Niddah 4b (ד:) — the Talmud in English

For I say

that there is room to presume and say:

a pure person entered there and took it

and placed it on the ground.

Whenever it is possible to presume such a circumstance, one must declare the item pure. This is because, by Torah law, the loaf has a presumption of purity, and the Sages were stringent only with regard to teruma and sacrificial offerings, requiring concern for their purity. Therefore, wherever it is possible to presume such a circumstance, we say: “For I say.”

However, in the case of a basket in which a creeping creature was found, at the time it was found the basket was certainly impure, and we have no basis for presuming that it is not impure now. Since we have the principle that all impurities are considered to have been present as they were when found, we must be stringent and render it impure retroactively [as it was at the time it was found], even when it is not in the place where it was found—at least as a matter of uncertainty. This is the reasoning of Rabbi Yohanan.

The Gemara challenges this: Even in the case of the basket, there is a basis for presumption:

Here too, let us say

that the creeping creature was not inside it in its previous location, but came to the basket only at this location. For it is possible that

a raven came

after the basket had been moved to its new location,

and cast

the creeping creature into the basket!?

And we answer:

A person

may take the loaf

intentionally

in order to protect it from impurity. Therefore,

we say “For I say,” and presume that he did so, declaring the loaf pure on the basis of this presumption.

and we attribute that he did so, and deem the loaf pure on the basis of this attribution.

But

a raven,

even if we wish to say that it was the one that brought the creeping creature only now, after the basket had been moved to the second location, it is obvious

that it did so unintentionally. Therefore,

it did this. And therefore

we do not say that we may presume this circumstance in order to declare pure the items prepared while the basket was in the first location .

that one may rely on this assumption in order to deem pure the ritually pure items that were handled while the basket was in the first location.

That is, we presume a circumstance in order to declare an item pure only when it is possible to presume that someone became involved in the matter in a manner intended to establish purity, but not when the presumption is based merely on an event occurring .

After resolving Rabbi Yohanan’s statement, the Gemara returns to clarify the law of the loaf that had been on the board:

Since,

after all,

this loaf,

its uncertainty

is a case of uncertain impurity in a private domain. And every case of uncertain impurity in a private domain is impure

by Torah law, and the presumption of purity is disregarded .

If so, how can we presume leniently and say, “I say that a pure person took it,” when this is a leniency applicable only to rabbinic impurity!?

And we answer:

Because it is,

the loaf,

“an object that has no awareness with which it could be questioned”

if it came into contact with a garment.

And every object that has no awareness with which it could be questioned—

whether in a private domain or in a public domain—

its uncertain status is pure!

For we leave it upon its presumption of purity. It is not comparable to a sota, from which we derive the stringency concerning uncertain impurity in a private domain, because a sota has awareness with which she could be questioned, whereas the loaf has no awareness.

And if you wish, say: Here,

in the case of the loaf, the discussion

concerns rabbinic impurity,

not the garment of a man afflicted with a flux, which conveys impurity by Torah law. Therefore its uncertain status is pure, since we presume that a pure person took it.

This too is precise,

that here the discussion concerns rabbinic impurity,

as it teaches:

“a medaf

is impure beneath it.” The meaning of the term “medaf” is rabbinic impurity,

as it is written: “a falling leaf”

that is, a light impurity, which is only rabbinic.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the Sages say: Not in accordance with the words of this one and not in accordance with the words of that one.

The Sages taught in a beraita: And the Sages say—

not in accordance with the words of this one and not in accordance with the words of that one!

Not in accordance with the words of Shammai, who did not make a protective fence around his ruling,

as he said that all women who see blood are presumed to have become impure only from the time they see it,

and not in accordance with the words of Hillel, who went beyond the proper measure,

and was stringent to render impure all pure items from the time of the examination—the preceding examination,

but rather:

From one period of twenty-four hours—

it reduces the interval from examination to examination! And from examination to examination—

it reduces the period of twenty-four hours!

The beraita explains:

“From one period of twenty-four hours it reduces the interval from examination to examination”—

how so?

She examined herself on Sunday and found

herself

pure. She then sat on Monday and Tuesday without examining herself.

On Wednesday she examined herself and found herself impure—

we do not say that she becomes impure from examination to examination,

rendering impure the pure items she touched on Monday and Tuesday,

but rather

she renders impure only the pure items she touched

during the preceding twenty-four hours,

retroactively, beginning only from the time she saw blood on Wednesday.

“And from examination to examination it reduces the period of twenty-four hours” -

How so?

She examined herself at the first hour and found herself pure. She then sat for the second and third hours without examining herself.

At

the fourth hour she examined herself and found herself impure—

we do not say that she becomes impure for the preceding twenty-four hours, but only from examination to examination!

Only the pure items she touched during the second and third hours are retroactively impure! [This is the conclusion of the beraita.]

The Gemara discusses the statement of the beraita that if she examined herself at the first hour and found herself pure, we do not impose upon her impurity for the preceding twenty-four hours.

But

it is obvious

that she does not render items impure for the preceding twenty-four hours,

since she examined herself at the first hour and found herself pure;

surely

we do not render her impure for the preceding twenty-four hours!?

And we answer:

Since it taught, “From one period of twenty-four hours it reduces the interval from examination to examination,”

where there is a novel point—that we are not concerned retroactively until the time of the preceding examination, but only for the preceding twenty-four hours,

it also taught, “From examination to examination it reduces the period of twenty-four hours,”

although this contains no novelty.

Rabba said: What is the reasoning of the Sages?

Why did the Sages decree a period of only twenty-four hours and not require concern that she may have become impure immediately after the preceding examination?

Because

a woman feels it herself

when she becomes impure through the emergence of blood. Therefore, she need not be concerned that perhaps the blood had already emerged several days earlier, after the preceding examination.

Abaye said to Rabba

—

if so,

if she knows through her sensation when she became impure,

let her status be determined from the time she sees the blood!

Since she felt nothing before seeing it, surely she did not become impure earlier. Rather, this reasoning must be incorrect. A woman cannot rely on the absence of sensation.

And Rabba,

who told Abaye that the reason of the Sages is that “a woman feels it herself”—

said it only to sharpen Abaye’s understanding.

And we explain:

Rather, what is the reasoning of the Sages

who decreed the period of “twenty-four hours”?

It is like that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The Sages instituted for the daughters of Israel

who were engaged with teruma and sacrificial offerings, that they should be “presumed pure,” and obligated them

to examine themselves morning and evening!

In the morning—

to establish the purity of the items of the night!

When she finds herself pure during the morning examination, she knows with certainty that the items she touched during the night are pure.

And in the evening—

to establish the purity of the items of the day!

And

this

woman, since

she did not fulfill the Sages’ institution

and did not examine herself,

we impose retroactively a status of impurity upon all pure items that she touched. But we do not render them impure retroactively until the preceding examination; rather, she merely

loses one

period

of time. The Sages rendered impure, as a matter of uncertainty, all the pure items with which she dealt during that period. [A “period” is all twelve hours of the day or all twelve hours of the night.]

And we explain:

What is meant by “period”?

After all, the Sages did not decree only twelve hours, but twenty-four hours.

And we answer:

An additional period!

They also decreed impurity with regard to the period preceding the period in which she found blood. For during that very period she is impure even without the penalty. If she examined herself in the morning and was pure, and examined herself in the evening and was impure, all the pure items she handled during the day became impure even without the decree of the preceding twenty-four hours .

Rav Pappa said to Rava: But sometimes it happens

that there are

three periods within the preceding twenty-four hours,

for example, when she did not examine herself for several days and afterward examined herself at noon and found herself impure. Since we render her impure for the preceding twenty-four hours, until noon of the previous day, she is impure:

a. During the period of that day.

b. During the period of the preceding night.

c. During the period of the previous day, until noon.

It follows that we penalize her with regard to the two periods preceding the period in which she saw the blood, whereas the Sages imposed a penalty with regard to only one period!?

Rava said to him:

The Sages made their measures uniform,

and assigned a fixed amount of time to their decree,

so that the period of twenty-four hours would not be divided!

And if you wish, say:

The reason they render her impure for more than one period and impose the penalty of the preceding twenty-four hours is

so that the sinner should not profit!

For if she did not examine herself for many days, and examined herself in the morning and found herself impure, the penalty imposed upon her would be that she lose one period, and she would be penalized for the preceding twenty-four hours, which constitutes the period preceding the night period. [For she loses the night period itself not because of the penalty, but because she did not examine herself at the beginning of the night.]

But this woman, who did not examine herself in the morning and delayed her examination until noon, if we were to penalize her by having her lose only the preceding night period, it would follow that by delaying her examination she would gain the preceding day period.

Therefore, the Sages decreed that in every case she forfeits twenty-four hours.

And we explain:

What difference is there

between the two explanations of the enactment requiring twenty-four hours?

There is a difference

in a case

where she was prevented,

in the morning,

and did not examine

because of circumstances beyond her control. According to the first reason, that the enactment of the Sages was established as a fixed rule, so that people would not distinguish between cases, here too she forfeits the preceding twenty-four hours.

But according to the second reason, that they enacted this so that a sinner would not profit, here, since she did not sin but was unable to examine because of circumstances beyond her control, they did not decree that she be rendered impure retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours.

We learned in the Mishna:

Any woman who has a menstrual cycle –

the time she discovers the blood is sufficient for her.

And we raise a difficulty:

Should we say that our Mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, and not that of the Rabbis?

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: There are four women

whose blood is presumed to be absent –

the time they discover the blood is sufficient for them!

And these are they: a virgin

who has never seen blood in her lifetime,

a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, and an elderly woman.

Rabbi Dosa says: Any woman who has a menstrual cycle—the time she discovers the blood is sufficient for her!

The language of the beraita indicates that only Rabbi Dosa says this, whereas the Rabbis disagree with him. If so, it follows that our Mishna, which states that for all women who have a menstrual cycle the time they discover the blood is sufficient for them, accords with Rabbi Dosa, despite the fact that he is a lone dissenting opinion!?

And we answer:

You may even say that it is the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Dosa only

when she sees blood

not at the time of her menstrual cycle,

when the blood came early or late. In that case, this sighting does not have the presumption that “the natural occurrence arrives at its appointed time,” and there is concern that perhaps the blood lingered while emerging through the outer passage.

But when she sees it at the time of her menstrual cycle –

the Rabbis agree with him

that the time she discovers the blood is sufficient for her!

And the Mishna

deals

with the time of her menstrual cycle, and everyone agrees with it!

And we infer:

It follows that Rabbi Dosa,

who disagrees with the Rabbis –

said even when she sees blood not at the time of her menstrual cycle

that the time she discovers the blood is sufficient for her. If so, there is cause for astonishment:

Who is the tanna of that which the Sages taught in a beraita: A woman who has a menstrual cycle,

such that if she actually sees blood, the time she discovers it is sufficient for her. And nevertheless –

her stain is impure retroactively!

The reason that the stain is impure retroactively is as follows:

If she sees blood not at the time of her menstrual cycle,

she is

rendered impure for the preceding twenty-four hours,

and therefore, when she sees a stain as well, she is rendered impure retroactively! Should

we say

that this beraita

is the opinion of the Rabbis and not that of Rabbi Dosa!?

For according to Rabbi Dosa, we explained that the time she discovers the blood is sufficient for her even if she sees it not at the time of her menstrual cycle!?

As a result of this question, the Gemara retracts its previous assumption that they disagreed only when she sees blood not at the time of her menstrual cycle, while they agree when she sees it at the time of her cycle, and presents the dispute in the opposite manner –

You may even say

that the beraita is also in accordance with

Rabbi Dosa!

For

Rabbi Dosa disagreed with the Rabbis only at the time of her menstrual cycle,

when even at the time of her menstrual cycle the Rabbis hold that she is rendered impure retroactively, whereas Rabbi Dosa says that if she sees blood at the time of her menstrual cycle, the time she discovers it is sufficient for her.

But when she sees blood not at the time of her menstrual cycle –

Rabbi Dosa agrees with them

that she is rendered impure retroactively. Therefore, in the case of a stain she is rendered impure retroactively .

And the Mishna

deals

with the time of her menstrual cycle, and

according to

Rabbi Dosa.