Niddah 57a — the Talmud in English

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

Gemara:

And we deliberated about it:

What did the Cutheans expound that they refrained from burying them?

And we answer: They expounded as follows:

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

And in the Sifrei this verse is established as referring to one who sells the graves of his ancestors. And the Cutheans said:

Anyone who has an inheritance—

has a boundary

that he must be buried in a grave.

Anyone who does not have an inheritance—

does not have a boundary.

We learned in the Mishna:

The Cutheans

are trusted

to say, “We buried”

because the impurity of a corpse is from the Torah.

And we deliberated about it: How are they trusted?

Do they not have “

and before the blind you shall not place a stumbling block,”

with regard to a spiritual stumbling block, by causing another to sin, but they establish the verse as referring to a physical stumbling block?

Rabbi Abbahu said:

They are trusted only

when a Cuthean

kohen

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 forbidden to be eaten by Torah law.

If so—

what is it saying?

It might have entered your mind to say:

They are not expert in formation,

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

It teaches us

that they are expert in formation.

We learned in the Mishna: The Cutheans

are trusted with regard to an animal.

And we deliberated about it:

Do they not have “and before the blind you shall not place a stumbling block”?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: When he shears

the animal himself

and works

with it.

If so—

what is it saying?

It might have entered your mind to say:

They are not expert in tinuf,

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

It teaches us

that they are expert concerning the matter of tinuf.

We learned in the Mishna:

They are trusted with regard to marking

graves; they are careful to mark the graves, and where there is no marking, one need not be concerned for a grave.

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 marking beside it.”

But they are not trusted with regard to overhanging branches.

Overhanging branches—

as we learned: These are overhanging branches—

a tree

that spreads 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 is, so that it is not known where the branch casts its tent over it.

And therefore the Cuthean is not trusted, because he assumes that the grave is beneath the second branch.

Projecting stones—

as we learned: projecting stones that protrude 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 casting its tent over the ground the grave is located.

And here too the Cuthean is not trusted, because he does not take account of doubt and assumes that the grave is beneath another stone.

A beit ha-peres

is a place where there was a grave and it was plowed, and the bones were scattered within the field. 64.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person blows on a beit ha-peres and walks

because there is concern only for bones, and not for flesh, and there is no impurity through tenting there; there is concern only for impurity through contact. Therefore, he blows on the place where he walks, so that he will not touch a bone, and he walks through it.

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

by the feet of people who crushed the bones—

is pure. And a tanna taught: One who plows a cemetery thereby makes a beit ha-peres.

And to what extent does he make

a beit ha-peres, where there is concern that the bones were scattered there—

the full length of a furrow

of a plow, one hundred cubits

by one hundred cubits.

For that is a measure of area—

a house of four seahs.

Rabbi Yose says: Five

seahs.

And

why

are the Cutheans not trusted

with regard to a beit ha-peres, overhanging branches, and projecting stones?

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

which is called a beit ha-peres—

a Cuthean is trusted to say, “There is no grave there.”

Since he testifies only concerning the grave itself,

for it is not doubtful but certain, since he testifies that there is no grave in that entire place, and the grave itself imparts impurity by Torah law.

And likewise,

with regard to a tree that spreads over the ground, he is trusted to say, “There is nothing beneath it,”

grave

a grave

at all.

Since he testifies only concerning the grave itself!

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said: When he walks and comes across the entire field,

for then it is certain that if there had been a grave in it, he would have become impure. And that which we learned in our Mishna, that they are not trusted, is in a case where he does not walk across the entire field; then the matter is not certain but doubtful, and therefore he is not trusted.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so, what is it saying?

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

The Gemara answers:

It might have entered your mind to say that a strip extends,

that there is a small strip extending from the field, which is called by the name of this field, and he assigns the place of the impurity there. Nevertheless, he passed through that place because he does not take account of doubt;

it teaches us

that we do not suspect this.

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 Shabbat limits,

for a Cuthean is not trusted to say, “Up to here is the Shabbat limit,” since Shabbat limits are rabbinic.

And wine of gentiles,

for a Cuthean is not careful concerning the contact of a gentile.

We have returned to you, chapter “The Menstrual Blood.”

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

Blood that emerged without sensation is called in the language of the Sages a “stain,” and it does not impart impurity. For it is stated

“Blood”

will be her flow

“in her flesh,”

and Rabbi Akiva expounded: “Blood,” and not a stain. Another exposition for this permission Samuel expounded from “in her flesh”: “until she feels in her flesh” (1).

The Sages enacted impurity by rabbinic decree even for “stains” (2), but the Sages restricted their decree and left Torah law in force in certain cases:

A.

Where there is a “suspension” for the stain—in other words, where we know of another source of blood from which the blood might have fallen upon the woman, such as where she passed through a butchers’ market in which bloods are commonly found, and it is possible that blood splashed upon her while she was passing there—we suspend [judgment], saying that the blood is not from her body, and she is pure.

B.

A small stain whose size is not the size of a gris (3).

C.

A stain that she found upon something that is not susceptible to impurity, such as where the woman sat upon the ground, and when she arose she saw a blood stain on the ground beneath her (4).

D.

A stain found upon a colored garment, for it is possible that the color of the garment changed the color of the stain (5).

E.

A minor who is not accustomed to seeing [blood]: impurity was not decreed for her stains (6).

(At the present time, most women do not feel the emergence of blood from their bodies. However, the decisors determined that blood that emerges from her body in the ordinary manner of women imparts impurity by Torah law (7), and only a blood stain that she found on her body or her flesh has merely rabbinic impurity, and the above-mentioned permissions are followed with regard to it) (8).