Niddah 14b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Hiyya said to

Rabbi:

Do you not agree that it must be the size of “a grape and something more”

in order to render her impure?

He said to him

Rabbi:

Indeed! [Yes, I accept your statement].

Да, я подтверждаю твои слова].

Rabbi Hiyya said to him

Rabbi:

If so,

since you too agree that it renders her impure only if she sees blood in the measure of a “stain,” namely, the size of a grape and something more [and because, when it is less than this measure, they did not ascribe the stain to menstrual blood, but rather attributed it to the blood of a louse],

even

you have treated it as a stain,

since according to your own statement she should be impure only as a matter of uncertainty. For if her impurity were certain, it would be because we say that the blood certainly came from the uterus; and if so, even blood less than the size of a grape should render her impure!

Rabbi held

that she is certainly impure; however,

we require

blood measuring

“a grape and something more”

to exclude the blood of a louse,

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

And once he has removed it from the

uncertainty of

the blood of a louse—

it certainly came from her body! [For with regard to blood found on a tested examination cloth, the only uncertainty is whether it came from a louse; but as for the possibility that the blood came from an external source, the cloth is considered tested—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 dispute

in his old age?

In his youth, he held her impure with menstrual impurity, [as in the first side of the question].

[и это соответствует первой стороне поставленного вопроса].

Learn from this!

Rabbi was praising

before

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei,

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

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said

to Rabbi:

When he comes to you—

Rabbi Hama bar Bisa—

bring him to me!

When

Rabbi Hama bar Bisa

came,

Rabbi Yishmael

said to him: Ask me something!

He wanted to test him, to ascertain whether he was truly a great man.

Rabbi Hama asked him—

Rabbi Hama asked Rabbi Yishmael:

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

what is the ruling?

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said

to Rabbi Hama: How should I answer you? Should I

tell you according to the words of my father [Rabbi Yosei],

or should I

tell you according to the words of Rabbi?! [The dispute between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi is explained below.]

[Ниже разъясняется разногласие рабби Йоси и рабби].

Rabbi Hama said to him:

Tell me according to the words of Rabbi! Rabbi Yishmael said:

What?

Is this the one they call a great man? How can one set aside the words of the teacher

[Rabbi Yosei]

and listen to the words of the student

[Rabbi]?

The Gemara explains:

And Rabbi Hama bar Bisa,

who requested to hear Rabbi’s words instead of Rabbi Yosei’s—what was he thinking?

Rabbi Hama thought

that

Rabbi was the head of the academy, scholars were frequently before him, and his teachings had been sharpened

through intellectual exchange with the scholars.

The Gemara explains:

What are the respective opinions of Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei?

Rav Adda bar Matna said: A tanna taught

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

Rabbi declares her impure, while 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 own approach [which will be explained shortly], that he disagreed with Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Zeira clarifies which dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei he meant:

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

while urinating,

Rabbi Meir says:

If

she urinated while

standing,

she is

impure 58 ,

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

But

if

she urinated while

sitting,

she is

pure .

For the blood certainly emerged from the place of the urine, 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 the urine may have reached the uterus and brought blood out with it from the uterus. Rather, we say that the blood emerged from the place of the urine, and it is pure blood . For a woman is maintained in her presumption of ritual purity as long as we do not know that the blood came from the impure uterus.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: How can we say that Rabbi follows Rabbi Meir’s approach?

For

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said:

When Rabbi Meir declared her impure

when she urinated while standing,

he declared her impure only because of a stain, 61 ,

that is, with an uncertain impurity!

But Rabbi,

when he declared a woman impure who examined herself with a cloth that was not tested,

because of

menstrual impurity, he said,

declaring her impure with certain impurity?!

The Gemara answers:

Rav Ashi said

to him:

We mean the following: When that statement

of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina,

was reported, it was reported as referring to menstrual impurity!

For this is what he said: When Rabbi Meir declared her impure, he declared her impure only because of menstrual impurity. According to our version of the text, it can therefore be said that Rabbi followed Rabbi Meir’s approach.

We learned in the Mishna: If blood is found on her immediately, both are impure

and they are liable to bring an offering.

The Sages taught: What is the “measure

of the interval between intercourse and the discovery of blood”

[which is called “immediately”]?

It is analogous to a servant and a cloth standing

close to one another

at the side of a doorway,

one inside and the other outside.

When the servant leaves, the cloth enters

immediately.

Thus,

the measure

of the interval between intercourse and the discovery of blood that they said

makes them liable for a sin-offering is the amount of time required

to wipe

externally. For only if she wiped immediately and found blood is it certain to us that the blood was present at the time of intercourse,

but not for an examination

internally, because by the time she manages to examine herself, the “measure of the interval between intercourse and the discovery of blood” has passed.

We learned in the Mishna:

If blood is found on her after some time,

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 is found after some time, because there is an uncertainty whether they violated a prohibition punishable by karet.

The Gemara asks:

And the tanna

of

our Mishna—

what is the reason

that he does not make them liable for a provisional guilt-offering because of the uncertainty?

It answers:

We require,

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

one piece from among two pieces

—for example, there were before him a piece of permitted fat and a piece of forbidden fat, he ate one of them, and he 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 for a provisional guilt-offering. Here, too, the uncertainty concerns one piece: whether the blood was present at the time of intercourse or afterward. The tanna of the beraita holds that one is liable for a provisional guilt-offering even when the uncertainty concerns a single piece.

We learned in the Mishna, in explaining the second time period:

What is considered “after”—

the time

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

And he raises an objection:

It was taught:

What is “later

time”? Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok explained:

Until she can extend her hand beneath the pillow or beneath the cushion, take a cloth, and examine with it.

That is, while she is still before getting down from the bed. But “until she gets down from the bed” means that this time has already passed, and she renders impure only for “within twenty-four hours,” but not her husband who had intercourse with her?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Hisda said: What

“is”

later

“time,” which is explained in the Mishna as until she gets down from the bed and washes her face—the reference is not to the second period of time, but to the third period of time, which follows it! [For then she no longer renders her husband impure.]

And the intention of the tanna when he says, “What is later time?” is—

later

than later

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

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But it teaches concerning it,

regarding what the Mishna said:

“If it is found on her garment after the time, both are impure

as a matter of uncertainty [the husband on account of a husband who had intercourse with a menstruating woman, and the woman on account of menstruation]

and they are exempt from the offering”—

what is “after the time”—

until she gets down from the bed and washes her face?

That is, “What is after the time?” refers to the second period of time, during which she renders her husband impure as a matter of uncertainty, and which lasts until she gets down from the bed and washes herself, and not as we answered, that it refers to the third period of time, during which she does not render her husband impure, and not as Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok explained, that the second period of time lasts only until she extends her hand and examines?!

And it answers:

Thus

he is saying

the tanna in our Mishna:

“What is ‘after the time’—

until she can extend her hand beneath the pillow or beneath the cushion, take a cloth, and examine with it.” [That is when the second period of “after the time,” during which she renders her husband impure, ends, in accordance with the words of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok. But the tanna in our Mishna continues and says:] And afterward, in the following period of time, the third, which is:

Until she gets down from the bed and washes

her

face—

then it is

the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages

whether she renders her husband impure or not.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But “afterward

she renders impure for twenty-four hours and does not render her husband impure,”

it teaches,

and this “afterward” is stated after the period of time in which she gets down from the bed and washes her face. This implies that only then does she not render her husband impure, but before this—until she gets down from the bed and washes her face—she still renders her husband impure, and this is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok?!

And it answers:

Thus he is saying

the tanna in our Mishna: the period of time that begins after she extends her hand to the pillow and examines, that is, after she has waited until she gets down from the bed and washes her face—

this is the “afterward” concerning which Rabbi Akiva and the Sages disagreed

whether she renders her husband impure!

Rav Ashi said: Both this and that are one 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 time is—

until she gets down from the bed and washes her face

with that cloth [and this is the time mentioned in the Mishna, which is after the time].

If the cloth is not in her hand,

the time is—

until she extends her hand beneath the pillow or beneath the cushion and takes a cloth, and examines

with it

while she is still in bed! And this is the time mentioned by Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok.

However, as stated, the duration of these two periods of time is equal. [And according to Rav Hisda, the time until she gets down from the bed alone is longer than the time of extending her hand beneath the pillow; therefore he holds that the time in our Mishna is after the time of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok.]

He raises an objection:

concerning Rav Ashi, it was taught:

What is

“after the time”

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