Niddah 57a (נז.) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna that the Kutim cast away their stillborn infants.

Gemara:

And we raised the following difficulty:

What did the Kutim expound

that led them to refrain from burying them?

And we answer: This is what they expounded: “

You shall not move your fellow’s boundary, which the early ones marked out, in your inheritance.”

And in the Sifrei, this verse is applied to one who sells the graves of his ancestors. And the Kutim said:

Anyone who has an inheritance—

has a boundary

and must be buried in a grave.

Anyone who does not have an inheritance—

does not have a boundary.

We learned in the Mishna:

The Kutim are trustworthy

to

when they say, “We buried him,”

because the impurity of a corpse is by Torah law.

And we raised the following difficulty: How are they trustworthy?

But they do not accept

“You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind,”

with regard to a spiritual stumbling block—causing another to sin; rather, they apply the verse to a physical stumbling block.

Rabbi Abbahu said:

They are trustworthy only

when a kohen

Kuti

is standing there.

And we refute this:

Perhaps he is an impure kohen,

and that is why he is standing there.

And we answer: Here we are dealing with a pure kohen,

who is holding teruma in his hand.

And we refute this:

Perhaps it is impure teruma

in his hand?

And we answer:

He is eating from it.

And impure teruma is prohibited to be eaten by Torah law.

If so—

what is it teaching us?

Lest you say: They are not expert in the formation of the fetus,

and they therefore hold that even a stillborn fetus more than forty days old is merely water,

it teaches us

that they are expert in the formation of the fetus.

We learned in the Mishna: The Kutim

are trustworthy with regard to an animal.

And we raised the following difficulty:

But they do not accept, “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind”?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: This is referring to one who shears

the animal himself

and works

with it.

If so—

what is it teaching us?

Lest you say: They are not expert in tinuf,

the discharge from an animal from which blood emerges from the womb, and they do not know which discharge is called tinuf, which exempts the offspring born after it from the status of a firstborn,

it teaches us

that they are expert with regard to tinuf.

We learned in the Mishna:

They are trustworthy with regard to marking

graves; they are careful to mark the graves, and wherever there is no marking, there is no concern that a grave is present.

And although

the obligation to mark graves is only

rabbinic, since it is written—

they are exceedingly careful about it.

As it is written: “

And he sees a human bone—

and he builds a marker beside it.”

But they are not trustworthy with regard to sukkhot.

What are sukkhot?—

As we learned: These are sukkhot: an

tree

whose branches are separated,

that forms a canopy over the ground,

in a place where it is certain that there is a grave, but it is not known beneath which branch the grave lies, so it is not known where the branch forms an overhang above it.

Therefore, the Kuti is not trustworthy, because he assumes that the grave is located beneath the second branch.

What are peru'ot?—

As we learned: Protruding stones that emerge from the wall,

and it is known that there is a grave there, but it is not known beneath which stone protruding from the wall and forming an overhang above the ground the grave is located.

Here too, the Kuti is not trustworthy, because he does not take a doubt into consideration and assumes that the grave is beneath another stone.

A beit haperes

is a place where there was a grave and it was plowed, and the bones were scattered throughout the field.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person may blow on a beit haperes and proceed,

because there is concern only for bones and not for flesh, and it does not involve impurity through an overhang; there is only concern for impurity through contact. Therefore, he blows on the place where he is walking, so that he will not come into contact with a bone, and he may proceed through it.

Rav Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Rav Yehuda: A beit haperes that has been trodden down

by people’s feet, which crushed the bones,

—is pure. And a tanna taught: One who plows a cemetery thereby creates a beit haperes.

And how far does he create

a beit haperes, where there is concern that bones were scattered?

The full length of a plow furrow,

the plow being

one hundred cubits

by one hundred cubits. This is a measurement of area—

the area of four se'a.

Rabbi Yosei says: Five

se'a.

And

why

are the Kutim not deemed trustworthy

with regard to a beit haperes, sukkhot, and peru'ot?

But it was taught in a beraita: A field in which a grave was lost,

which is called a beit haperes,

—a Kuti is trustworthy to say, “There is no grave there,”

because he testifies only with regard to the grave itself.

That is not a doubt but a certainty, since he testifies that there is no grave anywhere in that entire place, and the grave itself causes impurity by Torah law.

And likewise,

with regard to a tree that forms a canopy over the ground, he is trustworthy to say, “There is nothing beneath it,”

beneath this tree—

no grave

at all.

Because he testifies only with regard to the grave itself!

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said: This is referring to one who walks and passes over its entire area,

for then, certainly, if there had been a grave there, he would have become impure. But what we learned in our Mishna—that they are not trustworthy—refers to a case where he does not walk over its entire area, in which case the matter is not certain but doubtful, and therefore he is not trustworthy.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so, what is it teaching us?

Since he passed over the entire area, if it were not clear to him that the impurity had been removed, he would not have passed over it.

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say: A strip extends out

as a small strip extending from the field, which is called by the name of this field, and he attributes the location of the impurity to that place. Nevertheless, he passed there despite the doubt, since he does not take a doubt into consideration;

it teaches us

that we do not entertain this concern.

We learned in the Mishna:

“This is the general rule, and so on.”

The Gemara asks:

What does this come to include?

That is, what does it come to teach us?

And we answer:

It comes to include the Shabbat boundaries,

as a Kuti is not trustworthy to say, “The Shabbat boundary extends this far,” since the laws of boundaries are rabbinic.

And wine of gentiles,

as a Kuti is not particular with regard to contact by a gentile.

We shall return to you, chapter Blood of the Menstruant

According to Torah law, a woman from whom blood issues is not impure with the impurity of a niddah unless she felt the blood issuing.

Blood that issued without sensation is called by the Sages a “bloodstain” (ketem), and it does not impart impurity. As it is stated: ‘

Blood

shall be her flow

in her flesh’

Leviticus 15:19], and Rabbi Akiva expounded: “blood,” but not a bloodstain. Samuel derived an additional basis for permitting bloodstains from “in her flesh”: “until she feels it in her flesh” (1).

The Sages, by rabbinic decree, also imposed impurity for bloodstains (2); however, they limited their decree and left Torah law in force in certain cases:

A.

When there is a possible alternative source (teliyya) for the bloodstain—that is, when we know of another possible source from which the blood could have fallen onto the woman, such as when she passed through a butchers’ market, where blood is commonly found, and blood might have splashed onto her as she passed—we attribute the blood to that source rather than to her body, and she is pure.

B.

A small bloodstain whose size is less than that of a gris (3).

C.

A bloodstain found on an object that is not susceptible to impurity, such as when the woman sat on the ground and, when she stood, saw a bloodstain on the ground beneath her (4).

D.

A bloodstain found on a colored garment, since the color of the garment may have altered the color of the bloodstain (5).

E.

A minor who is not accustomed to seeing blood: the Sages did not decree impurity for her bloodstains (6).

[Nowadays, most women do not feel the blood issuing from their bodies. Nevertheless, the decisors have ruled that blood issuing from her body in the ordinary manner of women imparts Torah-level impurity (7), and only a bloodstain that she finds on her body or flesh has merely rabbinic impurity; the above-mentioned leniencies are applied to it] (8).