiance of the ordinance of the Rabbis. ');">³⁵</span>

has<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a penalty. ');">³⁶</span>

lost one 'onah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a time' or 'a period' of one day or night, sc. her uncleanness begins retrospectively one 'onah earlier. ');">³⁷</span>

But what could be meant by 'one 'onah'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the uncleanness extends backwards for twenty-four hours which represent two 'onahs. ');">³⁸</span>

— One additional 'onah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in addition to the 'onah immediately preceding the one in which her last examination was held (during which she is in any case unclean owing to the doubt as to when the flow began), she must suffer the penalty of being treated as unclean retrospectively even during the 'onah that preceded that one. ');">³⁹</span>

Said R. Papa to Raba: But would you not sometimes find that there are three 'onahs in twenty-four hours?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When, for instance, the first examination after a number of days without an examination took place at midday. If the uncleanness extended backwards for a period of twenty-four hours it would cover [1] the 'onah of the day of the examination, [2] the 'onah of the preceding night and [3] the 'onah of the day preceding that night. Now since the penalty imposed was only one additional 'onah why should it in this case be increased to two 'onahs? ');">⁴⁰</span>

— The Sages have laid down a uniform limit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'made their measures equal', i.e., the period of twenty-four hours has been fixed, irrespective of whether it covers two 'onahs or three. ');">⁴¹</span>

in order that there shall be no variations in the twenty-four hours' period. And<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH. Cur. edd. omit. ');">⁴²</span>

if you prefer I might reply:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the objection why in the case mentioned (cf. supra p. 21, n. 15) the uncleanness should extend over three 'onahs. ');">⁴³</span>

[the period extends to three 'onahs] in order that the sinner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman who, not only failed to examine her body regularly in accordance with the ordinance of the Sages but also delayed her last examination from the morning hour to noon. ');">⁴⁴</span>

shall not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By having her period of uncleanness reduced to less than twenty-four hours. ');">⁴⁵</span>

be at an advantage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Over one in a similar position who held her examination in the early morning and whose period of uncleanness is extended retrospectively for a full period of twenty-four hours to the previous morning. ');">⁴⁶</span>

What is the practical difference between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two replies offered. ');">⁴⁷</span>

— The practical difference between them is the case of a woman who was the victim of circumstances and in consequence of which she did not hold her examination.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first reply she would be subject to uncleanness for a full period of twenty-four hours, while according to the second reply, since in this case she is no sinner, the period would be reduced to two 'onahs and her uncleanness would be reckoned from the beginning of the previous evening only. ');">⁴⁸</span>

FOR ANY WOMAN WHO HAS A SETTLED PERIOD etc. Must it be conceded that our Mishnah represents the view of R. Dosa and not that of the Rabbis seeing that it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What follows, with the exception of R. Dosa's ruling occurs also in the Mishnah infra 7a. ');">⁴⁹</span>

R. Eliezer ruled, For four classes of women it suffices [to reckon the period of their uncleanness from the time they discovered the discharge,] viz., a virgin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one, whether married or unmarried, who suffered a flow for the first time in her life. ');">⁵⁰</span>

a pregnant woman, a woman that gives suck and an old woman; and R. Dosa ruled, For any woman who has a settled period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovered the discharge?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, since the Rabbis elsewhere differ from R. Dosa's ruling, must it be conceded that our Mishnah represents his view only? ');">⁵¹</span>

— It may even be held [that our Mishnah represents the view of] the Rabbis, for the Rabbis differ from R. Dosa only [in respect of a flow] that did not occur at the woman's set time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the appearance is obviously irregular it may well be suspected that one occurred earlier also. ');">⁵²</span>

but [in the case of one that did occur] at her set time they might agree with him; and our Mishnah deals with a flow that occurred at the woman's set time and it, therefore, represents the view of both.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and the words of all', those of the Rabbis as well those of R. Dosa. ');">⁵³</span>

Thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the dispute between R. Dosa and the Rabbis has been limited to a flow that did not occur at the set time. ');">⁵⁴</span>

it follows that R. Dosa maintains his view even where a flow did not occur at the woman's set time. Who then is the author of the following which the Rabbis taught: Though a woman has a settled period her bloodstain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. one on a garment of hers. ');">⁵⁵</span> is deemed to be unclean retrospectively,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the time it had been washed. ');">⁵⁶</span> for were she to observe a flow when it is not her set time she would be unclean retrospectively for a period of twenty-four hours?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in this case, despite the woman's settled period, the uncleanness is deemed to be retrospective so it is retrospective in the case of the stain also. ');">⁵⁷</span> Must it be conceded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, from what has been said, it is only the Rabbis who impose retrospective uncleanness in the case of a woman who, though having a settled period, suffered a flow before or after that time. ');">⁵⁸</span> to be the Rabbis only and not R. Dosa?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is it likely, however, that R. Dosa would differ from an anonymous Baraitha? ');">⁵⁹</span> — It may be said to be even R. Dosa; for R. Dosa may disagree with the Rabbis only in the case where the flow occurred at the woman's set time but where it occurred when it was not her set time he agrees with them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the uncleanness is retrospective. ');">⁶⁰</span> and our Mishnah deals with one that occurred at her set time and it is, therefore, in agreement with the opinion of R. Dosa