Niddah 8

Chapter 8

א שאני אומר אדם טהור נכנס לשם ונטלה

1 '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 But why should it not be assumed here also2

ב הכא נמי נימא עורב אתא ושדא אדם דבכונה אמרינן עורב דשלא בכונה לא אמרינן

2 that a raven came and dropped [the creeping thing into the basket]?3 — In the case of a man who acts4 with intention such an assumption5

ג מכדי האי ככר ספק טומאה ברה"י הוא וכל ספק טומאה ברה"י ספקה טמא משום דהוי דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל וכל דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל בין ברה"ר בין ברשות היחיד ספקו טהור

3 is made, but in that of a raven which6 does not act with intention such an assumption7

ד ואב"א הכא בטומאה דרבנן דיקא נמי דקתני מדף כדכתיב (ויקרא כו:לו) עלה נדף

4 is not made. But consider: The loaf8 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?9 — [The loaf is deemed to be unclean] because it is a thing that possesses no intelligence to answer questions,10

ה וחכ"א לא כדברי זה כו' ת"ר וחכ"א לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה לא כדברי שמאי שלא עשה סייג לדבריו ולא כדברי הלל שהפריז על מדותיו

5 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 And if you prefer I might reply: Here12 we are dealing with a Rabbinical uncleanness.13 A deduction [from the wording]14 also supports this view, for the expression used is 'middaf'15

ו אלא מעת לעת ממעטת על יד מפקידה לפקידה ומפקידה לפקידה ממעטת על יד מעת לעת

6 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 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 who17

ז מעת לעת ממעטת על יד מפקידה לפקידה כיצד בדקה עצמה באחד בשבת ומצאת טהורה וישבה שני ושלישי ולא בדקה ולרביעי בדקה ומצאה טמאה אין אומרים תטמא מפקידה לפקידה אלא מעת לעת

7 provided no fence for his ruling18 nor in agreement with the opinion of Hillel who19 restricted far too much,20

ח ומפקידה לפקידה ממעטת על יד מעת לעת כיצד בדקה עצמה בשעה ראשונה ומצאת טהורה וישבה לה שניה ושלישית ולא בדקה ולרביעית בדקה ומצאה טמאה אין אומרים תטמא מעת לעת אלא מפקידה לפקידה

8 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 Sunday21 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?22 — As it was taught, 'during the preceding twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination'23

ט פשיטא כיון דבדקה עצמה בשעה ראשונה ומצאת טהורה לא מטמינן לה מעת לעת איידי דתנא מעל"ע ממעטת על יד מפקידה לפקידה תנא נמי מפקידה לפקידה ממעטת על יד מעת לעת

9 it also stated,24 'during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours'.

י אמר רבה מאי טעמייהו דרבנן אשה מרגשת בעצמה א"ל אביי אם כן תהא דיה שעתה ורבה לחדודי לאביי הוא דבעי אלא מאי טעמייהו דרבנן

10 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 Because a woman well feels herself.26 Said Abaye to him: If so,27 [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 And Rabbah?29 — 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

יא כי הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חכמים תקנו להן לבנות ישראל שיהו בודקות עצמן שחרית וערבית שחרית להכשיר טהרות של לילה וערבית להכשיר טהרות של יום

11 What then is the reason of the Rabbis?31 — 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 'and in the evening' in order to verify the cleanness of objects they handled during the previous day;33

יב וזו הואיל ולא בדקה הפסידה עונה מאי עונה עונה יתירה

12 but this woman,34 since she did not [regularly] examine her body,35 has36

יג א"ל רב פפא לרבא והא זימנין משכחת לה ג' עונות במעת לעת השוו חכמים מדותיהן שלא תחלוק במעת לעת

13 lost one 'onah.37 But what could be meant by 'one 'onah'?38 — 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

יד איבעית אימא שלא יהא חוטא נשכר

14 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 — The Sages have laid down a uniform limit41

טו מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאתניסה ולא בדקה

15 in order that there shall be no variations in the twenty-four hours' period. And42 if you prefer I might reply:43 [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

טז כל אשה שיש לה וסת [וכו'] לימא מתני' ר' דוסא היא ולא רבנן דתניא ר"א אומר ארבע נשים דיין שעתן בתולה מעוברת מניקה וזקנה ר' דוסא אומר כל אשה שיש לה וסת דיה שעתה

16 shall not45 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 What is the practical difference between them?47 — 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 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:49

יז אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דר' דוסא אלא שלא בשעת וסתה אבל בשעת וסתה מודו ליה ומתניתין בשעת וסתה ודברי הכל

17 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,50

יח מכלל דר' דוסא אפילו שלא בשעת וסתה אמר מאן תנא להא דת"ר אשה שיש לה וסת כתמה טמא למפרע שאם תראה שלא בשעת וסתה מטמאה מעת לעת

18 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?51 — 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 time52 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.53

יט נימא רבנן היא ולא רבי דוסא ... אפילו תימא רבי דוסא ע"כ לא פליג רבי דוסא עלייהו דרבנן אלא בשעת וסתה אבל שלא בשעת וסתה מודי להו ומתניתין בשעת וסתה ור' דוסא היא

19 Thus54 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 bloodstain55 is deemed to be unclean retrospectively,56 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?57 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 to be the Rabbis only and not R. Dosa?59 — 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;60 and our Mishnah deals with one that occurred at her set time and it is, therefore, in agreement with the opinion of R. Dosa

Previous Chapter Next Chapter