Niddah 3b — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

there is a difference between them with regard to raising the objection,

to raise against Shammai’s words the objections that we raised above: What is different about the case of a woman—the law of one who sees blood—in which Shammai does not suspect retroactively that she became impure, from the law of the

barrel, and

from the law of the

ritual bath, and

from the law of the

alleyway,

in which we do suspect retroactively?

According to that formulation

above, that Shammai’s reason is that he placed the woman upon her presumption,

there is a basis for raising it against them.

But

according to these formulations,

that Shammai’s reason is either that a woman feels [the blood], or that he holds that the walls of the vaginal passage do not retain the blood—

there is no basis for raising it!

For in the barrel, the ritual bath, and the alleyway there is neither the matter of sensation nor the matter that the walls of the vaginal passage do not retain the blood.

And again we consider it:

And what difference is there between this formulation

that Shammai’s reason is that, if it were blood, it would have come earlier,

and that formulation

that Shammai’s reason is because she did not feel [it]?

And we explain:

According to Abaye,

who says that Shammai admits in the case of one who had intercourse while using a cloth that she is rendered impure retroactively,

there is a difference

between them when she had intercourse with a

cloth.

For according to the formulation that a woman feels [the blood], this woman too feels [it], and since she did not feel it, it is proven that she did not see [blood] earlier. But according to the formulation that the walls of the vaginal passage do not retain the blood, here, since she had intercourse with a cloth, it is possible that the cloth was what delayed the blood’s exit; therefore she is rendered impure retroactively.

But

according to Rava,

who holds that even in the case of one who had intercourse with a cloth there is room for the blood to exit,

there is a difference

between them when she has intercourse with a

tightly pressed cloth,

through which the blood does not pass.

It was taught in a beraita according to this formulation [A0051]the third], that Shammai’s reason is

[the third one], according to which Shammai’s reason is

that if it were blood—

it would have come earlier,

because the walls of the vaginal passage do not retain it.

As it was taught:

Hillel said to Shammai:

But

do you not admit

to my words that there is cause for concern retroactively

in the case of a box in which pure things were used in this corner

of the box,

and a creeping creature was found in a corner

distant,

another, so that the first pure things

which were made in the first corner

are impure!?

That is, although he found the creeping creature in the other corner only after the first pure things had already been made and had already been removed from the box, we are concerned retroactively that perhaps the creeping creature had already been in the distant corner at the time when he made the first pure things in the box, and the creeping creature rendered the vessel impure, and the vessel rendered the pure things impure. And we do not say that we place the pure things upon their presumption of purity, and that the creeping creature fell there only now, after the pure things had been removed from the box. If so, why are you not concerned in the case of a woman to render her impure retroactively, lest the blood had exited earlier into the outer passage?

He said to him

Shammai to Hillel:

But!

Indeed, I admit with regard to the box that there is cause for concern and to render the pure things impure retroactively.

And what

is the

difference between this one and that one?

This one,

the box,

has

a

bottom,

a base; therefore there is cause for concern that the creeping creature was in the box while the pure things were in it, and the pure things became impure through the vessel [which the creeping creature had rendered impure], without their seeing the creeping creature.

But

this one,

the woman,

has no bottom!

For there is nothing that will stop the blood in the outer passage, and the moment the blood is detached to leave the source, it exits completely outside; therefore there is no cause for concern to render her impure retroactively.

D.

Rava said,

a fourth reason in Shammai’s method—

Shammai’s reason—

because of the nullification of procreation.

For if we decree that pure things be rendered impure retroactively, out of concern that the blood lingered in the outer passage, men will be concerned to have intercourse with their wives, lest the blood had already exited into the outer passage and they were impure even before they saw blood.

It was also taught so,

that Shammai’s reason is on account of the nullification of procreation:

As it was taught:

Shammai said to Hillel: If so,

according to your words, that you decreed that one must be concerned that she became impure even before seeing the blood,

you have nullified the daughters of Israel from procreation!

Accordingly, we have two beraitot that dispute the explanation of Shammai’s reason, and therefore we consider it:

And the one who teaches this formulation

that the reason is on account of the nullification of procreation,

does this not contradict the beraita

above

according to that formulation,

the third,

that if it were blood, it would have come earlier!?

And we answer:

There, Hillel is the one who erred

regarding Shammai’s reason!

He,

Hillel,

thought—

that

Shammai’s reason

is

that if it were blood, it would have come earlier.

And

on the basis of this assumption of Hillel—

he raised an objection to him

from the law of

the box.

Accordingly, the objection from the box is in a case where he tilted the box onto its side and poured the pure things out, for we say: If the creeping creature had been in the box at that time, it would have been poured out together with the pure things; nevertheless, they render the pure things impure retroactively. And this is difficult for Shammai: What is different about a woman from a box?

And Shammai said to him: My reason

is another reason—

because of the nullification of procreation!

And even according to what you erred in

regarding my words, and assumed that my reason is that the walls of the vaginal passage do not retain the blood,

when you raise the objection,

according to your understanding of my words: What is different about a

box

and what is different about a woman?

I have a distinction concerning this matter as well:

This one,

the box,

has a bottom,

and therefore we are concerned about the pure things inside it, which came into contact with the creeping creature without its being noticed.

And

if

this one,

the woman who sees blood,

has no bottom,

for she sees the blood immediately upon its exit, and therefore she need not be concerned retroactively.

And again we consider it:

And according to the one who teaches this formulation,

that Shammai’s reason is that if it were blood, it would have come earlier,

does this not contradict the beraita according to that formulation,

that Shammai’s reason is

because of the nullification of procreation!?

And we answer:

This is what Hillel said to Shammai: Yes, you have stated a reason,

you have stated a correct reason!

If it were blood—

it would have come earlier!

Nevertheless, make a safeguard

a rabbinic fence

according to your words,

to render [her] impure retroactively!

For what is different from the entire Torah, where we make a safeguard!?

He said to him

Shammai to Hillel:

If so,

if I make a safeguard—

you have nullified the daughters of Israel from procreation!

And we consider it:

And Hillel—

why is he not concerned about the nullification of procreation?

And we answer: Hillel could say to you—

Am I speaking of procreation!?

Is there, in retroactive impurity, a ruling that causes one to refrain from procreation!? After all,

with regard to pure things

alone

am I speaking,

for we were stringent only with regard to rendering pure things impure, and not with regard to her husband.

And

we consider the reason of

Shammai:

Why was he lenient with regard to pure things, when the law of pure things is not connected with procreation?

And we answer: Shammai thought that

with regard to pure things too, not

do we decree, because

if so,

if we decree that one must be concerned with regard to pure things—

the heart

of her husband

will trouble him,

lest she became impure even before the sight,

and he will withdraw!

And it will emerge that the decree with regard to pure things will lead to refraining from procreation.

And we say:

Bottom, examined, covered, in a corner—

a mnemonic. It was stated: A box in which pure things were used in this corner,

and the pure things were removed from the mouth of the box, from above,

and

afterward

a creeping creature was found in another corner

of the box—

Hezekiah said: The first pure things,

the earlier ones, which were removed from the box before the creeping creature was found,

are pure.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The first pure things are impure.

And we consider it:

But Shammai and Hillel agree with regard to a box that the first pure things are impure,

so how could Hezekiah dispute them and say that they are pure?

And we answer:

When Shammai and Hillel agree—

with regard to a box that has a bottom,

which has a base as the foundation upon which it stands, and the pure things are removed from the box above, from the mouth of the box. Therefore we are concerned that perhaps the creeping creature was in the box while the pure things were there, and they did not notice it when removing the pure things from the box, and it had remained in the box from earlier until now.

When Hezekiah and Rabbi Yohanan dispute—

with regard to a box that has no bottom,

which has no base, but lies lengthwise on the ground [and it is possible to store things inside it within the slope of the walls]. And when they come to remove the fruit, they raise the box, and all the fruit falls out from below, since it has no bottom.

Therefore, if after removing the fruit he again laid the box down and found a creeping creature in it, Hezekiah holds that the creeping creature certainly arrived there only now, and the creeping creature was not in it while the fruit was in the box. For if it had been in it earlier, then certainly when the box was raised it would have fallen from it below, like all the fruit.

And we refute this: How did you establish it? In a box that

has no bottom!?

If so, this is difficult:

What is Rabbi Yohanan’s reason

for rendering [the contents] impure? After all, the creeping creature could not have remained in it, when it has no bottom, after it was raised!?

And we answer: Here, with what are we dealing? It is indeed a box that

has no bottom,

but

it has rims 33,

which it has around it in place of the bottom—a bending of the walls; therefore there is room to attribute that the creeping creature was delayed in the box because of the rims.

And we consider it:

But we learned: One who draws ten buckets of water one after another,

drawing several times with one bucket,

and a creeping creature is found in one of them,

after he had already poured several times from the bucket into a large vessel, a creeping creature was found in the bucket;

it,

the bucket [and the water within it]

is impure, but all

the water that he drew earlier into the vessel—

is pure!

And Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: They taught this

that the water drawn earlier is pure

only when it does not have,

the bucket

rims,

and therefore it is impossible that the creeping creature had been inside it earlier. For he poured the water from the bucket each time into a large vessel, and if the creeping creature had been in the bucket, it would necessarily have fallen from it.

But

if

it has,

the bucket,

rims,

so that one can attribute that the creeping creature was delayed in the vessel by means of the rims—

all of them,

all the earlier water,

is impure!

Shall we say that Hezekiah

who is not concerned that the creeping creature was delayed by means of the rims

does not hold like Rabbi Yannai?

And we answer: No! Hezekiah can hold like Rabbi Yannai, but one must distinguish:

Water—

slides!

The water slides from the bucket merely by tilting the vessel, without turning it upside down. Therefore one must be concerned, in accordance with Rabbi Yannai’s words, that the rims delayed the exit of the creeping creature.

Fruit—

does not slide!

And one who wishes to remove all the fruit from the vessel must set the vessel upright so that all the fruit falls from it. And when he sets it thus, the creeping creature that was in it also falls from it and is not delayed by the rims.

Alternatively: With water, one is not particular about it

to pour it completely out of the vessel; therefore he does not turn it upside down, and the creeping creature can be delayed by the rims.

But

with fruit—

one is particular about it

to remove all of it,

and he turns the bucket completely over; then the creeping creature also falls.

And if you wish, say: When Shammai and Hillel agree

that the first pure things have the presumption of impurity—

in a box that was not examined

at the time when he placed the pure things in it; therefore it is impossible to place the box upon a presumption of purity.