Niddah 21a — the Talmud in English

Tanna:

the wine ")

the Sharonite

which is diluted

is judged like undiluted Carmelite wine, and not diluted.

And the Sharonite wine must be

new and not old. 238 .

Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avudimi said: And all of them—

are examined only in a Tiberias cup

made of glass

that is plain [

thin].

What is the reason? Abaye said:

since the Tiberias cup is made of extremely thin glass, it does not change the appearance of the wine within it.

And Abaye explains how thin the Tiberias cup is: A cup

of the entire world

when it is intended to be

holding

within it

one log

of liquid—

they make it from

glass whose weight is

a maneh.

And if it is intended to contain

two logim—

they make it from

a weight of

two hundred.

But

a plain Tiberias cup, even when it holds two logim—

they make it from a maneh

alone.

And

therefore,

since it is thin—

it is discernible

the appearance

in it more

of the wine .

We shall return to you, chapter “All the Hand.”

The woman who gives birth or miscarries is impure with childbirth impurity even when blood did not emerge with the offspring, and this impurity is learned from the verse, “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure for seven days; as during the days of the impurity of her menstruation, she shall be impure” [Leviticus 12:2].

Mishna:

1.

One who miscarries a piece

of flesh that has no form of an offspring—the woman is not impure on account of childbirth; however,

if there is blood with it, she is impure

on account of nidda; but if not—

she is pure!

Rabbi Yehuda says: In either case she is impure!

(In the Gemara, three ways of explaining their dispute will be clarified.)

2.

One who miscarries

a red piece that appears

like a shell,

or

like a hair,

or

like earth

or like red gnats [tiny mosquitoes]

[mosquitoes]

red —

she shall cast

them

into water; if they dissolvedin the water, it becomes clear that the piece she miscarried was congealed menstrual blood , and

she is

impure with nidda impurity, like any woman who saw liquid blood.

with menstrual impurity, like any woman who sees liquid blood.

But if not, it becomes clear from the fact that it did not dissolve that this is a piece of red flesh—and therefore she is

it becomes clear from the fact that it did not dissolve that this is a piece of red flesh—and it is

pure. 5.

3.

One who miscarries

a fetus whose appearance is

like fish

or

locusts

or

creeping creatures and crawling things; if there is blood with them—

she is impure

on account of nidda;

but if not—

she is pure!

For such a fetus does not have the status of an offspring to render her impure on account of childbirth, and there is no blood with it to render her impure on account of nidda .

But

one who miscarries

a fetus whose appearance is

like an animal, wild animal, or bird—whether

they are among the animals that are

impure

and whether they are among the

pure,

the fetus has the status of a complete offspring, and she is impure with childbirth impurity.

If

she miscarries a species of

male, she shall sit as for a male seven days of childbirth impurity and thirty-three days of purity,

species, she observes seven days of impurity from childbirth and thirty-three days of purity.

and if

she miscarried a species of

female, she shall sit as for a female fourteen days with childbirth impurity and sixty-six days of purity. [In the Gemara it will be explained why there is a distinction among the species of animals, some of which render impure with childbirth impurity and some of which do not.]

two weeks of impurity from childbirth and sixty-six days of purity. [The Gemara will explain why there is a distinction between the various animal species, some of which cause impurity of childbirth and some of which do not.]

And if it is not known

the species of the fetus, whether it is male or female,

she shall sit as for a male and as for a female.

For we impose upon her the stringency of both: she observes fourteen days of impurity as for a female, and afterward only twenty-six days of purity, completing the forty days of a male,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say that even one who miscarries in the form of an animal, wild animal, or bird is not considered to have miscarried a complete offspring, and is not impure with childbirth impurity, for

that a woman who expels something in the form of a domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird is likewise not considered to have expelled a fully formed child, and she is not impure with the impurity of childbirth, because

whatever does not have some form of a human being—

is not an offspring!

Gemara:

The Mishna brought the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda concerning one who miscarries a piece with which there is no blood, and the Gemara brings a dispute among amoraim as to what Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disputed.

Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Rabbi Yehuda rendered impure

a piece that emerged without blood

only when it was a piece

whose color was the color

of the four kinds of blood that are impure, because Rabbi Yehuda held that the piece itself was congealed blood.

нечистой, поскольку Рабби Йеуда считал, что сам кусок является сгустившейся кровью.

But

a piece whose color is like

that of the other kinds of blood—

she is pure!

For even if the piece was formed from blood, its law should not be more stringent than the blood from which it was formed. And the Sages hold that even one who miscarries a piece whose color is like the color of the impure bloods is pure .

And Rabbi Yohanan said: a piece whose color is like

a piece whose color is like

that of the four kinds of blood

that are impure—not only does Rabbi Yehuda hold that she is impure, but

everyone agrees that she is impure. Of the other kinds—

everyone agrees that she is pure. They disputed only where she miscarried and does not know what she miscarried

because the piece was lost.

Rabbi Yehuda holds—

follow the majority of pieces, and the majority of pieces are of the four kinds of blood;

they are such, and therefore he rendered her impure.

And the Sages hold—

we do not say that the majority of pieces are

are

of the four kinds of blood

and she is pure .

And we raise an objection:

Is that so? For when Rav Hoshaya came from Nehardea, he came and brought a matnita in his hand: “One who miscarries a red, black, green, or white piece—if there is blood with it”—

she is impure; but if not—

she is pure!

Rabbi Yehuda says: whether

there is blood with it

or whether

there is no blood with it,

she is impure! This is difficult

this beraita

for Shmuel—

in one respect, and for Rabbi Yohanan—

in two respects,

for besides the difficulty that can be raised against Shmuel, an additional difficulty can be raised against Rabbi Yohanan.

The Gemara explains the difficulties:

(A) It is difficult

for Shmuel in one respect, for Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda rendered impure only in the case of a piece of the four kinds of blood!

But in the case of a green or white piece, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that she is pure.

But it teaches green and white

in the matnita, that the Sages purify,

and Rabbi Yehuda disputes

and renders her impure in those cases as well?!

The Gemara raises a possibility for an answer:

And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda disputes only concerning red and black

alone—the first tanna purifies because he holds that the piece is not blood, while Rabbi Yehuda holds that the piece is congealed impure blood—

but concerning green and white he does not dispute. Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, “in either case she is impure,” does not refer to all the colors that the Sages listed, but only to red and black, which the Sages also purified and Rabbi Yehuda renders impure.

then Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, “whether in this case or in that case she is impure,” does not refer to all the colors mentioned by the Sages, but only to red and black, which the Sages also declared pure and Rabbi Yehuda declared impure.

The Gemara rejects the answer:

Rather, green and white

which were written in the matnita,

for whom were they taught, and for what novelty were they stated?

and what new point do they teach?

If you say that this is according to the Sages: now, if concerning red and black

which are colors that render a woman ritually impure,

the Sages rule that she is pure,

even though these are colors that render her pure,

is it necessary to state this?

Even without the baraita specifying this, we would know by an a-fortiori inference that the Sages rule that she is pure in these cases.

Rather, is it not according to Rabbi Yehuda?

The baraita mentions green and white in order to teach us that he disagrees with the Sages and declares impure even the pieces that are not one of the four types of blood. If they had not been stated explicitly, one could have said that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and declares impure only concerning the colors that render a woman impure. If so, since green and white were mentioned only to clarify Rabbi Yehuda’s view, one cannot answer that Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling applies only to red and black. The question therefore returns to Shmuel, who said that Rabbi Yehuda declared impure only a piece containing one of the four types of blood. This question is also difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who likewise holds that Rabbi Yehuda declared impure only a piece containing one of the four types of blood. [b]

b.

Furthermore, according to Rabbi Yohanan,

there is an additional difficulty from the view of the Sages mentioned in the baraita. This is why the Gemara says that according to Rabbi Yohanan there are two difficulties.

For

Rabbi Yohanan said that a piece

containing one of the four types of blood

is impure according to everyone. But the baraita states

in its text:

“Red and black,”

which are among the four types of blood,

and

nevertheless

the Sages disagree

with Rabbi Yehuda and declare the woman pure!?

And if you would say that the Sages disagree concerning green and white

and declare them pure,

but concerning red and black they do not disagree,

and they agree with Rabbi Yehuda that these pieces are impure.

Rather,

if so,

“red and black,”

which were mentioned in the baraita,

according to whom were they taught? 12 .

If you say that this is according to Rabbi Yehuda: now, if concerning green and white,

which are colors that render a woman pure,

he declares her impure

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

red and black,

which are colors that render her impure,

is it necessary to state this!?

Rather, no:

the mention in the baraita of red and black is according to

the Sages,

who declare a woman pure in the case of green and white,

and

it follows, then, that

they disagree

and declare her pure even in the case of a red or black piece. This is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan!?

Because of these difficulties, the Gemara presents another explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages:

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda concerns whether

“it is possible for the womb to open

without the opening of the womb” [A0068]]without

[the uterus]

blood.”

That is, they disagree over whether the womb can open without blood issuing from it.

They disagree about this matter.

And it is subject to a dispute between these tannaitic authorities, as it was taught in a baraita: [A0080]]A woman who gives birth during the eleven days of the period of irregular menstruation: if she experienced labor pains during her delivery and saw blood for several days until the birth, she does not become impure as a woman with a flux. This law is derived below, on 36b, from the verse “her blood”: only blood that flows on its own renders her impure, but not blood whose flow was caused by the fetus. Therefore, she is impure only because she is a woman who gave birth and not because she is a woman with a flux. The practical difference is that she does not need to bring the offering of a woman with a flux. However, if she

[A woman who gives birth during the eleven days of zivah, if she experienced labor pains during childbirth and saw blood for several days until the birth, does not become impure as a zava. This law will be derived below, on 36b, from the verse “her blood”: Only blood that flows on its own conveys impurity, but not blood whose emergence was caused by the fetus. Therefore, she is impure only as a woman who has given birth and not as a zava. The practical difference is that she does not need to bring a sacrifice for a zava. However, if she]

experienced labor pains

for two days before giving birth,

and on the third day she discharged something, but she does not know what she discharged,

whether it was a miscarriage, in which case she is impure because she gave birth, or merely fluid, in which case she is not impure as a woman who gave birth. There is an additional practical difference resulting from this uncertainty with regard to the impurity of a woman with a flux: only in the case of a woman who gave birth do we declare the blood caused by labor pains that preceded the birth pure, but not in the case of a woman who discharged fluid.