and conduct himself in modesty1 at the time of marital intercourse. Did not many, they said to him, act in this manner but it did not avail them? — Rather, let him pray for mercy from Him to whom are the children, for it is said, Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward.2 What then3 does he teach us? That one without the other does not suffice. What is exactly meant by 'the fruit of the womb is a reward'? — R. Hama son of R. Hanina replied: As a reward for containing oneself during intercourse in the womb, in order that one's wife may emit the semen first, the Holy One, blessed be He, gives one the reward of the fruit of the womb.
BETH SHAMMAI RULED etc. What is Beth Shammai's reason? If it be suggested: Because it is written, And the queen was exceedingly pained,4 and Rab explained, 'This teaches that she had experienced a menstrual discharge', so that here also,5 owing to the fright of the angel of death, she experiences a discharge [it could be retorted]: Have we not in fact learnt that fear causes blood to disappear?6 — This is no difficulty since fear6 detains it while sudden fright7 loosens it. But [then what of] that which was taught,8 'Beth Shammai stated: All men die as zabs and Beth Hillel stated: No dying man is deemed to be a zab unless he died when he was actually one', why9 should not one apply here10 the text, Out of his flesh11 but not on account of a mishap?12 — Beth Shammai's reason is rather as it was taught: Formerly they were wont to subject to ritual immersion all utensils that had been used by dying menstruants,13 but as living menstruants felt ashamed in consequence14 it was enacted that utensils used by all dying women should be subject to immersion,15 out of a deference to the living menstruants. Formerly they were wont to subject to ritual immersion utensils used by dying zabs,16 but as living zabs felt ashamed in consequence it was enacted that utensils used by all dying men17 should be subject to ritual immersion, out of deference to the living zabs.18
MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN DIED AND A QUARTER OF A LOG OF BLOOD ISSUED FROM HER, IT19 CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN20 AND IT21 ALSO CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BY OVERSHADOWING.22 R. JUDAH RULED: IT DOES NOT CONVEY UNCLEANNESS AS A STAIN, SINCE IT WAS DETACHED AFTER SHE HAD DIED.23 R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, AGREES THAT WHERE A WOMAN SITTING ON THE TRAVAILING STOOL DIED AND A QUARTER OF A LOG OF BLOOD ISSUED FROM HER, IT24 CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN.20 R. JOSE RULED: HENCE24 IT CONVEYS NO UNCLEANNESS BY OVERSHADOWING.25
GEMARA. Does it then follow26 that the first Tanna27 holds that even though blood was detached after she died28 it conveys uncleanness as a bloodstain?29 — Ze'iri30 replied: The difference between them31 is32 the question whether the interior of the uterus is unclean.33
R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, AGREES. Does it then follow that the first Tanna34 holds that it conveys uncleanness by overshadowing also?35 — Rab Judah replied: The difference between them36 is37 the question of mingled blood;38 for it was taught: What is meant by 'mingled blood'?39 R. Eleazar son of R. Judah explained: If blood issued from a slain man both while he was still alive and when he was dead and it is doubtful whether [a full quarter of a log] issued while he was still alive or when he was already dead or whether it partly issued while he was alive and partly while he was dead, such is mingled blood.39 But the Sages40 ruled: In a private domain such a case of doubt is unclean while in a public domain such a case of doubt is clean. What then is meant by 'mingled blood'?39 If a quarter of a log of blood issued from a slain man both while he was still alive and when he was dead and the flow had not yet ceased41 and42 it is doubtful whether the greater part43 issued while he was alive and the lesser part when he was dead or whether the lesser part issued while he was alive and the greater part when he was dead, such is mingled blood.44 R. Judah ruled: The blood of a slain man, from whom a quarter of a log of blood issued while he was lying in a bed with his blood dripping into a hole, is unclean, because the drop of death is mingled with it, but the Sages hold it to be clean45 because46
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Cf. Rashi. Lit., 'and sanctify himself'.
- Ps. CXXVII, 3.
- Seeing that one has in any case to pray for mercy.
- Est. IV, 4,
- The case of dying women spoken of in our Mishnah.
- Supra 39a, Sot. 20b.
- As was the case with Esther or with a dying woman who sees the angel of death.
- So MS.M. Cur. edd., 'we have learnt'.
- According to Beth Shammai, if in their opinion the discharge is due to the fright of the angel of death.
- The discharge of a dying man.
- Lev. XV, 2; only in that case is the man unclean.
- In which case he is clean; and since a discharge that is due to the fright of the angel of death is evidently a mishap, why should the man be unclean?
- Since uncleanness is conveyed from the person to the utensils.
- For being differentiated from all other women even when dying.
- Even though they did not come in contact with them after death.
- V. p. 492, n. 12.
- V. p. 492, n. 14.
- Tosef. Nid. IX, M.K. 27b; from which it follows that the reason for the uncleanness of the utensils any dying person had used is a Rabbinical enactment instituted in deference to the feeling of living menstruants and zabs. This reason is also that of Beth Shammai in our Mishnah.
- Sc. the minutest drop of the blood.
- Of a menstrual discharge. As the blood of a corpse it could convey no uncleanness unless it consisted of no less a quantity than a quarter of a log.
- If all the quarter-log is accumulated.
- As the blood of a corpse.
- When menstrual uncleanness does not apply.
- Since it was detached while the woman was still alive.
- Only a corpse or the prescribed minimum of a part of it conveys uncleanness in this manner.
- From R. Judah's ruling.
- From whom R. Judah obviously differs.
- When menstrual uncleanness does not apply.
- But on what ground could such a view be justified?
- So MS.M. Cur. edd. in parenthesis add, 'R.'
- R. Judah and the first Tanna.
- Not the point whether the blood is menstrual or not.
- According to the first Tanna it is unclean, hence the uncleanness of the blood that was within it when the woman was alive though when it emerged the woman was dead and no longer subject to the uncleanness of menstruation. According to R. Judah it is clean.
- With whom R. Judah agrees only on the one point mentioned. Rashi and Meharsha read 'R. Jose' for 'the first Tanna'.
- But how could uncleanness be conveyed in this manner, seeing that the blood issued when the woman was still alive?
- R. Judah and the first Tanna.
- Not, as has been assumed, the question whether the blood is subject to corpse uncleanness.
- Sc. the blood of a corpse mingled with that of a living person. According to R. Judah, since it is doubtful whether all the blood was detached while the woman was still alive or whether part of it was detached after she died, it is regarded as mingled blood which Rabbinically conveys uncleanness by overshadowing (though Pentateuchally it cannot do so unless the prescribed minimum had been detached after death), while the first Tanna (or R. Jose according to Rashi and Meharsha) maintains that, since the woman was in travail, all the blood that issued may be presumed to have been detached while she was alive so that the question of mingled blood does not arise.
- The corpse uncleanness of which is Rabbinic, and is conveyed by overshadowing.
- Maintaining that in such a case, since one must take into account the possibility that all the quarter of a log may have issued after death, a possible Pentateuchal uncleanness is involved.
- So that it is yet possible for the quantity of blood to increase to the prescribed minimum of a quarter of a log. Where the flow ceased, so that it is certain that the blood issuing after death will never make up the prescribed minimum, not even a Rabbinical prohibition is imposed (cf. Tosaf. Asheri).
- Though it is certain that a full quarter of a log of blood did not issue after death.
- Of the quarter.
- V. p. 494, n. 6.
- Even if the greater part issued after his death.
- Since the blood did not emerge in a continuous flow but in single drops.
each single drop1 is detached from the other.2 But did not the Rabbis speak well to R. Judah?3 — R. Judah follows his own principle, for he laid down that no blood can neutralize other blood.4 R. Simeon ruled: If the blood of a man crucified upon the beam was flowing slowly5 to the ground, and a quarter of a log of blood was found under him, it is unclean.6 R. Judah declared it clean, since it might be held7 that the drop of death remained on the beam. But why should not R. Judah say to himself8 'Since it might be held7 that the drop of death remained on the bed'? — [The case of blood] in a bed is different9 since it percolates.10
MISHNAH. FORMERLY IT WAS RULED: A WOMAN WHO ABIDES IN CLEAN BLOOD11 MAY POUR OUT12 WATER13 FOR [WASHING OF] THE PASCHAL LAMB.14 SUBSEQUENTLY THEY CHANGED THEIR VIEW: IN RESPECT OF CONSECRATED FOOD SHE IS LIKE ONE WHO CAME IN CONTACT WITH A PERSON THAT WAS SUBJECT TO CORPSE UNCLEANNESS.15 THIS ACCORDING TO THE VIEW OF BETH HILLEL. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: EVEN AS ONE WHO IS SUBJECT TO CORPSE UNCLEANNESS.16
GEMARA. 'SHE MAY POUR OUT' only, but may not touch it.17 It is thus evident18 that unconsecrated foodstuffs prepared in conditions of holiness19 are treated as holy. But then read the final clause: SUBSEQUENTLY THEY CHANGED THEIR VIEW: IN RESPECT OF CONSECRATED FOOD SHE IS LIKE ONE WHO CAME IN CONTACT WITH A PERSON THAT WAS SUBJECT TO CORPSE UNCLEANNESS. Thus only20 IN RESPECT OF CONSECRATED FOOD but not in respect of unconsecrated food.21 It is thus evident, is it not, that unconsecrated foodstuffs prepared in conditions of holiness19 are not treated as holy? — Who is the author of our Mishnah?22 It is Abba Saul; for it was taught: Abba Saul ruled, A tebul yom is unclean in the first grade in respect of consecrated food to cause two further grades of uncleanness23 and one grade of disqualification.24
MISHNAH. BUT THEY25 AGREE THAT SHE26 MAY EAT27 SECOND TITHE; SHE MAY SET ASIDE HER28 DOUGH-OFFERING,29 BRING IT NEAR30 TO THE DOUGH31 AND DESIGNATE IT AS SUCH;32 AND THAT IF ANY OF HER SPITTLE OR OF THE BLOOD OF HER PURIFICATION33 FELL ON A LOAF OF TERUMAH THE LATTER REMAINS CLEAN. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE REQUIRES IMMERSION AT THE END [OF HER DAYS OF PURIFICATION],34 AND BETH HILLEL RULED: SHE REQUIRES NO IMMERSION AT THE END.
GEMARA. Because35 a Master ruled: If a person performed immersion and came up [from his bathing] he may36 eat of second tithe.
SHE MAY SET ASIDE HER DOUGH-OFFERING. For unconsecrated dough that is tebel37 in respect of the dough-offering38 is not treated like the dough-offering.39
BRING IT NEAR. Because a Master stated: It is a religious duty to set aside the offering from dough that is in close proximity to that for which it is set aside.
AND DESIGNATE IT AS SUCH. Since it might have been presumed that this should be forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of her touching the dough40 from the outside,41 we were informed [that this is permitted].
AND IF ANY OF HER SPITTLE … FELL. For we have learnt: The liquid [issues] of a tebul yom42 are like the liquids that he touches, neither of them conveying uncleanness. The exception is the liquid issue of a zab43 which is a father of uncleanness.
BETH SHAMMAI. What is the point at issue between them?44 — R. Kattina replied: The point at issue between them is the necessity for immersion45 at the end of a long day.46
MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN OBSERVED A DISCHARGE ON THE ELEVENTH DAY47 AND PERFORMED IMMERSION IN THE EVENING AND THEN HAD MARITAL INTERCOURSE, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: THEY48 CONVEY UNCLEANNESS49 TO COUCH AND SEAT50 AND THEY ARE LIABLE TO A SACRIFICE,51
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Lit., 'first first'.
- And so soon as it drops into the hole it becomes neutralized in the clean blood that issued while the man was still alive. Only where the flow of the blood is continuous and the man lies on the ground, so that there is no mingling of the two kinds of blood, is corpse uncleanness imposed by the Rabbis where the greater part issued after death.
- They did. How then (cf. prev. n.) can R. Judah maintain his view?
- V. Zeb. 78a.
- In a continuous stream. Had it been falling in drops each drop would have been neutralized as it fell into the clean blood that issued earlier while the man was still alive.
- Since the blood that issued after death and that could not be neutralized (cf. prev. n.) is subject to corpse uncleanness.
- Lit., 'because I say'.
- In the case of his previous ruling about a slain man lying in a bed (supra 71a ad fin.) where R. Judah ruled that the blood is unclean.
- From that on the beam.
- Through the bed to the ground.
- Sc. from the eighth to the fortieth, and from the fifteenth to the eightieth day after the birth of a male and female child respectively (cf. Lev. XII, 2ff).
- Lit., was pouring out'.
- From one vessel into another, the water itself not being touched by her (v. next n. final clause).
- Sc. she is subject to the second grade of uncleanness like a tebul yom (v. Glos.), since her immersion was performed at the end of the seven, and the fourteen days respectively, and the sunset prior to the first day of her complete cleanness will not occur before the fortieth and eightieth day respectively. One who is subject to second grade of uncleanness conveys a third grade of uncleanness to foodstuffs only but not to vessels.
- Sc. her uncleanness in this respect is of the first grade. In regard to unconsecrated things, however, she is still subject to the second grade of uncleanness only.
- Who is a 'father of uncleanness' and conveys an uncleanness of the first grade to vessels also.
- The water.
- Since she may not touch the water itself.
- As in the case of the water under discussion which was being prepared for the washing of the paschal lamb.
- Lit., 'yes'.
- So that the woman may touch the water itself.
- Sc. of the final clause.
- The consecrated food that comes in contact with him is unclean in the second grade and that which comes in contact with this food is unclean in the third grade.
- If terumah, for instance, came in contact with the food that is unclean in the third grade (cf. prev. n.) it becomes disqualified but cannot convey any uncleanness to other foodstuffs.
- Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
- Cf. prev. Mishnah.
- Like a tebul yom.
- Lit., 'for herself'.
- Before she designates it as such.
- In the vessel in which she has put it.
- Since the dough-offering must be close to the dough for which it is taken when it is named as the offering for it.
- After which, of course, she must not touch it (cf. prev. n. but one).
- Cf. supra p. 496, n. 1.
- After the fortieth and eightieth day respectively.
- A reason for the first ruling in our Mishnah.
- Even before sunset.
- V. Glos.
- Sc. from which the dough-offering had not been taken.
- A tebul yom (as one subject to the second grade of uncleanness) cannot, therefore, impart any uncleanness to it.
- Lit., 'it', after it had been designated as dough offering.
- Sc. she might put her hand across the sides of the vessel in which the dough-offering is kept, and so impart uncleanness to the offering.
- 'The liquids that issue from him' is added in cur. edd., in parenthesis.
- The passage from here to the end of the sentence is deleted by Elijah Wilna.
- Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
- If earlier in that day immersion had already been performed.
- That terminated a period of uncleanness. The forty as well as the eighty days (cf. supra p. 496, n. 1) are regarded as one long day in the course of which (on the seventh and the fourteenth day respectively) immersion had already been performed.
- Sc. the last day of a zibah period which is followed by the first day of the next menstruation period.
- The woman and her husband.
- As a woman under the obligation of allowing a clean day to pass after a day of uncleanness and as the man who had intercourse with such a woman respectively.
- I.e., to any object on which they lie or sit, which in turn conveys uncleanness to foodstuffs and drinks.
- Prescribed for a woman and a man who had intercourse in such circumstances (cf. prev. n. but one).