Previous Folio /
Niddah Directory /
Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate NiddahGEMARA. What exposition did they rely upon?1 — Thou shalt not remove they neighbour's landmark,2 which they of old time have set, in thine inheritance,3 whosoever has an 'inheritance'4 has also a 'landmark',2 but whosoever has no inheritance5 has no landmark.2 THEY ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY SAY, 'WE BURIED …' But,6 surely, they do not uphold, do they, the exposition of the injunction, Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind?7 — R. Abbahu replied: This8 is a case where a [Samaritan] priest stood there.9 But is it not possible that the priest was unclean?10 — It is a case where he holds terumah in his hand.11 But is it not possible that the terumah was unclean?10 — It is a case where he was eating of it.12 If so,13 what was the need of stating it?14 — It might have been presumed that they are not acquainted with the stages of formation,15 hence we were informed [that we do rely upon them].16 THEY ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY DECLARE CONCERNING A BEAST etc. But, surely, they do not uphold, the exposition of the injunction, Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, do they?17 — R. Hiyya b. Abba citing R. Johanan replied: It is the case of a beast that is shorn and engaged in work.18 If so, what was the need of stating such a law?14 — It might have been presumed that they are not acquainted with the nature of a discharge [from the womb],19 hence we were informed [that they are to be believed]. THEY ARE BELIEVED WHEN GIVING INFORMATION ON THE MARKING OF etc. Although this20 is only a Rabbinical institution21 they are careful to observe it, since it is mentioned in Scripture. For it is written, And any seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it.22 BUT THEY ARE NOT BELIEVED EITHER IN REGARD TO OVERHANGING BRANCHES etc. 'OVERHANGING BRANCHES', as we have learnt: The following are regarded as overhanging branches. The foliage of a tree that affords a covering over the ground.23 PROTRUDING STONES, as we have learnt: protruding stones that project from a wall.24 BETH HA-PERAS. Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: A man25 may26 blow away the earth in a beth ha-peras27 and28 continue on his way. R. Judah b. Ammi citing Rab Judah ruled: A beth peras that had been trodden out is clean.29 One further taught: If one ploughs a graveyard he forms thereby a beth ha-peras.30 And to what extent does he form it? To that of a full length of a furrow of a hundred cubit [squared, which covers an area of] four beth se'ah.31 R. Jose ruled: Five beth se'ah. But are they32 not believed?33 Was it not in fact taught, 'Concerning a field in which a grave was lost34 a Samaritan is believed when he stated, "There is no grave there",35 since he gives his evidence only about the grave itself;36 concerning a tree whose foliage affords a covering over the ground37 he is believed when he stated, "There is no grave under it",38 since he renders evidence only about the grave itself'?36 — R. Johanan replied: This39 is a case where he walks backward and forward throughout all its area.40 If so,41 what was the need of stating it?42 — It might have been presumed that a narrow strip jutted out,43 hence we were informed that44 he is believed.45 THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE etc. What is the expression THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE intended to include? — To include Sabbath boundaries46 and wine of libation.47
Niddah 57bCHAPTER VIII
MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN OBSERVED A BLOODSTAIN ON HER BODY,1 IF IT WAS NEAR THE PUDENDA SHE IS UNCLEAN2 BUT IF IT WAS NOT NEAR THE PUDENDA SHE REMAINS CLEAN. IF3 IT WAS ON HER HEEL OR ON THE TIP OF HER GREAT TOE, SHE IS UNCLEAN.4 ON HER THIGH OR ON HER FEET, IF ON THE INNER SIDE, SHE IS UNCLEAN; IF ON THEIR OUTER SIDE, SHE REMAINS CLEAN; AND IF ON THE FRONT AND BACK SIDES5 SHE REMAINS CLEAN. IF SHE OBSERVED IT ON HER SHIRT BELOW THE BELT, SHE IS UNCLEAN,2 BUT IF ABOVE THE BELT, SHE REMAINS CLEAN. IF SHE OBSERVED IT ON THE SLEEVE OF HER SHIRT, SHE IS UNCLEAN IF IT6 CAN REACH AS LOW AS THE PUDENDA,2 BUT IF IT CANNOT, SHE REMAINS CLEAN. IF SHE TAKES IT OFF AND COVERS HERSELF WITH IT IN THE NIGHT, SHE IS UNCLEAN WHEREVER THE STAIN IS FOUND,7 SINCE IT CAN TURN ABOUT.8 AND THE SAME LAW9 APPLIES TO A PALLIUM.10
GEMARA. Samuel ruled: If a woman examined the ground11 and after sitting on it, found on it some blood, she remains clean, for it is said, In her flesh,12 implying that she is not unclean unless she feels13 in her flesh. But the expression14 'in her flesh' is required for the deduction that she conveys uncleanness within15 as without?16 — If so,17 Scripture could have said, 'In flesh', why then did it say' 'in her flesh'? It may, therefore, be deduced that she is not unclean 'unless she feels18 in her flesh'. But still, is not the expression required for the deduction, 'In her flesh, but not within a sac or within a lump of flesh'?19 — Both deductions may be made from it. Come and hear: If a woman while attending to her needs20 observed a discharge of blood, R. Meir ruled: If she was standing at the time she is unclean,21 but if she was then sitting she remains clean.22 Now how is one to imagine the circumstance?23 If she felt the discharge, why should she be clean where she was sitting? Consequently this must be a case where she did not feel a discharge, and yet it was taught, was it not, that she was unclean?24 — This may in fact be a case where she did feel a discharge but25 it might be assumed that the feeling was that of the ejection of the urine. When she stands, the urine might well return to the interior of her womb26 and then carry out some blood with it, but if she sits,27 she remains clean. Come and hear: If on a testing rag that was placed under a pillow some blood was found, it is regarded as clean if it28 was round,29 but if it was elongated it is unclean. Now how are we to understand the circumstances? If she felt a discharge, why should it be clean when round? Consequently it must be a case where she felt no discharge, and yet it was stated, was it not, that if it was elongated it is unclean?30 — No, it may in fact be a case where31 she felt the discharge, but it might be assumed that it was the feeling of the testing rag. Hence if it is elongated it must certainly have issued from her body.32 but if it is round33 it is clean.34 Come and hear: If a vestige of blood is found on his rag they are both unclean and are also under the obligation of bringing a sacrifice. If any blood is found on her rag immediately after their intercourse they are both unclean and are also under the obligation of bringing a sacrifice. If, however, any blood is found on her rag after a time they are both unclean by reason of the doubt but exempt from the sacrifice.35 Now how are we to imagine the circumstance? If she has felt a discharge, why should they be exempt from the sacrifice where the blood is found after a time? Must it not then be a case where she did not feel any discharge, and yet it was taught, was it not, that 'if any blood is found on her rag immediately after their intercourse they are both unclean and are also under the obligation of bringing a sacrifice'?30 — No, she may in fact have felt the discharge, but it might be assumed that it was the feeling of the attendant.36 Come and hear: You are thus in a position37 to say that three forms of doubt appertain to a woman. A bloodstain on her body, concerning which there is doubt whether it is unclean and clean, is regarded as unclean;38 on her shirt, when it is doubtful whether it is unclean or clean, is regarded as clean;38 and in regard to the laws of the uncleanness of contact and heset39 you follow the majority. Now what is meant by 'you follow the majority'? Is it not that if on most days she is unclean40 this is a cause of uncleanness41 even when she felt no discharge?30 — No, the meaning is that if on most days her observation of the blood is accompanied by a feeling of the discharge she is unclean since it might be assumed that she had felt it this time also but did not pay any attention to it. The Master said, 'A bloodstain on her body, concerning which there is doubt whether it is unclean or clean, is regarded as unclean; on her shirt, when it is doubtful whether it is unclean or clean, is regarded as clean'. How is one to understand the circumstances? If it42 was below her belt, why, when on her shirt, is it regarded as clean seeing that we have learnt, BELOW THE BELT, SHE IS UNCLEAN; and if it was above her belt, why, when on her body is it regarded as unclean, seeing that we have learnt that if she observed blood on her body, IF IT WAS NOT NEAR THE PUDENDA, SHE REMAINS CLEAN? — If you wish I could reply that the stain was below the belt; and if you prefer I might reply that it was above the belt. 'If you wish I could reply that the stain was below the belt', in a case, for instance, where she passed through a butchers' market. If the stain was on her body it must have emanated from herself, for if it had emanated from an external source43 it should have been found on her shirt; but if it is found on her shirt, it must have emanated from an external source,43 for if it had emanated from herself it should have been found on her body. 'And if you prefer I might reply that it was above her belt', in a case, for instance, where she jumped backwards. If the stain is on her body it must undoubtedly have emanated from herself, for if it had emanated from an external source43 it should have been found on her shirt; but if it is found on her shirt, it must have emanated from an external source,43 for if it had emanated from herself, it should have been found on her body. At all events, it was stated, was it not, 'A bloodstain on her body, concerning which there is doubt whether it is unclean or clean, is regarded as clean', presumably even if she did not feel any discharge?44 Furthermore, we have learnt, IF A WOMAN OBSERVED A BLOODSTAIN ON HER BODY. IF IT WAS NEAR THE PUDENDA, SHE IS UNCLEAN. Does not this imply even where she did not feel any discharge?45 — R. Jeremiah of Difti replied: Samuel agrees that46 she is unclean - To Next Folio -
|
||||||