Niddah 61b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact location on the page")

he examines it "

section by section,"

place by place; the area of each place will be explained nearby , and if it is not found in this examination, it is certain that it fell out on its own .

If a seminal discharge was lost in it,

if the garment was

new—

he examines it with a needle,

inserting the needle into the garment. When it reaches the place of the semen, inserting it becomes difficult because of the semen’s hardness.

And if the garment was

worn and worn out—

he examines it in sunlight,

because a seminal discharge blocks the garment’s openings and prevents the sunlight from passing through.

The Gemara explains the size of the “sections” in which Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar required him to examine the garment:

A tannaitic teaching states: There is no

“section”

of a garment that is

less than three fingerbreadths,

and only when he examines each group of three fingerbreadths separately may he rely on the examination and declare the garment pure.

The Sages taught: A linen garment

of

in which was lost

a wool thread—that is, a wool thread was woven into it, making the garment

a prohibited mixture of wool and linen,

and the location of the thread is no longer recognizable—

he may not sell it to an idolater,

because we are concerned that the idolater may later sell it to a Jew .

Nor may he make it into a saddlecloth for a donkey,

lest he later use it as a patch for a garment .

But he may make shrouds for a dead person from it,

because, since shrouds of the dead are forbidden to derive benefit from, there is no concern that he will come to use them for himself.

Rav Yosef said: This indicates that

from the fact that the dead are buried in a garment containing a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, without concern that they will arise wearing a garment forbidden to wear at the resurrection of the dead , that

mitzvot will be annulled in the future.

The Gemara rejects this:

Abaye said to him—and some say that it was Rav Dimi: But did Rabbi Mani not say in the name of Rabbi Yannai: This was taught

only with regard to eulogizing him,

during the time of the eulogy;

but with regard to burying him—

it is forbidden!

He said to him: Was it not stated regarding this matter: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even for burying him,

thereby disagreeing with Rabbi Mani, who permitted it only during the eulogy?

And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his own reasoning.

As Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written, “Free among the dead”?—

Once a person dies, he becomes free from the mitzvot.

Rafram bar Pappa said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: In the case of a garment in which a prohibited mixture of wool and linen was lost—

he dyes it,

because wool absorbs dye better than linen, thereby revealing the location of the thread,

and it is permitted

to wear it. Since we did not find a thread that absorbed the dye more strongly, we assume that the thread fell out on its own.

Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: From where did the elder derive this,

that one may rely on an examination to assume that the thread fell out on its own, without concern that perhaps the examination was not performed properly?

He said to him: It is a Mishna!

As we learned:

A ritually impure mound that became mixed among two ritually pure mounds—

he examines them until he reaches the bedrock.

Rav Ḥisda inferred:

And if there is no

impurity—that is, he does not find the impure object—

say that a raven took it.

If so,

here too:

In a garment containing

wool and linen

[wool and linen]

together—

the dye is not absorbed by them

to the same degree .

And since it is not apparent

and we did not find a thread whose color differs—

say that it crumbled and fell away.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Iva, said in the name of Mar Zutra: If one inserts a linen thread into a woolen cloak,

thereby making the garment a prohibited mixture because the linen thread is mixed into the woolen garment,

and he pulls it out,

the thread,

but does not know whether he pulled it out

completely

or did not pull it out—

it is acceptable,

and the garment is permitted to wear.

What is the reason?

By Torah law, “sha’atnez” is written,

and we learn from the fact that the Torah called the mixture “sha’atnez”

that it must be

a thread made from wool and linen from the beginning of its production. The wool and linen must already be mixed during the process of

combing,

which smooths the wool and linen before spinning; during the process of

spinning

the thread;

and

also during

weaving,

which is the weaving of the thread into the garment. But if the wool threads and linen threads were made separately—meaning that the combing or spinning was done separately—and a garment was woven from the separate threads, there is no Torah prohibition against wearing it . Rather—

It is the Sages who decreed the prohibition upon it. And since he does not know whether he pulled it out—

from the standpoint of a doubtful rabbinic prohibition,

it is permitted.

Rav Ashi challenged this: Say that the meaning of “sha’atnez” is

«шаатнез» —

either combing, or spinning, or weaving,

and that it is sufficient for one of the stages to have been performed with the wool and linen mixed in order to prohibit it?!

And the practical ruling is in accordance with Mar Zutra.

Since the Merciful One expressed it in a single formulation,

“sha’atnez,” rather than writing “combing, spinning, and weaving.”

The Sages taught: A dyed garment—

is rendered impure on account of a stain

found on it.

Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: It is not rendered impure on account of a stain, because colored garments were instituted for a woman only to be lenient with regard to her stains,

so that they would not render her impure.

The Gemara asks: What is it saying by the phrase

“instituted

colored garments for a woman”?

What did they institute?

Was there an institution requiring women to wear colored garments?

It answers:

Rather, colored garments were not permitted

for a woman

except to be lenient with regard to her stains,

because blood is not recognizable on a colored garment in the same way that ordinary blood appears .

The Gemara asks:

“Were permitted”—

this implies that

before the permission

they were forbidden.

What is the nature of this prohibition?

It answers:

No.

As we learned: During the military campaign,

at the time of the decree of the armies

of Vespasian,

the Sages decreed

against

the crowns of bridegrooms,

so that they should not wear them on their heads because of the sorrow over the destruction,

and against the bell,

which is a “jingling pair” that increases joy.

They also sought

to

decree against colored garments.

They said: This

that women wear colored garments

is preferable

to instituting a practice of mourning over the destruction—

in order to be lenient with regard to their stains.

Mishna:

Seven substances remove a stain,

in order to determine whether the stain is blood or dye , and also in order to purify it, if it is blood, from rendering ritually pure food impure through contact, since blood normally disappears through these substances

1.

Stale spittle,

which has no taste; 2.

water of grits;

3.

urine.

The continuation of the Mishna will explain these three substances.

4.

Natron,

a type of soft stone used for cleaning the head .

H.

And borit,

a species of grass that cleans .