Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah

Folio 56a

from an unclean region?1  — The blood that issues from the orifice of the membrum2  could prove the contrary, for though it issues from an unclean region it is nevertheless clean; you also need not, therefore, be surprised at this that, though it issues from an unclean region, it should be clean. Hence it was explicitly stated, 'His issue is unclean and this', to include his urine in respect of uncleanness. Whence is it deduced that the blood that issues from the orifice of the membrum2  is clean? — From what was taught It might have been assumed that blood that issues from his2  mouth or from the orifice of the membrum is unclean,3  hence it was explicitly stated, As to his issue it is unclean,4  only 'it' is unclean, but blood that issues from his mouth or from his membrum is not unclean but clean.5  But might I not reverse the deductions?6  — R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai replied: It7  must be similar to spittle; as spittle is formed in globules when it is discharged so must any other unclean fluid be one that is formed in globules when it is discharged; blood is, therefore, excluded since it is not formed in globules when it is discharged. But is not a woman's milk formed in globules when it is discharged and the Master nevertheless stated that 'a woman's milk conveys the uncleanness of liquids' which implies: Only8  the uncleanness of liquids but not major uncleanness? — Rather said R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai: It7  must be similar to spittle, as spittle is formed in globules when discharged but9  may be re-absorbed, so must any other unclean fluid be one that is formed in globules when discharged and that10  may be re-absorbed; blood is, therefore, excluded since it is not formed in globules when it is discharged, and a woman's milk is excluded since, though it is formed in globules when discharged, it cannot be re-absorbed. But why should not deduction be made from the zab's issue: As his issue which is not formed in globules when it is discharged causes uncleanness so does any other fluid?11  — Raba replied: One cannot make a deduction from his issue, since it also causes uncleanness to others.12

A DEAD CREEPING THING. Resh Lakish ruled: A dead creeping thing that dried up but whose shape was retained is unclean. But have we not learnt that they CONVEY UNCLEANNESS WHEN WET BUT NOT WHEN DRY? — R. Zera replied: This is no difficulty since the former13  refers to a whole14  while the latter15  refers to a part;16  for it was taught: R. Isaac son of R. Bisna citing R. Simeon b. Yohai stated, In them,17  one might presume that it is necessary18  to touch a whole, hence it was explicitly stated, Of them.19  If only 'Of them' had been written it might have been presumed that it suffices18  to touch a part, hence it was explicitly stated 'In them'.17  How then are the two to be reconciled? The one20  refers to a wet creeping thing while the other21  refers to a dry one. Raba ruled: The lizards of Mahuza,22  if their shapes are retained, are unclean.

Resh Lakish further stated: If a dead creeping thing was burnt while its shape was retained it is unclean. An objection was raised: If a burnt creeping thing was found upon olives and so also if a tattered rag23  was found upon them they are clean, because all questions of uncleanness are determined by the condition of the objects at the time they are found!24  — R. Zera replied: This is no difficulty since the former25  refers to a whole26  while the latter27  refers to a part; for it was taught: R. Isaac son of R. Bisna citing R. Simeon b. Yohai stated, In them',28  one might presume that it is necessary29  to touch a whole, hence it was explicitly stated, Of them.30  If only 'of them' had been written it might have been presumed that it suffices29  to touch a part, hence it was explicitly stated, 'in them'. How then are the two to be reconciled? The one31  refers to a burnt creeping thing while the other refers to one that is not burnt.

CONVEY UNCLEANNESS WHEN WET. The ISSUE?32  Because it is written, His flesh run.33  His mucus, PHLEGM AND SPITTLE?32  Because it is written, If he that hath the issue spit34  implying35  any fluid like spittle. A DEAD CREEPING THING?32  The All Merciful said, When they are dead,36  implying when they have the appearance of being dead.37  SEMEN?32  Since it must be capable of causing fertilization. A CARCASS?32  Since it is written, If … die38  implying when they have the appearance of being dead.37

IF, HOWEVER, ON BEING SOAKED THEY ARE CAPABLE. R. Jeremiah enquired: Is the soaking to be from beginning to end39  in LUKEWARM WATER,40  or only at the beginning although it is not so at the end?41  — Come and hear what was taught: For how long must they be soaked in lukewarm water? Judah b. Nakosa replied, For twenty-four hours, being lukewarm at the beginning though not at the end. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel replied, They must be lukewarm throughout the twenty-four hours.

R. JOSE RULED: THE FLESH OF A CORPSE etc. Samuel explained: It is CLEAN in so far only as not to convey uncleanness if it is of the bulk of an olive, but it does convey the uncleanness of corpse mould.42  So it was also taught: R. Jose ruled, The flesh of a corpse that is dry and, on being soaked, cannot return to its original condition is clean in so far only as not to convey uncleanness if it is of the bulk of an olive but it is subject to the uncleanness of corpse-mould.42

MISHNAH. IF A DEAD CREEPING THING WAS FOUND IN AN ALLEY IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY TO SUCH TIME AS ONE CAN TESTIFY, 'I EXAMINED THIS ALLEY AND THERE WAS NO CREEPING THING IN IT', OR TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST SWEPT. SO ALSO A BLOODSTAIN, IF IT WAS FOUND ON A SHIRT, CAUSES UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY TO SUCH TIME AS ONE CAN TESTIFY, 'I EXAMINED THIS SHIRT AND THERE WAS NO STAIN ON IT' OR TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST WASHED. AND IT43  CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS44  IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS WET OR DRY.45  R. SIMEON RULED: IF IT IS DRY45  IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY,46  BUT IF IT IS WET45  IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS ONLY TO A TIME WHEN IT COULD STILL HAVE BEEN WET.47

GEMARA. The question was raised: Is the alley TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST SWEPT in the presumptive state of having been duly examined,48  or is it possible that it is in the presumptive state of having been properly swept?49  And in what case could this50  matter? — In that where a person declared that he had swept the alley but did not examine it.51  If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined'48  surely, he had not examined it;52  but if you say, 'it is in the presumptive state of having been properly swept'49  surely, at that time53  it was properly swept.54

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. Whence actual zibah comes.
  2. Of a confirmed zab.
  3. As his spittle and issue respectively are unclean.
  4. Lev. XV, 2.
  5. Yeb. 105a.
  6. 'And this' including blood that issues from his mouth or membrum, and 'as to his issue etc.' excluding urine.
  7. A fluid that is to be included in the same law of uncleanness as spittle.
  8. Lit., 'yes'.
  9. If it is not ejected.
  10. If it is not ejected.
  11. Though it is not formed in globules when discharged.
  12. Sc. the zab himself.
  13. The ruling of Resh Lakish.
  14. Such is unclean even when dry.
  15. Our Mishnah.
  16. Cf. MS.M. Cur. edd., 'in all of them … in their part'.
  17. Lev. XI, 31. E.V. 'them'.
  18. In order to become unclean.
  19. Lev. XI, 32; emphasis on 'of', sc. a part.
  20. Uncleanness through contact with a part.
  21. Requiring contact with a whole.
  22. Which are discovered dry.
  23. Which is no longer subject to uncleanness.
  24. Toh. IX, 9; thus the burnt creeping thing, like the tattered rag, is regarded as clean: how then could Resh Lakish maintain that it is unclean?
  25. The ruling of Resh Lakish.
  26. Which is unclean even if burnt.
  27. The Mishnah cited.
  28. Lev. XI, 31 E.V., 'them'.
  29. In order to become unclean.
  30. Lev. Xl, 32; emphasis on 'of', sc. a part.
  31. Requiring contact with a whole.
  32. Conveys uncleanness when wet.
  33. Lev. XV, 3.
  34. Lev. XV, 8, Heb.; ki yarok (v. next note).
  35. Since ki yarok by change of vowels might be made to read kerok, 'like spittle'.
  36. Lev. XI, 31.
  37. Sc. while still moist.
  38. Lev. XI, 39.
  39. 'Sc. throughout the TWENTY-FOUR HOURS.
  40. I.e., even if they resume their original moist condition only after soaking in lukewarm water for the full period of twenty-four hours they are unclean.
  41. Sc. they are regarded as clean if they have not resumed their original condition after being soaked in water that was at first lukewarm and then turned cold, though they would have resumed that condition if they had been soaked all the time in lukewarm water.
  42. Sc. a ladleful of it conveys uncleanness by means of touch, carriage and overshadowing.
  43. The dead creeping thing as well as the bloodstain.
  44. RETROSPECTIVELY to the times indicated.
  45. When discovered.
  46. To the times previously indicated, since it is possible that the creeping thing or stain may have been there soon after the alley had been swept or the shirt washed.
  47. And not to the times previously indicated if they are earlier. For if it had been there since the earlier times it would have been dry by now.
  48. By the person who swept it who had thus definitely ascertained that there was no unclean object in it at the time.
  49. So that if any unclean object had been there at the time it would have been swept away.
  50. The assumption of the former or of the latter.
  51. To ascertain whether any unclean object remained after the sweeping.
  52. And the uncleanness would be retrospective to the time before the sweeping.
  53. Though no examination took place.
  54. And no unclean object could have remained. Hence the uncleanness could be retrospective only to the time of the sweeping.

Niddah 56b

 Or also in the case where the creeping thing was found in a hole.1  If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined', any one who examines the alley examines also any hole in it; but if you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been properly swept', a hole is not usually swept.2

SO ALSO A BLOODSTAIN etc. The question was raised: Is the shirt TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST WASHED in the presumptive state of having been duly examined,3  or is it possible that it is in the presumptive state of having been properly washed?4  And in what case could this5  matter? — In that where a person declared that he had washed the shirt but did not examine it — If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined', surely, he had not examined it,6  but if you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been properly washed', surely, it had been properly washed.7  Or also in the case where the stain was discovered in a fold.8  If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined', anyone engaged in an examination examines also the folds,9  but if you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been properly washed', a stain in a fold may not have been washed out.10  Now what is the decision? — Come and hear: For it was taught: R. Meir stated, Why did they11  rule that if a dead creeping thing was found in an alley it causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can testify, 'I examined this alley and there was no creeping thing in it', or to such time as it was last swept?12  Because there is presumption that the children of Israel examine their alleys at the time they are swept; but if they did not examine them, they impaired its presumptive cleanness retrospectively.13  And why did they11  rule that a bloodstain, if found on a shirt, causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can testify, 'I examined this shirt and there was no stain on it', or to such time as it was last washed?14  Because there is presumption that the daughters of Israel examine their shirts at the time they are washing them; but if they did not examine them, they impair its presumptive cleanness retrospectively.15  R. Aha ruled: Let her16  wash it again. If its colour fades17  it may be taken for granted18  that it was made after the previous washing,19  but if it does not fade it may be taken for granted18  that it was made before the previous washing. Rabbi said, A stain after its washing is not like a stain before it had been washed, for the former penetrates into the material while the latter remains clotted on its surface. Thus it may be inferred20  that21  there is presumption that it was duly examined. This is conclusive.

AND IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS WET etc. R. Eleazar explained: This22  was learnt only concerning the dead creeping thing, but a wet bloodstain also causes uncleanness retrospectively,23  for it might be assumed that it was already dry but water had fallen upon it. But can it not be assumed in the case of a dead creeping thing also that it was already dry but water had fallen upon it? — If that were the case it would have been completely dismembered.24

MISHNAH. ALL BLOODSTAINS25  THAT COME FROM REKEM26  ARE CLEAN.27  R. JUDAH DECLARES THEM UNCLEAN, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE ARE PROSELYTES28  THOUGH MISGUIDED.29  THOSE30  THAT COME FROM THE HEATHENS31  ARE CLEAN.32  THOSE THAT COME FROM ISRAELITES OR FROM SAMARITANS, R. MEIR DECLARES, ARE UNCLEAN, BUT THE SAGES DECLARED THEM CLEAN33  BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER NO SUSPICION33  IN REGARD TO THEIR STAINS.

GEMARA. Since the statement34  was made categorically35  it follows, does it not, that it applies even to those from Tarmod?36  — R. Johanan replied: This proves that proselytes may be accepted from Tarmod.37  But can this be right38  seeing that both R. Johanan and Sabya ruled, No proselytes may be accepted from Tarmod? And should you reply that R. Johanan only said, 'This',39  but he himself40  does not hold this view [it could be retorted]: Did not R. Johanan lay down, 'The halachah is in accordance with an anonymous Mishnah'?41  — It is a question in dispute between Amoras as to what was actually R. Johanan's view.

FROM ISRAELITES etc. As to the Rabbis,42  if they declare the menstrual blood of Israelites clean, whose do they hold to be unclean? — Some words are missing from our Mishnah, this being the correct reading: FROM ISRAELITES are unclean, FROM SAMARITANS, R. MEIR DECLARES, ARE UNCLEAN, since Samaritans are true proselytes,43  BUT THE SAGES DECLARED THEM CLEAN because, in their opinion, Samaritans are merely lion-proselytes.44  If so, instead of saying, BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER NO SUSPICION IN REGARD TO THEIR STAINS, It should have been said, Because they are lion-proselytes? — The fact rather is that it is this that was meant: FROM ISRAELITES OR FROM SAMARITANS they are unclean, since Samaritans are true proselytes; those that are found in Israelite cities45  are clean since they are not suspected of leaving their stains exposed, for they rather keep them in privacy; and those that are found45  in Samaritan cities, R. MEIR DECLARES, ARE UNCLEAN because they are suspected of leaving their stains exposed, BUT THE SAGES DECLARED THEM CLEAN BECAUSE THEY46  ARE UNDER NO SUSPICION IN REGARD TO THEIR STAINS.

MISHNAH. ALL BLOODSTAINS, WHERESOEVER THEY ARE FOUND,47  ARE CLEAN, EXCEPT THOSE THAT ARE FOUND INDOORS48  OR ROUND ABOUT A CHAMBER FOR49  UNCLEAN WOMEN.50  A CHAMBER FOR49  UNCLEAN SAMARITAN WOMEN CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BY OVERSHADOWING51  BECAUSE THEY BURY MISCARRIAGES THERE. R. JUDAH STATED, THEY DID NOT BURY THEM BUT THREW THEM AWAY AND THE WILD BEASTS DRAGGED THEM OFF. THEY52  ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY DECLARE, 'WE BURIED MISCARRIAGES THERE', OR 'WE DID NOT BURY THEM'. THEY52  ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY DECLARE CONCERNING — A BEAST WHETHER IT HAD GIVEN BIRTH TO A FIRSTLING53  OR HAD NOT GIVEN BIRTH TO ONE. THEY52  ARE BELIEVED WHEN GIVING INFORMATION ON THE MARKING OF GRAVES,54  BUT THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED EITHER IN REGARD TO OVERHANGING BRANCHES,55  OR PROTRUDING STONES55  OR A BETH HA-PERAS.55  THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: IN ANY MATTER WHERE THEY ARE UNDER SUSPICION THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED.

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. And the sweeper made no declaration at all.
  2. And the creeping thing may have been lying in that hole long before the alley had been swept (cf. n. 5).
  3. At the time it was washed, when it was definitely ascertained that there was then no stain on it.
  4. When any stain that may have been on it would have been washed out.
  5. Our assumption of the former or of the latter.
  6. The uncleanness would, therefore, be retrospective to the time before the washing.
  7. And the uncleanness could be retrospective to the time of washing only.
  8. Lit., 'side', 'border'; and the washer did not make any declaration.
  9. V. p. 393, n. 14.
  10. V. p. 393, n. 13.
  11. The Rabbis.
  12. Sc. why does not the uncleanness begin prior to the sweeping?
  13. To the time prior to the sweeping.
  14. Sc. why does not the uncleanness begin before the washing?
  15. The uncleanness beginning prior to the washing.
  16. Who did not examine her shirt when she washed it and subsequently found a bloodstain on it, and it is unknown whether that stain was there before the washing or was made subsequently.
  17. As a result of the last washing.
  18. Lit., 'it is known'.
  19. For if it had been there before the previous washing it would have faded in the course of that washing. Hence the uncleanness is retrospective to the time of the previous washing only.
  20. From R. Meir's ruling.
  21. When nothing to the contrary is definitely known.
  22. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's ruling.
  23. To the time it had last been washed.
  24. The assumption can, therefore, be applied to a bloodstain only.
  25. On women's garments.
  26. V. Yeb., Sonc. ed., p. 88, n. 10.
  27. Because no Israelites of pure stock live there. The menstrual blood of heathens is levitically clean.
  28. Whose menstrual blood is unclean like that of Israelites proper.
  29. Sc. though they no longer observed the religious laws of Israel.
  30. Bloodstains.
  31. Sc. from places where no Israelites live.
  32. Cf. n. 6.
  33. This is discussed in the Gemara infra.
  34. THOSE THAT CAME FROM THE HEATHENS ARE CLEAN.
  35. Lit., 'he decided and teaches'.
  36. Whose inhabitants were reputed to have an admixture of Jewish blood. But how could this be reconciled with the law that Jewish menstrual blood is unclean?
  37. Palmyra: the inhabitants being regarded in all respects as heathens and not as a mixed breed of bastards from whom no proselytes may be accepted.
  38. Lit., 'I am not.
  39. Sc. 'this proves etc.'
  40. Maintaining that no proselytes may be accepted from Tadmor.
  41. From which, as shown supra, it follows that proselytes may be accepted from the Tarmodites.
  42. THE SAGES.
  43. Whose menstrual blood is, therefore, as unclean as that of a proper Israelite.
  44. Sc. proselytes who were converted to Judaism not out of religious convictions but out of fear of the lions that attacked them (cf. II Kings XVII, 25).
  45. In an open place.
  46. Keeping them in privacy.
  47. In an Israelite locality.
  48. Lit., 'in rooms', it being assumed that, since they are kept in privacy, they must be menstrual.
  49. Lit., 'a house of'.
  50. Sc. a chamber used by menstruants.
  51. Sc. any person who enters into the chamber.
  52. Samaritans.
  53. So that the next birth is free from the restrictions imposed on a firstling.
  54. Sc. any place not so marked may be treated as clean.
  55. This is explained in the Gemara infra.