Niddah 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

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

namely, to raise against Shammai the objections raised above: What is the difference between a woman who sees blood, in whose case Shammai does not deem her impure retroactively, and the case of the

barrel, and

the case of the

ritual bath, and

the case of the

alleyway,

in which we are concerned about retroactive impurity?

According to that formulation

above, that Shammai’s reason is that he leaves the woman in her presumptive status,

there is a basis for raising the contradiction.

But

according to these formulations,

that Shammai’s reason is either that a woman senses the flow of blood, or that he maintains that the walls of the uterus do not retain the blood,

there is no basis for raising the contradiction!

For, in the cases of the barrel, the ritual bath, and the alleyway, there is neither the issue of sensation nor the issue that the walls of the uterus do not retain the blood.

And we further examine the matter:

What difference is there between this formulation,

according to which Shammai’s reason is that if it were blood, it would have come earlier, and

that formulation

according to which Shammai’s reason is that she did not sense it?

And we explain:

According to Abaye,

who says that Shammai concedes in the case of a woman who had intercourse while using an absorbent, that she is deemed retroactively impure,

there is a difference

between them when she had intercourse with

an absorbent.

According to the formulation that a woman senses the blood, this woman too would sense it, and since she did not sense it, it is proven that she had not seen it earlier. But according to the formulation that the walls of the uterus do not retain the blood, here, since she had intercourse with an absorbent, it is possible that the absorbent was what delayed the blood’s خروج.

But

according to Rava,

who maintains that even a woman who had intercourse with an absorbent has a place from which the blood can emerge,

there is a difference

between them when she had intercourse with

a tightly pressed absorbent

through which the blood cannot pass.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with this formulation

the third, according to which Shammai’s reason is

that if it were blood—

it would have come earlier,

because the walls of the uterus do not retain it.

For it was taught:

Hillel said to Shammai:

But

do you not concede

my statement, that one must be concerned retroactively,

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

of the box,

and a creeping creature was found in another corner

that was distant,

so that the first ritually pure items

that had been prepared in the first corner

are impure!?

That is, although he found the creeping creature in the other corner only after the first ritually pure items had already been prepared and removed from the box, we are concerned retroactively that perhaps the creeping creature was already in the distant corner when he prepared the first items in the box, and the creeping creature rendered the vessel impure, while the vessel rendered the ritually pure items impure. We do not say that we leave the ritually pure items in their presumptive status of purity and that the creeping creature fell there only now, after the items had been removed from the box. If so, why are you not concerned, in the case of a woman, to deem her retroactively impure, lest the blood had previously emerged into the external passage?

He said to him

Shammai to Hillel:

But!

Indeed, I concede with regard to a box that one must be concerned and deem the ritually pure items retroactively impure.

And what

is the

difference between this case and that one?

In this case,

the box,

there are

for it

sides,

a bottom. Therefore, one must be concerned that the creeping creature was in the box while the ritually pure items were inside it, and the items became impure through the vessel [which the creeping creature had rendered impure], without the creeping creature being seen.

But

in this case,

the woman,

there are no sides!

There is nothing to stop the blood in the external passage, and as soon as the blood begins to emerge from its source, it emerges completely outside. Therefore, there is no reason to be concerned about deeming her retroactively impure.

D.

Rava said:

a fourth reason for Shammai’s position:

Shammai’s reason

is because of the nullification of procreation.

For if we decree that ritually pure items be deemed retroactively impure, out of concern that the blood lingered in the external passage, men will be afraid to have intercourse with their wives, lest the blood had already emerged into the external passage and they had consequently become impure even before they saw blood.

It was likewise taught in a beraita,

that Shammai’s reason is the nullification of procreation:

For it was taught:

Shammai said to Hillel: If so,

according to your statement, 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!

According to this, we have two beraitot that disagree concerning the explanation of Shammai’s reason. Therefore, we examine the matter:

And the one who teaches this formulation,

that the reason is the nullification of procreation,

what will he do with the beraita

taught above

in accordance with that formulation,

the third,

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

And we answer:

There, it was Hillel who erred

concerning Shammai’s reason!

He,

Hillel,

thought—

that

Shammai’s reason

was

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

And

on the basis of this assumption of Hillel,

he raised the difficulty against him

from the law of

the box.

Accordingly, the objection from the box concerns a case in which he tilted the box onto its side and poured the ritually pure items out of it. We say that if the creeping creature had been in the box at that time, it too would have been poured out together with the items. Nevertheless, the items are deemed retroactively impure, and this presents Shammai with the difficulty: What is the difference between a woman and a box?

And Shammai said to him: “My reason”

is another reason—

“because of the nullification of procreation!”

And according to what you too erred in,

in my words, assuming that my reason is that the walls of the uterus do not retain the blood,

when you raise the difficulty

according to your understanding of my words: What is the difference between

a box

and a woman?

I have a distinction concerning that as well:

In this case,

the box,

there are sides,

and therefore we are concerned about the ritually pure items inside it, which may have come into contact with the creeping creature without it being noticed.

But

if

in this case,

the woman who sees blood,

there are no sides,

she sees the blood immediately upon its emergence, and therefore there is no reason to be concerned retroactively.

And we further examine the matter:

And according to the one who teaches this formulation,

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

what will he do with the beraita in accordance with 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 valid reason,

you have stated a correct reason!

If it were blood—

it would have come earlier!

Nevertheless, establish a safeguard

a rabbinic protective measure

according to your statement,

to deem her retroactively impure!

For why is this different from the entire Torah, in which we establish safeguards!?

He said to him

Shammai to Hillel:

If so,

if I establish a safeguard,

you will have nullified the daughters of Israel from procreation!

And we examine the matter:

And Hillel

why is he not concerned about the nullification of procreation?

And we answer: Hillel could say to you:

“Am I speaking about procreation!?”

Is there an instruction in the matter of retroactive impurity that would lead one to refrain from procreation? After all,

with regard to ritually pure items

alone

am I speaking,

since we were stringent only with regard to deeming ritually pure items impure, and not with regard to her husband.

And

we examine the reason of

Shammai:

Why was he lenient with regard to ritually pure items? The law of ritually pure items has no connection to procreation.

And we answer: Shammai maintains that

even with regard to ritually pure items we do not

decree this, because

if so,

if we were to decree that one must be concerned with regard to ritually pure items,

her husband’s heart

would

trouble him,

lest she had become impure even before the sight,

and he would withdraw!

It would emerge that the decree concerning ritually pure items would lead to refraining from procreation.

And we say:

Sides, examined, covered, in a corner—

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

and the ritually pure items were removed from the mouth of the box, from above,

and

afterward

a creeping creature was found in another corner

of the box—

Ḥizkiyya said: The first ritually pure items,

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

are pure.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The first ritually pure items are impure.

And we examine the matter:

But Shammai and Hillel both agree in the case of a box that the first ritually pure items are impure,

so how could Ḥizkiyya disagree with them and say that they are pure?

And we answer:

When Shammai and Hillel agree,

it is in the case of a box that has sides,

that has a bottom serving as the base on which it stands, and the ritually pure items are removed from the box from above, through the mouth of the box. Therefore, we are concerned that perhaps the creeping creature was in the box while the ritually pure items were there, and it was not noticed when the items were removed from the box, but had remained there from before until now.

When Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree—

it is in the case of a box that has no sides,

that has neither a bottom nor a base, but lies lengthwise on the ground [and items can be stored inside it along the slope of its walls]. When one comes to remove the produce, he stands the box upright, and all the produce falls out from below, since it has no bottom.

Therefore, if after removing the produce he laid the box down again and found a creeping creature in it, Ḥizkiyya maintains that the creeping creature certainly arrived there only now, and was not in it while the produce was in the box. For if the creeping creature had been there earlier, then when the box was stood upright it would certainly have fallen out, like all the produce.

And we challenge this: In what case did you establish it? In a box that

has no sides!?

If so, this presents a difficulty:

What is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s reason

for deeming the items impure? After all, when it has no bottom, the creeping creature could not have remained in it after it was stood upright!?

And we answer: Here we are dealing with a case in which, although it

has no bottom,

it nevertheless

has rims 33,

a bending of the walls around it in place of the bottom. Therefore, there is room to assume that the creeping creature was held back in the box by the rims.

And we examine the matter:

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 buckets from it into a large vessel, and a creeping creature was found in the bucket, then

it,

the bucket [and the water in it,]

is impure, while all

the water that he had drawn earlier into the vessel is

pure!

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

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

But

if

it does have,

the bucket

rims,

so that one can assume that the creeping creature was held back in the vessel by the rims,

all

the earlier water

is impure!

Shall we say that Ḥizkiyya

who is not concerned that the creeping creature was held back by the rims

does not accept Rabbi Yannai’s ruling?

And we answer: No. Ḥizkiyya can agree with Rabbi Yannai; rather, one must distinguish:

Water—

slips out!

Water flows from the bucket merely by tilting the vessel, without turning it upside down. Therefore, one must be concerned, in accordance with Rabbi Yannai, that the rims held back the creeping creature.

Produce—

does not slip out!

One who wishes to remove all the produce from the vessel must stand the vessel upright so that all the produce falls out. When he stands it upright, the creeping creature that was in it also falls out, and it is not held back by the rims.

Alternatively: One is not particular about water

to pour it all completely from the vessel, and therefore he does not turn it upside down; consequently, the creeping creature can remain held by the rims.

But

with produce—

one is particular about it

and removes all of it,

turning the bucket completely upside down; then the creeping creature also falls out.

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

that the first ritually pure items have the presumptive status of impurity, it is

in the case of a box that was not examined

when the ritually pure items were placed in it. Therefore, one cannot establish the box in a presumptive status of purity.