Niddah 9

Chapter 9

א וברייתא דברי הכל

1 while the Baraitha1

ב ולוקמא איפכא

2 is in agreement with both.2

ג כיון דאיכא לאוקומי לקולא ולחומרא לחומרא מוקמינן

3 But why should not the final assumption be3

ד קתני שאם תראה שלא בשעת וסתה מטמאה מעת לעת טעמא דאשה שיש לה וסת הוא דפליגי רבנן בין כתמה לראייתה

4 reversed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As has been suggested at first, that our Mishnah represents the view of the Rabbis as well as that of R. Dosa while the Baraitha represents only that of the Rabbis. ');">4 — As it is possible to adopt an explanation that leads to a relaxation of the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As has been previously suggested: That a flow at the set time causes no retrospective uncleanness in accordance with the general opinion, while one occurring at any other time is subject to retrospective uncleanness only in accordance with the view of the Rabbis. ');">5

ה הא שאר נשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן כראייתן

ו מני רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס היא דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס כל הנשים כתמן טמא למפרע ונשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן כראייתן חוץ מתינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות שאפילו סדינין שלה מלוכלכין בדם אין חוששין לה

6 and one that leads to a restriction of it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one finally adopted: That a flow at the set time causes retrospective uncleanness according to the Rabbis at least, while one at any other time causes retrospective uncleanness even according to R. Dosa. ');">6 we adopt the one that leads to the restriction. Now it was just taught,7 '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' — [If this8 is] the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why a stain causes retrospective uncleanness, sc. though a stain cannot be subject to greater restrictions than a discharge it causes uncleanness retrospectively, since a flow that occurred at any time other than the set time also causes retrospective uncleanness. ');">9

ז ומי אית ליה לרבי חנינא כתם כלל והתניא כל הנשים כתמן טמא ונשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן טמא ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר נשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן אין להן כתם מאי לאו אין להן כתם כלל לא אין להן כתם למפרע אבל יש להן כתם מכאן ולהבא

7 [it follows] that only in the case of a woman who has a settled period do the Rabbis draw a distinction between her stain and her observation10 [of a flow],11 but in the case of the other women12 concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow13 [the extent of the uncleanness of] their stains is like that of their observation of a flow.14 Now whose view is this? — It is that of R. Hanina b. Antigonus; for Rab Judah citing Samuel who had it from R. Hanina b. Antigonus stated, In the case of all women their stains cause uncleanness retrospectively but in that of the women12 concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow [the extent of the uncleanness of] their stains is like that of their observation of a flow,14 the exception being a child who has not yet attained the age of the suffering of a flow of whom, though her sheets are soiled with blood,15

ח מכלל דתנא קמא סבר אפי' למפרע אין ר"מ היא דמחמיר גבי כתמים דתניא כל הנשים כתמן טמא למפרע ונשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן טמא למפרע דר"מ

8 no notice is to be taken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being assumed, though the assumption might be most unlikely, that she passed through a butcher's market and soiled her sheets there. In no case is it assumed that the blood came from her own body because the law of uncleanness, as far as stains are concerned, is merely Rabbinical, and in the case of a minor no Rabbinical measure was enacted. ');">16 But does R. Hanina at all uphold17 the law of the uncleanness of a stain?18 Was it not taught: In the case of all women their stains are unclean and also in the case of the women concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their period of uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow their stains are unclean; while R. Hanina b. Antigonus ruled, The women concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow are not subject to the law of uncleanness of the stain? Now does not this mean that they are not subject at all to the law of uncleanness of the stain?19 — No, it means that they are not subject to the law of the uncleanness of the stain retrospectively but they are well subject to it from now20

ט רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר נשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן כראייתן ותינוקת שהגיע זמנה לראות יש לה כתם ושלא הגיע זמנה לראות אין לה כתם ואימתי הגיע זמנה לראות משהגיעו ימי הנעורים

9 onwards. Does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The explanation according to which R. Hanina agrees with the first Tanna as regards the uncleanness of stains from the time they are discovered onwards, and that he only differs from him in rejecting their retrospective uncleanness. ');">21 then imply that the first Tanna22 is of the opinion that their uncleanness is even retrospective? — Yes; it23 being the view of R. Meir who restricts the law in respect of stains. For it was taught: In the case of all women their stains are unclean retrospectively and also in the case of the women concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their period of uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow their stains are unclean retrospectively; so R. Meir. R. Hanina b. Antigonus ruled, In the case of the women concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their period of uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow [the uncleanness of] their stains is like that of their observation [of their flow]; and a child who has attained the age of suffering a flow is subject to the law of the uncleanness of the stain while one who has not attained that age is not subject to the uncleanness of a stain, and when does she attain the age of suffering a flow? When she attains her maidenhood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The age when she assumes the status of na'arah (v. Glos.), i.e., the age when she grows two pubic hairs or (she has no pubic hairs) when she is twelve years and one day old. ');">24 AND IF A WOMAN USES TESTING-RAGS WHEN SHE HAS MARITAL INTERCOURSE etc. Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: A testing-rag used before25

י והמשמשת בעדים כו' אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל עד שלפני תשמיש אינו ממעט כפקידה

10 marital intercourse does not reduce [the doubtful period26 of retrospective uncleanness] as an examination. What is the reason? — R. Kattina replied: Because the woman is in a hurry to do her marital duty.27 But what matters it even if she is in a hurry to do her marital duty? — Since she is in a hurry to do it she does not insert the testing-rag into depressions and folds.28

יא מ"ט אמר רב קטינא מתוך שמהומה לביתה וכי מהומה לביתה מאי הוי מתוך שמהומה לביתה אינה מכנסת לחורין ולסדקין

11 We learnt: IF A WOMAN USES TESTING-RAGS WHEN SHE HAS MARITAL INTERCOURSE, THIS IS INDEED LIKE AN EXAMINATION. Does not this mean that she uses one before intercourse and one after it?29 — No, the one as well as the other is used after intercourse but30 one is for the man31 and the other is for her; as we learnt: It is the custom of the daughters of Israel when having marital intercourse to use two testing-rags, one for the man and the other for herself.32 What a comparison!33

יב תנן המשמשת בעדים הרי זו כפקידה מאי לאו חד לפני תשמיש וחד לאחר תשמיש לא אידי ואידי לאחר תשמיש ואחד לו ואחד לה כדתנן דרך בנות ישראל משמשות בשני עדים אחד לו ואחד לה

12 If you concede that one is used before intercourse and the other after it one can well understand the necessity for the ruling.34 As it might have been presumed that on account of her being in a hurry to do her marital duty she does not properly perform her test we were informed that THIS IS INDEED LIKE AN EXAMINATION. If you maintain, however, that the one testing-rag as well as the other is used after marital intercourse, is not the ruling obvious?35 — It might have been presumed [that the test should be ineffective]36 on account of the possibility of the appearance of a drop of blood of the size of a mustard seed37 which semen might cover up,38 hence we were informed [that such a remote possibility need not be considered]. And if you prefer I might reply: The Rabbis required a woman to perform two tests, one before intercourse and one after it,39

יג האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא חד לפני תשמיש וחד לאחר תשמיש איצטריך סד"א מתוך שמהומה לביתה לא בדקה שפיר קמ"ל הרי זו כפקידה אלא אי אמרת אידי ואידי לאחר תשמיש פשיטא

13 and in stating 'THIS IS INDEED LIKE AN EXAMINATION' the reference is to the one after the intercourse. But was it not stated, IF A WOMAN USES etc.?40 — Read: And a woman shall use.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the clause is to be divided into two separate rulings, (a) that a woman shall use two testing-rags, one before intercourse and the other after it and (b) the second test is indeed like an examination. ');">41 LESSENS EITHER THE PERIOD OF THE PAST TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. Now that you stated that it42 lessens THE PERIOD OF THE PAST TWENTY-FOUR HOURS43

יד מהו דתימא שמא תראה טפת דם כחרדל ותחפנה שכבת זרע קמ"ל

טו ואיבעית אימא שתי בדיקות אצרכוה רבנן חד לפני תשמיש וחד לאחר תשמיש וכי קתני הרי זו כפקיד' אלאחר תשמיש והא המשמשת קתני תני ומשמשת

טז ממעטת על יד מעת לעת השתא מעת לעת ממעטת

Previous Chapter Next Chapter