Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah

Folio 17a

R. Simeon b. Yohai stated, There are five things which [cause the man] who does them to forfeit his life and his blood is upon his own head: Eating⁸  peeled garlic, a peeled onion or a peeled egg, or drinking diluted liquids that⁹  were kept over night; spending a night in a graveyard; removing one's nails and throwing them away in a public thoroughfare; and blood-letting followed immediately by intercourse.

'Eating peeled garlic etc.' Even though they are deposited in a basket and tied up and sealed, an evil spirit rests upon them. This, however, has been said only where their roots or peel did not remain¹⁰  with them, but if their roots or peel remained with them there can be no objection.¹¹

'And drinking diluted liquids that were kept over night'. Rab Judah citing Samuel explained: This applies only where they were kept over night in a metal vessel. R. Papa stated: Vessels made of alum crystals are the same in this respect as vessels made of metal. So also said R. Johanan: This applies only where they were kept in a metal vessel; and vessels made of alum crystals are the same in this respect as vessels made of metal.

'Removing one's nails and throwing them away in a public thoroughfare'. [This is dangerous] because a pregnant woman passing over them would miscarry. This, however, has been said only of a case where one removes them with a pair of scissors. Furthermore, this has been said only of a case where one removes the nails of both hands and feet. Furthermore, this has been said only in the case where one did not cut anything immediately after cutting them but if something was cut immediately after they were cut there can be no danger.¹³  This, however, is not [to be relied upon]. One should be on his guard in all the cases mentioned.¹⁴

Our Rabbis taught: Three things have been said about the disposal of nails: He who burns them is a pious man, he who buries them is a righteous man, and he who throws them away is a wicked man.¹⁵

'And blood-letting followed immediately by intercourse'. [This should be avoided] because a Master said: If a man has intercourse immediately after being bled, he will have feeble¹⁶  children; and if intercourse took place after both husband and wife have been bled, they will have children afflicted with ra'athan.¹⁷  Rab¹⁸  stated: This has been said only in the case where nothing was tasted after the bleeding but if something was tasted after it there can be no harm.¹⁹

R. Hisda ruled: A man is forbidden to perform his marital duty in the day-time, for it is said, But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.²⁰  But what is the proof? — Abaye replied: He might observe something repulsive in her and she would thereby become loathsome to him.

R. Huna said, Israel are holy and do not perform their marital duties in the day-time. Raba said, But in²¹  a dark house this is permitted; and a scholar²²  may darken a room with his cloak and perform his marital duty. [But] we have learnt, OR SHE MUST PERFORM IT IN THE LIGHT OF A LAMP? — Read: SHE MUST examine IT IN THE LIGHT OF A LAMP.

Come and hear: Although [the Sages] have said, He who has intercourse in the light of a lamp is loathsome [etc.]?²³  — Read: He who examines his bed²⁴  in the light of a lamp is loathsome.²⁵

Come and hear: And the people of the house of Monobaz²⁶  did three things, and on account of these they were honourably mentioned: They performed their marital duties in the day-time, they examined their beds with cotton,²⁷  and they observed the rules of uncleanness and cleanness in the case of snow. At all events, was it not here stated, 'They performed their marital duties in the day-time'? Read: They examined their beds in the day-time. This may also be supported by logical argument. For if one were to imagine [that the reading is] 'performed their marital duties', would they have been 'honourably mentioned'? — Yes, indeed;²⁸  because owing to the prevalence²⁹  of sleep³⁰  she is likely to become repulsive to him.

'They examined their beds with cotton.' This provides support for a ruling of Samuel. For Samuel ruled: The bed³¹  may be examined only with cotton tufts or with clean and soft wool. Rab observed: This explains what they said in Palestine³²  on Sabbath eves,³³  when I was there, 'Who requires cotton tufts for his bread',³¹  and I did not understand at the time what they meant.

Raba stated: Old flax garments are admirably suited for examination purposes. But can this be correct,³⁴  seeing that the school of Manasseh taught: The bed³¹  may not be examined either with a red rag or with a black one or with flax,³⁵  but only with cotton tufts or with clean and soft wool?³⁶  This is no difficulty, since the latter refers to flax while the former refers to garments of flax. And if you prefer I might reply: Both refer to garments of flax but the latter deals with new ones while the former deals with old ones.³⁷

'They observed the rules of uncleanness and cleanness in the case of snow.' We learnt elsewhere: Snow is neither a food nor a drink. Though one intended to use it as food it is not subject to the laws of the uncleanness of foodstuffs,³⁸  [but if one intended to use it] as a drink it is subject to the laws of the uncleanness of drinks. If a part of it contracted uncleanness all of it does not become unclean,³⁹  but if a part of it became clean⁴⁰  all of it becomes clean. Now is not this self contradictory? You first said, 'If a part of it contracted uncleanness all of it does not become unclean', and then you said, 'If a part of it became clean all of it becomes clean', which implies, does it not, that all of it was previously unclean?⁴¹  — Abaye replied: This is a case, for instance, where it⁴²  was carried across the air-space of an oven,⁴³  [in which case all the snow is unclean] because the Torah testified concerning an earthen vessel⁴⁴  that

1. Cf. n. supra 13a.
2. Who were heathens.
3. The Heb. equivalent may be read both 'im (with) and 'am (a people).
4. Gen. XXII, 5.
5. So Aruch. V. Tosaf. contra Rashi.
6. So that no living creature should be near.
7. Var. lec. 'R. Papa' (MS.M and 'En Jacob).
8. Lit., 'he who eats'.
9. The adjectival clause qualifies all the foodstuffs mentioned.
10. Lit., 'he did not leave'.
11. Lit., 'we have nothing against it'.
12. 'To enable him to foretell the future', cf. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 446.
13. Lit., 'we have nothing against it'.
14. Lit., 'we fear for all the thing'.
15. V. M.K. 18a.
16. Or 'nervous'.
17. Ra'athan is one of the skin diseases causing extreme debility and nervous trembling. Cf. Keth. (Sonc. ed.) p. 486f.
18. The parallel passage in Keth. 77b has 'R. Papa'.
19. Lit., 'we have nothing against it'.
20. Lev. XIX, 18.
21. Lit., 'and if there was'.
22. Who may be relied upon properly to darken the place.
23. V. supra 16b. Emphasis on the last word, implying that there is no actual prohibition.
24. Euphemism.
25. Since no proper examination can be made in its dim light.
26. King of Adiabene, whose family embraced Judaism.
27. Or 'clean and soft wool', on which the smallest particle of blood could be detected. Lit., 'wool of Parhaba' (Probably a geographical name), v. Jast.
28. Lit., 'thus also'.
29. In the night-time.
30. Which numbs the passions.
31. Euphemism.
32. Lit., 'there'.
33. Fridays. Friday night is the time appointed for scholars.
34. Lit., 'I am not'.
35. Which is not white enough to show up a small speck of blood.
36. An objection against Raba.
37. The more they are washed the more suitable they are for the purpose.
38. Since it is more like a drink than a food.
39. Because each particle of snow is regarded as a separate entity; and only that entity that had directly been touched by the unclean object contracts the uncleanness.
40. By coming in contact with the water of a ritual bath (v. Bez. 17b).
41. But how is it possible for an uncleanness to have come in contact with all of it?
42. The snow.
43. In which there was a dead creeping thing.
44. Such as the oven spoken of.

MISHNAH. THE SAGES SPOKE OF A WOMAN IN METAPHOR: [THERE IS IN HER] CHAMBER³  AN ANTE-CHAMBER⁴  AND AN UPPER CHAMBER.⁵  THE BLOOD OF THE CHAMBER⁶  IS UNCLEAN, THAT OF THE UPPER CHAMBER⁷  IS CLEAN. IF BLOOD IS FOUND IN THE ANTE-CHAMBER, AND THERE ARISES A DOUBT ABOUT ITS CHARACTER,⁸  IT IS DEEMED UNCLEAN, BECAUSE IT IS PRESUMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE SOURCE.³

GEMARA. Rami b. Samuel and R. Isaac son of Rab Judah learnt the tractate of Niddah at R. Huna's. Rabba son of R. Huna once found them while they were sitting at their studies and saying: The chamber is within, the ante-chamber is without and the upper chamber is built above them,⁹  and a duct communicates between the upper chamber and the ante-chamber.¹⁰  If blood is found anywhere from the duct inwards, and there is any doubt about its character,⁸  it is deemed unclean¹¹  but if it is found anywhere from the duct outwards, and there is a doubt about its character,⁸  it is deemed clean.¹²  He¹³  thereupon proceeded to his father and said to him, 'You told them, Master,¹⁴  that "if there is any doubt about its character¹⁵  it is deemed unclean", but have we not learnt: BECAUSE IT IS PRESUMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE SOURCE?'¹⁶  'I', the other replied, 'meant this: [Blood found anywhere] from the duct inwards is¹⁷  undoubtedly unclean,¹⁸  [but if it was found anywhere] from the duct outwards, it is deemed to be doubtfully unclean'.¹⁹  Said Abaye: Why is²⁰  it [that if blood is found anywhere] from the duct outwards it is deemed to be doubtfully unclean?²¹  Obviously because it is possible that she bowed down and the blood flowed thither from the chamber. [But, then, why in the case where blood is found anywhere] from the duct inwards, is it not also assumed that she might have staggered backwards²²  and the blood originated from the upper chamber?²³  Rather, said Abaye, if you follow possibilities²⁴  the uncleanness is doubtful in either case²⁵  and if you follow presumption [blood found anywhere] from the duct inwards is undoubtedly unclean,²⁶  [but if it was found anywhere] from the duct outwards it is undoubtedly clean.²⁷

R. Hiyya taught: Blood found in the ante-chamber²⁸  renders [the woman] liable [for a sin-offering] if she enters the Sanctuary,²⁹  and terumah³⁰  must be burnt on its account.²⁹  R. Kattina, however, ruled: No sin-offering³¹  is incurred if she enters the Sanctuary,³²  and terumah³⁰  is not burnt on its account.³²  According to the first alternative³³  which Abaye mentioned, viz., 'If you follow possibilities',³⁴  support is available for the ruling of R. Kattina³⁵  but³⁶  a divergence of view is presented against R. Hiyya. According to the second alternative³³  you mentioned, viz., 'If you follow presumption'³⁷  support is provided for the ruling of R. Hiyya³⁸

1. So that only those seeds that are actually round the sides of the oven could possibly come into direct contact with the oven.
2. V. Hul. 24b. Which proves that, in the case of an earthenware oven, uncleanness is conveyed to objects within it, even though these had not come in direct contact with it.
3. The uterus.
4. Vagina.
5. The urinary bladder (from the point of view of a woman lying on her back).
6. Being menstrual.
7. Being due to some internal wound.
8. Sc. whether it originated in the uterus or urinary bladder.
9. Cf. supra n. 7.
10. So that blood from the former may trickle down into the latter.
11. Since it is obvious that it came from the chamber. Had it come from the upper chamber it could not in the natural course have made its way backwards to the spot where it was discovered.
12. Because it is presumed to have originated from the upper chamber.
13. Rabbah b. R. Huna.
14. So MS.M. Cur. edd., 'you told us, Master'.
15. The expression of 'doubt' obviously implying that there was no proof whatsoever that the blood originated in the chamber.
16. Emphasis on PRESUMED. If it is presumed to originate from the source (sc. the chamber) the uncleanness could not be described as a matter of 'doubt' but as one of certainty.
17. In agreement with our Mishnah.
18. V. supra p. 216, n. 13.
19. It being impossible to decide whether it originated in the chamber or in the upper chamber.
20. Lit., 'what is the difference'.
21. Though, since on that spot it is most likely to have come from the upper chamber, one might well have expected it to be clean.
22. And thus caused the blood to flow inwards.
23. Since this is obviously a possibility the uncleanness should only be a matter of doubt and not, as R. Huna asserted, a certainty.
24. Bending forward or staggering backwards.
25. Whether the blood is found on the one or on the other side of the duct, since in either case two possibilities (cf. prev. n.) may be equally assumed.
26. Since it may well be presumed to have originated in the chamber. Had it originated in the upper chamber it would have made its way to the outer side of the duct only. Our Mishnah's ruling, IT IS DEEMED UNCLEAN etc. may thus refer to such a case.
27. Since in that place it is presumed to have come from the upper chamber, and the possibility of bending forward is disregarded.
28. It is explained infra on which side of the duct.
29. Because the blood is certainly unclean.
30. That was touched by the woman.
31. Though the entry is forbidden.
32. Since the character of her blood cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.
33. Lit., 'that expression'.
34. Sc. that the uncleanness is merely a matter of doubt.
35. Who also regards the uncleanness as doubtful. R. Kattina might thus refer to both cases, where the blood was found on the one, or on the other side of the duct.
36. Since no certain uncleanness is recognized.
37. In accordance with which a distinction is drawn between blood found from the duct inwards or outwards.
38. Whose ruling would thus refer to blood found from the duct inwards.