Niddah 2b — the Talmud in English

But

this

woman,

a woman who sees blood,

since she sees it from her body

the blood that renders her impure with the impurity of a menstruant—this is a defect in her presumption of status.

Therefore,

we do not say: Establish her upon her presumption

that she was pure.

And we raise an objection, both according to Shammai and according to Hillel

And what is different

about a woman who sees blood

from

the law stated regarding a

ritual bath?

For we learned: A ritual bath

that contained forty seahs of water, and that ritual bath was fit for immersion,

and

after some time

the ritual bath was measured

and

was found deficient

of the measure fit for immersion, behold

all

the

pure things made upon it,

that is, the pure things made with vessels that had been impure and were immersed in that ritual bath,

retroactively,—

whether

the ritual bath had been

in the public domain, or

had been

in the private domain—

are impure

those pure things with certain impurity!

According to Shammai, this is difficult,

for here it is proven that the pure things are rendered impure

retroactively,

and we do not say, “Establish the ritual bath upon its presumption.” Why, then, does Shammai establish the woman upon a presumption of purity?

According to Hillel, it is difficult that they render

the pure things impure with

certain impurity.

For whereas

with regard to impurity

from time to time

retroactively

in the case of a menstruant,

they render the pure things impure only with uncertain impurity, for they “

suspend”

the sacrificial offerings [or the teruma] that she touched—

they do not eat

them,

and they do not burn them,

because they are only possibly impure.

But here,

in the ritual bath that was found deficient, they render the pure things impure with

certain impurity, and they burn the sacrificial offerings [and the teruma] on account of it. For they render them impure even when the ritual bath was in the public domain, whereas if we had an uncertainty of impurity, we should have declared them pure, for it is established that every uncertainty of impurity in the public domain is pure!?

and they burn the sacrificial food [and teruma] because of it. They declare them impure even when the ritual bath was in a public domain, whereas if the impurity were uncertain, we would have to declare them pure, since we have an established principle that every uncertainty concerning impurity in a public domain is pure!?

And we answer:

There,

in the ritual bath, the impurity is certain retroactively,

because it may be said:—

Establish

the

impure vessel

that was immersed in the ritual bath

upon its presumption

that it is impure, and immersion in a ritual bath of uncertain validity does not remove it from its presumption of impurity;

and say

that the status of the vessel is like that of one who

did not immerse

with a proper immersion!

And we consider the matter:

On the contrary!

Let us say:

Establish

the

ritual bath upon its presumption

that it was fit for immersion,

and say that it was not deficient

at the time when the vessel was immersed in it, but only now did it happen to become deficient!?

And we answer:

Behold,

the ritual bath is

deficient before you!

And one must take into account the defect in the presumption, since it is deficient before us.

And we challenge: If so,

here too,

regarding the impurity of a menstruant,

behold, blood is before you,

and there is a defect in her presumption of purity; why do we not decree retroactive impurity until the time when she examined herself and found herself pure?

And we reject it: in the case of a woman, this is not a defect; rather, we say:

Now is when she saw it!

And we challenge:

Here too,

in the case of a ritual bath that was found deficient, let us say:

Now is when it became deficient!?

And we reject it:

How can you compare the two,

what is the comparison!?

There,

in the case of a ritual bath that became deficient,

it may be said

that it did not become deficient all at once, but rather

it became deficient, and continued becoming deficient, and continued becoming deficient;

and since the loss of the water is a continuing process, we must say that the deficiency that invalidated the ritual bath had already occurred earlier, and the ritual bath’s presumption was impaired long ago.

But

here,

in the case of a woman who saw blood,

is it possible to say

with regard to seeing the blood,

“I saw and it came, I saw and it came”!?

And we challenge this:

But what is the difficulty in saying that the exit of the blood is a continuing matter, like the decrease of the water in a ritual bath, which is a continuing matter?

in saying that the blood’s exit is a continuing process, just as the water’s decrease in a ritual bath is a continuing process?

Perhaps

also here, with regard to seeing the blood, the blood does not come out all at once, but

“little by little”

“I saw it!”

for the blood continues to increase in the woman’s uterus, and because it continues to increase, it emerges from the uterus little by little; and with the emergence of a small drop of blood, the size of a mustard seed, she becomes impure. And if so, also with regard to the seeing of menstrual blood there is room to say, as with the ritual bath, that the blood came out into the outer chamber already several days earlier, and already then she became impure, and only afterward, when she examined herself, did she find it!?

And we answer:

There,

in the case of a ritual bath that was found deficient,

there are two grounds for detriment!

For we must place the impure person who immersed himself upon his presumption of impurity, and likewise there is a detriment in the presumption of the ritual bath’s purity, for behold, a deficient ritual bath is before you.

But

here,

in the case of a woman who saw blood,

there is

only

one detriment,

for the woman’s presumption of purity was impaired, since blood is before you; but with regard to the pure things that she touched, there is no detriment, but it is possible to place them upon their presumption of purity.

And now we challenge Shammai, who did not decree impurity retroactively, because he places the woman upon her presumption of purity:

And in what way is

a woman who saw blood

different from

the law of

the barrel?

For we learned:

One who had a barrel of untithed wine, from which he would occasionally separate teruma for other barrels of untithed wine. And he

would examine

it from time to time,

the barrel,

for he would taste from it to determine whether it had not become vinegar, so that it would be fit

to separate teruma from it for other barrels of wine. And he needed to examine whether the wine had become vinegar because vinegar and wine are considered two separate species, and one does not separate from one species for the other.

for other barrels of wine. He had to check whether the wine had turned sour because vinegar and wine are considered two separate types, and one may not set aside an offering from one type for the other.

And

thus he would

continue

separating.

And

if

afterward it was found

that the wine had changed and become

vinegar,

and from the time it became vinegar it was not fit to separate from it for wine, since from then onward it was not of its species.

Behold,

all three days

the first ones from the time of the last examination,

certainly

the wine had not become vinegar at that time; and if he separated from it at that time as teruma for another barrel of wine, it is certainly teruma, and the untithed produce that he rectified through it is certainly permitted to eat.

But

from this point onward,

if he separated from it after three days from the day he examined it, it is

doubtful

teruma, for perhaps the wine had already become vinegar, and the untithed produce is doubtfully rectified; therefore he should again separate additional teruma from the untithed produce.

[See Rashi, who thus explained Rabbi Yohanan in tractate Bava Batra.

Whereas Rabbi Joshua ben Levi explained that all three days before the examination in which it was discovered that the wine had become vinegar, it was certainly vinegar, and from then onward retroactively it is doubtful].

And it is proven from here, both according to Rabbi Yohanan and according to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, that one must entertain doubt concerning a detriment retroactively; and this is difficult for Shammai: why did he not fear declaring the woman who saw blood impure retroactively!?

And we answer:

There,

with regard to a barrel of wine,

it is different, because it is possible to say:

Place the untithed produce upon its presumption, and say: It was not rectified!

This is not so with regard to a woman, for we have no presumption by which to place her upon a presumption of impurity.

And we challenge:

On the contrary, place the wine

in the barrel

upon its presumption, and say: It did not become vinegar

at the time he separated from it!? And we reject this:

Behold, it became vinegar before you!

And we challenge:

Here too,

with regard to a woman who saw blood,

behold, blood is before you!?

And we reject this: With regard to a woman we say:

It is only now that she saw

blood!

And we challenge:

There,

with regard to a barrel of wine,

also

let us say:

It is only now that it became vinegar!

And we reject this:

Is this so!?

What is the comparison!?

There,

with regard to wine,

it is possible to say

that it is a continuing matter and occurred a long time earlier, for we say:

“It became vinegar and came, it became vinegar and came.”

But

here,

with regard to a woman who saw blood,

is it possible to say, “I saw and it came, I saw and it came”!?

And we challenge:

But what is the difficulty

in saying that the seeing of blood by a woman is also a continuing matter, like the souring of the wine? And behold, also concerning the seeing of blood it is possible to say:

“Perhaps, ‘little by little, I saw it.’”

And we answer:

There,

with regard to the barrel,

there are two grounds for detriment,

for we place the untithed produce upon its presumption, and in addition, behold, vinegar is before you.

But

here,

with regard to a woman who sees blood,

there is one

only

ground for detriment,

for behold, blood is before you, but there is no presumption of impurity here.

And

now he

raises

the law of

the barrel

of wine from which they separated teruma and which became vinegar,

against

the law of

the ritual bath

that was measured and found deficient:

Why is the case here

with the ritual bath, where we rule retroactively concerning all who immersed in it the status of

certain impurity, and why is the case here

with the barrel, where we apply the law of

doubtful

teruma, and not certain untithed produce?

Rabbi Hanina of Sura said: Who is the author of [the law of] the barrel?

It is Rabbi Shimon, for with regard to the ritual bath also

he disputes the Rabbis and

makes it doubtful,

for one does not burn teruma because of the contact of those who immersed in it.

For we learned: A ritual bath that was measured and found deficient—

all the pure things made upon it retroactively, whether in the public domain or in the private domain —

are impure

[and the reason will be explained below].

Rabbi Shimon says:

If the ritual bath was

in the public domain—

they are pure.

And if it was

in the private domain—

they remain suspended in doubt [as will be explained below].

[and this will be explained below].