|  |  | Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Sitexd # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah ### Folio 8a 'A minor1 is to be instructed2 to exercise her right of mi'un against him'3 and in connection with this Rab Judah citing Samuel stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer'?4 — When Samuel stated 'the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four cases he referred to rulings in the Order of Toharoth,5 but in the other Orders there are many such rulings. This6 also stands to reason, for we learnt: R. Eliezer ruled, Also in the case of one who shovels out loaves of bread7 from an oven and puts them into a basket,8 the basket causes them to be combined in respect of their liability to the dough-offering',9 and in connection with this Rab Judah citing Samuel stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer.'10 This is conclusive. But why is the latter11 a more valid proof12 than the former?13 — Because in the former case R. Eleazar takes up the same standpoint as he,14 for we learnt: R. Eleazar ruled, The minor is to be instructed15 to exercise her right of mi'un against him.16 But does he17 take up the same standpoint?18 Have we not in fact shown19 that both20 were required because they are not like one another?21 — Rather say, Because R. Judah b. Baba takes up the same position as he,22 for we learnt,23 'R. Judah b. Baba testified concerning five things: That minors are urged to exercise their right of mi'un,24 that a woman25 is allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness,26 that a cock was stoned27 in Jerusalem because it had killed a person,28 that29 wine which was only forty days old30 was poured as a drink-offering upon the altar, and that29 the continual morning sacrifice was offered31 [as late as] at the fourth hour [of the day]'.32 Now does not the expression 'minors'33 imply34 the one of which R. Eleazar and the one of which R. Eliezer spoke?35 — No; by the expression36 'minors' minors in general37 were meant.38 If so,39 should it not have been stated, in the case of the woman40 also, 'women', meaning thereby41 women in general?42 As in the latter case,43 however, it was stated 'woman',44 and in the former 'minors'45 it may be concluded that the expressions are to be taken literally.46 This is conclusive. R. Eleazar47 also48 stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things'. But are there no more of such rulings?49 Have we not in fact learnt, 'R. Eliezer ruled, The minor is to be instructed to exercise her right of mi'un against him'50 and R. Eleazar stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer'?51 And were you to reply that when R. Eleazar stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things' he referred to the rulings in the Order of Toharoth, but that in the other Orders there are many more such rulings49 [it could be retorted:] But are there any such? Have we not in fact learnt, 'The rose, henna,52 lotus53 and balsam as well as their proceeds are subject to the laws of the Sabbatical year54 and they and their proceeds are also subject to the law of removal,'55 in connection with which R. Pedath56 is observed, 'Who taught57 that balsam is a fruit?58 R. Eliezer'; and R. Zera replied, 'I see that between59 you and your father you will cause balsam to be permitted to the world,60 since you said, "Who taught that balsam is a fruit? R. Eliezer" and your father said, "The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things".'61 Now, if it were so,62 why did he63 not reply to him,64 'When my father said, "The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things" he referred only to rulings in the Order of Toharoth but in other Orders there are many more'?65 — But then,66 does not the previous difficulty67 arise? — [In the case of mi'un 68 the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer] because R. Eleazar [b. Shammua'] takes up the same standpoint as he; for we have learnt: R. Eleazar ruled, The minor is to be instructed to exercise her right of mi'un against him.69 But does he70 take up the same standpoint? Have we not in fact shown that both71 were required because they are not like one another?72 — Rather say: Because R. Judah b. Baba takes up the same standpoint as he.70 But are there no more such rulings?73 Have we not in fact learnt: 'R. Akiba ruled, One says it74 as an independent benediction;75 R. Eliezer ruled, One includes it in the benediction of thanksgiving';76 and in connection with this R. Eleazar77 stated,78 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer'? — R. Abba replied: [The halachah agrees with him] in that case because he [may have] said it in the name of R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, for it was taught: R. Akiba ruled, One says it79 as an independent benediction;75 R. Hanina b. Gamaliel ruled, One includes it in the benediction of thanksgiving. To Part b Who was fatherless and was given in marriage by her mother or brothers (so that her marriage is only Rabbinically valid) and who had a sister that was of age and was married to the minor's husband's brother who died without issue. In accordance with the laws of the levirate marriage the surviving brother must marry the widow, but such marriage cannot take place in this case on account of the prohibition to marry a wife's sister. The minor, furthermore, is now forbidden to live with her husband (whose marriage with her is only Rabbinically valid) on account of the levirate bond between him and her sister (which is Pentateuchal). Rashi speaks here of two 'orphan' sisters, but the Mishnah in Yeb, speaks of 'deaf' sisters. In order to avoid (cf. prev. n.) the difficulties mentioned. Her husband. In virtue of mi'un (v. Glos.) she annuls her marriage and sets her husband free to perform the Pentateuchal law of the levirate marriage. Yeb. 109a. Yeb. 110a. The sixth, and last order of the Talmud in which the tractate of Niddah is included. That Samuel referred to the Order of Toharoth alone. That were made of quantities of dough each of which was never greater than five kab. Only when dough is no less than five kab in bulk is it subject to the dough-offering. And in their total they amounted to no less than five kab. Hal. II, 4. Which shows that outside the Order of Toharoth there are other rulings concerning which the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer. Hal. II, 4. In support of the explanation given (cf. n. 10). The ruling cited from Yeb. Lit., 'and what is the strength of that from that?' R. Eliezer. In certain cases enumerated in Yeb. 111a. Yeb. 111a, a ruling that is analogous to that of R. Eliezer in Yeb. 109a, and it might have been assumed that only in this case, since R. Eliezer is supported by the authority of R. Eleazar, is the halachah in agreement with the former but not in other cases where he has no such support; hence the citation from Hal, where the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer even though his ruling has his own authority alone. R. Eleazar. As R. Eliezer. Yeb. 111b. Statements of Samuel, that the halachah is in agreement with (a) R. Eliezer and (b) R. Eleazar. How then could it be suggested here that R. Eleazar's ruling provides support for that of R. Eliezer? R. Eliezer. So MS.M. Cur. edd. 'it was taught'. Cf. notes on the similar ruling of R. Eliezer (cited from Yeb. 109a supra). Whose husband left for a country overseas. Who testifies that her husband was dead. In accordance with Ex. XXI, 28 (as expounded in B.K. 54b), though the text speaks only of an ox. It pecked out the brain of a child. Lit., 'and about'. One that is less than forty days old is invalid as 'wine from the vat', which is too new (cf. B.B. 97a, Sonc. ed. p. 405). On one occasion, during the Syrian Greek siege of Jerusalem, when no sacrifice could be secured. 'Ed. VI, 1. Sc. the use of the plural form. Lit., 'what minors? Not?' etc. The answer being presumably in the affirmative it follows that R. Eliezer's ruling is supported by the authority of R. Judah b. Baba. Lit., 'what'. Of the class spoken of by R. Eleazar. Excluding the one spoken of by R. Eliezer who, consequently, stands unsupported. That the plural form in this context is used to indicate the class. 'That a woman is allowed etc.' Lit., 'and let us say'. Obviously it should. Lit., 'since here' (cf. supra p. 47, n. 25). In the sing., though the whole class is included. In the plural. Lit., 'he learns exactly', sc. that 'minors' in the plural refers to the two classes of minor, the one dealt with by R. Eleazar and the one spoken of by R. Eliezer. I.e., R. Eleazar b. Pedath who was an Amora. R. Eleazar who laid down the rule of mi'un is a Tanna and was b. Shammua'. Like Rab Judah who cited Samuel supra 7b. In regard to which the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer. Supra q.v. notes. Yeb. 110a. Or 'cyprus flower'. Or 'gum-mastich'. Shebi. VII, 6: sc. during that year they must be treated as hefker (v. Glos.) and no trade may be carried on with them. Sc., as soon as none of these products respectively remained in the field the owner must remove from his house all that he had previously gathered in. The last quoted part, 'and they … removal' is wanting in the Mishnah. The son of R. Eleazar b. Pedath. In the Mishnah cited from Sheb. Were it no fruit it would not have been subject to the laws of the Sabbatical Year. Lit., 'from'. During the Sabbatical Year, i.e., to be exempt from its restrictions. But no more. R. Eliezer's restrictive law concerning balsam, since it is not included in the four, must consequently be against the halachah and must, therefore, be disregarded. That outside the Order of Toharoth there are other rulings of R. Eliezer in agreement with the halachah. R. Pedath. R. Zera. And R. Zera's objection would thus have been met. Since R. Pedath, however, gave no such reply it follows that R. Eleazar's statement that 'the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things' applies to all the Orders of the Talmud. Cf. prev. n. How is it that in the case of mi'un (which is not included in the four) the halachah is also in agreement with R. Eliezer? Though it is not one of the four (cf. prev. n.). Supra q.v. notes. R. Eleazar [b. Shammua']. The rulings of R. Eliezer and R. Eleazar respectively. Supra q.v. notes. Concerning which the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer. The benediction of habdalah in the evening service at the conclusion of the Sabbath (cf. P.B., p. 46). Sc. it is not to be included in any of the statutory benedictions. Ber. 29a, 33a. Cf. P.B., p. 51. b. Pedath (cf. supra). M. J. Ber. (Tosaf). The benediction of habdalah in the evening service at the conclusion of the Sabbath (cf. P.B., p. 46). Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Niddah 8b But was he1 not much older than he?2 — Rather say:3 Because R. Hanina b. Gamaliel took up4 the same line as he, But did he5 take it up? Was it not in fact taught: On the night of the Day of Atonement6 one recites in his prayers seven benedictions and makes confession; in the morning6 one recites seven benedictions and makes confession; during the additional prayer7 one recites seven benedictions and makes confession; in the afternoon prayer one recites seven benedictions and makes confession; In the concluding prayer8 one recites seven benedictions and makes confession, and in the evening9 one recites seven benedictions embodying the substance of the Eighteen;10 and R. Hanina b. Gamaliel in the name of his ancestors ruled: One must recite in his prayers11 all the eighteen benedictions because it is necessary to include habdalah12 in 'who favourest man with knowledge'?13 — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: He cited it14 in the name of his ancestors but he himself15 does not uphold it. Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera:16 But do you not yourself hold that he who taught that balsam was a fruit is R. Eliezer, seeing that we have learnt: R. Eliezer ruled, Milk curdled with the sap of 'orlah is forbidden?17 — This18 might be said to agree even with the view of the Rabbis, since they differed from R. Eliezer only in respect of the sap of the tree but in the case of the sap of the fruit they agree with him, for we have learnt: R. Joshua stated, I have explicitly heard that milk curdled with the sap of the leaves or with the sap of the roots is permitted, but if it was curdled with the sap of unripe figs it is forbidden because the latter is regarded as a proper fruit.19 And if you prefer I might reply: The Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer only in respect of a fruit producing tree but in the case of a tree that does not produce fruit they agree that its sap is regarded as its fruit, for we have learnt: R. Simeon ruled, Balsam is not subject to the laws of the Sabbatical Year20 and the Sages ruled, Balsam is subject to the laws of the Sabbatical Year because the sap of the tree is regarded as its fruit.21 Now who are the Sages? Are they not in fact the Rabbis who differ22 from R. Eliezer?23 — Thus, a certain elder replied to him, said R. Johanan, 'Who are the "Sages"? R. Eliezer who ruled that its balsam is its fruit'. But if by the 'Sages' R. Eliezer was meant what was the point in speaking of a tree that does not produce fruit seeing that even where a tree produces fruit its sap is regarded as its fruit? — He24 spoke to them25 according to the view of the Rabbis. 'According to my view' [he said in effect,] 'even in the case of a fruit producing tree its sap is regarded as its fruit, but according to your view26 agree with me at least in this case of a tree that produces no fruit that its sap is its fruit. But the Rabbis told him: No difference is made.27 WHO IS REGARDED AS A 'VIRGIN'? ANY WOMAN WHO HAS NOT YET OBSERVED etc. Our Rabbis taught: [If a virgin] married and observed a discharge of blood that was due to the marriage, or if when she bore a child she observed a discharge of blood that was due to the birth, she is still called a 'virgin', because the virgin of whom the Rabbis spoke is one that is a virgin as regards menstrual blood but not one who is so in regard to the blood of virginity.28 Can this, however, be correct?29 Has not R. Kahana in fact stated, 'A Tanna taught: There are three kinds of virgin, the human virgin, the soil virgin and the sycamore virgin. The "human virgin" is one that never30 had any sexual intercourse, the practical issue31 being her eligibility to marry a High Priest32 or else her claim to a kethubah of two hundred zuz;33 the "virgin soil" is one that had never30 been cultivated, the practical issue31 being its designation as "a rough valley"34 or else its legal status as regards purchase and sale;35 the "virgin sycamore" is one that has never36 been cut,37 the practical issue38 being its legal status as regards purchase and sale39 or else the permissibility to cut it37 in the Sabbatical Year, as we have learnt: A virgin sycamore may not be cut in the Sabbatical Year because such cutting is regarded as cultivation'.40 Now if this41 were correct why did he42 not mention this one also? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: He only mentioned such as has no special43 name44 but one which bears a special43 name45 he does not mention. R. Shesheth son of R. Idi replied: He46 only mentioned those, the loss of whose virginity47 is dependent on an act48 but one the loss of whose virginity47 is not dependent on an act49 he does not mention. R. Hanina son of R. Ika replied: He46 only mentioned those47 which do not change50 into their original condition51 but one which does change to its original condition52 he does not mention. Rabina replied: He53 only mentioned that to which a purchaser is likely to object54 but that to which a purchaser is not likely to object55 he does not mention. But do not people object?56 Was it not in fact taught, 'R. Hiyya stated: As leaven is wholesome for the dough so is menstrual blood wholesome for a woman'57 and it was also taught in the name of R. Meir, 'Every woman who has an abundance of menstrual blood has many children'?57 — Rather say: He53 only mentioned that which a purchaser is anxious to acquire58 but that59 which a purchaser is not anxious to acquire60 he does not mention. Our Rabbis taught: What is meant by a virgin soil? One which61 turns up clods62 and whose earth is not loose. If61 a potsherd is found in it, it may be known that it had once been cultivated;63 if flint, it is undoubtedly64 virgin soil. 'A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY'? ONE WHOSE EMBRYO 'CAN BE DISCERNED. At what stage65 is the embryo discernible? — Symmachus citing R. Meir replied: Three months after conception. And though there is no actual proof for this statement there is an allusion66 to it, for it is said in Scripture, And it came to pass about three months after67 etc. 'An allusion to it' [you say], is not this a text of Scripture and a most reliable68 proof? — [It can only be regarded as an allusion] because some women69 give birth after nine months and others after seven months.70 Our Rabbis taught: If a woman was71 in a condition of presumptive pregnancy and after observing a discharge of blood she miscarried an inflated object72 or any other object which had no vitality73 she74 is still deemed to be75 in the condition of her presumptive pregnancy and it suffices for her to reckon her period of menstrual uncleanness from the time of her observation of the discharge.76 And though there is no actual proof for this ruling77 there is an allusion78 to it, for it is said in Scripture, We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind.79 But why only 'an allusion to it' seeing that the text provides actual80 proof? — That text was in fact written about males.81 I would, however, point out an incongruity: If a woman was in hard labour82 for two days83 and on the third day84 she miscarried an inflated object or any thing that had no vitality, she85 is regarded as bearing in the condition of a zabah.86 Now if you maintain that such miscarriage is a proper birth - To Next Folio - R. Eliezer, a contemporary and brother-in-law of R. Gamaliel the son of Simeon who was one of the 'Ten Royal Martyrs' (Rashi). Hanina, who was a son of R. Gamaliel of Jamnia (v. Tosaf.). Now is it likely that an older scholar would quote a tradition on the authority of a younger one? In explanation why the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in this particular case. At a later date. Lit., 'stands'. R. Hanina. The 'Day' extending over a night and the following day. Musaf, which on Sabbaths and festivals is recited after the morning service. Ne'ilah, the last prayer before sunset on the Day of Atonement. That follows the solemn day. I.e., instead of all the 'eighteen (now nineteen) benedictions' that are to be recited at ordinary weekday services (cf. P.B., p. 44ff) one recites on this occasion only the first three and the last three benedictions, and inserts between a shortened prayer embracing the salient features of the intermediate ones (cf. P.B., p. 55). Even on the evening mentioned. The prayer added to the service at the conclusion of Sabbaths and festival days (cf. P.B., p. 46). Yoma 87b, Pes. 3a. Cf. P.B., l.e. In the shortened prayer, where this benediction is reduced to a few words, this cannot be done. Now, since R. Hanina here states that habdalah is to be included in the benediction 'who favourest etc.' how could it be said supra that he adopts the same line as R. Eliezer who requires it to be included in the benediction of thanksgiving? The last quoted ruling. Who is in agreement with R. Eliezer. Who objected (supra 8a) to R. Pedath's assertion as to the authorship of the ruling on balsam. 'Orlah I, 7; because the sap is considered a fruit to which the prohibitions of 'orlah apply. Balsam also being a sap, must not the ruling that balsam is a fruit obviously be that of R. Eliezer? The ruling just cited. 'Orlah I, 7. 'Because it is not regarded as a fruit', Sheb. VII, 6. This quotation does not actually occur in the Mishnah cited (cf. prev. n.) but is implied from the ruling of the first Tanna ibid. In the case of other trees. Presumably they are. Thus it follows, as R. Zera submitted, that in the case of balsam the Rabbis are of the same opinion as R. Eliezer and that there is no need, therefore, to attribute to him the ruling which is in agreement with the halachah. R. Eliezer. Those who differed from him. Which does not regard the sap of a fruit bearing tree as fruit. Between the two kinds of tree. In neither case can sap be regarded as fruit. Or birth. Lit., 'I am not'. Lit., 'all the time that she (had) not'. Between being regarded as a virgin or not. Cf. Lev. XXI, 13. Only a virgin is entitled to that sum. One who is no virgin is entitled to one hundred zuz only. Deut. XXI, 4, in the case where a murdered man was found in a field and his murderers cannot be discovered when a heifer is brought into a rough valley and a prescribed ceremonial is performed (v. ibid. 1ff). If a plot of land has been sold or bought as 'virgin soil' it must be one that has never before been cultivated. Lit., 'all the time that she (had) not'. Since the cutting causes new growth. Between being regarded as a virgin or not. Cf. supra n. 10 mut. mut. Which is forbidden (cf. Lev. XXV, 4); Sheb. IV, 5. That there is also a virginity as regards menstrual blood. R. Kahana who only spoke of three kinds of virgin. Lit., 'attached', 'accompanying'. 'Virgin' alone being sufficient. Such as the 'virgin in respect of menstrual blood' whom 'virgin' alone would not sufficiently describe. R. Kahana who only spoke of three kinds. Lit., 'a thing that'. Such as intercourse, cultivation or cutting. As is the case with a discharge of menstrual blood which is a natural and involuntary process. After intercourse, cultivation and cutting respectively. Lit., 'to its creation', neither the woman nor the soil nor the sycamore can (cf. prev. n.) change into her or its original condition. A woman in old age loses her flow and changes, in this respect, into a condition similar to her original virginity. R. Kahana who only spoke of three kinds. No one who could help it would be likely to marry a non-virgin or to buy land that was already exploited or a sycamore that was cut. One who marries a virgin does not care whether or not she ever had her menstrual flow. Cf. prev. n. Keth. 10b. Lit., 'that … jumps on it', people are anxious to marry a virgin, to buy a plot of land that was never before exploited and a sycamore that was never before cut. A virgin who has no menstrual flow. For the reasons indicated by R. Hiyya and R. Meir supra. On being broken up. That need crushing. How else could the potsherd have found its way into it? Lit., 'behold this'. Lit., 'and how much'. Lit., 'remembrance'. That it was told … she is with child, Gen, XXXVIII, 24. Lit., 'great'. Lit., 'there is'. And it might have been assumed that the three months of the text (representing a third of nine) applied to the former only while in the case of the latter the stage of recognition begins after 7/3 = 2 1/3, months. Lit., 'behold she was'. Lit., 'wind'. Lit., 'existence'. Despite the fact that her pregnancy, as is now evident, was not natural. As regards retrospective uncleanness. Not twenty-four hours retrospectively as is the case with one who is not pregnant. That an inflated object (cf. supra n. 12) is regarded as a viable embryo in respect of pregnancy. Lit., 'remembrance', Emphasis on the last word. Isa. XXVI, 18. Tosef. Nid. I. Lit., 'great'. In whose case conception and birth are mere metaphorical expressions. Accompanied by a flow of blood. During the eleven days in which she is susceptible to the uncleanness of a zabah (v. foll. nn.). After a further discharge of blood, so that (cf. prev. n. but one) her bleeding and pain extended over three consecutive days. Since there was no proper birth though she had no relief from her pain between the time of the discharge and the miscarriage. V. Glos. Sc. she must count seven days and bring the sacrifice prescribed for a zabah before she can attain cleanness. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |