|  |  | Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah ### Folio 60a who once experienced a discharge.1 Whence is this derived? From the fact that she is placed on a par with A MENSTRUANT. As the menstruant is a woman who experienced a discharge1 so must the GENTILE WOMAN be one who experienced a discharge.1 R. Shesheth remarked, Rab must have made this statement when he was lying down and about to doze, for it was taught: 'She may attribute it2 to the gentile woman.3 R. Meir said, To the gentile woman who is capable of a menstrual discharge',4 Now even R. Meir5 only spoke of one who is 'capable of a menstrual discharge' but did not require one who actually experienced a discharge.6 Raba retorted: But do you understand R. Meir to restrict the law?7 R. Meir in fact relaxes it. For it was taught: 'She may not attribute it8 to the gentile woman. R. Meir ruled: She may attribute it to her'.9 But, then, does not a difficulty arise10 from the former?11 — Explain thus:12 Only when she13 experienced a discharge once before; and R. Meir said, If she is capable of a menstrual discharge even though she never yet experienced one.14 Our Rabbis taught: A woman may attribute a stain15 to another woman16 who was awaiting a day for a day, if it17 was the latter's second day,18 and19 to a woman16 who counted seven days20 before she had performed ritual immersion.21 Hence she is at an advantage22 while her friend is at a disadvantage;23 so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Rabbi ruled, She24 may not so attribute it.25 Hence both are at a disadvantage. They26 agree, however, that she may attribute a stain to a woman who was awaiting a day for a day if it27 was the latter's first day,28 and to a woman who was abiding in her clean blood,29 and to a virgin whose blood is clean.30 Why was it necessary to state the 'hence' of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel?31 — On account of the ruling of Rabbi.32 Why was it necessary to state the 'hence' of Rabbi?33 — It might have been presumed that only the woman on whom the stain was found shall be at a disadvantage while the other shall not be disadvantaged, hence we were informed that both are at a disadvantage. R. Hisda stated: If a clean and an unclean person walked respectively in two paths one of which was clean and the other unclean,34 we arrive at the dispute between Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.35 R. Adda demurred: Rabbi may have maintained his view only36 there, because both are in similar conditions,37 but what difference [to the unclean person in this case] could our assumption make?38 And R. Hisda?39 — After all40 she has yet to perform the immersion.41 It was stated:42 R. Jose son of R. Hanina ruled, If a clean and an unclean person, and even if a clean, and a doubtfully clean person walked respectively in two paths one of which was unclean and the other clean, it may be assumed, according to the opinion of all,43 that the unclean path was taken by the doubtfully clean person and the clean path by the clean one. R. Johanan enquired of R. Judah b. Liwai: May a stain44 be attributed to [another woman45 who was unclean on account of] a stain? So far as Rabbi's view is concerned the question does not arise; for, since in that case46 where the woman had observed a discharge from her own body47 you said [that the other woman's stain] may not be attributed [to her], how much less then may this be done in this case where the stain may have originated from an external cause.48 The question arises only in connection with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: Is it only in that case,46 where the woman had observed a discharge from her own body,47 that the other woman's stain may be attributed to her, but here, where the stain may have originated from an external cause,48 she may not so attribute it,49 or is it possible that no difference is made between the two cases? — The other replied: One may not so attribute it. What is the reason? — Because [there is a tradition that]50 one may not so attribute it.51 He pointed out to him the following objection: 'Is it not permissible to attribute a stain52 to [another woman53 who was unclean on account of] a stain. If a woman54 had lent her shirt to a gentile woman or to one who continued unclean by reason of a stain, she may attribute its to her.55 (But is not this Baraitha self contradictory: In the first clause you stated, 'it is not permissible to attribute' while in the final clause you stated that it was permissible to attribute? — This is no difficulty: The former is the view of Rabbi while the latter is that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. There are some who read: The latter as well as the former represents the view of Rabbi, but56 the latter57 applies to her first day58 while the former59 applies to her second day.60 R. Ashi replied: The former61 as well as the latter57 represents the view of R; Simeon b. Gamaliel and yet there is no difficulty, To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Lit., 'who sees'. A stain found on her shirt. And thus remain clean. Sc. one of mature age. Who seems to be more restrictive than the first Tanna. Much less (cf. prev. n.) would the Rabbis (the first Tanna) require that the gentile woman should be one who actually experienced a discharge once before. More than the Rabbis. V. p. 421, nn. 12, 13. A stain found on her shirt. And since the first Tanna restricts the law he may well uphold also the restriction imposed by Rab. Against the Baraitha cited by Raba from which it is evident that R. Meir is more lenient than the Rabbis. Lit., 'that', the Baraitha cited by R. Shesheth from which it appears that R. Meir is more restrictive. The Baraitha cited by R. Shesheth, according to which the first Tanna ruled that 'she may attribute it to a gentile woman'. The gentile woman. Similarly the Baraitha cited by Raba is to be explained that the first Tanna holds that 'she may not attribute it to the gentile woman' unless the latter had experienced a discharge once before, while R. Meir maintains that it may be attributed to her even if she is only capable of a discharge, though she had not experienced one. Both Baraithas thus give the same rulings in different words, and Rab's view is upheld by that of the first Tanna in each. Found on her underclothing. To whom she had previously lent it. The day on which the latter had worn it. Sc. the day during a zibah period following the one on which she observed a discharge, though on that day none had been observed. This assumption in favour of the former is permitted (despite the slight disadvantage to the latter of having to wait another day) because of the latter's known condition of uncleanness. For a similar reason (cf. prev. n. second clause). After an established zibah. Though the latter would in consequence have to count again a new period of seven days. Lit., 'repaired', 'sound', sc. she remains clean. Lit., 'spoilt', 'damaged'; the one having to wait an additional day (cf. supra n. 12) and the other to count another seven days (cf. prev. n. but one). Since her attribution would be a disadvantage to her friend. Though she herself would in consequence be regarded as unclean. Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. The day on which the latter had worn it. When the assumption that the stain was due to her would impose no additional uncleanness upon her. From the eighth to the fortieth day after the birth of a male child and from the fifteenth to the eightieth after the birth of a female child. Cf. prev. n. Cf. supra 10b and prev. n. but one. Sc. in view of his specific statement that the stain may be attributed to the other woman who was already in a state of uncleanness, is it not obvious that the former is at an advantage while the latter is at a disadvantage? According to which both women are at a disadvantage. Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut. And it is unknown who walked in which. According to the latter, who ruled that a stain found on a clean woman may be attributed by her to a woman who was known to be unclean while she herself remains clean, it may be here assumed that the clean person walked in the clean path and the unclean walked in the unclean one; while according to Rabbi no such assumption could be allowed and both persons must be regarded as unclean. Lit., 'until here Rabbi only said'. Since even the woman who was hitherto unclean could, by performing immersion, attain cleanness on the day the stain was found. The assumption would consequently place her at an undeserved disadvantage. None; since whatever the assumption he is unclean. As the assumption would not place him under any disadvantage Rabbi in this case may well agree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. How in view of this argument could he maintain his statement? Granted the woman could attain to cleanness by immersion. Before doing which she is still unclean in all respects. As Rabbi nevertheless rules out the assumption that the stain was due to her, it is obvious that he would equally rule out the assumption that it was the unclean person who walked in the unclean path. In agreement with R. Adda's view that even according to Rabbi it may be assumed that the clean person walked in the clean path and the unclean person in the unclean one. Sc. even according to Rabbi. Found on the under garment of a woman who was known to be clean. Who had previously worn that garment. Discussed supra. Lit., 'there'. A case of certain uncleanness. Lit., 'where it came from the world'; a case of doubtful uncleanness. And both women are, therefore, unclean. Since the uncleanness that is due to a stain is merely of a doubtful nature, it being possible that the stain originated from an external cause, and the woman cannot in consequence be regarded as prone to a discharge. And both women are, therefore, unclean. Found on the under garment of a woman who was known to be clean. Who had previously worn that garment. Who discovered the stain. The stain she discovered. As to the apparent contradiction. 'It is permissible to attribute'. Sc. the stain was discovered by the woman on the same day on which the other (to whom the garment had been lent) had found a stain on an under garment of hers which caused her to be unclean on that day and also imposed upon her the restriction of remaining unclean until a second day (a day for a day) had passed. Since she has in any case to lose a second day, the attribution does not cause her any disadvantage. Which does not allow the attribution. When the attribution would place her under a disadvantage by extending her uncleanness to the third day. Which does not allow the attribution. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Niddah 60b for the former applies to retrospective uncleanness1 while the latter applies to future uncleanness.)2 At all events does not a difficulty arise?3 — Rabina replied: This is no difficulty for it is this that was meant:4 If she had lent her shirt to a gentile woman,5 she who discovered6 the stain7 may attribute it to her.8 But was it not stated, 'or to one who continued unclean by reason of a stain'?9 — It is this that was meant: Or to one who continued clean owing to clean blood,10 she who discovered11 the stain may attribute it to her.12 IF THREE WOMEN HAD WORN etc. FOR R. NEHEMIAH HAS etc. R. Mattenah stated: What is R. Nehemiah's reason? That it is written, And clean13 she shall sit upon the ground,14 provided she sat on the ground she is clean.15 R. Huna citing R. Hanina stated: R. Nehemiah rules that they are clean if they sat even on the back of an earthenware vessel. But is not this obvious?16 — It might have been presumed that a restriction shall be imposed on its back as a preventive measure against the possible relaxation of the law in regard to its inside,17 hence we were informed that on the back of an earthenware vessel they are clean. Abaye stated: R. Nehemiah holds them to be clean if they sat on strips of cloth that were less than three by three fingerbreadths, since such are unsuitable for use either by the poor or the rich.18 R. Hiyya son of R. Mattenah citing Rab stated in his discourse: The halachah is in agreement with R. Nehemiah. Said R. Nahman to him: Abba19 learnt, 'A case was once submitted to the Sages and they declared the woman concerned to be unclean' and you state, 'the halachah is in agreement with R. Nehemiah'? — What was that case? — The one concerning which it was taught: If two women were grinding with a hand mill and blood was found under the inner one,20 both are unclean.21 If it was found under the outer one,22 the outer one is unclean23 but the inner one remains clean.24 If it was found between the two, both are unclean.25 It once happened that blood was found on the edge of a bath,26 and on an olive leaf while they were making a fire in an oven, and when the case was submitted to the Sages they declared them to be unclean.27 This28 is a point at issue between Tannas. For it was taught: R. Jacob29 ruled that they were unclean and R. Nehemiah ruled that they were clean, and the Sages30 ruled in agreement with R. Nehemiah. MISHNAH. IF THREE WOMEN SLEPT IN ONE BED AND BLOOD WAS FOUND UNDER ONE OF THEM, THEY ARE ALL UNCLEAN. IF ONE OF THEM EXAMINED HERSELF AND WAS FOUND TO BE UNCLEAN, SHE ALONE IS UNCLEAN WHILE THE TWO OTHERS ARE CLEAN. THEY MAY ALSO ATTRIBUTE THE BLOOD TO ONE ANOTHER.31 AND IF THEY WERE NOT LIKELY32 TO OBSERVE A DISCHARGE,31 THEY MUST BE REGARDED AS THOUGH THEY WERE LIKELY TO OBSERVE ONE. GEMARA. Rab Judah citing Rab explained: But this33 applies only where she examined herself immediately [after the discovery of the blood],34 He is of the same opinion as Bar Pada who laid down: Whenever her husband is liable to a sin-offering,35 her clean things36 are37 to be unclean;38 where her husband is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering,39 her clean things40 are regarded as being in a suspended state of uncleanness;41 and where her husband is exempt,42 her clean things43 remain clean. But R. Oshaia44 ruled: Even where her husband is liable to a sin-offering,45 her clean things are46 deemed to be in a suspended state.47 One can see the reason48 there, since it might well be assumed that the waiter49 had caused the obstruction of the blood; but, in this case,50 if it were a fact that the blood was there,51 what could have caused its obstruction?52 R. Jeremiah observed: As to R. Oshaia's metaphor53 to what may this be compared? To an old man and a child who were walking together on a road. While they are underway the child restrains his gait.54 but after they enter the town55 the child accelerates his pace.56 Abaye on the other hand observed: As to the metaphor of R. Oshaia, to what may this be compared? To a man who puts his finger on his eye. While the finger is on the eye the tears are held back, but as soon as the finger is removed the tears quickly come forth.56 THEY MAY ALSO ATTRIBUTE THE BLOOD TO ONE ANOTHER. Our Rabbis taught: In what manner do they attribute it to one another? If one was a pregnant woman54 and the other was not pregnant, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was a nursing woman57 and the other was not a nursing woman, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was an old woman57 and the other was not an old woman, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was a virgin58 and the other was no virgin, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If both were pregnant, nursing, old or virgins — it is [a case like] this concerning which we have learnt, IF THEY WERE NOT LIKELY TO OBSERVE A DISCHARGE, THEY MUST BE REGARDED - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Sc. to a case where the owner of the shirt discovered the stain on it before the other to whom she had lent it had discovered the stain on her own under garment, Though the other subsequently discovered the stain, she cannot be regarded as unclean retrospectively (from the time the owner of the shirt had discovered the stain) since at that time she was still in a condition of cleanness (cf. Tosaf. and Tosaf. Asheri, contra Rashi). The stain on the lent shirt having been discovered after the woman who borrowed it had discovered hers (cf. prev. n.). Apparently it does; for since, according to the Baraitha cited, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel allows the attribution how could R. Judah b. Liwai maintain that he does not. By the Baraitha under discussion. Who experienced a discharge. Lit., 'the owner of'. Sc. the Israelitish woman. The gentile, who loses thereby nothing, while the Israelitish woman remains clean. Of course it was. Now if the reference is to the woman who just discovered the stain, how could the expression 'continued' (which implies that the counting of the clean days had already begun) be used? I.e., either to a gentile woman who is free from the restrictions of uncleanness or to an Israelitish woman who for the reason stated is exempt from uncleanness. Lit., 'the owner of'. Since neither would thereby be adversely affected while she remains clean in consequence. E.V., utterly bereft. Isa. III, 26. I.e., a stain found on the ground does not render her unclean. Apparently it is, since like a stone bench, the back of an earthenware vessel is not susceptible to uncleanness. Which is susceptible to uncleanness, and a stain on which would in accordance with Rabbinic law subject a woman to uncleanness. And hence unsusceptible to uncleanness. Abba Arika or Rab. 'My father' (Golds.), MS.M., 'ana' ('I'). The one nearer to the mill. Since the other who sits behind her would naturally shift her position towards the mill and, assuming sometimes the same position as the inner one, would be as likely as she to be the cause of the stain in that spot. As it is thus uncertain which of the two was the cause both must be regarded as unclean. A position which the inner one would never occupy, the tendency being to come up as close as possible to the mill. Since she may have been the cause of the stain. Cf. prev. n. but one. Because either might have been the cause. Which two women were using. Now an olive leaf is not susceptible to uncleanness and yet the Sages (the majority) ruled that a stain on it causes uncleanness. How then could it be said that the halachah agrees with R. Nehemiah who was only an individual? Whether R. Nehemiah is opposed by an individual authority or by a majority. An individual. The majority. This is explained in the Gemara infra. Lit., 'suitable'. That IF ONE OF THEM EXAMINED HERSELF … SHE ALONE IS UNCLEAN WHILE THE TWO OTHERS ARE CLEAN. If, however, her examination had been delayed the others too are unclean. In the case, for instance, where she discovered menstrual blood immediately after their intercourse, when it is assumed that the discharge had occurred during intercourse. Terumah, for instance, which may be eaten only when clean. If she discovered menstrual blood immediately after her contact with them. It being assumed (cf. prev. n. but two) that the discharge occurred while she was still handling the clean things. In such a case the uncleanness is regarded as certain and the things she handled must be burnt. This is the case where she discovered the blood after an interval had elapsed during which she could descend from the bed and wash her genitals it being doubtful whether the discharge had occurred during or after intercourse. If she discovered the blood after such an interval (cf. prev. n.) had passed since she handled them. Sc. they may be neither eaten nor burnt. In the case where the longer interval (cf. prev. n. but two) had passed before the blood was discovered, when it is regarded as certain hat the discharge occurred after intercourse. If a similar interval (cf. prev. n.) had elapsed between the time she has handled them and the discovery of the blood. Maintaining that even if a discovery of blood was made immediately after she handled the clean things one cannot be sure that the discharge had occurred earlier when she was still handling them. V. supra n. 2. On account of the doubt. Thus it follows that our Mishnah which ruled that only the woman who found herself on examination to be unclean is regarded as the cause of the blood while the two others remain clean, upholds the opinion of Bar Pada who, where the examination took place immediately after the clean things had been handled, regards the things as definitely unclean. It must be contrary to the view of R. Oshaia who, even in such a case (an examination after the shortest interval), regards the clean things as being merely in a suspected state. Why it may be assumed that the discharge occurred earlier during intercourse. Euphemism. The handling of clean things. Sc. that the discharge occurred earlier. Obviously nothing. Hence it is only in the case of intercourse (where the assumption is possible) that the husband becomes liable for a sin-offering, but in the case of clean things (where no such assumption is possible) no certain uncleanness may be presumed and only that of a doubtful nature may be imposed upon them Rabbinically for twenty-four hours retrospectively. 'The waiter had caused the obstruction of the blood'. Lit., 'delays to come', waiting for the lead of the old man. When they walk in different directions to their own respective homes. Lit., 'hastens to come'. Who usually loses her menstrual flow. Sc. a young woman (whether unmarried or married) who had not yet experienced any menstrual discharge (cf. supra 8b). Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |