Niddah 57

גמ׳ מאי דרוש לא תסיג גבול רעך אשר גבלו ראשנים בנחלתך

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the Samaritans do not observe burial customs for stillborn children. The Gemara asks: What verse did they interpret as a source for this practice? The Gemara replies that they interpreted the verse: “You shall not remove your fellow’s boundary marker, which was bounded by the first ones, in your inheritance that you shall inherit, in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it” (Deuteronomy 19:14).

כל שיש לו נחלה יש לו גבול כל שאין לו נחלה אין לו גבול

The Gemara explains: The Sages derived from this verse that it is prohibited to sell one’s ancestral burial ground. In accordance with this interpretation of the verse, the Samaritans derived that any individual who has an inheritance, i.e., who stands to inherit land, has a boundary, i.e., a burial place, whereas any individual who does not have an inheritance in the land, e.g., a stillborn child, does not have a boundary, i.e., a burial place. The Samaritans therefore concluded that the mitzva of burial does not apply to stillborn children.

נאמנים לומר קברנו והא לית להו ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל אמר רבי אבהו בכהן עומד שם

The mishna teaches that Samaritans are deemed credible to state: We buried the stillborn children in a certain place, or to state that they did not bury the stillborn children there, and that place does not transmit ritual impurity. The Gemara objects: But the Samaritans do not accept the Sages’ interpretation of the verse: “And you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), that one may not cause another to sin. Since they are not concerned about misleading others, why is their testimony accepted? Rabbi Abbahu says: The mishna is referring to a case where a Samaritan priest is standing there, on that spot, which indicates that he genuinely maintains it is not impure with the impurity of a corpse.

ודילמא כהן טמא הוא דנקיט תרומה בידיה ודילמא תרומה טמאה היא דקאכיל מינה

The Gemara objects: But perhaps he is an impure priest and therefore he does not refrain from standing in an impure place. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a situation where the priest is holding teruma in his hand, which indicates he is ritually pure. The Gemara further objects: But perhaps it is impure teruma. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case where the priest is partaking of the teruma, which indicates that it is not impure, as it is prohibited to consume impure teruma.

אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא לא בקיאי ביצירה קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if this is the circumstance, it is obvious that the Samaritan priest’s testimony can be accepted. Then what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the Samaritans are not knowledgeable with regard to the stages of the formation of an embryo, and they might bury a fetus believing that it is an unformed fetus that does not transmit impurity, when it is actually a forty-day-old fetus, which is impure. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, and their testimony is accepted.

נאמנין על הבהמה וכו׳ והא לית להו ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן בגוזז ועובד

The mishna teaches that the Samaritans are deemed credible to state with regard to an animal that it previously gave birth, and its subsequent offspring does not have the sacred status of a firstborn animal. The Gemara objects: But the Samaritans do not accept the Sages’ interpretation of the verse: “And you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind,” that one may not cause another to sin. Why, then, is their testimony accepted? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The mishna is referring to a case where the Samaritan is shearing and working the offspring of the animal. Since the Samaritans are meticulous with regard to Torah law, it is evident that it is not a firstborn.

אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא לא בקיאי בטינוף קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if this is the circumstance, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is necessary, lest you say that the Samaritans are not knowledgeable with regard to a murky discharge emitted from the uterus, which is indicative of a fetus and exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn (see Bekhorot 21a). It is possible that the Samaritan mistakenly believes the animal previously emitted a murky discharge and therefore its offspring is not a firstborn. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, and their testimony is accepted.

נאמנין על ציון וכו׳ ואף על גב דמדרבנן הוא כיון דכתיבא מזהר זהירי ביה דכתיב וראה עצם אדם ובנה אצלו ציון

The mishna further teaches that the Samaritans are deemed credible to testify with regard to the marking of graves, as the Samaritans mark their graves, and we rely on their marking as an indication that a corpse is buried there. Therefore, any place where there is no marking is considered ritually pure. The Gemara explains: Even though the marking of graves is required only by rabbinic law, and Samaritans generally do not observe rabbinic law, since it is written in the Bible, the Samaritans are meticulous with regard to it, as it is written: “And those that pass through shall pass through the land, and when one sees a human bone he shall set up a marking by it, until the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-gog” (Ezekiel 39:15).

אבל אין נאמנין לא על הסככות וכו׳ סככות דתנן אלו הן סככות אילן המיסך על הארץ פרעות דתנן אבנים פרעות היוצאות מן הגדר

The mishna teaches: But with regard to the following cases in which the exact location of a grave is unknown, the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify: They are not deemed credible to testify about overhanging boughs, nor about the protrusions that jut out of stone fences. The Gemara explains these terms: The term overhanging boughs should be understood as we learned in a mishna (Oholot 8:2): These are overhanging boughs: A tree that hangs over the ground. The term protrusions should be understood as we learned in the Tosefta (Oholot 9:4): Protruding stones that jut out of a fence.

בית הפרס אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שמואל מנפח אדם בית הפרס והולך

§ The mishna teaches that the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas. With regard to a beit haperas, Rav Yehuda says that Rav Shmuel says: The reason the Sages deemed a beit haperas impure is due to the concern that the bones, but not the flesh of the corpse, were dispersed by the plow throughout the field. The halakha is that a bone transmits impurity by carrying or by contact, if it is at least the size of a barley grain, but it does not transmit impurity by means of a tent. Therefore, if a person is carrying ritually pure items, or if he wishes to remain ritually pure so that he may consume consecrated items, and yet he must pass through a beit haperas, he may blow on the earth of the beit haperas before each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it and avoid it. And in this manner he may walk across the area while remaining ritually pure, even though he might step over a bone.

רב יהודה בר אמי משמיה דרב יהודה אמר בית הפרס שנידש טהור ותנא החורש בית הקברות הרי זה עושה בית הפרס ועד כמה הוא עושה מלא מענה מאה אמה בית ארבעת סאין רבי יוסי אומר חמש

Rav Yehuda bar Ami says in the name of Rav Yehuda: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot by many people is pure, as it may be assumed that any bone fragments at least as large as a barley grain that were on the surface were either broken or removed. And it was taught in a baraita: In the case of one who plows a graveyard, this individual thereby renders it a beit haperas. And to what extent does he render it a beit haperas, i.e., how far does the concern apply that bones might have been dispersed? The field is rendered a beit haperas to the extent of a full furrow [ma’ana], one hundred cubits by one hundred cubits, which is the area required for sowing four se’a of seed. Rabbi Yosei says: The area rendered a beit haperas is the area required for sowing five se’a of seed.

ולא מהימני והתניא שדה שאבד בה קבר נאמן כותי לומר אין שם קבר

With regard to the ruling of the mishna that the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify about a beit haperas, the Gemara asks: And aren’t they deemed credible? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a field in which a grave was lost, which has the status of a beit haperas, a Samaritan is deemed credible to say: There is no grave there?

לפי שאינו מעיד אלא על גופו של קבר אילן שהוא מיסך על הארץ נאמן לומר אין תחתיו קבר לפי שאינו מעיד אלא על גופו של קבר

The baraita explains: This is due to the fact that he is not considered to be testifying about a case of uncertain impurity; rather, he is testifying about the location of the grave itself, which is a matter of Torah law, and the Samaritans are deemed credible with regard to a matter of Torah law. Likewise, in the case of a tree that is hanging over the ground, a Samaritan is deemed credible to say: There is no grave beneath it, as he is testifying only about the location of the grave itself. This indicates that the Samaritans are deemed credible with regard to overhanging boughs and protrusions.

אמר רבי יוחנן במהלך ובא על פני כולה

Rabbi Yoḥanan says in explanation: The baraita is referring to a case where the Samaritan is walking to and fro over the entire area, and therefore if there was a grave there he would certainly have become impure. Consequently, one may rely on his statement with regard to the purity of the place. By contrast, the mishna is speaking of a case where the Samaritan did not traverse the entire area, and therefore his testimony is not accepted, as they are not meticulous with regard to cases of uncertainty.

אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא רצועה נפקא קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: If so, it is obvious that his testimony is credible, and what is the purpose of stating this halakha? The Gemara answers: The ruling of the baraita is necessary, lest you say that perhaps a narrow strip of land, which is called by the same name as this field, extends into a nearby field, and the Samaritan presumes the grave is located in that strip of land. If so, even if the Samaritan traversed the entire field his testimony cannot be accepted, as he traversed the field because he considered it merely a case of uncertain impurity. The baraita therefore teaches us that if the Samaritan traverses the entire field his testimony is accepted, as this concern is not an issue.

זה הכלל כו׳ זה הכלל לאתויי מאי לאתויי תחומין ויין נסך

The mishna teaches: This is the principle governing the credibility of Samaritans: In the case of any matter of halakha that they are suspected of not fulfilling, they are not deemed credible to testify about it. The Gemara asks: What is added by the term: This is the principle? The Gemara answers: It serves to add that Samaritans are not deemed credible with regard to Shabbat boundaries, i.e., to say that a Shabbat boundary extends until a certain point, as the halakha of Shabbat boundaries applies by rabbinic law. And likewise, the Samaritans are not deemed credible with regard to the status of wine used for a libation in idol worship, as the Samaritans do not refrain from drinking wine touched by a gentile.

הדרן עלך דם הנדה

מתני׳ הרואה כתם על בשרה כנגד בית התורפה מטמאה ושלא כנגד בית התורפה טהורה על עקבה ועל ראש גודלה טמאה

MISHNA: A woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina [beit haturpa], i.e., a place where blood that originated in her vagina could be found, becomes ritually impure, as there is a concern that it originated in the uterus and is menstrual blood. And if it was discovered on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure, as it certainly did not originate in the uterus. If the stain was discovered on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, although it is not adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there.

על שוקה ועל פרסותיה מבפנים טמאה מבחוץ טהורה ועל הצדדין מכאן ומכאן טהורה

In a case where the stain was discovered on her leg or on her feet, if it was on the inner side she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. If it was on the outer side she is ritually pure, and if it was on the sides, either from here, i.e., on the front of her leg or foot, or from there, i.e., on the back of her leg or foot, she is also ritually pure, as blood from the uterus could not have reached there.

ראתה על חלוקה מן החגור ולמטה טמאה מן החגור ולמעלה טהורה ראתה על בית יד של חלוק אם מגיע כנגד בית התורפה טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there; if it was from the belt and above she is ritually pure. In a case where she saw the stain on the end of the sleeve of the robe, if the sleeve can reach adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure; and if not, i.e., if the stain is in a place on the sleeve that does not reach adjacent to the vagina, she is ritually pure.

היתה פושטתו ומתכסה בו בלילה כל מקום שנמצא בו כתם טמאה מפני שהוא חוזר וכן בפוליוס

If it was a robe which she would remove and with which she would cover herself at night, wherever on the robe that the stain is found, the stain renders her ritually impure, due to the fact that the robe moves while the woman is asleep and therefore the blood could have originated in the uterus. And likewise with regard to a kerchief [bapoleyos], no matter where the blood is found on the kerchief, the woman is impure.

גמ׳ אמר שמואל בדקה קרקע עולם וישבה עליה ומצאה דם עליה טהורה שנאמר בבשרה עד שתרגיש בבשרה

GEMARA: With regard to the cases discussed in the mishna concerning a blood stain found on a woman, Shmuel says: If a woman examined the ground beneath her to see if it was clean from blood and other substances, and she found nothing, and subsequently she sat upon it and then found blood on it, although it might be assumed that this blood came from her, she is ritually pure. The reason is as it is stated: “And her issue in her flesh shall be blood, she shall be in her menstrual state seven days” (Leviticus 15:19). This verse teaches that a woman does not become impure unless she senses, i.e., experiences some type of sensation, in her flesh that she emitted blood from her uterus. Since this woman did not sense an emission of blood, she is pure.

האי בבשרה מיבעי ליה שמטמאה בפנים כבחוץ אם כן לימא קרא בבשר מאי בבשרה שמע מינה עד שתרגיש בבשרה

The Gemara asks: How can Shmuel interpret the verse in this manner? After all, he requires this term: “In her flesh,” to teach a different halakha, that a woman becomes impure by finding blood inside her body just as by seeing blood outside her body, i.e., provided that the blood is uterine blood, even if it is currently situated inside her vaginal canal, she is impure. The Gemara answers: If so, if it serves to teach only that blood inside is like blood outside, let the verse say: In the flesh. What is the reason that the verse states: “In her flesh”? Conclude from this term that a woman does not become impure unless she senses in her flesh.

ואכתי מיבעי ליה בבשרה ולא בשפיר ולא בחתיכה תרתי שמע מינה

The Gemara asks: And still, Shmuel requires the term “in her flesh” to teach that she is impure only if the blood touches her flesh, and not through blood found in a gestational sac, nor through blood found in an amorphous piece of tissue that she emitted. The Gemara answers: Conclude two conclusions from this verse, as the plain meaning of the term teaches all these halakhot.

תא שמע האשה שהיא עושה צרכיה וראתה דם רבי מאיר אומר אם עומדת טמאה ואם יושבת טהורה

With regard to the opinion of Shmuel, the Gemara suggests: Come and hear a mishna at the beginning of the next chapter (59b): In the case of a woman who is urinating and sees blood intermingled with the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinates while she is standing she is ritually impure, as the blood could have originated in the uterus. And if she is sitting she is ritually pure, as it is clear that the blood is from a wound.

היכי דמי אי דארגשה יושבת אמאי טהורה אלא לאו דלא ארגשה וקתני עומדת טמאה

The Gemara analyzes this mishna: What are the circumstances? If she sensed while urinating, then in the case where she is sitting, why is she ritually pure, according to Shmuel? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense while urinating? And yet the mishna teaches that if she urinates while she is standing she is ritually impure. This indicates that her status does not depend on her sensing, which contradicts the statement of Shmuel.

לעולם דארגשה ואימור הרגשת מי רגלים הואי עומדת הדור מי רגלים למקור ואייתי דם ויושבת טהורה

The Gemara answers: This affords no proof, as the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed while urinating, and yet since this feeling accompanied urination, one might say it was the sensation of urine. Consequently, if she urinated while standing, the urine would return to her uterus and bring blood with it. But if she urinated while sitting the urine cannot return to the uterus and therefore she is pure, as the sensation is attributed to her urine.

תא שמע עד שהיה נתון תחת הכר ונמצא עליו דם אם עגול טהור ואם משוך טמא

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear the mishna below (58b): With regard to an examination cloth that was placed beneath the pillow and blood was later found on the cloth, and it is unclear whether it is the blood of an examination or the blood of a louse that was crushed beneath it, if the stain is round it is ritually pure. There is no concern that this blood might have come from her examination, as a woman examines through an act of wiping and a stain produced in this manner would not be round. And if the stain is elongated it is ritually impure, as this shape can be formed by an examination.

היכי דמי אי דארגישה עגול אמאי טהור אלא לאו דלא ארגישה וקתני משוך טמא

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What are the circumstances? If she sensed, then in the case where the stain is round why is it pure? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense? And yet the mishna teaches that an elongated stain is impure. This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel that a woman is rendered impure only if she sensed.

לא לעולם דארגישה ואימור הרגשת עד הואי משוך ודאי מגופה אתא עגול טהור

The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed, but since she also performed an examination one might say this was the sensation of the examination cloth. Consequently, if the stain was elongated, as appropriate for a stain produced by an examination, the blood certainly came from her body, whereas if the stain was round it is pure, as this is not the usual appearance of a stain from an examination.

תא שמע נמצא על שלו טמאין וחייבין בקרבן נמצא על שלה אתיום טמאין וחייבין בקרבן נמצא על שלה לאחר זמן טמאים מספק ופטורין מן הקרבן

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another mishna (14a): If blood was found on his, i.e., the husband’s, examination cloth following intercourse, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure for seven days, in accordance with the halakha of a menstruating woman and one who engages in intercourse with her, and they are each liable to bring a sin offering for unwittingly performing an action punishable with excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, the woman and her husband are likewise ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her swatch after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering.

היכי דמי אי דארגישה לאחר זמן אמאי פטורין מן הקרבן אלא לאו דלא ארגישה וקתני נמצא על שלה אתיום טמאין וחייבין בקרבן לא לעולם דארגישה ואימא הרגשת שמש הוה

The Gemara analyzes this mishna: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a situation where she sensed, then in the case where blood was found on her cloth after time passed, why are they exempt from bringing the sin offering? Rather, is it not referring to a case where she did not sense? And yet the mishna teaches that if blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, they are ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. Once again, this contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is actually referring to a case where she sensed, but since she was engaging in intercourse at the time, one might say this was the sensation of the male organ.

תא שמע נמצאת אתה אומר שלשה ספקות באשה על בשרה ספק טמא ספק טהור טמא על חלוקה ספק טמא ספק טהור טהור ובמגעות ובהיסטות הלך אחר הרוב

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear from a baraita: You are found to say that there are three uncertainties involving cases where blood is found on a woman or her garments. If a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, the halakha is that it is impure. If it is found on her robe and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, the halakha is that it is pure. And in the case of a woman whose status as a menstruating woman is uncertain, with regard to her touching items and with regard to her moving items, one should follow the majority.

מאי הלך אחר הרוב לאו אם רוב ימיה טמאין טמאה ואף על גב דלא ארגשה

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What is the meaning of the phrase: Follow the majority, with regard to this woman of uncertain status? Does this not mean that if for the majority of her days she is in a state of ritual impurity, as she emits impure blood on many days, then she is considered impure even when her status is uncertain? And since this baraita does not differentiate between cases where she did and did not sense, the ruling that one follows the majority, and that she is impure, evidently applies even though she did not sense, which contradicts the opinion of Shmuel.

לא אם רוב ימיה בהרגשה חזיא טמאה דאימור ארגשה ולאו אדעתה

The Gemara answers: No proof may be brought from here, as this is what the baraita means: If on the majority of her days this woman sees blood accompanied by a sensation, she is impure, despite the fact that she is uncertain whether she had a sensation, as one can say she sensed on this occasion as well, but it was not on her mind, i.e., she did not pay attention to it at the time.

אמר מר על בשרה ספק טמא ספק טהור טמא על חלוקה ספק טמא ספק טהור טהור

Before returning to the opinion of Shmuel, the Gemara analyzes the other clauses of this baraita. The Master said above: If a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is impure; if it is found on her robe and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is pure. The juxtaposition of these two cases indicates that the blood is found in the same area in both instances.

היכי דמי אי מחגור ולמטה על חלוקה אמאי טהור והא תנן מן החגור ולמטה טמא ואי מחגור ולמעלה על בשרה אמאי טמא והתנן ראתה דם על בשרה שלא כנגד בית התורפה טהורה

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the blood was discovered from the belt and below, then when it was found on her robe why is she pure? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure? And if the blood was from the belt and above, then if it was discovered on her flesh why is she impure? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if she saw blood on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure?

איבעית אימא מחגור ולמטה ואיבעית אימא מחגור ולמעלה אי בעית אימא מחגור ולמטה כגון שעברה בשוק של טבחים על בשרה מגופה אתאי דאי מעלמא אתאי על חלוקה מיבעי ליה אשתכוחי על חלוקה מעלמא אתא דאי מגופה אתא על בשרה מיבעי ליה אשתכוחי

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the blood was discovered from the belt and below, and if you wish, say instead that it was found from the belt and above. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that the blood was found from the belt and below, as the baraita is referring to a situation where the blood can be attributed to an external factor, e.g., a case where she passed through a marketplace of butchers [tabbaḥim]. Consequently, if the blood is found on her flesh it is assumed that it came from her body, as, if it came from the outside world, it should have been found on her robe as well. If it is discovered on her robe it is assumed that it came from the outside world, as, if it came from her body, it should have been found on her flesh as well.

ואיבעית אימא מחגור ולמעלה כגון דאזדקרה על בשרה ודאי מגופה אתאי דאי מעלמא אתאי על חלוקה איבעי ליה אשתכוחי על חלוקה מעלמא אתאי דאי מגופה אתאי על בשרה איבעי ליה אשתכוחי

And if you wish, say instead that the blood was found from the belt and above, and the baraita is referring to a situation where it is possible the blood came from her body, e.g., a case where she jumped backward. Therefore, if the blood is found on her flesh it certainly came from her body, as, if it came from the outside world, it should have been found on her robe as well. And if it is discovered on her robe the assumption is that it came from the outside world, as, if it came from her body, it should have been found on her flesh as well.

קתני מיהת על בשרה ספק טמא ספק טהור טמא ואף על גב דלא הרגישה ועוד תנן הרואה כתם על בשרה כנגד בית התורפה טמאה ואף על גב דלא הרגישה אמר רב ירמיה מדפתי מודה שמואל שהיא טמאה

The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita to the opinion of Shmuel: In any event, the baraita teaches that if a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is impure, and this is the halakha even though she did not sense, which contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. And furthermore, we learned in the mishna that a woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina becomes ritually impure, and this is apparently the halakha even though she did not sense. Rav Yirmeya of Difti says: The ruling of Shmuel that a woman must sense in order to be rendered impure applies only by Torah law. But Shmuel concedes that in all the cases cited above, where it is indicated that a woman is impure despite the fact that she did not sense, she is impure