Niddah 82

Chapter 82

א ודם דרך רחם ואזדא ר' שמעון לטעמיה ורבנן לטעמייהו

1 while the blood issued1

ב מתקיף לה רב יוסף חדא דהיינו רישא ועוד משם מקום ולד משמע

2 through the womb; and R. Simeon follows his view while the Rabbis follow theirs.2 R. Joseph demurred: Firstly, is not then the final clause identical with the first?3

ג אלא אמר רב יוסף כגון שיצא ולד ודם דרך דופן

3 And, furthermore, 'from that place' means, does it not, the place of birth?4 Rather, said R. Joseph, this is a case, where, for instance, both the embryo and the blood issued through the side,5

ד ובמקור מקומו טמא קמיפלגי מר סבר מקור מקומו טמא ומ"ס מקור מקומו טהור

ה אמר ר"ל לדברי המטמא בדם מטמא באשה לדברי המטהר בדם מטהר באשה ור' יוחנן אמר אף לדברי המטמא בדם מטהר באשה

5 and the point at issue between them6 is whether the interior of the uterus is unclean. The Masters hold that the interior of the uterus is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood that comes in contact with the uterus causes, therefore, uncleanness for a day until the evening, though, having finally issued through the caesarean cut, it cannot be regarded as a menstrual discharge to subject the woman to an uncleanness of seven days. ');">7 while the Master holds that the interior of the uterus is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood that issued through the caesarean cut, though it passed through the uterus, is, therefore, regarded as the blood of a mere wound which conveys no uncleanness. Should the blood issue through the womb, provided there was no relief from pain prior to the birth, the blood, as that of labour, would also, during the zibah period, be clean on account of the birth of the child despite its emergence by way of a caesarean cut. ');">8 Resh Lakish stated: According to him who holds the blood to be unclean the woman also9

ו ואזדא ר' יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר רבי יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יוחי מנין שאין אשה טמאה עד שיצא מדוה דרך ערותה שנאמר (ויקרא כ, יח) ואיש אשר ישכב את אשה דוה וגלה את ערותה את מקורה הערה מלמד שאין אשה טמאה עד שיצא מדוה דרך ערותה

6 is unclean10 and according to him who holds the blood to be clean the woman also is clean. R. Johanan, however, stated: Even according to him who holds the blood to be unclean the woman is clean. In this R. Johanan follows a view he previously expressed. For R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: Whence is it deduced that a woman is not unclean11 unless the discharge issues through its normal channel? From Scripture which says, And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness,12

ז אמר ריש לקיש משום רבי יהודה נשיאה מקור שנעקר ונפל לארץ טמאה שנאמר (יחזקאל טז, לו) יען השפך נחושתך ותגלי ערותך

7 and shall uncover her nakedness — he hath made naked her fountain,13 which teaches that a woman is not unclean11

ח למאי אילימא לטומאת שבעה דם אמר רחמנא ולא חתיכה אלא לטומאת ערב

8 unless the discharge of her sickness issues through its normal channel. Resh Lakish citing R. Judah Nesi'ah14 ruled: If the uterus15

ט אמר רבי יוחנן מקור שהזיע כשתי טיפי מרגליות טמאה למאי אילימא לטומאת שבעה חמשה דמים טמאין באשה ותו לא אלא לטומאת ערב ודווקא תרתי אבל חדא אימא מעלמא אתיא

9 became detached and dropped upon the ground the woman is unclean, for it is said, Because thy filthiness16 was poured out,17 and thy nakedness18 uncovered.19

י כל הנשים מטמאין בבית החיצון הי ניהו בית החיצון אמר ריש לקיש כל שתינוקת יושבת ונראת

10 In what respect?20 If it be suggested: In that of an uncleanness for seven days11 [the objection would arise:] Did not the All Merciful speak of blood and not of a solid piece? — As a matter of fact the reference is to the uncleanness until evening.21 R. Johanan ruled: If the uterus produced a discharge that was22

יא א"ל רבי יוחנן אותו מקום גלוי הוא אצל שרץ אלא אמר רבי יוחנן עד בין השינים

11 like two pearl drops23 the woman is unclean. In what respect? Should it be suggested: In respect of an uncleanness for seven days11 [it might be objected:] Are there not just five unclean kinds of the blood for a woman, and no more? — The fact is that the reference is to the uncleanness until evening.24 This, however, applies only to two drops but if there was only one drop it may be assumed that it originated elsewhere.25

יב איבעיא להו בין השינים כלפנים או כלחוץ ת"ש דתני רבי זכאי עד בין השינים בין השינים עצמן כלפנים

12 ALL WOMEN ARE SUBJECT TO UNCLEANNESS [IF BLOOD APPEARED] IN THE OUTER CHAMBER. Which is the OUTER CHAMBER? — Resh Lakish replied: All that part which, when a child sits, is exposed. Said R. Johanan to him: Is not that place deemed exposed as regards contact with a dead creeping thing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if the latter came in contact with that place uncleanness is conveyed to the woman though contact with an internal organ conveys no uncleanness. Now since the place is deemed to be exposed, how can Resh Lakish apply to it the expression 'in her flesh' (cf. infra) and regard it as internal? ');">26 Rather, said R. Johanan, as far as the glands.27 The question was raised: Is the region between the glands regarded as internal or as external? — Come and hear what R. Zakkai taught: The region up to the glands and that between the glands is regarded as internal. In a Baraitha it was taught: As far as the threshing-place. What is meant by threshing-place? — Rab Judah replied: The place where the attendant threshes.28 Our Rabbis taught: In her flesh29 teaches that she30

יג במתניתא תנא מקום דישה מאי מקום דישה אמר רב יהודה מקום שהשמש דש

13 contracts uncleanness internally as externally. But from this text I would only know of the menstruant, whence the deduction that the same law applies to a zabah? It was explicitly stated, Her issue31 in her flesh.29 Whence the proof that the same law applies also to one who emitted semen? It was explicitly stated, Be.32 R. Simeon, however, ruled: It is enough that she be subject to the same stringency of uncleanness as the man who had intercourse with her. As he is not subject to uncleanness unless the unclean discharge issued forth, so is she not subject to uncleanness unless her unclean discharge issued forth. But could R. Simeon maintain that 'it is enough that she be subject to the same stringency of uncleanness as the man who had intercourse with her'? Was it not in fact taught: 'They shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.33 What, said R. Simeon, does this34

יד תנו רבנן בבשרה מלמד שמטמאה בפנים כבחוץ ואין לי אלא נדה זבה מנין ת"ל זובה בבשרה

14 come to teach us? If that it applies also to one who came in contact with semen35 [it could be retorted:] Was it not in fact36 stated below, Or from whomsoever [the flow of seed goeth out]?37

טו פולטת ש"ז מנין ת"ל יהיה ור' שמעון אומר דיה כבועלה מה בועלה אינו מטמא עד שתצא טומאה לחוץ אף היא אינה מטמאה עד שתצא טומאתה לחוץ

15 But [this is the purpose of the text:] Since the uncleanness arises in a concealed region38 and since an uncleanness in a concealed region is elsewhere ineffective, a special Scriptural ordinance was required39 [to give it effect in this particular case]'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it is evident that, according to R. Simeon, though a man is not subject to an uncleanness arising in an unexposed region of the body, a woman is subject to such an uncleanness. How then could it be maintained that according to R. Simeon 'it is enough that she be subject to the same stringency of uncleanness as the man who had intercourse with her'? ');">40

טז וסבר רבי שמעון דיה כבועלה והתניא (ויקרא טו, יח) ורחצו במים וטמאו עד הערב אמר ר' שמעון וכי מה בא זה ללמדנו אם לענין נוגע בשכבת זרע הרי כבר נאמר למטה או איש

16 — This is no difficulty: The latter deals with one who received the semen at intercourse,41 while the former refers to one who ejected it subsequently.42 'Ejected'! Should not her uncleanness be due43 to her preceding intercourse?44 — This is a case where she had undergone ritual immersion in respect of her intercourse.45

יז אלא מפני שטומאת בית הסתרים היא וטומאת בית הסתרים אינה מטמאה אלא שגזרת הכתוב הוא

יח לא קשיא כאן במשמשת כאן בפולטת

18 This then46

יט פולטת תיפוק ליה דהא שמשה בשטבלה לשמושה

19 says that for one who had intercourse it suffices to be unclean only until the evening. But did not Raba rule: A woman who had intercourse is forbidden to eat terumah for three days since it is impossible that she should not eject some semen during that time?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After three days the semen becomes vapid and conveys uncleanness no longer. Now since during the three days the woman invariably remains unclean, how, according to Raba, could R. Simeon rule that the woman is clean if she had undergone ritual immersion before the three days have passed? ');">47 — Here48

כ למימרא דמשמשת בטומאת ערב סגי לה והא אמר רבא משמשת כל שלשה ימים אסורה לאכול בתרומה שאי אפשר לה שלא תפלוט

20 we are dealing with one who was immersed49 with her bed.50 It may thus51

כא הכא במאי עסקינן שהטבילוה במטה מכלל דכי קאמר רבא דאזלה איהי בכרעה וטבלה דילמא בהדי דקאזלה שדיתא

21 be inferred that Raba52 spoke of a woman53 who went herself on foot and performed immersion, but then is it not possible that she had ejected the semen while she was walking?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that her subsequent immersion should render her completely free from both the uncleanness of intercourse and that of the ejection. How then could Raba maintain that she is unclean for three days? ');">54

Previous Chapter Next Chapter