Niddah 84

Chapter 84

א התם אין לה טומאה בחוץ הכא כי נפיק לבראי ליטמי הכא נמי כשיצא לחוץ

1 seeing that in the latter case no uncleanness is conveyed by external contact1 while here uncleanness would be conveyed when it emerges from the body?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it is evident that it is rather like other kinds of uncleanness. Why then should it be different from those in conveying uncleanness even while in an absorbed condition? ');">2

ב אי יצא לחוץ מאי למימרא מהו דתימא מגו דמהני טבילה לדם דאיכא גואי תהני נמי להאי קמ"ל

2 — Here also it is a case where the discharge emerged from the body.3 But if it emerged from the body, what need was there to mention such a case?4 — It might have been presumed that as the immersion is effective in respect of blood that is internal it is also effective in respect of the other,5

ג שמעתין איפריק אלא יולדת אי בימי נדה נדה אי בימי זיבה זיבה

3 hence we were informed [that in the latter case the immersion is of no avail]. The difficulty about our cited tradition6

ד הכא במאי עסקינן בלידה יבשתא לידה יבשתא מאי מטמא בפנים כבחוץ איכא

4 is well solved; but as regards the woman after childbirth7 [the difficulty arises again]: If the birth occurred during her menstruation period she is a menstruant, and if it occurred during her zibah period she is a zabah?8

ה כגון שהוציא ולד ראשו חוץ לפרוזדור וכדרב אושעיא דאמר רב אושעיא גזרה שמא יוציא הולד ראשו חוץ לפרוזדור

5 — Here we are dealing with the case of a dry birth.9 But in the case of a dry birth,10 what point is there in the statement that uncleanness is contracted internally as well as externally?11

ו וכי ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה מהו לממהל בשבתא אמר ליה שפיר דמי בתר דנפק אמר רבא ס"ד דההוא גברא לא ידע דשרי לממהל בשבתא אזל בתריה אמר ליה אימא לי איזי גופא דעובדא היכי הוה

6 — The statement is justified in a case for instance, where the embryo put its head out of the ante-chamber;12 and this13 is in agreement with R. Oshaia, for R. Oshaia stated, 'This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a midwife is unclean for seven days if she touched a dead embryo before it was extracted, though its mother remains clean until extraction had been effected. ');">14 is a preventive measure15 against the possibility that the embryo might put its head out of the ante-chamber';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 72a; and the midwife would then touch it when, having touched a corpse, her uncleanness would be Pentateuchal. Thus it follows that according to R. Oshaia the projection of the embryo's head without the ante-chamber is regarded as the actual birth. Similarly in the case under discussion, as soon as the embryo had put its head out of the ante-chamber its mother is subject to the uncleanness of birth as if the birth had taken place. ');">16 and this17 is also in line with the following ruling: A certain person once came before Raba and asked him, 'Is it permissible to perform a circumcision on the Sabbath?' 'This', the other replied, 'is quite in order'. After that person went out Raba considered: Is it likely that this man did not know that it was permissible to perform a circumcision on the Sabbath? He thereupon followed him and said to him, 'Pray tell me all the circumstance of the case'.18 'I', the other told him, 'heard the child cry late on the Sabbath eve but it was not born until the Sabbath'. 'This is a case', the first explained to him, 'of a child19

ז אמר ליה שמעית ולד דצויץ אפניא דמעלי שבתא ולא אתיליד עד שבתא אמר ליה האי הוציא ראשו חוץ לפרוזדור הוא והוי מילה שלא בזמנה וכל מילה שלא בזמנה אין מחללין עליה את השבת

7 who put his head out of the ante-chamber20 and consequently his circumcision21 is one that does not take place at the proper time,22 and on account of a circumcision that does not take place at the proper time the Sabbath may not be desecrated.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The circumcision must, therefore, be postponed until the Sunday. At all events, Raba's ruling shows that the projection of the embryo's head without the ante-chamber is regarded as birth (cf. supra n. 2). ');">23

ח איבעיא להו אותו מקום של אשה בלוע הוי או בית הסתרים הוי

8 The question was raised: Is that region in a woman24 regarded as an absorbed place or as a concealed one? — In what respect could this matter? — In the case, for instance, where her friend inserted in her in that region a piece of nebelah of the size of an olive. If you say that it is regarded as an absorbed place, this nebelah being now an absorbed uncleanness25

ט למאי נפקא מינה כגון שתחבה לה חבירתה כזית נבלה באותו מקום אי אמרת בלוע הוי טומאה בלועה לא מטמאה ואי אמרת בית הסתרים הוי נהי דבמגע לא מטמיא במשא מיהא מטמיא

9 would convey no uncleanness to the woman,26 but if you say that it is a concealed place, granted that no uncleanness could be conveyed by means of contact27

י אביי אמר בלוע הוי רבא אמר בית הסתרים הוי אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתניא אלא מפני שטומאת בית הסתרים היא

10 uncleanness would be conveyed by means of carriage?28 — Abaye replied: It is regarded as an absorbed place. Raba replied: It is regarded as a concealed one. Said Raba: Whence do I derive this? From what was taught: Since the uncleanness arises in a concealed region, and since an uncleanness in a concealed region is elsewhere ineffective, a special Scriptural ordinance was required [to give it effect in this particular case].29 And Abaye?30 — The meaning31 is this: There is one reason and there is yet another.32 In the first place the woman should be clean since the uncleanness is an absorbed one; and, furthermore, even if you were to find some ground for saying that it is a concealed uncleanness and an uncleanness in a concealed region is ineffective, this33

יא וטומאת בית הסתרים לא מטמאה אלא שגזרת הכתוב היא

יב ואביי חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דטומאה בלועה היא ועוד אפילו אם תמצי לומר טומאת בית הסתרים היא אינה מטמאה אלא שגזרת הכתוב היא

12 is a specific Scriptural ordinance.

יג איבעיא להו מקום נבלת עוף טהור בלוע הוי או בית הסתרים הוי

13 The question was raised: Is the region through which the nebelah of a clean bird conveys uncleanness to a human being34 regarded as an absorbed place or as a concealed one? In what respect can this matter? — In a case, for instance, where his friend pushed a piece of nebelah of the size of an olive into his mouth.35

יד למאי נפקא מינה כגון שתחב לו חבירו כזית נבלה לתוך פיו אי אמרת בלוע הוי טומאה בלועה לא מטמיא (אלא אי) אמרת בית הסתרים הוי נהי נמי דבמגע לא מטמא במשא מיהא מטמא

14 If you regard it as an absorbent place, this nebelah being now an absorbed uncleanness would convey no uncleanness, but if36 you say that it is a concealed one, granted that no uncleanness is conveyed by means of contact,37 uncleanness would be conveyed by means of carriage?38

טו אביי אמר בלוע הוי ורבא אמר בית הסתרים הוי אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא יכול תהא נבלת בהמה מטמאה בגדים אבית הבליעה ת"ל (ויקרא כב, ח) נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה

15 — Abaye replied: It is an absorbed place, but Raba replied: It is a concealed one. Whence, said Abaye, do I derive this? From what was taught: As it might have been presumed that the nebelah of a beast conveys uncleanness to a person's garments by way of his oesophagus,39 it was explicitly stated in Scripture, That which dieth of itself,40 or is torn of beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith,41 which implies: Only that42

טז מי שאין לה טומאה אלא אכילתה יצתה זו שטמאה קודם שיאכלנה

יז ותיתי בק"ו מנבלת עוף טהור ומה נבלת עוף טהור שאין לה טומאה בחוץ יש לה טומאה בפנים זו שיש לה טומאה בחוץ אינו דין שיש לה טומאה בפנים

17 which has no other form of uncleanness but that which is conveyed through the eating thereof42 [conveys uncleanness by way of the oesophagus],39

יח אמר קרא בה בה ולא באחרת

18 but this43

יט אם כן מה תלמוד לומר {ויקרא יא } והאוכל

19 is excluded since it conveys uncleanness even before one had eaten of it. But why should not this44

כ ליתן שיעור לנוגע ולנושא כאוכל מה אוכל בכזית אף נוגע ונושא בכזית

20 be inferred a minori ad majus from the nebelah of a clean bird: If the nebelah of a clean bird which is not subject to uncleanness externally is subject to uncleanness internally39

כא אמר רבא שרץ בקומטו טהור נבלה בקומטו טמא

21 how much more then should this,43 which is subject to uncleanness externally, be subject to uncleanness internally? — Scripture said, 'therewith'41

כב שרץ בקומטו טהור שרץ בנגיעה הוא דמטמא ובית הסתרים לאו בר מגע הוא נבלה בקומטו טמא נהי דבמגע לא מטמא במשא מיהא מטמא

22 which implies: Only therewith45 but not with any other.43

כג שרץ בקומטו והכניסו לאויר התנור טמא פשיטא מהו דתימא תוכו אמר רחמנא

23 If so, why was it stated in Scripture, And he that eateth?46 To prescribe for one who touches or carries it the same size as that which was prescribed for one who eats of it: As one who eats of it incurs guilt on consuming the full size of an olive so also one who touches or carries it contracts uncleanness only if it is of the size of an olive. Raba ruled: A man holding a dead creeping thing in a fold of his body47 is clean, but if he holds nebelah in a fold of his body he is unclean. 'A man holding a dead creeping thing in a fold of his body is clean', since a dead creeping thing conveys uncleanness by means of touch, while a concealed region of the body47 is not susceptible to the uncleanness of touch. 'If he holds nebelah in a fold of his body he is unclean' for, granted that he contracts no uncleanness through touch, he contracts it, at any rate, through carriage. If a man held a dead creeping thing in the fold of his body48 and he thus brought it into the air spaces49 of an oven50 the latter is unclean. Is not this obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently it is, since all earthen vessels contract uncleanness from a dead creeping thing within their air spaces though there was no direct contact between it and the creeping thing. ');">51 — It might have been presumed that the All Merciful said, Into the inside of which,52 implying:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter