Niddah 8b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara asks: How is it possible that Rabbi Eliezer would say something in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel:

But

Rabbi Eliezer

is much older

than Rabbi Hanina

[is he not]?

And because of this difficulty the Gemara retracts [its explanation] and answers in another manner:

Rather,

the fact that he ruled according to Rabbi Eliezer concerning havdala, without counting him among the halakhot that follow his opinion, is

because Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel follows

in the matter of havdala

his method

of Rabbi Eliezer, and this is not a decision according only to the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rather, this answer too is rejected—

And does

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel follow the method of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that havdala is said in the blessing of thanksgiving?

But was it not taught: The evening [

of the night ]

of Yom Kippur—

he recites seven [blessings] and confesses

after them.

Morning—

he recites seven [blessings] and confesses.

Musaf—

he recites seven [blessings] and confesses.

Minha—

he recites seven [blessings] and confesses.

At Ne'ila—

he recites seven [blessings] and confesses,

In the evening

of the conclusion of Yom Kippur—

he recites eighteen in abbreviated form [

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

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel, in the name of his fathers, says:

In the evening at the conclusion of Yom Kippur—

he recites the eighteen [blessings], because he must say “havdala” in the

blessing of

“Who grants knowledge.”

And if he says “Grant us understanding,” he cannot say havdala.

And it is demonstrated that Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and maintains that the blessing of havdala is said within “Who grants knowledge,” and not within the blessing of thanksgiving.

And we answer:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: He,

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel,

said in the name of his fathers

that they maintain that he says it in “Who grants knowledge.” But

as for him

himself,

he does not hold

like his fathers, but like Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And

if

you do not accept

the view of Rabbi Pedat,

who

said:

Who is the tanna [of the statement], “The sap

is fruit”?

It is Rabbi Eliezer!?

But did we not learn

in tractate Orla:

Rabbi Eliezer says: One who coagulates

milk [in order to make it cheese]

with the sap of orla—

it is forbidden

to eat and to derive benefit from it! For the sap is considered fruit [because if it were merely wood, there would be no prohibition of orla in it, as it is stated, “you shall treat its fruit as forbidden,” and not its wood].

Rabbi Zeira answered Rabbi Yirmeya:

Even say

that you accept the view of

the Rabbis

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer concerning orla and maintain that sap is not considered fruit; nevertheless, it is possible to establish the Mishna as saying that sap has the sanctity of the seventh year according to them, and there is no need to establish it specifically according to Rabbi Eliezer.

For

the Rabbis did not disagree with Rabbi Eliezer this far

concerning the sap of orla,

except regarding the sap of the branches

where the sap drips from the tree, and therefore the Rabbis maintain that the sap is merely wood.

But concerning the sap of the fruits,

the sap that emerges from unripe fruits,

they concede to him

the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer that it is fruit, and the Mishna in Shevi'it is speaking of the sap of unripe fruits, and it follows the view of everyone.

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

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

that are forbidden, or

with the sap of the roots

that are forbidden—

it is permitted

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

with the sap of the unripe fruits—

it is forbidden, because it is fruit.

And Rabbi Zeira continues and answers Rabbi Yirmeya why he did not establish the law of the sanctity of the seventh year concerning sap according to Rabbi Eliezer.

And if you wish, say: When the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer

concerning the sap of orla, that is specifically

in a tree that produces fruit,

for in its case the sap is not considered fruit,

but in a tree that does not produce fruit, they concede

the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer

that its sap is its fruit,

and the Mishna in Shevi'it is speaking of this, and it follows the view of everyone.

And the proof for this view, that in a tree that does not produce fruit everyone agrees that its sap is its fruit, is—

For we learned: Rabbi Shimon says: The sap does not have [the sanctity of] the seventh year,

because it is merely wood,

and the Sages say: The sap has [the sanctity of] the seventh year, because its sap is its fruit!

It is demonstrated that even the Rabbis concede that its sap is its fruit in a tree that does not produce fruit.

The Gemara rejects [this]:

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

And we challenge [this]:

If it is Rabbi Eliezer, why specifically a tree that does not produce fruit? Even in a tree that produces fruit, its sap is its fruit.

And we answer:

He said it to them according to the words of the Rabbis: As for me,

that is, Rabbi Eliezer maintains,

even in a tree that produces fruit too, its sap is its fruit; according to your view, at least concede to me concerning a tree that does not produce fruit that its sap is its fruit.

But you, the Rabbis, concede to me at least concerning a tree that does not produce fruit that its sap is its fruit,

and the Rabbis said to him: It makes no difference.

Which 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

because of

the intercourse of

marriage—

these bloods are not considered menstrual blood.

And likewise, if she

gave birth and saw blood because of childbirth—

I still call her “a virgin”

with regard to the law that “her time is sufficient”: if she sees menstrual blood at another time, that sight is considered her first sight of menstrual blood, and she does not render [the things she had touched] impure retroactively.

For the “virgin” of whom they spoke

in the Mishna of the Four Women whose time is sufficient means

“a virgin of blood,”

who sees menstrual blood for the first time,

and not “a virgin of virginity,”

who sees blood because of intercourse.

And we challenge:

Is this so? But Rav Kahana said: A tanna—

there are three virgins: a human virgin, a virgin soil, and a virgin sycamore.

A human virgin

is a woman

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

for the High Priest [

who is obligated to marry a virgin ]

or for her ketuba of two hundred [zuz]. A virgin soil

is the land

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

for a perennial stream,

for decapitating the heifer whose neck is broken there.

Alternatively, for buying and selling [

which is the definition of the sale ] .

A virgin sycamore

is the sycamore

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

for buying and selling [

for defining the sale ].

Alternatively—

for cutting it down during the seventh year [

as will be explained below ].

As we learned: One may not cut down a virgin sycamore during the seventh year, because it,

the cutting of the virgin, is

labor!

And if it is so

that a woman who sees blood because of marriage or childbirth, but had not previously seen menstrual blood in her lifetime, is called “a virgin of blood”—

let him also teach this,

as a fourth virgin!?

And four answers were stated in response to this difficulty.

1.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: When he teaches,

“there are three virgins,”

he teaches something that does not have an accompanying name

he teaches.

But something that has an accompanying name he does not teach.

And a virgin of blood is a human virgin with the accompanying name “of blood.”

2.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: When he teaches, he teaches something whose status depends on an act [

for the cancellation of the state of “virginity” depends on an act ], but

something whose status does not depend on an act [

such as seeing menstrual blood, where the blood comes by itself, and thus her state as a “virgin of blood” is annulled by itself ]

he does not teach.

3.

Rabbi Hanina, son of Rav Ika, said: When he teaches, he teaches something that does not return

to its original state [that does not ever return to the state of “virginity”]. But

something that returns to its original state—

he does not teach [

whereas a “virgin of blood” returns to its previous state when she grows old and ceases to see blood ].

4.

Ravina said: When he teaches—

something about which the buyer is particular [

the one who buys it ].

But something about which the buyer is not particular he does not teach [

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

And the Gemara asks about Ravina’s answer—

And

if

people are not particular

about seeing blood?

But was it not taught: Rabbi Hiyya says: Just as leaven is beneficial for dough, so blood is beneficial for a woman!?

And it was taught

in another beraita

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

her children are abundant!? Rather,

this was Ravina’s answer:

When he teaches—

something over which the buyer leaps

as a “virgin” [a woman who has not had intercourse, or soil that has not been plowed, and likewise a sycamore that has not yet been cut down, are more select]. But

something over which the buyer does not leap

such as a “virgin of blood,” where it is preferable for the man who buys her that she not be in the state of “virginity,” but rather that she be one who sees blood,

he does not teach.

The Sages taught: Which is a “virgin soil”?—

Any soil that raises stones [

a particular type of stones; hard clods of earth ]

and whose soil is not loose.

If pottery is found in it—

it is known that it was worked!

Rocky soil [

rocky ground ]—

this is a “virgin soil.”

We learned in the Mishna: A pregnant woman—

from when her fetus is recognizable.

And [

at ]

how many

months is

the fetus 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

a supporting indication—

as it is stated

concerning Tamar:

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

And it concludes [the verse].

And we inquire concerning it: Is this verse merely

a supporting indication?

But

the verse is explicitly written

there,

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

The Sages taught: If she had the presumptive status of a pregnant woman, and she saw blood, and afterward she miscarried wind, or anything that is not viable,

we do not say that the matter was retroactively revealed, that her pregnancy was not a pregnancy, and it is now consequently clarified that when she saw blood she should have rendered the pure things 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 law of a pregnant woman with a viable fetus .

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

there is

a supporting indication—

as it is stated:

“We were pregnant, we writhed, as though we had given birth to wind.”

And it is implied that a pregnancy of wind is called a pregnancy, for the prophet Isaiah compares the suffering of the people of Israel to a woman who is pregnant and suffers from it, and in the end gives birth to wind.

And we inquire concerning it:

What [

as in: “Why are you saying” ] that this verse is only

“a supporting indication”?

And

behold, it is a great proof

from the verse

itself!?

And we answer:

This verse is

concerning males that it is

is that which is

written, and it cannot provide a complete proof. For it is not speaking of the pregnancy of a woman, but is merely a metaphor concerning males, as though they suffer pregnancy and give birth to wind [and in the wording of the verse, “we were pregnant,” it is implied that it is speaking about all Israel].

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].

And the Gemara asks concerning the law of the beraita, that a pregnancy of wind is considered a complete pregnancy.

And he juxtaposes

what we learned:

A woman who was seized by labor pains and saw blood because of the difficulty of childbirth does not become impure with the impurity of a zavah because of the blood that comes to her during her labor [when she saw it during the eleven days fit for zivah]; rather, it is considered blood pure of zivah. A woman who

labored

at the time of childbirth and saw blood during

two

days before the day of childbirth,

and on the

the

third day,

when she saw blood,

miscarried wind, or anything that is not viable [

and the three days of seeing blood were within the eleven days of zivah ]—

she is a woman who gives birth in zivah!

For she is obligated to conduct herself according to the law of a zavah, to count seven clean days and bring an offering, because her childbirth is not considered childbirth, and therefore the blood is not considered pure blood of a woman in difficult labor.