Niddah 14a (יד.) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said:

Camel riders,

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

are forbidden to eat teruma,

lest semen have been emitted from them while riding and they did not notice it.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: Camel riders—

all of them

are wicked! [

because they emit semen in vain through their riding].

Sailors—

all of them are righteous! [

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

Donkey drivers—

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

And as will be explained:

Some say: This

is when they use a saddle,

the righteous ones being those who ride on a wooden saddle and do not become heated.

This is when they do not use a saddle,

the wicked ones riding without a saddle and becoming heated by the donkey’s flesh.

And some say: This

is when they ride in the mitartin position,

riding with one thigh extended to one side and the other thigh to the other side, thereby heating their limbs.

This is when they do not ride in the mitartin position,

sitting on the donkey with both legs extended to only one side, like a woman’s manner of riding, in which case they do not become heated.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi cursed

was cursing

anyone who lies aparkid [

one who lies on his back].

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so? But 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 posture;

but as for lying [

merely lying down]

it is entirely

proper?!

The Gemara answers:

With regard to lying, [

the posture of merely lying down]—

when he inclines,

if he tilts himself slightly to the side,

it is entirely proper,

because then the concerns mentioned above do not apply. However,

with regard to reciting Shema,

even

when he inclines it is forbidden,

because as long as he is lying on his back, even if he is tilted to the side, this is not a respectful posture.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But Rabbi Yohanan would incline,

he would lie while tilted to the side,

and recite the recitation of Shema!

The Gemara answers:

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

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

Mishna:

The practice of Jewish women

who engage in matters of ritual purity is that they

use two cloths,

in order to examine themselves with them after intercourse:

One cloth

is for

him,

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

And

one cloth

is for

her. And the modest women 36 ,

who engage in matters of ritual purity and are stringent with themselves,

prepare

for themselves a

third cloth,

in order

to prepare

the household,

as they examine themselves also before intercourse.

The laws of examination have been explained up to this point. From here onward, the halakhot connected with the discovery of blood are explained.

a.

If

blood

is found on

the cloth

belonging to him,

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

both are impure,

the husband and the woman certainly, and they render impure any ritually pure items they touch from the time of intercourse until seven days, according to the law of a menstruating woman and one who engages in intercourse with her. Since he found the blood on his cloth, it is certain to us that the blood was already present at the time of intercourse, and the husband had intercourse with a menstruating woman. Therefore, they

are liable

to bring a

sin-offering for unwitting intercourse with a menstruating woman.

b.

If

the blood

is found on

the cloth

belonging to her—

there is room for uncertainty that the blood emerged after intercourse, because the wiping that the woman herself performs after intercourse does not establish when the blood emerged. Accordingly, the Mishna explains three time periods for the discovery of blood, each with different laws.

immediately

[“immediately” in Greek].

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

both are impure

with certainty, with seven-day impurity [she—with the impurity of a menstruating woman, and he—with the impurity of one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman].

And they are liable

to bring a

sin-offering.

c.

the blood is found

on

the

cloth

belonging to her

when she wiped herself

after some time

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 uncertainty 40 .

If they touched teruma, it is suspended because of the uncertainty, but it is not burned.

and both are exempt

from bringing

a sacrifice,

as they do not need to bring a sin-offering, because perhaps the blood emerged only after intercourse [and with regard to their obligation to bring a provisional guilt-offering, the Gemara will explain this].

And the Mishna explains:

Which is this,

what is the duration of the second period, called

“after the time”—

from when the first short period, called otiyum, has ended until the passage of the amount of time

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

below.

d.

And afterward

the third period begins, called “after after,” during which neither of them retroactively contracts impurity from the time of intercourse, not even as a matter of doubt.

Rather, the status of this woman reverts to that of any woman who sees blood, who

renders impure

retroactively

from one time of day to another

with only rabbinic impurity [and this decree was instituted only with regard to sacrificial food and non-sacred food prepared in a state of purity appropriate for sacrificial food].

And

so

she does not render impure the man who had intercourse with her

during that intercourse, as would one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, who is impure for seven days. Rather, he is impure by rabbinic decree for one day only, on account of the decree concerning retroactive impurity from one time of day to another. This decree did not impose upon the man the seven-day impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman; rather, it decreed that he be impure for one day only, like one who touches a menstruating woman.

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

retroactively, from one time of day to another, with seven-day impurity, as is the law of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman. For Rabbi Akiva follows his own reasoning, that they decreed concerning a woman who sees blood that she renders the man who had intercourse with her impure retroactively, from one time of day to another, like one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, who is impure for seven days.

And the Sages concede to Rabbi Akiva—

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

The Gemara will discuss whether the Sages’ concession to Rabbi Akiva with regard to a stain means that she renders him retroactively impure, until the time the garment is laundered [since a stain is more stringent than the sighting of blood], or whether she renders the man who had intercourse with her impure only from that point onward. There is a novelty here in the fact that they decreed even impurity upon the man who had intercourse with her, since the impurity of stains itself is only a rabbinic decree, and one might have said that they were not stringent enough to render him impure as well.

Gemara:

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

And the Gemara asks:

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

[a blood-sucking insect]

that 43 ,

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

And it answers:

Rabbi Zeira said: The woman’s internal place

of a woman

is checked with regard to lice,

as lice are not commonly found there.

Some say:

Rabbi Zeira said: The woman’s internal place

is inaccessible to lice,

as a louse cannot enter there, although it is sometimes found nearby.

The Gemara explains:

What is the practical difference between them? The practical difference between them is when there was found

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

a crushed louse

[one that had been squashed].

According to the version that you said

that the internal place

is checked—

then

the 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 version that you said

that the internal place

is inaccessible—there is still room to suspect that a louse was near that place,

there is still room to suspect that a louse was near the area

and perhaps the organ

pushed it and brought it into that place , and

crushed it

[squashed it] there, and the blood is from the louse. Therefore, they are impure only as a matter of doubt and are exempt from bringing a sacrifice.

It was stated: If she examined herself

with a cloth checked by her

that was clean,

and pressed it against her thigh,

meaning that after the examination she did not inspect the cloth but pressed it against her thigh.

And the next day she found on it,

on her thigh,

blood,

and now she does not know whether this blood had been on the examining cloth and was transferred from it to her thigh, in which case she is impure, or whether it came to the thigh from another source, in which case she is pure.

Rav said:

She is

a menstruating woman who is impure!

We do not entertain any uncertainty that it may be one and the same blood. Since she examined herself with a checked cloth, it is certain that the blood emerged from her body onto the examining cloth, and from there it was transferred to her thigh.

Rav Shimi bar Hiyya said to Rav—

But “she is concerned”

you told us,

and she is not certainly impure! [The question remained unanswered. Rav knew that he had previously said “she is concerned,” but subsequently retracted that ruling and declared her certainly impure—Ritva.]

It was also stated: Shmuel said—

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

she is a menstruating woman who is impure! And this is the ruling taught in the house of study:

in such a case she is

impure

as a menstruating woman!

It was stated: If she examined herself with a cloth that was not checked

by her,

meaning that it might have contained blood before the examination; but, on the other hand, she did not press it against her thigh. Rather—

she placed it in a box

to preserve it until morning, when she could examine it in daylight.

And the next day

in the morning

she found blood on it,

and now the uncertainty is whether this blood resulted from the examination or had been on the cloth beforehand?

Rav Yosef said: Throughout all of Rabbi Hiyya’s life, he deemed [such a case] impure

in a case such as this,

and in his old age—

he declared it pure!

The question was raised: What was he saying

when Rav Yosef described Rabbi Hiyya’s practice?

Was it that

throughout all his life he deemed it impure “on account of niddah”

which is definite impurity,

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

a ketem”

which is uncertain impurity?

Or perhaps: throughout all his life he deemed it impure “on account of a ketem”

with uncertain impurity,

and in his old age he declared nothing impure?!

Come and hear: as it was taught in a beraita: If she examined herself with an unverified cloth, placed it in a box, and on the following day

found blood on it—

Rabbi says—

she is impure

with certainty

on account of niddah! And Rabbi Hiyya says—

she is impure

by uncertainty

on account of a ketem!