Niddah 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi:

Rabbi,

do you not agree that it must be the size of a gris plus something more

in order to render her impure?

He said to him:

Rabbi:

Indeed! [Yes, I affirm your statement.]

Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him:

Rabbi:

If so,

since you too agree that she becomes impure only if she sees blood measuring a “stain,” namely, the size of a gris plus something more [and since, when it is less than this amount, they did not attribute it to a stain, but rather attributed it to the blood of a louse],

even

you have made it a stain,

since according to your view as well she should become impure only as a matter of uncertainty. For if her impurity is certain, it is because we say that the blood certainly came from the uterus; and if so, she should become impure even when it is less than the size of a gris!

Rabbi held

that she is certainly impure, but

we require blood of the measure

blood measuring

“a gris plus something more”

to exclude the blood of a louse,

so that there will be no uncertainty at all that the blood found on the cloth was the blood of a louse.

And once it has emerged from the

uncertainty of

the blood of a louse—

it certainly came from her body! [In blood found on a cloth used for examination, the only possibility is that it came from a louse; but as for the possibility that the blood came from elsewhere, the cloth is considered checked—Ritva.]

Rabbi Ḥiyya disagrees: Since the cloth was not checked, it is like other “stains.” Even when they are larger than a gris, so that they cannot be attributed to a louse, their impurity is nevertheless only uncertain, because perhaps the blood came from elsewhere.]

Rabbi Hiyya disagrees: Since the cloth was not tested, it is like other “stains.” Even when they are larger than a grape and cannot be attributed to a louse, their impurity is nevertheless only a matter of uncertainty, because perhaps the blood came from an external source.]

The Gemara resolves the matter:

Is it not

this disagreement

when he was old

that is being discussed, whereas in his youth he rendered her impure as a menstruant, [in accordance with the first side of the unresolved question]?

Learn from this!

Rabbi praised

before

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei,

Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa, saying that he was a great man.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him

to Rabbi:

When he comes before you—

Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa—

bring him to me!

When

Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa

came,

Rabbi Yishmael

said to him: “Ask me something!”

He wished to test him in order to ascertain his greatness.

Rabbi Ḥama asked him—

Rabbi Hama asked Rabbi Yishmael:

If a woman examined herself with a cloth that had not been checked for her, placed it in a box, and on the following day found blood on it,

what is the law?

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to Rabbi Ḥama:

How shall I answer you? Should I

tell you in accordance with the words of Father [Rabbi Yosei],

or should I

or should I tell you in accordance with the words of Rabbi?! [The disagreement between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi is explained below.]

Rabbi Ḥama said to him:

“Tell me in accordance with the words of Rabbi.” Rabbi Yishmael said:

And is

this the person of whom they say that he is a great man? How can one set aside the words of the teacher [Rabbi Yosei]

[Rabbi Yosei]

and listen to the words of the student [Rabbi]?

[Rabbi]?

The Gemara explains:

And Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa,

who wished to hear Rabbi’s view instead of Rabbi Yosei’s—what did he hold?

He held

Rabbi Ḥama did that because

Rabbi was the head of the academy, the Sages were frequently before him, and his teachings were sharpened

through dialectical discussion with the Sages.

The Gemara explains:

What are Rabbi’s and Rabbi Yosei’s respective views?

Rav Adda bar Mattana said: A tanna taught—

If a woman examined herself with a cloth that had not been checked for her, placed it in a box, and on the following day found blood on it,

Rabbi declares her impure, whereas Rabbi Yosei declares her pure!

And Rabbi Zeira said: When Rabbi declared her impure,

he did not say so on his own authority; rather, he

adopted the view of Rabbi Meir.

And when Rabbi Yosei declared her pure,

he declared her pure on his own authority,

in accordance with his view [which will be explained shortly], that he disagreed with Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Zeira clarifies which disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei he had in mind:

As it was taught in a beraita: If a woman was urinating and saw blood

while passing urine,

Rabbi Meir says:

If

she passed urine while

standing,

she is

impure 58,

because, since she was under pressure—for she could not hold herself until she sat down—the urine reached the uterus and brought blood out with it from the uterus.

But

if

she passed urine while

sitting,

she is

pure .

For the blood certainly came from the place through which the urine emerges, where she has a wound, and it is therefore pure blood, since when she is sitting there is no concern at all that the urine reached the uterus.

Rabbi Yosei says:

In either case she is pure!

Even when she is standing, we are not concerned that perhaps the urine reached the uterus and brought blood out from the uterus with it; rather, we say that the blood emerged from the place through which the urine emerges, and it is pure blood . A woman remains presumed pure as long as we do not know that the blood came from the impure uterus.

The Gemara challenges this:

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:

How can we say that Rabbi followed the view of Rabbi Meir?

But Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: When

Rabbi Meir declared her impure

when she passed urine while standing, he

declared her impure only as a stain 61,

as a matter of uncertain impurity!

Whereas Rabbi,

when he declared a woman who examined herself with an unchecked cloth impure, did so

because of

menstrual impurity,

declaring her certainly impure?!

The Gemara answers:

Rav Ashi said to him

Rav Aḥa:

“This is what we are saying: When that statement

of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina,

was stated, it was stated with regard to menstrual impurity!”

This is what he said: When Rabbi Meir declared her impure, he declared her impure only because of menstrual impurity. According to our version, it is possible to say that Rabbi followed the view of Rabbi Meir.

We learned in the Mishna: If it was found on hers immediately, both are impure

and liable to bring an offering.

The Sages taught: What is the “measure

of the interval” [called “immediately”]?

[which is called “immediately”]?

It is analogous to a sun and a cloth standing

close to one another

at the side of a doorway,

one inside and the other outside:

When the sun exits,

the cloth

enters immediately.

That is,

the interval of which they spoke,

for which they are liable to bring a sin-offering, is the time required

to wipe

from the outside. Only if she wiped herself immediately and found blood is it certain to us that the blood was present at the time of intercourse,

but not for an examination

inside, since by the time she is able to examine herself, the “measure of the interval” has elapsed.

We learned in the Mishna:

If it was found on hers after the interval

both are impure as a matter of uncertainty, and they are exempt from bringing an offering.

A tanna taught: And they are liable to bring

a provisional guilt-offering

when the blood was found after the interval, because there is uncertainty whether they transgressed a prohibition punishable by karet.

The Gemara asks:

And the tanna

of

our Mishna—

what is the reason

that he does not require a provisional guilt-offering because of the uncertainty?

It answers:

We require,

in order to make one liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, that the uncertainty involve

one piece from among two pieces,

such as when there were before him a piece of permitted fat and a piece of forbidden fat, he ate one of them, and does not know which one he ate. But if there was only one piece before him, he ate it, and afterward was uncertain whether it was forbidden fat or permitted fat, he is not liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering. Here, the uncertainty concerns a single piece: whether the blood was present during intercourse or afterward. The tanna of the beraita holds that one is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering even for uncertainty that arose with regard to a single piece.

We learned in the Mishna, in explanation of the second period of time:

What is “after”—

the interval

during which both are retroactively impure as a matter of uncertainty? It is enough time for her to descend from the bed and wash her lower face.

And they raise an objection:

It was taught in a beraita:

What is the “after

time”? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, explained:

The amount of time needed for her to extend her hand beneath the pillow or beneath the cushion, take a cloth, and examine herself with it.

That is, while she is still in bed, before she gets up. But “until she gets down from the bed” is already beyond this period; she renders impure only retroactively, for the preceding twenty-four hours, and does not render her husband impure as one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman,

does she? The Gemara answers:

Rav Ḥisda said: What is meant by “

which is the

“after

time” explained in the Mishna as lasting until she gets down from the bed and washes her face? It does not refer to the second period of time, but to the third period, which follows it! [At that point she no longer renders her husband impure].

The intention of the tanna when he says, “What is the ‘after-time’?” is

after “

the after time,” that is, after the second period of time, which is the third period. But the second period, during which she renders her husband impure, lasts until she extends her hand and examines herself, as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, explains, and the tanna of the Mishna agrees with him.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But it was taught with regard to it, regarding what the Mishna stated, “

regarding what the Mishna said:

If blood is found on her cloth after the time, they are impure—

both of them [the husband, because he had intercourse with a menstruating woman, and the woman, because she is a menstruating woman]

are impure as a matter of uncertainty and are exempt from an offering”—

what is the “after-time”—

the amount of time needed for her to get down from the bed and wash her face? This indicates that “What is the ‘after-time’?” refers to the second period, during which she renders her husband impure as a matter of uncertainty, and which continues until she gets down from the bed and washes her face—not, as we answered, to the third period, during which she does not render her husband impure, and not as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, explained, that the second period lasts only until she extends her hand and examines herself?!

The Gemara answers:

This

is what the tanna in our Mishna said:

What is the “after-time”?

The amount of time needed for her to extend her hand beneath the pillow or beneath the cushion, take a cloth, and examine herself with it. [At that point the second period of “after-time,” during which she renders her husband impure, ends, in accordance with the words of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok. However, the tanna of our Mishna continues and says:] And afterward, during the following, third period, which is:

The amount of time needed for her to get down from the bed and wash

her

face—

that is the point concerning which there is

a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages, whether she renders her husband impure or not.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But it was taught, “And afterward

she renders impure retroactively, for the preceding twenty-four hours, but does not render her husband impure”

it was taught. This “afterward” is stated after the period in which she gets down from the bed and washes her face. This implies that only then does she cease to render her husband impure, but before that—until she gets down from the bed and washes her face—she still renders her husband impure, contrary to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok,

does it not?

The Gemara answers:

This is what the tanna in our Mishna said: The period that begins after she extends her hand toward the pillow and examines herself—that is, after she has waited until she gets down from the bed and washes her face—

is the “afterward” concerning which Rabbi Akiva and the Sages disagree, whether she renders her husband impure!

Rav Ashi said: This one and that one have the same measure! The tanna in our Mishna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, stated the same measure of time:

If

the cloth is in her hand,

the period is

the amount of time needed for her to get down from the bed and wash her face with that same cloth [and this is the period mentioned in the Mishna as the after-time].

If the cloth is not in her hand,

the period is

the amount of time needed for her to extend her hand beneath the pillow or beneath the cushion, take a cloth, and examine herself

with it, while she is still in bed! This is the period mentioned by Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok.

But as stated, the duration of these two periods is equal. [According to Rav Ḥisda, however, the time needed for her to get down from the bed alone is longer than the time needed to extend her hand beneath the pillow. Therefore, he maintains that the period mentioned in our Mishna follows the period stated by Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok].

They raise an objection against Rav Ashi:

with regard to Rav Ashi, it was taught:

What is

the “after-time”

during which she renders her husband impure as a matter of uncertainty?