Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah

Folio 62a

GEMARA. One taught:⁹  The Alexandrian natron and not the Antipatrian one.

BORITH.¹⁰  Rab Judah stated: This means ahala.¹¹  But was it not taught: The borith and the ahal?¹²  — The fact is that borith means sulphur. An incongruity was pointed out: They¹³  added to them¹⁴  the bulb of ornithogalum¹⁵  and garden-orache,¹⁶  the borith and the ahal. Now if 'borith' means sulphur [the objection would arise:] Is it subject to the restrictions of the Sabbatical year, seeing that it was taught:¹⁷  This is the general rule, Whatsoever has a root¹⁸  is subject to the restrictions of the Sabbatical year and whatsoever has no root is not subject to the restrictions of the Sabbatical year? — What then do you suggest: That borith means ahala? But was it not taught: 'The borith and the ahal'?¹⁹  — There are two kinds of ahala.

KIMONIA.²⁰  Rab Judah explained: Shelof-doz.²¹

And eshlag.²²  Samuel stated: I enquired of the seamen and they told me that its name was eshlaga, that it was to be found between the cracks of pearls and that it was extracted with an iron nail.

IF ONE IMMERSED IT AND, HAVING HANDLED etc. Our Rabbis taught: If one applied to it²³  the seven substances²⁴  and it did not fade away and then applied to it soap and it disappeared, one's clean things are unclean.²⁵  But does not soap remove dye also?²⁶  — Rather read: If one applied to it²³  six of the substances and it did not fade away and when soap had been applied it disappeared, his clean things are unclean, since it is possible that if one had first applied to it the seventh substance it might also have disappeared.²⁷  Another [Baraitha] taught: If one applied to it²³  the seven substances and it did not fade away but when one applied them a second time it disappeared, one's clean things remain clean.²⁸  R. Zera stated: This²⁹  was taught only in regard to clean things that were handled between the first and the second wash;²⁹  but the clean things that were handled after the second wash³⁰  are unclean, since the person was particular about it³¹  and it had disappeared.³²

1. The garment with the suspicious stain.
2. The garment with the suspicious stain.
3. As a result of the application of the seven substances.
4. Now that the stain had disappeared.
5. The first immersion when the stain was still on the garment being of no avail.
6. Lit., 'all who'. This is discussed in the Gemara infra.
7. Sc. not by human hands.
8. Lit., 'he did not do anything'.
9. With reference to NATRON in our Mishnah.
10. Rendered supra LYE.
11. An alcalic plant used as soap.
12. Ahal and ahala being the same, how could Rab Judah maintain that ahala is synonymous with borith seeing that the latter is placed in juxtaposition with ahal?
13. The Rabbis.
14. The fruits that are subject to the restrictions of the Sabbatical year.
15. Or 'Bethlehem-star'.
16. Or 'orach'.
17. V. marg. gl. Cur. edd., 'We learnt'.
18. By means of which it draws its nourishment from the ground.
19. V. p. 436, n. 11.
20. Rendered supra CIMOLIAN EARTH.
21. Lit., 'pull out, stick in', the popular name for Cimolian earth.
22. Rendered LION'S LEAF supra.
23. A stain on a woman's garment.
24. Enumerated in our Mishnah.
25. Because the disappearance of the stain under the application is evidence that it was one of blood.
26. It does. What proof then is there that the stain was not one of dye?
27. And any stain that disappears under an application of the seven substances can only be a bloodstain.
28. Since the stain must be one of dye. Had it been a bloodstain it would have disappeared after the first application.
29. That 'the clean things remain clean'.
30. Sc. the application of the substances.
31. The stain; as is evidenced by his second attempt to remove it.
32. As a result of the second application, which brings it within the category of bloodstains that disappear under the application of the seven substances.

Elsewhere we learnt: If potsherds which a zab has used⁹  absorbed liquids and then fell into the air-space of an oven,¹⁰  and the oven¹¹  was heated, the oven becomes unclean, because the liquid¹²  would¹³  ultimately emerge.¹⁴  Resh Lakish stated: This¹⁵  was learnt only in regard to liquids of a minor uncleanness¹⁶  but in the case of liquids of a major uncleanness¹⁷  the oven becomes unclean even though it was not heated.¹⁸  R. Johanan stated: Whether the liquids were subject to a minor or a major uncleanness the oven is unclean only if it was heated but not otherwise.¹⁹

R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: IF ONE IMMERSED IT AND, HAVING HANDLED CLEAN THINGS ON IT, APPLIED TO IT THE SEVEN SUBSTANCES AND THE STAIN DID NOT FADE AWAY, IT MUST BE A DYE; AND THE CLEAN THINGS REMAIN CLEAN AND THERE IS NO NEED TO IMMERSE IT AGAIN.²⁰  The other replied: Leave alone the laws of stains²¹  which are merely Rabbinical.²²  But [R. Johanan objected] did not R. Hiyya teach, 'To that which is certain menstrual blood one may apply the seven substances and thereby neutralize it'?²³  — The other replied: If Rabbi²⁴  has not taught²⁵  it,²⁶  whence could R. Hiyya²⁷  know it?²⁸

R. Johanan pointed out another objection against Resh Lakish: 'If a quarter of a log of blood²⁹  was absorbed in the floor of a house [all³⁰  that is in] the house becomes unclean,³¹  but others say: [All that is in] the house remains clean. These two versions, however, do not essentially differ, since the former refers to vessels that were there originally³²  while the latter refers to vessels that were brought in subsequently.³³  Where 'blood was absorbed in a garment, and on being washed, a quarter of a log of blood would emerge from it, it is unclean, but otherwise it is clean!³⁴  — R. Kahana replied: Here they have learnt some of the more lenient rulings concerning quarters of a log [both referring to a mixture of clean and unclean blood]; [and the law of] mixed blood³⁵  is different³⁶  since it³⁷  is only Rabbinical.³⁸  Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan: Any absorbed uncleanness that cannot emerge is regarded as clean.³⁹  Thus it follows, does it not, that if it can emerge it is unclean even though it had not yet emerged?⁴⁰  — R. Papa replied: Wherever it⁴¹  cannot emerge⁴²  and the owner did not mind absorption,⁴³  all agree that it is regarded as clean. If it can emerge and the owner does mind the absorption, all agree that it is unclean. They only differ where it can emerge but the owner does not mind its absorption. One Master⁴⁴  holds the view that since it can emerge [it is unclean], though the owner did not mind its absorption;⁴⁵  and the other Master⁴⁶  holds that although it can emerge

1. Lit., 'thing'.
2. Though the stain is still slightly visible.
3. Since the application of the substances destroys its natural and original appearance.
4. Since no one minds such a faint stain it becomes clean.
5. Cf. prev. n.
6. From the fact that it is regarded as clean.
7. In this case of R. Hiyya.
8. The case supra 62a ad fin.
9. And thus rendered unclean.
10. Without touching the oven itself.
11. Which was an earthen vessel, that contracts uncleanness through its air-space.
12. Which has contracted uncleanness from the unclean potsherd into which it was absorbed.
13. Owing to the heat of the oven which warms up the potsherds.
14. Into the air-space and thus convey uncleanness to the oven. Cf. Kel. IX, 5, where this Mishnah occurs with some variations.
15. That uncleanness is conveyed to the oven only where it was heated, but if it was not heated the absorbed liquids convey no uncleanness to it.
16. Sc. that are not 'father of uncleanness' as for instance, a zab's tears. Since the uncleanness that such liquids convey to a vessel is only Rabbinical the oven remains clean when the liquids are in an absorbed state.
17. Which convey uncleanness to a vessel even according to Pentateuchal law.
18. And no liquid has emerged. Since heat causes it to emerge the liquid cannot be regarded as an absorbed uncleanness.
19. Lit., 'if the oven was heated yes; if not, not', since an absorbed uncleanness (cf. Hul. 71a) conveys no uncleanness.
20. Now if it be granted (with R. Johanan) that an absorbed uncleanness, though it emerges under certain special conditions, is treated as clean, the assumption here that the stain was one of dye and, therefore, clean is well justified; for even though it was blood it would (being absorbed) convey no uncleanness. But if it is maintained (with Resh Lakish) that even an absorbed uncleanness, wherever it would emerge under certain conditions, conveys uncleanness, how could the law be relaxed in this case where the possibility of blood cannot be ruled out?
21. With which our Mishnah deals.
22. And may be relaxed. Pentateuchally no uncleanness is involved unless blood was found on the woman's body.
23. Supra q.v. notes. This shows that even actual blood, if it is in an absorbed state, though it would emerge under an application of soap, is regarded as clean. How then could Resh Lakish maintain that where the oven was not heated, uncleanness is conveyed by the absorbed liquids?
24. The compiler of the Mishnah.
25. In his authoritative compilation.
26. R. Hiyya's ruling.
27. Who was the disciple of Rabbi.
28. It is obvious that he could not. The Baraitha cited must, therefore, be treated as spurious.
29. Of a corpse.
30. That is susceptible to uncleanness.
31. Because the blood of a corpse of the quantity prescribed conveys uncleanness by overshadowing as the corpse itself.
32. Before the blood was absorbed, and thus contracted uncleanness by overshadowing.
33. After the blood had been absorbed, when it conveys uncleanness no longer.
34. Oh. III, 2; though a full quarter of a log of blood is absorbed in it. Those two rulings prove that an absorbed uncleanness, though it would emerge under special conditions, is regarded as clean. An objection against Resh Lakish.
35. Dam tebusah (defined infra 71a) whose uncleanness is doubtful.
36. From blood that is definitely unclean.
37. Even in an unabsorbed condition.
38. Hence 'the relaxation of the law when it is absorbed.
39. Oh. III, 2.
40. How then could R. Johanan maintain in the case of the potsherd that the oven is unclean only when the liquids emerged?
41. The unclean substance.
42. From the object that absorbed it.
43. MS.M., Maharsha, and some old edd. omit the last eight words.
44. Resh Lakish.
45. Hence his ruling in the case of the potsherd where the liquid would emerge if the oven were heated.
46. R. Johanan.