Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah

Folio 42a

R. Samuel b. Bisna enquired of Abaye: 'Is a woman ejecting semen¹²  regarded as observing a discharge or as coming in contact with one?¹³  The practical issue¹⁴  is the question of rendering¹⁵  any previous counting¹⁶  void,¹⁷  and of conveying uncleanness by means of the smallest quantity¹⁷  and of conveying uncleanness internally as well as externally'.¹⁷  But what is the question?¹⁸  If he¹⁹  heard of the Baraithas [he should have known that] according to the Rabbis she is regarded as observing a discharge while according to R. Simeon she is regarded as coming in contact with one; and if he¹⁹  did not hear of the Baraitha,²⁰  is it not logical that²¹  she should be regarded as coming in contact with one?²²  — Indeed he may well have heard of the Baraitha and, as far as the Rabbis are concerned, he had no question at all;²³  what he did ask concerned only the view of R. Simeon. Furthermore, he had no question²⁴  as to whether uncleanness is conveyed internally as externally;²⁵  what he did ask was whether any previous counting is rendered void and whether uncleanness is conveyed by means of the smallest quantity. When [he asked in effect] R. Simeon ruled that 'it is enough that she be subject to the same stringency of uncleanness as the man who had intercourse with her' he meant it only in respect of conveying uncleanness internally as externally²⁶  but as regards rendering any previous counting void and conveying uncleanness by means of the smallest quantity she is regarded as one observing a discharge, or is it possible that²⁷  there is no difference?²⁸  There are others who read: Indeed he¹⁹  may never have heard of the Baraitha,²⁹  but³⁰  it is this that he asked in effect: Since the All Merciful has considered it proper to impose a restriction³¹  at Sinai on those who emitted semen,³²  she must be regarded as one who observed a discharge, or is it possible that no inference may be drawn from Sinai, since it was placed under an anomalous law, seeing that zabs and lepers who are elsewhere subject to major restrictions were not subjected by the All Merciful to that restriction?³¹  — The other³³  replied: She is regarded as one who has observed a discharge. He³⁴  then came to Raba³⁵  and put the question to him. The latter replied: She is regarded as one who observed a discharge. He thereupon came to R. Joseph who also told him: She is regarded as one who observed a discharge. He³⁴  then returned to Abaye and said to him: 'You all spit the same thing',³⁶  'We', the other replied, 'only gave you the right answer. For when R. Simeon ruled that "it is enough that she be subject to the same stringency of uncleanness as the man who had intercourse with her" it was only in respect of conveying uncleanness internally as externally,³⁷  but in respect of rendering any previous counting void and in respect of conveying uncleanness by means of the smallest quantity she is regarded as one who observed a discharge.³⁸

Our Rabbis taught: A menstruant,³⁹  a zabah,⁴⁰  one who awaits a day for a day⁴⁰  and a woman after childbirth⁴¹  contract uncleanness internally⁴²  as well as externally. Now, the enumeration of three of these cases⁴³  may well be justified, but how is one to explain the mention of the woman after childbirth? If the birth⁴⁴  occurred during her menstruation period she is a menstruant,⁴⁵  and if it occurred during her zibah period she is a zabah?⁴⁵  — The mention⁴⁶  was necessary only in the case of one who went down⁴⁷  to perform ritual immersion in order to pass out thereby from the period of uncleanness to that of cleanness;⁴⁸  and this⁴⁹  is in agreement with a ruling given by R. Zera citing R. Hiyya b. Ashi who had it from Rab: If a woman after childbirth went down⁴⁷  to perform ritual immersion in order to pass out thereby from her period of uncleanness to that of cleanness,⁴⁸  and some blood was detached from her body,⁵⁰  while she was going down,⁵¹  she is unclean,⁵²  but if it occurred while she was going up, she is clean.⁵³  Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera: Why should she be unclean if this occurred 'while she was going down'? Is not the blood merely an absorbed uncleanness?⁵⁴  — Go, the other replied, and ask it of R. Abin to whom I have explained the point at the schoolhouse and who nodded to me with his head.⁵⁵  He went and asked him [the question], and the latter replied: This was treated like the carcass of a clean bird which⁵⁶  conveys uncleanness to garments⁵⁷  while it is still passing through the oesophagus.⁵⁸  But are the two cases at all similar

1. Even after the ejection.
2. And that the uncleanness of which Raba spoke is due to this possibility.
3. Instead of the statement, 'it is impossible that she should not eject'.
4. Raba's.
5. After the immersion.
6. Hence 'it is impossible that she etc.'.
7. R. Simeon's.
8. Her uncleanness, therefore, terminates at evening.
9. In his ruling.
10. Lit., 'took his stand on the text and thus he said'.
11. Lev. XV, 18.
12. After she had undergone ritual immersion and was freed thereby from the uncleanness of intercourse to which she was subject (as stated supra) under a specific Scriptural ordinance.
13. Externally. Internal contact, being within a concealed region, is (as stated supra 41b) of no consequence.
14. Between uncleanness through (a) observation and (b) contact.
15. During the eleven days of zibah.
16. Of the prescribed seven days.
17. Which is the case with an observation but not with contact.
18. Lit., 'what is your desire?'
19. R. Samuel who raised the question.
20. Supra 41b, where the Rabbis ruled that the ejection of semen conveys uncleanness internally as well as externally, while R. Simeon ruled that it is enough for the woman to be as unclean as the man who had intercourse with her. For the reading 'Baraitha' cf. Bomb. ed. Cur. edd. 'our Mishnah'.
21. Since the discharge does not originate from the woman's own body.
22. Of course it is. Why then did R. Samuel raise the question at all?
23. Since the Rabbis ruled that uncleanness is conveyed internally as well as externally it is obvious that the woman is regarded as one observing a discharge, and is, therefore, subject all the more to the other restrictions.
24. Even according to R. Simeon.
25. Well knowing that no internal uncleanness is conveyed (cf. supra n. 6).
26. Sc. as the man is free from internal uncleanness so is she.
27. Since he regarded her only as one coming in contact with a discharge.
28. And she is in all respects to be treated as such.
29. V. supra p. 288 n. 5.
30. In reply to the objection, 'Is it not logical that she should be regarded as coming in contact with one?'
31. Not to approach the mountain.
32. V. Ex. XIX, 15. 'Come not near a woman'. This shows that the emission of semen is subject to a higher degree of uncleanness than contact with a dead creeping thing, which did not subject a person to the restriction.
33. Abaye.
34. R. Samuel b. Bisna.
35. Var. lec. Rabbah (BaH.).
36. Lit., 'spittle', i.e., your opinions are all traceable to the same source.
37. Sc. as the man is free from internal uncleanness so is she.
38. Since in the case of the man also (to whose degree of uncleanness hers is compared) any previous counting is rendered void and the smallest quantity conveys uncleanness.
39. After one observation during her menstrual period.
40. Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. If this single observation is followed by two other observations the woman is a confirmed zabah and must count seven days before she attains to cleanness, but if no other observation followed she only awaits one clean day for the unclean one.
41. This is explained presently.
42. Sc. as soon as the discharge made its way into the vagina.
43. Lit., '(almost) all of them'.
44. And the discharge observed.
45. Who was already specifically enumerated among the first three cases.
46. Of the woman after childbirth.
47. After the seven or fourteen days of uncleanness following the birth of a male and a female respectively.
48. The period of thirty-three clean days after the seven, and the sixty-six clean days after the fourteen (cf. prev. n.).
49. The ruling that a woman in such circumstances contracts uncleanness internally.
50. In the vagina, where it remained for a day or two.
51. Since the mere passing of the seven or fourteen days does not restore the woman to cleanness unless immersion had been performed (cf. supra 35b). When the unclean blood (cf. next n.) is completely discharged from the body a second immersion is required since no cleanness had been attained by the first.
52. While the blood is retained in the vagina, on account of her carriage of, or contact with the detached blood in it.
53. When, owing to the immersion, her clean period had already begun and the blood is clean. It has thus been shown that the Baraitha under discussion is in agreement with the first case, 'while she was going down, she is unclean' of R. Zera.
54. Which (cf. Hul. 71a) cannot convey uncleanness either through contact or through carriage. Granted that a menstrual, or a zibah discharge causes a woman's uncleanness even while it is still absorbed in the vagina (as deduced supra from a Scriptural text), how can this blood, which is neither menstrual nor one of zibah and which (if it had come in external contact with the woman) could only have caused one day's uncleanness convey to the woman any uncleanness at all while still absorbed?
55. As a mark of approval.
56. Though it conveys no uncleanness to the garments of the man who comes in contact with it.
57. Those of the man who eats of it.
58. An 'absorbed uncleanness'.

The question was raised: Is that region in a woman²⁴  regarded as an absorbed place or as a concealed one? — In what respect could this matter? — In the case, for instance, where her friend inserted in her in that region a piece of nebelah of the size of an olive. If you say that it is regarded as an absorbed place, this nebelah being now an absorbed uncleanness²⁵  would convey no uncleanness to the woman,²⁶  but if you say that it is a concealed place, granted that no uncleanness could be conveyed by means of contact²⁷  uncleanness would be conveyed by means of carriage?²⁸  — Abaye replied: It is regarded as an absorbed place. Raba replied: It is regarded as a concealed one. Said Raba: Whence do I derive this? From what was taught: Since the uncleanness arises in a concealed region, and since an uncleanness in a concealed region is elsewhere ineffective, a special Scriptural ordinance was required [to give it effect in this particular case].²⁹  And Abaye?³⁰  — The meaning³¹  is this: There is one reason and there is yet another.³²  In the first place the woman should be clean since the uncleanness is an absorbed one; and, furthermore, even if you were to find some ground for saying that it is a concealed uncleanness and an uncleanness in a concealed region is ineffective, this³³  is a specific Scriptural ordinance.

The question was raised: Is the region through which the nebelah of a clean bird conveys uncleanness to a human being³⁴  regarded as an absorbed place or as a concealed one? In what respect can this matter? — In a case, for instance, where his friend pushed a piece of nebelah of the size of an olive into his mouth.³⁵  If you regard it as an absorbent place, this nebelah being now an absorbed uncleanness would convey no uncleanness, but if³⁶  you say that it is a concealed one, granted that no uncleanness is conveyed by means of contact,³⁷  uncleanness would be conveyed by means of carriage?³⁸  — Abaye replied: It is an absorbed place, but Raba replied: It is a concealed one. Whence, said Abaye, do I derive this? From what was taught: As it might have been presumed that the nebelah of a beast conveys uncleanness to a person's garments by way of his oesophagus,³⁹  it was explicitly stated in Scripture, That which dieth of itself,⁴⁰  or is torn of beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith,⁴¹  which implies: Only that⁴²  which has no other form of uncleanness but that which is conveyed through the eating thereof⁴²  [conveys uncleanness by way of the oesophagus],³⁹  but this⁴³  is excluded since it conveys uncleanness even before one had eaten of it. But why should not this⁴⁴  be inferred a minori ad majus from the nebelah of a clean bird: If the nebelah of a clean bird which is not subject to uncleanness externally is subject to uncleanness internally³⁹  how much more then should this,⁴³  which is subject to uncleanness externally, be subject to uncleanness internally? — Scripture said, 'therewith'⁴¹  which implies: Only therewith⁴⁵  but not with any other.⁴³  If so, why was it stated in Scripture, And he that eateth?⁴⁶  To prescribe for one who touches or carries it the same size as that which was prescribed for one who eats of it: As one who eats of it incurs guilt on consuming the full size of an olive so also one who touches or carries it contracts uncleanness only if it is of the size of an olive.

Raba ruled: A man holding a dead creeping thing in a fold of his body⁴⁷  is clean, but if he holds nebelah in a fold of his body he is unclean. 'A man holding a dead creeping thing in a fold of his body is clean', since a dead creeping thing conveys uncleanness by means of touch, while a concealed region of the body⁴⁷  is not susceptible to the uncleanness of touch. 'If he holds nebelah in a fold of his body he is unclean' for, granted that he contracts no uncleanness through touch, he contracts it, at any rate, through carriage. If a man held a dead creeping thing in the fold of his body⁴⁸  and he thus brought it into the air spaces⁴⁹  of an oven⁵⁰  the latter is unclean. Is not this obvious?⁵¹  — It might have been presumed that the All Merciful said, Into the inside of which,⁵²  implying:

1. Cf. prev. n. but two.
2. From which it is evident that it is rather like other kinds of uncleanness. Why then should it be different from those in conveying uncleanness even while in an absorbed condition?
3. Sc. if the blood was detached before the immersion the woman becomes unclean after, but not before its complete emergence.
4. Apparently none, since it is obvious that unclean blood conveys uncleanness when it emerges from the body.
5. That was detached and remained for a time within the vagina.
6. R. Zera's ruling.
7. Included in the Baraitha under discussion, which can now no longer be compared with the ruling of R. Zera.
8. Cf. relevant notes supra 42a ad fin.
9. And one that was free from bleeding: so that the question of menstrual, or zibah blood does not arise.
10. Where there is no detached blood either within or without.
11. How can there be uncleanness in the absence of all blood?
12. And then draw it back (cf. Strashun). Although the head is now within (internal) the woman is unclean as if the embryo had actually been born (external).
13. The ruling that the projection of the head of the embryo without the ante-chamber is regarded as birth.
14. That a midwife is unclean for seven days if she touched a dead embryo before it was extracted, though its mother remains clean until extraction had been effected.
15. Enacted by the Rabbis. Pentateuchally the embryo, being at the time an 'absorbed uncleanness', would convey no uncleanness at all.
16. Hul. 72a; and the midwife would then touch it when, having touched a corpse, her uncleanness would be Pentateuchal. Thus it follows that according to R. Oshaia the projection of the embryo's head without the ante-chamber is regarded as the actual birth. Similarly in the case under discussion, as soon as the embryo had put its head out of the ante-chamber its mother is subject to the uncleanness of birth as if the birth had taken place.
17. V. supra n. 2.
18. Lit., 'how was the body of the incident?'
19. Whose cry could be heard.
20. On the Friday, when he was heard crying.
21. On any day after the following Friday which is the eighth day of his virtual birth.
22. Circumcision being due on the eighth day of birth.
23. The circumcision must, therefore, be postponed until the Sunday. At all events, Raba's ruling shows that the projection of the embryo's head without the ante-chamber is regarded as birth (cf. supra n. 2).
24. Euphemism.
25. And, therefore, regarded as non-existent.
26. Either through contact or carriage (cf. prev. n.).
27. The uncleanness by contact not applying to a concealed region of the body.
28. Since the woman was carrying the nebelah.
29. Supra 41b q.v. notes.
30. How can he maintain his view in contradiction to Raba's citation?
31. Of the cited statement.
32. Lit., 'one and more he says'.
33. The woman's uncleanness (cf. supra n. 5).
34. Sc. the oesophagus. Only by swallowing it does the nebelah of a clean bird convey uncleanness to man.
35. So that he himself did not touch it with his hands.
36. Cur. ed. insert the last two words in parenthesis, and marg. n. substitutes 'what would you say'.
37. The uncleanness by contact not applying to a concealed region of the body.
38. The man having carried the nebelah in his mouth.
39. Sc. by swallowing it.
40. Heb. nebelah.
41. Lev. XXII, 8.
42. The nebelah of a clean bird.
43. Nebelah of a beast.
44. That the nebelah of a beast conveys uncleanness by way of the oesophagus.
45. Sc. only if a person swallowed the nebelah of a clean bird do his garments become unclean.
46. Lev. XI, 40, in respect of the nebelah of a beast.
47. Under his arm-pit, for instance.
48. Under his arm-pit, for instance.
49. Without touching its sides.
50. Of earthenware.
51. Apparently it is, since all earthen vessels contract uncleanness from a dead creeping thing within their air spaces though there was no direct contact between it and the creeping thing.
52. E.V., 'whereinto'; Every earthen vessel whereinto any of them falleth (Lev. XI, 33).