Niddah 14a — the Talmud in English

Abaye said:

Exact page location")

camel riders,

whose limbs become heated through their riding and who become impure through the emission of semen—

are forbidden to eat teruma,

lest semen issue from them while riding and they not notice it.

It was also taught likewise: camel riders—

all of them

are wicked! [

because they emit semen in vain through their riding].

The sailors—

all of them are righteous! [

because the danger of the journey brings their hearts close to their Father in Heaven].

The donkey drivers—

some of them are wicked, and some of them are righteous.

And as will be explained—

some say: this

is when there is a saddle,

the righteous are those who ride upon a saddle made of wood and do not become heated.

This is when there is no saddle;

the wicked ride without a saddle and become heated by the flesh of the donkey.

And some say: this

is when they ride in the spreading posture,

riding in such a manner that one thigh is extended to this side and the other thigh to that side, and their limbs become heated.

This is when they do not ride in the spreading posture,

when they sit upon the donkey with both legs inclined toward only one side, like a woman’s riding, in which case they do not become heated.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi cursed

[he would curse]

whoever lies on his back [

one who lies face upward, on his back].

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so? For Rav Yosef said:

one who lies

on his back may not recite the recitation of Shema!

And it follows that only

the recitation of Shema may he not recite,

because this is not a respectful manner,

but lying [

merely lying]

is properly

permitted?!

And it answers:

With regard to lying [

the manner of merely lying]—

when he inclines,

if he inclines himself slightly to the side,

it is properly permitted,

because then the above concerns do not apply. But

with regard to reciting Shema,

even

when he inclines it is forbidden,

for as long as he is lying on his back, even if he is inclined to his side, this is not a respectful manner.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But Rabbi Yohanan inclined,

he was lying while inclined to the side,

and recited the recitation of Shema!?

And it answers:

Rabbi Yohanan is different, for he was broad-bodied [

and it was difficult for him to turn completely onto his side].

Mishna:

The practice of the daughters of Israel

who engage in matters of purity is that they should

use two witnesses,

in order to examine themselves with them after intercourse:

One witness

one—

for him,

for the husband, who wipes himself after intercourse and examines it afterward.

And

one witness

one—

for her. And the modest women 36 ,

who engage in matters of purity and are stringent with themselves—

prepare

for themselves a witness

a third one,

in order

to arrange

the house,

as they examine themselves also before intercourse.

Thus far the laws of examination have been explained. From here onward, the laws connected with the finding of blood are explained.

a.

If

blood

is found

on the witness

belonging to him,

whether he wiped himself immediately after intercourse or after some time—

both are impure,

both the husband and the woman certainly, and they render impure the pure things with which they come into contact from the time of intercourse until seven days, according to the law of a menstruant woman and one who has intercourse with a menstruant woman. Since he found the blood on his witness, it is certain to us that the blood was already present at the time of intercourse, and the husband had intercourse with a menstruant woman; therefore they

are liable

for a sin-offering,

for the unwitting intercourse with a menstruant woman.

b.

If

the blood

is found

on the witness

belonging to her—

there is room for doubt lest the blood issued after intercourse, because the wiping that the woman herself performs after intercourse does not establish when the blood issued. Therefore, three periods of time for finding blood were explained in the Mishna, and their laws differ.

immediately [

“immediately” in the Greek language].

For if immediately after intercourse she wiped herself with a sheet and found blood upon it, the blood found during this short period is considered as though it were certainly blood present at the time of intercourse. Therefore—

both are impure,

both certainly with seven-day impurity [she—with the impurity of a menstruant woman, and he—with the impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruant woman].

And they are liable

for a

sin-offering.

c.

the blood is found

on the witness

belonging to her

through her wiping herself

after some time

after she wiped herself at once [and the duration of this period will be explained below in the Mishna]—

after the period of “immediately” [and the duration of this period will be explained below in the Mishna]—

had passed since “immediately” [and the duration of this period will be explained later in the Mishna]—

both are impure

retroactively, from the time of intercourse,

as a matter of doubt. 40 .

And if they came into contact with teruma, it is suspended because of the doubt, and it is not burned.

and both are exempt

both of them

from the offering,

since they do not need to bring a sin-offering, because perhaps the blood emerged only after intercourse [and with regard to their liability for a provisional guilt-offering, it will be explained in the Gemara].

And the Mishna explains:

Which is it,

what is the duration of the second period, called "

after the time"—

from when the short first period [called otiyom] has ended until the period of time passes

necessary for her to descend from the bed and wash her face

below.

4.

And afterward

the third period begins, called "after after," at which point both of them do not impart retroactive impurity from the time of intercourse, even as a matter of uncertainty.

Rather, the status of this woman returns to being like that of any woman who sees blood, who

imparts impurity

retroactively

from twenty-four hours earlier

with rabbinic impurity alone [and this impurity was decreed only with regard to sacred food and ordinary food prepared in purity for sacred food].

And

so too she

does not render the man who had intercourse with her impure

through that intercourse, as one who has intercourse with a menstruant, who is impure for seven days; rather, he is impure by rabbinic law for one day בלבד, because of the decree of twenty-four hours earlier. And this decree was not imposed upon the man who had intercourse with her so that he would become impure with seven-day impurity like one who has intercourse with a menstruant; rather, it was imposed upon him that he become impure for only one day, like one who touches a menstruant.

Rabbi Akiva says: She also renders the man who had intercourse with her impure

retroactively, from twenty-four hours earlier, with seven-day impurity, according to the law of one who has intercourse with a menstruant! For Rabbi Akiva follows his own position, that they decreed concerning a woman who sees blood that she render the man who had intercourse with her impure retroactively, from twenty-four hours earlier, according to the law of one who has intercourse with a menstruant, who is impure for seven days.

And the Sages agree with Rabbi Akiva—

with regard to a woman who sees a stain, that she renders the man who had intercourse with her impure!

[And the Gemara disputes whether what the Sages agree with Rabbi Akiva concerning a stain is that she renders him retroactively impure, until the time the garment is washed [since a stain is more stringent than the appearance of blood], or whether she renders the man who had intercourse with her impure only from that point onward. There is a novelty in the fact that they decreed even concerning the man who had intercourse with her, since the impurity of stains is only a rabbinic decree, and it could have been said that they were not stringent enough to render him impure as well.]

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that if the husband found the blood on his cloth, or when it was found on hers immediately after intercourse, both of them are certainly impure and bring a sin-offering.

And the Gemara asks:

But let us be concerned that perhaps it is the blood of a louse

[a louse]

that it is,

the blood found on the cloth and not from the woman , and why do they certainly render teruma impure and burn it, and obligate a sin-offering rather than a provisional guilt-offering as is the law in a case of uncertainty?

And it answers:

Rabbi Zeira said: That place

of a woman

is checked with regard to a louse,

for a louse is not found there.

And some say:

Rabbi Zeira said: That place

is constricted with regard to a louse,

for it is impossible for a louse to enter there, although at times it is found nearby.

And the Gemara explains:

What difference is there between them? There is a difference between them where there was found

on the examination cloth , at some distance from the blood,

a crushed louse

[crushed].

According to the wording that you said

that place

is checked—

this

a louse certainly

came from elsewhere

onto the cloth, and the blood is not from the louse, since it is distant from it. Rather, it certainly came from the woman’s body.

According to the wording that you said

that place

is constricted—

there is nevertheless room for uncertainty that perhaps a louse was near that place

and perhaps the member

pushed it and brought it into that place , and

crushed it

[crushed it] there, and the blood is from the louse. Therefore, they are impure only as a matter of uncertainty and are exempt from an offering.

It was stated: She examined herself

with a cloth checked for her

that was clean,

and pressed it against her thigh,

for after the examination she did not inspect the cloth, but pressed it against her thigh.

And on the next day she found upon it,

on her thigh,

blood,

and now she does not know whether this blood had been on the examination cloth and from there was pressed onto her thigh, in which case she is impure, or perhaps it came to the thigh from another place and she is pure.

Rav said:

She is—

a menstruant impure woman!

For we have no uncertainty at all that it may be one and the same blood: since she examined herself with a checked cloth, the blood certainly emerged from her body onto the examination cloth, and from there was pressed onto her thigh.

Rav Shimi bar Hiyya said to Rav—

But “she is concerned”

you told us,

and she is not certainly impure! [And the question remained unanswered. For Rav knew that in the past he had said “she is concerned,” but afterward he retracted this and declared her certainly impure—the Ritva.]

It was likewise stated: Samuel said—

she examined herself with a cloth checked for her, pressed it against her thigh, and on the next day found blood upon it—

she is a menstruant impure woman! And so they instruct in the house of study,

that in such a case

she is impure

a menstruant!

It was stated: She examined herself with a cloth not checked

for her,

which may have had blood on it before the examination; but, on the other hand, she did not press it against her thigh. Rather—

and she placed it in a box

for safekeeping until morning, so that she could examine it in daylight.

And on the next day

in the morning

she found blood upon it,

and now the uncertainty is whether this blood came from the examination or had previously been on the cloth.

Rav Yosef said: All the days of Rabbi Hiyya he declared impure

in such a case,

and in his old age—

he declared pure!

It was asked of them: What did he say

Rav Yosef when he described the conduct of Rabbi Hiyya?

Is it that—

all his days he declared impure “on account of niddah,”

which is certain impurity,

and in his old age he declared pure “on account of niddah,” and declared impure “on account of

a stain,”

which is doubtful impurity.

Or perhaps: all his days he declared impure “on account of a stain”

with doubtful impurity,

and in his old age he declared pure—and nothing at all?! [unclear: the source text appears corrupted]

Come and hear: For it was taught in a beraita: If she examined herself with a cloth that had not been checked by her, and placed it in a box, and on the following day

she found blood on it—

Rabbi says—

she is impure

with certainty,

on account of niddah! And Rabbi Hiyya says—

she is impure

doubtfully,

on account of a stain!