Niddah 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Eliezer have stated a ruling in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel:

But

Rabbi Eliezer is

much older

than Rabbi Ḥanina

[so how could he have cited him]?

As a result of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts its previous explanation and offers another:

Rather,

the reason that the halakha was ruled in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer concerning havdala, without including him among the number of halakhot ruled in accordance with his opinion, is

because Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel followed

in the matter of havdala

the position

of Rabbi Eliezer; therefore, this is not a ruling solely in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

But this answer too is rejected—

And did

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel follow the position of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that havdala is recited in the blessing of thanksgiving?

But was it taught in a baraita: On the evening [the night of]

of the night of

Yom Kippur—

one recites the Amida of seven blessings and confesses

after them.

In the morning—

one recites the Amida of seven blessings and confesses.

For the additional prayer—

one recites the Amida of seven blessings and confesses.

For the afternoon prayer—

one recites the Amida of seven blessings and confesses.

For Ne’ila—

one recites the Amida of seven blessings and confesses,

For the evening prayer

of the conclusion of Yom Kippur—

one recites an Amida of seven blessings resembling the eighteen [the first three and last three blessings in their complete form, while the blessing of “Grant us understanding,” which briefly includes all the middle blessings, is recited between the first three and last three blessings].

[the first three and last three blessings in full, with the blessing “Grant us understanding,” which briefly includes all the middle blessings, recited between the first three and last three blessings].

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, in the name of his ancestors, says:

For the evening prayer at the conclusion of Yom Kippur—

one recites the full eighteen blessings, because one must recite havdala in the

blessing of

“Grant us understanding.”

If one recites “Grant us favor,” one cannot recite havdala.

It is evident that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and maintains that the blessing of havdala is recited within “Grant us understanding,” rather than within the blessing of thanksgiving.

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He,

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel,

said it in the name of his ancestors,

who maintain that havdala is recited in “Grant us understanding.” But

as for him

himself, he

does not hold

like his ancestors; rather, he agrees with Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And

if

you do not accept

the opinion of Rabbi Pedat,

who

said:

Who is the tanna of the statement “the sap

is fruit”?

It is Rabbi Eliezer!?

But didn’t we learn

in tractate Orla:

Rabbi Eliezer says: One who coagulates

milk [in order to make cheese]

with the sap of an orla tree—

it is prohibited

to eat or derive benefit from it! This is because the sap is considered fruit [for if it were merely wood, the prohibition of orla would not apply to it, as it is stated: “You shall consider its fruit forbidden,” but not its wood].

Rabbi Zeira answered Rabbi Yirmeya:

Even if you say

that you should accept the opinion of

the Sages,

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer concerning orla and maintain that sap is not considered fruit, nevertheless it is possible to establish that the Mishna rules that sap possesses the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year in accordance with their opinion; it need not be established specifically in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

For

the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer only

concerning the sap of an orla tree

in the case of sap of the branches,

which drips from the tree; therefore, the Sages maintain that the sap is merely wood.

But concerning the sap of fruit,

the sap that emerges from unripe fruit,

the Sages agree with him

that it is fruit. And the Mishna in tractate Shevi’it is discussing the sap of unripe fruit, and therefore it accords with everyone’s opinion.

Rabbi Zeira brings proof for his words, that a distinction must be made between the sap of the tree and the sap of unripe fruit:

As we learned: Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard explicitly that one who coagulates milk with the sap of the forbidden leaves

or

with the sap of the forbidden roots

—

it is permitted

to eat it, since it is merely wood. But one who coagulates milk

with the sap of unripe fruit—

it is prohibited, because it is fruit.

Rabbi Zeira continues and explains to Rabbi Yirmeya why he did not establish the law of the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year concerning sap in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

And if you wish, say instead: When the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer

concerning the sap of an orla tree, that was specifically

in the case of a fruit-bearing tree,

where the sap is not considered fruit.

But in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit, the Sages agree

with Rabbi Eliezer

that its sap is its fruit,

and the Mishna in tractate Shevi’it is discussing such sap; consequently, it accords with everyone’s opinion.

The proof for this position, that everyone agrees that the sap of a non-fruit-bearing tree is its fruit, is as follows—

As we learned: Rabbi Shimon says: The sap does not have the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year,

because it is merely wood,

And the Sages say: The sap does have the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, because its sap is its fruit!

It is evident that even the Sages agree that the sap is its fruit in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit.

The Gemara rejects this:

A certain elder said to him: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Who are the Sages? Rabbi Eliezer, who says that its sap is its fruit.

And we challenge this:

If it is Rabbi Eliezer, why mention specifically a tree that does not bear fruit? Even in the case of a fruit-bearing tree, its sap is its fruit.

And we answer:

He stated it to them according to the position of the Sages: As for me,

that is, Rabbi Eliezer maintains,

even in the case of a fruit-bearing tree, its sap is also its fruit; but according to your view, at least concede to me that in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit, its sap is its fruit.

But you, the Sages, should at least concede to me that in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit, its sap is its fruit.

And the Sages said to him: There is no difference.

What is a virgin? Any woman who has not seen blood, etc.

The Sages taught:

A woman who had never seen blood in her lifetime,

who married and saw blood

for the first time

as a result of

the intercourse of

marriage—

this blood is not considered menstrual blood.

And likewise, if she

gave birth and saw blood as a result of childbirth—

I still call her a “virgin”

with regard to the law that “her time is sufficient”: if she sees menstrual blood on another occasion, that sight is considered her first sight of menstrual blood, and she does not render pure items impure retroactively.

For the “virgin” they mentioned

in the Mishna of the four women whose time is sufficient means

a “virgin of blood,”

one who sees menstrual blood for the first time,

and not a “virgin of virginity,”

one who sees blood as a result of intercourse.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But didn’t Rav Kahana say: A tanna—

There are three types of virgin: a. a human virgin; b. virgin soil; c. a virgin sycamore.

A human virgin

is a woman

as long as she has not had intercourse. The practical consequence—

with regard to the High Priest [who is obligated to marry a virgin] —

[who is obligated to marry a virgin]

or with regard to her marriage contract of two hundred zuz. A virgin soil

is land

as long as it has not been worked. The practical consequence—

with regard to a rugged stream,

where the calf of the eglah arufa is decapitated.

Alternatively, with regard to buying and selling [which is the definition of the transaction] .

[as this defines the subject of the sale] .

A virgin sycamore

is a sycamore tree

as long as it has not been cut down. The practical consequence—

with regard to buying and selling [for defining the transaction].

[to define the subject of the sale].

Alternatively—

with regard to cutting it down during the Sabbatical Year [as will be explained below].

[as will be explained below].

As we learned: One may not cut down a virgin sycamore during the Sabbatical Year, because it is

the cutting of a virgin tree—

labor!

And if it is so,

that a woman who sees blood as a result of marriage or childbirth, but had never previously seen menstrual blood, is called a “virgin of blood”—

let him also teach this,

as a fourth type of virgin!?

Four answers were offered to this difficulty.

a.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: When he teaches,

“There are three types of virgin,”

he teaches only matters that do not have an accompanying designation.

He teaches them.

But he does not teach matters that have an accompanying designation.

And a “virgin of blood” is a human virgin with the additional designation “of blood.”

b.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: When he teaches, he teaches only matters whose status depends on an act [the annulment of the state of “virginity” depends on an action], but

[the removal of the status of “virgin” depends on an action], but

matters whose status does not depend on an act [such as the seeing of menstrual blood, which comes on its own, so that her status as a “virgin of blood” is annulled on its own]

[such as seeing menstrual blood, which comes by itself, so that her status as a “menstrual-blood virgin” is removed by itself]

he does not teach.

c.

Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rav Ika, said: When he teaches, he teaches only matters that do not return

to their original state [which never return to the state of “virginity”]. But

matters that return to their original state—

he does not teach [whereas a “virgin of blood” returns to her previous state when she grows old and ceases to see blood].

[whereas a “menstrual-blood virgin” returns to her former state when she grows old and stops seeing blood].

d.

Ravina said: When he teaches, he teaches

only matters about which the buyer is particular [the one buying it].

the one who buys it ].

But he does not teach matters about which the buyer is not particular [for a man marrying a woman does not care whether she has already seen blood].

[for a man marrying a woman does not care whether she has already seen blood].

The Gemara asks concerning Ravina’s answer—

And

if

people are not particular

about a woman’s seeing blood,

But it was taught: Rabbi Ḥiyya says: Just as leaven is beneficial for dough, so blood is beneficial for a woman!?

And it was taught

in another baraita

in the name of Rabbi Meir: Any woman whose blood is abundant—

her children will be numerous!? Rather,

this is how Ravina answered:

When he teaches, he teaches

only matters over which the buyer is eager to acquire

as a “virgin” [a woman who has not had intercourse, uncultivated land, and a sycamore that has not yet been cut are all more desirable]. But

matters over which the buyer is not eager to acquire

such as a “virgin of blood,” for a man buying a woman prefers that she not be in the state of a “virgin”; on the contrary, he prefers that she see blood,

he does not teach.

The Sages taught: What is “virgin soil”?—

Any soil that brings up stones

[a certain type of stone, hard clods of earth]

and whose soil is not loose.

If a potsherd is found in it,

it is certainly known that it was worked!

Rocky soil

[rocky ground]—

this is “virgin soil.”

We learned in the Mishna: A pregnant woman—

from when her pregnancy is recognizable.

And

at

how many

months is

the pregnancy recognizable?

Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Three months

from the beginning of her pregnancy .

And although there is no proof for the matter, there is

there is

an allusion to the matter—

as it is stated

concerning Tamar:

“And it came to pass about three months later.”

And it concludes [the verse].

We inquire about this: Is this verse merely

an allusion to the matter?

But

the verse is explicitly written

as such,

and it is a powerful proof!?

And we answer:

Because there is

a woman

who gives birth after nine

months,

and there is one who gives birth after seven

months. Sumakhos innovated that even a woman who gives birth after seven months is considered to have a recognizable pregnancy only after three months, and not after one-third of her pregnancy; for this innovation of Sumakhos there is no conclusive proof from the case of Tamar .

The Sages taught: If a woman was presumed to be pregnant, saw blood, and afterward miscarried a wind or anything that is not viable,

we do not say that it has retroactively become clear that her pregnancy was not a pregnancy, and consequently it is now clear that when she saw blood she should have rendered the pure items impure retroactively. Rather, we say that as long as she had not miscarried,

she retains her presumptive status, and her time is sufficient

as in the case of a woman pregnant with a viable fetus .

And although there is no proof for the matter, there is

there is

an allusion to the matter—

as it is stated:

“We conceived, we writhed as in labor; it was as though we had given birth to wind.”

This implies that a pregnancy with wind is called a pregnancy, for the prophet Isaiah compares the suffering of the Jewish people to that of a woman who is pregnant and suffers from it, but ultimately gives birth to wind.

We inquire about this:

What [as in: why do you say] that this verse is only

[meaning: why are you saying] that this verse is only

“an allusion to the matter”?

But

it is a great proof

from

the verse itself!?

And we answer:

This verse is

written concerning males,

for it is

written that way, and therefore no definitive proof may be brought from it. It is not speaking of a woman’s pregnancy, but is merely a metaphor concerning males, as though they suffer pregnancy and give birth to wind [as indicated by the wording “we conceived,” which implies that it is speaking of the entire Jewish people].

and therefore it cannot provide an absolute proof. It is not speaking of a woman’s pregnancy, but is merely a metaphor concerning men, as though they suffered pregnancy and gave birth to wind [as indicated by the wording “we were pregnant,” which implies that it is speaking of the entire Jewish people].

The Gemara asks concerning the law of the baraita, that a pregnancy with wind is considered a full pregnancy.

And he juxtaposes

this with what we learned:

A woman who was seized by labor pains and saw blood as a result of the difficulty of childbirth does not become impure with the impurity of a zavah because of blood that came while she was in labor [when she saw it during the eleven days designated for zivah]; rather, it is considered blood pure from the laws of zivah. A woman who

was in labor

at the time of childbirth and saw blood for

two

days before the day of birth,

and on the

the

third

day, on which she saw blood,

miscarried a wind or anything that is not viable [and the three days on which she saw blood were during the eleven days of zivah]—

[and the three days on which she saw blood were within the eleven days designated for such impurity]—

she is a woman who gives birth while a zavah!

She is obligated to conduct herself according to the laws of a zavah, to count seven clean days and bring an offering, because her childbirth is not considered childbirth; therefore, the blood is not considered blood pure from the laws of a woman in labor.