Niddah 98

Chapter 98

א רבי יהודה אומר כופף אזני קדרה לתוכה ומציף עליה מים ואם כונס בידוע שכונס משקה ואם לאו בידוע שמוציא משקה
1 R. Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Objecting to the previous test which, since the bottom of the pot is inevitably pressed against the water, would cause the latter to penetrate even through the smallest of holes. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> said: One inverts the handles of the pot into the tub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'into it', while it is still empty. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב או שופתה על גבי האור אם האור מעמידה בידוע שמוציא משקה ואם לאו בידוע שמכניס משקה
2 and allows water to float over it. If it then absorbs any, it may be taken for granted that it will let liquids in; but if not, it may be taken for granted that it only lets liquids out. Or else, it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The pot to be tested, with water in it. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג ר' יוסי אומר אף לא שופתה על גבי האור מפני שהאור מעמידה אלא שופתה על גבי הרמץ אם רמץ מעמידה בידוע שמוציא משקה ואם לאו בידוע שכונס משקה היה טורד טיפה אחר טיפה בידוע שכונס משקה
3 may be put upon a fire. If the fire stops the leakage it is certain that the pot will only let liquids out; but if not it is certain that it also lets liquids in. R. Jose said: One does not put it upon the actual<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'even not'. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> fire since the fire stops it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the hole is big. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> but it is put upon embers. If the embers stop it, it is certain that it only lets liquids out, but if not, it is certain that it also lets liquids in. If it drips drop after drop<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is another test, independent of the former. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> it is certain that it lets liquids in. What is the practical difference between the first Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 49a ad fin. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ד מאי איכא בין ת"ק לר' יהודה אמר עולא כינוס על ידי הדחק איכא בינייהו
4 and R. Judah? — 'Ulla replied: The practical difference between them is a case of absorption under pressure.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first Tanna this also is proof that the vessel lets liquids in, while according to R. Judah this is no proof (cf. supra n. 2). ');"><sup>8</sup></span> ANY LIMB THAT GROWS A NAIL etc. If it grows a nail<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the limb is a redundant one, a sixth finger for instance. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being regarded as a proper limb (cf. relevant n. on our Mishnah). ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ה כל אבר שיש בו צפורן וכו' יש בו צפורן מטמא במגע ובמשא ובאהל יש בו עצם ואין בו צפורן מטמא במגע ובמשא ואינו מטמא באהל
5 conveys uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' However small its bulk. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> by means of touch, carriage and overshadowing. If it contains a bone but grows no nail it conveys uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the bone is not smaller than a barley-grain. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ו אמר רב חסדא דבר זה רבינו הגדול אמרו המקום יהיה בעזרו אצבע יתרה שיש בו עצם ואין בו צפורן מטמא במגע ובמשא ואינו מטמא באהל
6 by means of touch and carriage but does not convey it by means of overshadowing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless the bulk of the flesh was no less than that of an olive. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> R. Hisda stated: The following was said by our great Master,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ז אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן וכשאינה נספרת על גב היד
7 may the Omnipresent be his help. A redundant finger that contains a bone but grows no nail conveys uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the bone is not smaller than a barley-grain. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> by means of touch and carriage but does not convey it by means of overshadowing. Rabbah b. Bar Hana explained: This is the case only when it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being situated outside the row of the normal fingers. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ח כל המטמא מדרס וכו' כל דחזי למדרס מטמא טמא מת
8 is not counted in [the row of the fingers of] the hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A normal finger, or even a redundant one in the normal row, conveys uncleanness by overshadowing, however small in bulk it may be, as any proper limb. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> WHATEVER CONTRACTS MIDRAS — UNCLEANNESS etc. Whatever object is fit for midras contracts corpse-uncleanness, but there are such as contract corpse-uncleanness and do not contract midras-uncleanness. What is this rule intended to include? — It is intended to include a <i>se'ah</i> measure and a <i>tarkab</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A measure of capacity containing two kabs; Aliter: [G] = three kabs or half a se'ah, a dry measure. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ט ויש שמטמא טמא מת ואין מטמא מדרס לאתויי מאי לאתויי סאה ותרקב
9 for it was taught: And he that sitteth on any thing;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 6. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> as it might have been presumed that if the <i>zab</i> inverted a <i>se'ah</i> measure and sat upon it or a <i>tarkab</i> measure and sat upon it, it shall be unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Midras-uncleanness that is conveyed to men and objects which become thereby a 'father of uncleanness'. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
י דתניא (ויקרא טו, ו) והיושב על הכלי יכול כפה סאה וישב עליה או תרקב וישב עליו יהא טמא
10 it was explicitly stated, Whereon he that hath the issue sat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 6. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יא ת"ל (ויקרא טו, ו) אשר ישב עליו הזב מי שמיוחד לישיבה יצא זה שאומרים לו עמוד ונעשה מלאכתנו
11 
יב <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל הראוי לדון דיני נפשות ראוי לדון דיני ממונות ויש שראוי לדון דיני ממונות ואינו ראוי לדון דיני נפשות
12 implying<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on 'sat' (v. Hag. Sonc. ed., p. 149, n. 2). ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יג <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יהודה לאתויי ממזר
13 that the text refers only to a thing that is appointed for sitting;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such an object only is subject to the major grade of uncleanness (cf. prev. n. but two). ');"><sup>21</sup></span> but this one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An inverted measure. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
יד תנינא חדא זימנא הכל כשרין לדון דיני ממונות ואין הכל כשרין לדון דיני נפשות והוינן בה לאתויי מאי ואמר רב יהודה לאתויי ממזר חדא לאתויי גר וחדא לאתויי ממזר
14 is excluded, since people would tell him, 'Get up that we may do our work with it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence they contract from a zab the uncleanness of touch only and this subjects them only to the uncleanness of the first grade, while through contact with a corpse they become a 'father of uncleanness'. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHOSOEVER IS FIT TO TRY CAPITAL CASES IS ALSO FIT TO TRY MONETARY SUITS, BUT ONE MAY BE FIT TO TRY MONETARY SUITS AND YET BE UNFIT TO TRY CAPITAL CASES. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab Judah stated: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second clause of our Mishnah. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> was meant to include a bastard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is a fit person to act as judge in monetary suits but not in capital cases (cf. Sanh. 36b). ');"><sup>25</sup></span> Have we not, however, learnt this once before: 'All are eligible to try monetary suits but not all eligible to try capital cases';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 32a. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> and when the question was raised, 'What was this intended to include?' Rab Judah replied, 'It was intended to include a bastard'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he is fit to adjudicate in indictory cases. Ibid. 36b. Why then the repetition. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> — One statement was intended to include a proselyte and the other to include a bastard. And both statements were necessary. For if we had been informed of the proselyte only it might have been presumed that it applied to him alone because he is eligible to enter the Assembly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. to marry the daughter of an Israelite. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
טו וצריכי דאי אשמעינן גר משום דראוי לבא בקהל אבל ממזר דאין ראוי לבא בקהל אימא לא
15 but not to a bastard who is not eligible to enter the Assembly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXIII, 3. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
טז ואי אשמעינן ממזר משום דקאתי מטפה כשרה אבל גר דקאתי מטפה פסולה אימא לא צריכא
16 And if we had been informed of the bastard only it might have been presumed to apply to him alone because he issues from an eligible source<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a fit drop', sc. pure Israelite origin. ');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יז <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל הכשר לדון כשר להעיד ויש שכשר להעיד ואינו כשר לדון
17 but not to a proselyte who issues from an ineligible source.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heathen origin. Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
יח <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> לאתויי מאי א"ר יוחנן לאתויי סומא באחת מעיניו ומני
18 Hence the necessity for both rulings. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHOSOEVER IS ELIGIBLE TO ACT AS JUDGE IS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Much more so. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> ELIGIBLE TO ACT AS WITNESS, BUT ONE MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO ACT AS WITNESS AND NOT AS JUDGE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What [was this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second rule in our Mishnah. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> intended] to include? — R. Johanan replied: To include one who is blind in one eye;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a person is eligible as witness but not as judge. One blind in both eyes is ineligible even as witness. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> and who is the author?
Previous ChapterNext Chapter