|  |  | Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah ### Folio 57a GEMARA. 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 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files In not burying their miscarriages (v. our Mishnah.). Sc. his ancestral grave-yard (Sifri). Deut. XIX, 14. Sc. a normal child. A miscarriage. How can they be relied upon? Lev. XIX, 14, which is homiletically applied to the supply of misleading information which leads the unwary into sin. As the Samaritans do not mind misleading in such matters, how could their evidence on the cleanness or uncleanness of a place be acted upon? The law that Samaritans may be relied upon when they declare 'WE DID NOT BURY THEM'. Had there been a grave in that place the priest would not have been there. So that he has nothing to lose by remaining in the unclean place. He would not have held the terumah there if the place had been unclean. A certain proof that the terumah was clean. Unclean terumah is forbidden to a clean, and much more so to an unclean priest. Cf. prev. n. A law that is self-evident. Sc. of the embryo; so that a mature one might be mistaken by them for an abortion and, in consequence, they would declare a place to be free from graves when in fact it is not clean. Because they are well capable of distinguishing between an abortion and a normal child. Cf. supra p. 397, nn. 15f mut. mut. In the case of a firstling both these are forbidden and the Samaritan would not have ventured to shear it or to work with it. Which in the case of small cattle is an indication of a birth that exempts the next from the restrictions of a firstling (cf. Bek. 21b); sc. they might mistake an ordinary discharge for one of abortion and thus erroneously regard the next birth as free from the restrictions of a firstling. The marking of graves. Which Samaritans usually disregard. Ezek. XXXIX, 15. Oh. VIII, 2. If one of the branches overshadowed a grave, uncleanness is conveyed only to a person under it but not to one under any of the other branches; but when the exact spot of the grave is unknown all the area overshadowed by the foliage is on account of the doubt subject to the same restriction. A Samaritan who is lax in the observance of uncleanness in a doubtful case, is not to be relied upon when he states that the grave was overshadowed by a particular branch or branches and that the others did not overshadow it. Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. Who desires to remain clean while making his way through a beth peras. Since no flesh of the corpse need be expected, while the bones which the plough crushed (v. infra) to fractions convey uncleanness (if they are no smaller than a barley-grain) only by means of touch or carriage. A grave area, v. Hag., Sonc. ed., p. 160, n. 1. By thus making sure that his feet would touch no bone. Because the bones are crushed and scattered by the constant treading and no bone of the prescribed minimum bulk (cf. prev. n. but one) remains. Peras is derived from a root meaning 'to crush' the bones being crushed by the plough. Aliter: 'Peras' means a 'half', the extent of the unclean area being half a furrow in each direction from the grave. Aliter: 'Peras' is derived from a root meaning 'to extend', the uncleanness being extended to an area larger than that of the grave. Which means a hundred times a hundred cubits. The Samaritans. About a beth ha-peras. And which also, like a field in which a grave was ploughed, is subject to the uncleanness of a beth ha-peras (cf. M.K. 5b). Sc. in any particular spot in the field. Which is subject to Pentateuchal uncleanness which Samaritans observe. As his evidence amounts to an assertion that no Pentateuchal uncleanness is involved in that particular place he may well be relied upon. How then is this to be reconciled with our Mishnah? Cf. supra p. 399, n. 2. Under any particular branch. The cited Baraitha according to which a Samaritan is relied upon. Which may well be taken as reliable evidence that there was no grave there. Our Mishnah, however, refers to a case where the Samaritan walks only across a part of the field. As he omits the other part there is reason to suspect that he knows it to contain a grave and that his evidence on the doubtful part of the field is intended to mislead Israelites so that they become subject to an uncleanness in which he himself does not believe. Hence the ruling of our Mishnah. That the Samaritan walked throughout the suspected area. A rule that is self evident. As a grave was known to have been in the field and the Samaritan nevertheless walked through all its area, it must be obvious that he knew that the corpse had been removed. From the field; and that he assumed the grave to be located within that strip. As the rest of the field is still a suspected area the doubtful uncleanness of which Samaritans disregard his evidence aught not to be relied upon. Since he walked across its four sides. The possibility of a narrow strip jutting out not being taken into consideration. Which are a Rabbinical institution. Samaritans who reject it are not trusted when they state where the limit is. Yen nesek, wine touched by an idolater and suspected of having been dedicated by him to idolatry. Samaritans do not regard such wine as forbidden and their evidence in such a case cannot, therefore, be trusted. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Niddah 57b ## CHAPTER 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 - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Lit., 'flesh'. Since it may be attributed to menstruation. The following illustrates the previous general rule. The reason follows infra in the Gemara. Lit., 'and on the sides from here and from here'. The place of the stain. Sc. even if it is on a part which when worn cannot reach as low as the pudenda. And the upper part then comes in contact with the lower parts of the body. That she is UNCLEAN WHEREVER THE STAIN IS FOUND. [G] a square sheet used as a cloak and as a bed cover. When used as a cover the upper part might well turn about (cf. prev. n. but one). Lit., 'floor of the world'. Lev. XV, 19. The discharge. Lit. 'that'. Sc. while the blood is still within her body. Supra 21b q.v. nn. How then can Samuel's deduction be made from the same expression? That only the latter deduction is to be made. The discharge. Sc. if blood is found within any of these abortions, but not on the woman's person, she remains clean (supra 21b). Making water. Since owing to the narrowness of the passage occasioned by her standing position, her urine may have returned to the interior of her womb whence it gathered up some menstrual blood. Infra 59b, supra 14a, the blood being attributed to a wound in the bladder. In which R. Meir's rule applies. An objection against Samuel. As to the reason why she remains clean. Lit., source'. A position which does not block the passage. The blood mark. Because it cannot be the result of the test which would produce an elongated patch. An objection against Samuel. In the course of the test. This being the shape that a blood mark would assume on a testing rag. And, therefore, likely to be the result of some wound. Because it cannot be the result of the test which would produce an elongated patch. Mishnah supra 14a q.v. notes. Euphemism. Lit., 'thou art found'. This is explained infra. V. Glos. Cf. Rashi and Tosaf. for different illustrations of this uncleanness. Lit., 'unclean'. The stain. Lit., 'from the world'. An objection against Samuel. An objection against Samuel. Since it is possible that she was so much pre-occupied at the time of the discharge that she was unconscious of her sensation. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |