Niddah 49a — the Talmud in English

And if you wish, say: Rabbi Shimon

said it,

and after the chapter

his words apply, for through the development of hairs she becomes an adult, and therefore the women are believed only to be stringent and not to be lenient,

and he does not hold of

Rabbi Shimon

the presumption of Rava

[and therefore the presumption is not to be joined to their testimony, as Rabbi Yehuda joins it].

We learned in the latter clause of the Mishna: “And the Sages say: either she performs ḥalitza or she enters into yibbum [when the upper sign has appeared],”

because they said: it is possible for the lower one

to appear before the upper one has appeared, but it is impossible for the upper one to appear before the lower one has appeared.

And we raise an objection:

Why do I need this further statement? The first clause already taught it

—that it is impossible for the upper one to appear before the lower one?

And if you would say

, the tanna of our Mishna went back and taught it as an anonymous statement without a dispute, after in the first clause he brought the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis,

because he wanted to state it anonymously in accordance with the Rabbis

and to rule in accordance with them [for the halakha follows an anonymous Mishna when a dispute is initially mentioned in the Mishna concerning a particular matter, and in a later Mishna one opinion appears anonymously and not in the form of a dispute]. This too is difficult:

It is obvious

that the halakha follows the Sages, for

when there is one individual and the many, the halakha follows the many.

And there was no need to go back and teach it in order to inform us that the halakha follows them!?

And we answer:

Lest you say: Rabbi Meir’s reasoning is more plausible

because

the verses assist him

—“Your breasts were firm and your hair grew,” and likewise, “When the Egyptians made your breasts, for the sake of your youthful breasts”—therefore

it teaches us

through the anonymous formulation of the Mishna that the halakha follows the Rabbis.

And if you wish, say:

the tanna went back and taught in the first clause that it is impossible for the upper one to appear without the lower one

because he wanted to teach

in the continuation of his words the following Mishna, in which it is stated that there are additional matters

similar to it

in which one reality is not possible without the other. And therefore he repeated his words, so that this Mishna would be connected to the following Mishnayot.

Mishna:

Similar to it,

in the sign of maturity, where the upper one depends upon the lower one, whereas the lower one does not depend upon the upper one, the Sages taught additional laws in which there are two matters, one of which entails the other, but the other does not entail it.

a.

Every earthenware vessel

that has a hole or a crack

that admits

water into the vessel [so that if the empty vessel is placed in water, the water will penetrate from outside into the vessel through this hole or crack], all the more so it

lets out

through this hole the water collected inside the vessel, to the outside; and it is not possible for there to be a hole that admits and does not let out.

And

on the other hand,

there is

a vessel that has a hole or a crack

that lets out

the water collected in it to the outside, but

does not admit

water from outside into the vessel through this hole [and the practical difference will be explained in the Gemara].

b.

Every limb,

even an additional limb, such as [a sixth finger among a person’s fingers,

that has a fingernail, has

necessarily also

a bone,

and it is an important limb [despite being an additional limb], and it imparts impurity through the tent of a corpse even when it does not contain an olive-bulk, like all the limbs of the dead that impart impurity through a tent even when they are less than an olive-bulk.

And

on the other hand,

there is

an additional limb

that has a bone,

but

does not have a fingernail,

and such a limb is not an important limb, and it does not impart impurity when it is less than an olive-bulk [but an ordinary limb, which is not additional, imparts impurity as a limb from a corpse even if it has no fingernail].

c.

Every

vessel

that imparts midras impurity,

which is fit to receive midras impurity from a zav,

imparts

necessarily also the impurity of

one impure through contact with a corpse.

And

on the other hand,

there is

a vessel

that imparts

the impurity of

one impure through contact with a corpse,

but

does not impart

the impurity of

midras

of a zav.

Gemara:

A vessel that was whole, and a hole developed in it of a size that

admits

liquid into the vessel, is

invalid for “the water of purification”

[the water into which the ashes of the red heifer are mixed], for they must first be consecrated in a whole vessel, and this vessel is not whole.

And all the more so if that vessel was not whole before the hole occurred in it, but was a fragment of a vessel that was still fit for a function, called a “gistera” [which is invalid for the consecration of the water of purification because it is not whole, but is still considered a vessel capable of receiving impurity], for if a hole occurred in it through which liquid enters it, the status of a vessel is completely removed from it,

and

it is

invalid because of “gistera.”

That is to say: it no longer has the status of a vessel at all, and is not considered even a gistera, but becomes pure from all impurity.

But if this hole merely

lets out

liquid from inside the vessel to the outside, but does not admit liquid through it into the vessel, it is

valid

for

the water of purification,

if this hole was in a whole vessel, because a small hole of this kind, which does not admit liquid, does not have the power to remove the importance of a whole vessel. But

it is invalid

because of

“gistera,”

for if such a hole was in a vessel-fragment called a gistera [which, as stated, is a vessel-fragment fit for a function], this hole has the power to prevent the gistera from being a vessel.

Rav Asi said: They teach

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai:

An earthenware vessel

that is whole and fit for the consecration of the water of purification—

its measure

of the smallest hole that removes from it the status of a whole vessel fit for the water of purification [but leaves it as a vessel with regard to other laws] is

“admitting liquid.”

And if the hole was smaller than this, so that it only lets liquid out but does not admit liquid, it is still fit for the consecration of the water of purification.

And they said

that even a narrower hole, which is of the measure

of letting out liquid,

invalidates,

only with regard to a gistera

for such a narrow hole has the power to remove the vessel-fragment [which is fit for a function] entirely from the status of a vessel.

What is the reason

that they said that a hole of the measure of letting out liquid removes the status of a gistera more than that of a vessel?

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: Because one does not say, “Bring a gistera for a gistera.”

That is, if a hole of the measure of letting out liquid occurred in a whole vessel, the owner has mercy on the vessel and continues to use it by placing a vessel-fragment [a gistera] beneath it to receive the liquid that comes out. But if such a hole occurred in a gistera, the owner of the gistera no longer uses it, and does not take another gistera to place beneath it; rather, he discards it. Therefore the gistera completely loses the status of a vessel.

The Sages taught: How does one examine an earthenware vessel

that was perforated to the measure of letting out liquid

to know whether it was perforated

also

to the measure of admitting liquid or not?

He brings a trough full of water and places the pot inside it. If it admitted

[water entered into the trough]

it is known that it admits liquid; and if not, it is known that it lets out liquid

only.