|  |  | Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah ### Folio 5a while the Baraitha1 is in agreement with both.2 But why should not the final assumption be3 reversed?4 — As it is possible to adopt an explanation that leads to a relaxation of the law5 and one that leads to a restriction of it6 we adopt the one that leads to the restriction. Now it was just taught,7 'For were she to observe a flow when it is not her set time she would be unclean retrospectively for a period of twenty-four hours' — [If this8 is] the reason9 [it follows] that only in the case of a woman who has a settled period do the Rabbis draw a distinction between her stain and her observation10 [of a flow],11 but in the case of the other women12 concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow13 [the extent of the uncleanness of] their stains is like that of their observation of a flow.14 Now whose view is this? — It is that of R. Hanina b. Antigonus; for Rab Judah citing Samuel who had it from R. Hanina b. Antigonus stated, In the case of all women their stains cause uncleanness retrospectively but in that of the women12 concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow [the extent of the uncleanness of] their stains is like that of their observation of a flow,14 the exception being a child who has not yet attained the age of the suffering of a flow of whom, though her sheets are soiled with blood,15 no notice is to be taken.16 But does R. Hanina at all uphold17 the law of the uncleanness of a stain?18 Was it not taught: In the case of all women their stains are unclean and also in the case of the women concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their period of uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow their stains are unclean; while R. Hanina b. Antigonus ruled, The women concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow are not subject to the law of uncleanness of the stain? Now does not this mean that they are not subject at all to the law of uncleanness of the stain?19 — No, it means that they are not subject to the law of the uncleanness of the stain retrospectively but they are well subject to it from now20 onwards. Does this21 then imply that the first Tanna22 is of the opinion that their uncleanness is even retrospective? — Yes; it23 being the view of R. Meir who restricts the law in respect of stains. For it was taught: In the case of all women their stains are unclean retrospectively and also in the case of the women concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their period of uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow their stains are unclean retrospectively; so R. Meir. R. Hanina b. Antigonus ruled, In the case of the women concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their period of uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow [the uncleanness of] their stains is like that of their observation [of their flow]; and a child who has attained the age of suffering a flow is subject to the law of the uncleanness of the stain while one who has not attained that age is not subject to the uncleanness of a stain, and when does she attain the age of suffering a flow? When she attains her maidenhood.24 AND IF A WOMAN USES TESTING-RAGS WHEN SHE HAS MARITAL INTERCOURSE etc. Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: A testing-rag used before25 marital intercourse does not reduce [the doubtful period26 of retrospective uncleanness] as an examination. What is the reason? — R. Kattina replied: Because the woman is in a hurry to do her marital duty.27 But what matters it even if she is in a hurry to do her marital duty? — Since she is in a hurry to do it she does not insert the testing-rag into depressions and folds.28 We learnt: IF A WOMAN USES TESTING-RAGS WHEN SHE HAS MARITAL INTERCOURSE, THIS IS INDEED LIKE AN EXAMINATION. Does not this mean that she uses one before intercourse and one after it?29 — No, the one as well as the other is used after intercourse but30 one is for the man31 and the other is for her; as we learnt: It is the custom of the daughters of Israel when having marital intercourse to use two testing-rags, one for the man and the other for herself.32 What a comparison!33 If you concede that one is used before intercourse and the other after it one can well understand the necessity for the ruling.34 As it might have been presumed that on account of her being in a hurry to do her marital duty she does not properly perform her test we were informed that THIS IS INDEED LIKE AN EXAMINATION. If you maintain, however, that the one testing-rag as well as the other is used after marital intercourse, is not the ruling obvious?35 — It might have been presumed [that the test should be ineffective]36 on account of the possibility of the appearance of a drop of blood of the size of a mustard seed37 which semen might cover up,38 hence we were informed [that such a remote possibility need not be considered]. And if you prefer I might reply: The Rabbis required a woman to perform two tests, one before intercourse and one after it,39 and in stating 'THIS IS INDEED LIKE AN EXAMINATION' the reference is to the one after the intercourse. But was it not stated, IF A WOMAN USES etc.?40 — Read: And a woman shall use.41 LESSENS EITHER THE PERIOD OF THE PAST TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. Now that you stated that it42 lessens THE PERIOD OF THE PAST TWENTY-FOUR HOURS43 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Just cited, dealing with the bloodstain. Cf. supra n. 3. Lit., 'and let him make it stand'. As has been suggested at first, that our Mishnah represents the view of the Rabbis as well as that of R. Dosa while the Baraitha represents only that of the Rabbis. As has been previously suggested: That a flow at the set time causes no retrospective uncleanness in accordance with the general opinion, while one occurring at any other time is subject to retrospective uncleanness only in accordance with the view of the Rabbis. The one finally adopted: That a flow at the set time causes retrospective uncleanness according to the Rabbis at least, while one at any other time causes retrospective uncleanness even according to R. Dosa. In the Baraitha supra 4b ad fin. 'For were she to observe etc.'. Why a stain causes retrospective uncleanness, sc. though a stain cannot be subject to greater restrictions than a discharge it causes uncleanness retrospectively, since a flow that occurred at any time other than the set time also causes retrospective uncleanness. At the set time. Sc. while in the latter case the uncleanness is not retrospective in the former, for the reason stated (cf. prev. n.) it is. The four classes, for instance, mentioned supra 4b and infra 7a. So that in their case the law of retrospective uncleanness never applies. Sc. both are not retrospective. It being unknown whether it came from her body or from elsewhere. It being assumed, though the assumption might be most unlikely, that she passed through a butcher's market and soiled her sheets there. In no case is it assumed that the blood came from her own body because the law of uncleanness, as far as stains are concerned, is merely Rabbinical, and in the case of a minor no Rabbinical measure was enacted. In the case of the four classes of women mentioned. Even after it had been discovered. How then could it be said supra that R. Hanina does uphold the law of the uncleanness of the stain? The time of discovery. The explanation according to which R. Hanina agrees with the first Tanna as regards the uncleanness of stains from the time they are discovered onwards, and that he only differs from him in rejecting their retrospective uncleanness. Whose opinion is stated in the first clause of the Baraitha cited. The first clause (cf. prev. n.). The age when she assumes the status of na'arah (v. Glos.), i.e., the age when she grows two pubic hairs or (she has no pubic hairs) when she is twelve years and one day old. I.e., only before but not after (cf. relevant note on our Mishnah). Either that of the twenty-four hours or the one between the previous and the last examination. Lit., 'she is in a state of excitement about her house'. The examination, therefore, is not a proper one. Which shows that the test before intercourse, despite R. Kattina's argument, is deemed to be a proper one. In reply to the objection, why two rags. For wiping. Infra 14a. Lit., 'that, what'. In our Mishnah, that the test is effective. And why should an obvious ruling be enunciated? Even though it took place after intercourse. That is sufficient to cause uncleanness. Thus rendering the test useless. Hence the mention of RAGS in the plural. Emphasis on IF which implies that there is no obligation. How then could it be maintained that 'the Rabbis required her etc.'? Sc. the clause is to be divided into two separate rulings, (a) that a woman shall use two testing-rags, one before intercourse and the other after it and (b) the second test is indeed like an examination. The testing-rag examination. Though it is a comparatively long period extending as it does to the previous day. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Niddah 5b was it also necessary to state that it lessens THE PERIOD FROM THE PREVIOUS EXAMINATION TO THE LAST EXAMINATION?1 — As it might have been presumed that only in the case of the twenty-four hours' period did the Rabbis2 take into consideration the possible loss of clean things3 but not in that of the period from the previous examination to the last examination,4 we were informed [that both periods are equally reduced]. HOW [IS ONE TO UNDERSTAND THE RULING THAT] 'IT SUFFICES [TO RECKON HER PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME SHE DISCOVERS THE FLOW' etc. What need was there5 for stating, IF SHE WAS SITTING ON A BED AND WAS OCCUPIED WITH RITUALLY CLEAN OBJECTS, when it should rather have been stated,6 IF SHE WAS OCCUPIED7 WITH RITUALLY CLEAN OBJECTS AND HAVING LEFT THEM, OBSERVED A FLOW? — It is this that we were informed:8 The reason [why the bed is regarded as clean is] because [in the case of that woman]9 it suffices [for her to reckon] her [period of uncleanness from the] time [of her discovery of the flow] but10 [where the uncleanness extends backwards over] twenty-four hours the bed also is regarded as unclean.11 This provides support for Ze'iri, for Ze'iri ruled: [A woman12 during] the twenty-four hours preceding her discovery of a menstrual flow causes bed and seat13 to convey uncleanness to a man who in turn conveys it to his clothes.14 But consider: This bed is a thing that has no sense to answer questions,15 and is not doubtful uncleanness16 in the case of an object that has no sense to answer questions regarded as clean?17 Ze'iri explained: [This18 refers to a case] where her friends were carrying her in the bed so that the latter may be regarded as the hand of her friends.19 Now, however, that R. Johanan ruled that in the case of doubtful uncleanness conveyed through a human agency20 the object in doubt,21 though lying on the ground, is deemed to be capable of answering questions as if it had been a human being who has the sense to answer questions22 [this23 holds good] even though her friends were not carrying her in the bed. [Reverting to] the [above] text, 'R. Johanan ruled: In the case of doubtful uncleanness conveyed through a human agency the object in doubt, though lying on the ground, is deemed to be capable of answering questions as if it had been a human being who has the sense to answer questions'.24 An objection was raised: If a man was wrapping himself in his cloak while clean or unclean objects were at his side25 or above his head and it is doubtful whether there was contact26 or not, they27 are deemed to be clean,28 but if it was impossible [for the cloak and the other objects] not to have come in contact they29 are regarded as unclean. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: The man is told, 'Do it again'30 and he does it again.31 They,32 however, said to him: No repetition [test33 is recognized] in questions of cleanness.34 Now why [should they35 be clean]36 seeing that this is a case of uncleanness that is conveyed through a human agency?37 — This is beside the point,38 for R. Hoshaia learnt: In a private domain [such a case of] doubtful uncleanness39 is regarded as unclean, and in a public domain it is regarded as clean.40 [Reverting to] the [above] text, 'Ze'iri ruled: [A woman during] the twenty-four hours preceding her discovery of a menstrual flow causes bed and seat to convey uncleanness to a man who in turn conveys it to his clothes'.41 But, surely, this cannot be correct.42 For did not Abimi from Be Hozai43 when he came bring with him44 a Baraitha which stated, 'During the twenty-four hours preceding the discovery of her menstrual flow a woman's bed and seat are [as unclean] as the object she touches', which means, does it not, that as an object she touches does not convey uncleanness to a human being45 so also does not her bed convey uncleanness to a human being?46 — Raba retorted: And do you understand this ruling47 seeing that it [may be refuted by an inference] a minori ad majus: If an earthen vessel that was covered with a tight fitting lid, which is protected from uncleanness in a corpse's tent,48 is yet not so protected [from the uncleanness] of the twenty-four hours preceding the discovery of a menstrual flow,49 is it not logical that the beds and seats [of a menstruant], which are not protected from uncleanness in a corpse's tent, should not be protected from the uncleanness of the twenty-four hours preceding the discovery of a menstrual flow?50 — But did not Abimi of Be Hozai quote a Baraitha?51 — Read:52 A woman's bed and seat53 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Which is a much shorter one (cf. prev. n.) being confined to the limits of the same day. By enacting that the test is effective and reduces it. Which the woman may have handled during this comparatively long time. A shorter period (cf. supra n. 10) during which not many things could have been handled and a much lesser loss is consequently involved. Lit., 'wherefore to me'. Lit., 'let him teach'. Omitting the apparently superfluous 'WAS SITTING ON A BED'. By the additional words (cf. prev. n.). Who has a settled period. In the case of a woman whose periods were not regular. As the bed of a confirmed menstruant (cf. Lev. XV, 21) which conveys uncleanness to the man that touches it as well as to the clothes he wears though the latter did not come in direct contact with it. Cf. prev. n. but one. On which she lay or sat. Cf. supra n. 6. Lit., 'to be asked'. Such as that caused by the woman in question during the twenty-four hours preceding the time she observed the flow. Of course it is, since the law of treating doubtful uncleanness as unclean is deduced from that of the sotah (v. Glos.) who is able to answer questions. The ruling in our Mishnah, which does regard (by implication) the bed on which the woman sat as unclean. The hand, being part of a human being who is well able to answer questions, is justly compared to the sotah whose doubtful uncleanness is regarded as unclean. It is for a similar reason (that things handled by a human being are regarded as his hand), it may be added, that the things the woman handled when sitting on the bed are regarded as unclean even where the bed was resting on the ground, and this explains why the objection supra was raised in connection with the bed and not in connection with the things the woman has handled. As in that of the bed and the menstruant during the twenty-four hours preceding the observation of the flow or in that of a dead creeping thing that was carried by a man and a doubt arose as to whether it came in contact with a certain clean object. Since the uncleanness, if any, was brought to it by a human agency. And in a private domain is regarded as unclean. Only when the inanimate object in doubt was near an unclean one that was also inanimate, and 'no human agency was involved, is it regarded as clean. V. p. 28, n. 14. Supra q.v. notes. He being either unclean (in the former case) or clean (in the latter one). Between the cloak and the objects in its vicinity. If there was contact, the cloak that (in the former case) contracted uncleanness from its wearer would convey uncleanness to the clean objects, or the unclean objects (in the latter case) would convey uncleanness to the cloak. The objects in the vicinity (in the former case) and the cloak (in the latter case). Even, it is now assumed, in a private domain, because the cloak as well as the objects in its vicinity are incapable of answering questions. The objects in the vicinity (in the former case) and the cloak (in the latter case). Sc. to wrap himself again in his cloak in the same place and position in which he did it first. In this manner it is ascertained whether the cloak and the other objects have or have not come in contact. The Rabbis who disagreed with him. Since it may not exactly reproduce the former conditions. Tosef. Toh. IV which, however, has the following variation: 'R. Dosa ruled, He is told, "Do it again"… They, however, said to him, No repetition … R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled, He sometimes does it again'. V. p. 29, n. 10. According to the first Tanna. Which according to R. Johanan is unclean. Lit., 'outside of that'. One involving conveyance through a human agency. No objection, therefore, may be raised from the Tosef. cited which may be explained to refer to a case in a public domain. Supra q.v. notes. Lit., 'I am not'. The Khuzistan. Lit., 'came and brought'. Only a primary uncleanness can do that. An object touched by a menstruant assumes only the status of a first grade of uncleanness which conveys uncleanness to objects but not to a human being. The answer apparently being in the affirmative, the difficulty arises: How could Ze'iri maintain that the woman causes bed and seat to convey uncleanness to a man who in turn etc.'? Which seems to reduce the uncleanness of the bed and seat of the menstruant in question to a lower degree than that of earthenware. Only when uncovered does it contract uncleanness (cf. Num. XIX, 15). If it was touched by the woman during the twenty-four hours (cf. infra 6a) As the soundness of this argument cannot be questioned Abimi's ruling is obviously untenable and may well be disregarded. Which is an authoritative utterance. The ruling in the Baraitha. During the twenty-four hours preceding her discovery of a menstrual flow. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |