Niddah 5b — the Talmud in English

from the time of the morning inspection

of the morning

inspection

of the evening, or from the time of the evening inspection until the morning inspection, which is a shorter period than from time to time,

it is obvious

that the inspection during intercourse reduces it!? And why did the tanna of our Mishna need to teach us this?

And we answer: It was necessary. For

lest you say

only from the period of

from time to time

does an inspection during intercourse reduce, because since it is a long period,

the Sages were concerned about the loss of purity,

and said that the inspection during intercourse reduces it.

But from inspection to inspection

which is a short period of only twelve hours, say

no,

the inspection during intercourse does not reduce it;

it teaches us

that even this short period is reduced by the inspection during intercourse.

We learned in the Mishna:

How is it that her time is sufficient?

If she was sitting on a bed and occupied with pure things, and she separated, and saw, she is impure, but they are pure!

And we raised a difficulty about it:

Why do I need it to teach, “She was sitting on a bed and occupied with pure things”?

Why was it necessary to teach us that she was sitting on a bed?

Let it teach: She was occupied with pure things, and she separated, and saw!?

And we answer:

This teaches us

by adding the matter of the bed upon which she was sitting:

The reason

that she does not render the pure things impure is because she is a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle,

for her time is sufficient. But

if she does not have a menstrual cycle, and she renders them impure retroactively

from time to time,

even the

bed

upon which she sat

also becomes impure

retroactively from time to time!

And the Mishna comes to introduce that one should not say that this stringency of impurity from time to time was decreed by the Sages only with regard to her contact with pure things, but that they did not decree the impurity of a lying-place concerning her bed, so that she should render one who touches it impure with severe impurity [which renders even the garments upon him impure].

It supports

this Mishna

Zeiri.

For Zeiri said:

The impurity

from time to time concerning a menstruating woman

was decreed by the Sages to be such that it even

causes

the impurity of

a lying-place and a sitting-place

of a menstruating woman, so that she renders one who touches her lying-place and her sitting-place impure [retroactively],

to render a person

with severe impurity impure—

to render the garments

upon him impure, even though the garments themselves did not touch the menstruating woman’s bed.

And we raised a difficulty about it:

Since,

after all,

this bed

is

“a thing that has no awareness to be questioned,”

and if so, why does it become impure, retroactively, because of uncertainty?

And

after all,

every thing that has no awareness to be questioned—

its uncertainty is pure!?

Tosafot [s.v. “Combine”]: Why does he need this? Rabbi Meir is concerned for the minority, and without combining it with the presumption it would be an uncertainty. “For one cannot say that although it is an uncertainty, nevertheless we learn from sota to declare pure only in an even balance, for although we do not learn from sota, we learn from Rav Giddel, who expounds, ‘And the meat that touches.’” It is explained that Tosafot hold that according to Rav Giddel’s law there is no need for a presumption, and it is enough that Rabbi Meir is concerned for the minority, which is not certain; although it is opposed to the majority, nevertheless it is pure when it is a thing that has no awareness to be questioned. But Tosafot in Nidda [18b, s.v. “Combine”] maintain that even according to Rabbi Meir we do not follow the minority in a thing that has no awareness to be questioned, and we declare it pure only because it is an even balance. It is possible that their disagreement depends on the investigation mentioned above. See Rashi [s.v. “Since”], who wrote: Why do we declare it pure in our discussion because of the impurity of a menstruating woman when there is no awareness to be questioned? Because we learn from sota. However, Tosafot [2a, s.v. “From time to time”] explained that we learn it from Rav Giddel.

For every uncertain impurity that is impure, we learned from sota, which Scripture prohibited and rendered impure because of uncertainty. We may compare to sota only things that have awareness to be questioned, which are like her, for she has awareness to be questioned. But things that have no awareness to be questioned, which differ from sota, are not learned from it to be stringent in uncertainty; rather, we establish them according to their presumption of purity. If so, why does the bed become impure because of uncertainty, and why do we not establish it according to its presumption of purity!? With regard to pure things, it is understandable that we render them impure even though they have no awareness to be questioned, because since she is occupied with them and holds them in her hand, they are like her hand, and she herself has awareness to be questioned. But with regard to the bed, upon which she merely sat, it is difficult—why do we render it impure because of uncertainty?

He translated it,

he established

Zeiri

our Mishna as speaking of a bed upon which she sat

when her companions were carrying

her on the bed

during that period from time to time, before she separated from the bed. And since the uncertainty arose whether she rendered the bed impure at the time when the bed was carried in the hands of her companions, the bed is considered as though

it had become “the hand of her companions.”

For every object held in a person’s hand at the time when uncertainty concerning impurity arose is not treated as a thing that has no awareness to be questioned; rather, it is considered the person’s hand, and the person himself has awareness to be questioned. Therefore, we learn its law from sota, that its uncertainty is impure.

And the Gemara adds and says:

And now, since Rabbi Yohanan said: An uncertainty of impurity that comes through a person’s agency

[as in this case, where the uncertainty whether the bed became impure is the uncertainty whether the woman rendered it impure],

“they may be questioned concerning it.”

That is, it is considered like something that has awareness to be questioned, and its law of uncertainty is learned from sota, to render it impure.

And

even in a vessel

that is

placed upon the ground,

if a doubt of ritual impurity occurred in it as a result of a possible contact with a ritually impure person, it is ritually impure

like something that has the capacity to be asked about

[by a person].

And if so, here, concerning the bed upon which she sat,

even though her companions were not carrying it on the bed,

but she sat upon the bed while the bed was standing upon the ground, the bed has the status of something that has the capacity to be asked about, and in it a doubt renders ritually impure, analogous to a sota.

The substance of the matter: Rabbi Yohanan said: A doubt of ritual impurity that comes through a person

“is asked about.”

Therefore,

even if

the doubt was

concerning a vessel placed upon the ground,

but the doubt occurred through a person, that vessel is

like something that has the capacity to be asked about!

And we derive from a sota that it is rendered ritually impure in the private domain.

The meitivi:

A ritually impure person who

was wrapping himself in his garment

that was ritually impure, having become ritually impure through him,

and

at the time of the wrapping there were

ritually pure objects

beside the person, and it is not known whether the garment touched the ritually pure objects at the time of the wrapping and rendered them ritually impure, or not.

Or, the person who wrapped himself in the garment was ritually pure, and his garment was ritually pure,

and

there were

ritually impure objects,

such as a creeping creature,

beside him,

and it is not known whether the garment touched the creeping creature at the time of the wrapping, or not.

And that same uncertainty applies when there were

ritually pure and ritually impure objects above the head

of the person wrapping himself,

it is uncertain whether he touched them or did not touch them

—in all these cases, he is

ritually pure!

And it might have entered our minds that the reason they deem him ritually pure and do not compare this to a sota in the private domain is that the doubt concerns the ritually pure objects placed upon the ground, which are not in the hands of the person wrapping himself, and therefore they are something that does not have the capacity to be asked about. It follows from here that although the doubt of ritual impurity occurred through a person, they are not thereby considered like something that has the capacity to be asked about, since he is not holding them in his hands.

And the beraita continues:

And if it is impossible

for him to wrap himself in the garment

unless he touches

the ritually pure objects or the creeping creature, he is

ritually impure!

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

If the matter was uncertain,

they say to him

the person wrapping himself:

Repeat!

That is, repeat the wrapping in the garment a second time, so that we can ascertain whether in this wrapping you touch the ritually pure and ritually impure objects that are beside you and above your head.

And he repeats,

and if it is found that he is now touching them, it is known that he also touched them during the first wrapping.

They said to him,

the Sages to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

One does not repeat concerning ritually pure objects!

For there is no proof from the second wrapping concerning what occurred during the first wrapping!

This concludes the wording of the beraita.

And we analyze:

Why

did the Sages say that if it is uncertain whether he touched them or did not touch them, he is ritually pure?

Is it not a doubt of ritual impurity that comes through a person?

And from here there is a refutation of Rabbi Yohanan, who said that even a vessel placed upon the ground is considered something that has the capacity to be asked about if the event of the doubt was carried out through a person. And it might have entered our minds that the beraita is speaking in every circumstance, both in the private domain and in the public domain; but in the private domain we derive from a sota that everything that has the capacity to be asked about is rendered ritually impure!?

And we answer:

Apart from that!

That is, this beraita cannot be a refutation of Rabbi Yohanan, because

Rav Hoshaya taught

in this beraita: If the wrapping was

in the private domain

its doubt is ritually impure; in the public domain

its doubt is ritually pure!

The substance of the matter.

Ze'iri said:

The decree concerning the impurity of

the period from one time of day to the same time on the preceding day concerning a menstruating woman causes

the impurity of

a lying-place and a sitting-place to render a person

with severe impurity, which also

renders garments impure

that are worn by the person touching the lying-place.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But when Avimi came from Bei Hozai, he came and brought a Mishna in his hand,

and it said:

The Sages decreed concerning the impurity of

the period from one time of day to the same time on the preceding day concerning a menstruating woman

that

her lying-place and her sitting-place

are like her touch!

And we analyze:

Is it not

that just as her touch,

the vessel that the menstruating woman touched,

does not render a person impure

[for the vessel that she touched is a first-degree source of impurity, and a first-degree source of impurity does not render a person impure],

so too her lying-place does not render a person impure,

for this was the decree of the Sages concerning the impurity of the period from one time of day to the same time on the preceding day: that it renders only ritually pure objects impure, but they did not decree concerning this impurity, which is merely an added stringency, that it should render impure with the severity of the impurity of a menstruating woman, rendering her lying-place and sitting-place impure. This is difficult for Ze'iri, who said that it renders even with the impurity of a lying-place, to render a person impure and to render garments impure!?

Rava said

But can you understand it so?

For

it is a kal va-chomer,

that the Sages decreed concerning the period from one time of day to the same time on the preceding day that it should convey severe impurity:

And just as an earthenware vessel enclosed with a tightly sealed cover,

[whose opening is sealed with a tightly sealed cover],

which is saved in the tent of a corpse,

being saved from tent impurity [by an explicit verse], nevertheless—

is not saved during the period from one time of day to the same time on the preceding day concerning a menstruating woman,

as is explained in the beraita below, that if the woman moved an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly sealed cover during the period from one time of day to the same time on the preceding day before she saw blood, it is impure—

the lying-places and sitting-places

that are mentioned,

which are not saved

from impurity

in the tent of a corpse, is it not all the more so that they are not saved during the period from one time of day to the same time on the preceding day concerning a menstruating woman,

but rather they render the person who touches them impure, rendering the garments upon him impure!?

And we challenge Abaye:

But Avimi from Bei Hozai states an explicit Mishna

that is

saying

that during the period from one time of day to the same time on the preceding day concerning a menstruating woman, her lying-place and sitting-place are like her touch! But the touch of a menstruating woman through a vessel does not render a person impure!?

And we answer:

Say

that this is what the tanney of the Mishna is saying: One who touches the

lying-place and sitting-place

of a menstruating woman during the period from one time of day to the same time on the preceding day, counting backward from her seeing blood, is—