![]() |
![]() |
|||||
Previous Folio /
Niddah Directory /
Tractate List /
Navigate Sitexd
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate NiddahFolio 8a'A minor1 is to be instructed2 to exercise her right of mi'un against him'3 and in connection with this Rab Judah citing Samuel stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer'?4 — When Samuel stated 'the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four cases he referred to rulings in the Order of Toharoth,5 but in the other Orders there are many such rulings. This6 also stands to reason, for we learnt: R. Eliezer ruled, Also in the case of one who shovels out loaves of bread7 from an oven and puts them into a basket,8 the basket causes them to be combined in respect of their liability to the dough-offering',9 and in connection with this Rab Judah citing Samuel stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer.'10 This is conclusive. But why is the latter11 a more valid proof12 than the former?13 — Because in the former case R. Eleazar takes up the same standpoint as he,14 for we learnt: R. Eleazar ruled, The minor is to be instructed15 to exercise her right of mi'un against him.16 But does he17 take up the same standpoint?18 Have we not in fact shown19 that both20 were required because they are not like one another?21 — Rather say, Because R. Judah b. Baba takes up the same position as he,22 for we learnt,23 'R. Judah b. Baba testified concerning five things: That minors are urged to exercise their right of mi'un,24 that a woman25 is allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness,26 that a cock was stoned27 in Jerusalem because it had killed a person,28 that29 wine which was only forty days old30 was poured as a drink-offering upon the altar, and that29 the continual morning sacrifice was offered31 [as late as] at the fourth hour [of the day]'.32 Now does not the expression 'minors'33 imply34 the one of which R. Eleazar and the one of which R. Eliezer spoke?35 — No; by the expression36 'minors' minors in general37 were meant.38 If so,39 should it not have been stated, in the case of the woman40 also, 'women', meaning thereby41 women in general?42 As in the latter case,43 however, it was stated 'woman',44 and in the former 'minors'45 it may be concluded that the expressions are to be taken literally.46 This is conclusive.R. Eleazar47 also48 stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things'. But are there no more of such rulings?49 Have we not in fact learnt, 'R. Eliezer ruled, The minor is to be instructed to exercise her right of mi'un against him'50 and R. Eleazar stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer'?51 And were you to reply that when R. Eleazar stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things' he referred to the rulings in the Order of Toharoth, but that in the other Orders there are many more such rulings49 [it could be retorted:] But are there any such? Have we not in fact learnt, 'The rose, henna,52 lotus53 and balsam as well as their proceeds are subject to the laws of the Sabbatical year54 and they and their proceeds are also subject to the law of removal,'55 in connection with which R. Pedath56 is observed, 'Who taught57 that balsam is a fruit?58 R. Eliezer'; and R. Zera replied, 'I see that between59 you and your father you will cause balsam to be permitted to the world,60 since you said, "Who taught that balsam is a fruit? R. Eliezer" and your father said, "The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things".'61 Now, if it were so,62 why did he63 not reply to him,64 'When my father said, "The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things" he referred only to rulings in the Order of Toharoth but in other Orders there are many more'?65 — But then,66 does not the previous difficulty67 arise? — [In the case of mi'un68 the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer] because R. Eleazar [b. Shammua'] takes up the same standpoint as he; for we have learnt: R. Eleazar ruled, The minor is to be instructed to exercise her right of mi'un against him.69 But does he70 take up the same standpoint? Have we not in fact shown that both71 were required because they are not like one another?72 — Rather say: Because R. Judah b. Baba takes up the same standpoint as he.70 But are there no more such rulings?73 Have we not in fact learnt: 'R. Akiba ruled, One says it74 as an independent benediction;75 R. Eliezer ruled, One includes it in the benediction of thanksgiving';76 and in connection with this R. Eleazar77 stated,78 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer'? — R. Abba replied: [The halachah agrees with him] in that case because he [may have] said it in the name of R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, for it was taught: R. Akiba ruled, One says it79 as an independent benediction;75 R. Hanina b. Gamaliel ruled, One includes it in the benediction of thanksgiving.
Niddah 8bBut was he1 not much older than he?2 — Rather say:3 Because R. Hanina b. Gamaliel took up4 the same line as he, But did he5 take it up? Was it not in fact taught: On the night of the Day of Atonement6 one recites in his prayers seven benedictions and makes confession; in the morning6 one recites seven benedictions and makes confession; during the additional prayer7 one recites seven benedictions and makes confession; in the afternoon prayer one recites seven benedictions and makes confession; In the concluding prayer8 one recites seven benedictions and makes confession, and in the evening9 one recites seven benedictions embodying the substance of the Eighteen;10 and R. Hanina b. Gamaliel in the name of his ancestors ruled: One must recite in his prayers11 all the eighteen benedictions because it is necessary to include habdalah12 in 'who favourest man with knowledge'?13 — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: He cited it14 in the name of his ancestors but he himself15 does not uphold it.Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera:16 But do you not yourself hold that he who taught that balsam was a fruit is R. Eliezer, seeing that we have learnt: R. Eliezer ruled, Milk curdled with the sap of 'orlah is forbidden?17 — This18 might be said to agree even with the view of the Rabbis, since they differed from R. Eliezer only in respect of the sap of the tree but in the case of the sap of the fruit they agree with him, for we have learnt: R. Joshua stated, I have explicitly heard that milk curdled with the sap of the leaves or with the sap of the roots is permitted, but if it was curdled with the sap of unripe figs it is forbidden because the latter is regarded as a proper fruit.19 And if you prefer I might reply: The Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer only in respect of a fruit producing tree but in the case of a tree that does not produce fruit they agree that its sap is regarded as its fruit, for we have learnt: R. Simeon ruled, Balsam is not subject to the laws of the Sabbatical Year20 and the Sages ruled, Balsam is subject to the laws of the Sabbatical Year because the sap of the tree is regarded as its fruit.21 Now who are the Sages? Are they not in fact the Rabbis who differ22 from R. Eliezer?23 — Thus, a certain elder replied to him, said R. Johanan, 'Who are the "Sages"? R. Eliezer who ruled that its balsam is its fruit'. But if by the 'Sages' R. Eliezer was meant what was the point in speaking of a tree that does not produce fruit seeing that even where a tree produces fruit its sap is regarded as its fruit? — He24 spoke to them25 according to the view of the Rabbis. 'According to my view' [he said in effect,] 'even in the case of a fruit producing tree its sap is regarded as its fruit, but according to your view26 agree with me at least in this case of a tree that produces no fruit that its sap is its fruit. But the Rabbis told him: No difference is made.27 WHO IS REGARDED AS A 'VIRGIN'? ANY WOMAN WHO HAS NOT YET OBSERVED etc. Our Rabbis taught: [If a virgin] married and observed a discharge of blood that was due to the marriage, or if when she bore a child she observed a discharge of blood that was due to the birth, she is still called a 'virgin', because the virgin of whom the Rabbis spoke is one that is a virgin as regards menstrual blood but not one who is so in regard to the blood of virginity.28 Can this, however, be correct?29 Has not R. Kahana in fact stated, 'A Tanna taught: There are three kinds of virgin, the human virgin, the soil virgin and the sycamore virgin. The "human virgin" is one that never30 had any sexual intercourse, the practical issue31 being her eligibility to marry a High Priest32 or else her claim to a kethubah of two hundred zuz;33 the "virgin soil" is one that had never30 been cultivated, the practical issue31 being its designation as "a rough valley"34 or else its legal status as regards purchase and sale;35 the "virgin sycamore" is one that has never36 been cut,37 the practical issue38 being its legal status as regards purchase and sale39 or else the permissibility to cut it37 in the Sabbatical Year, as we have learnt: A virgin sycamore may not be cut in the Sabbatical Year because such cutting is regarded as cultivation'.40 Now if this41 were correct why did he42 not mention this one also? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: He only mentioned such as has no special43 name44 but one which bears a special43 name45 he does not mention. R. Shesheth son of R. Idi replied: He46 only mentioned those, the loss of whose virginity47 is dependent on an act48 but one the loss of whose virginity47 is not dependent on an act49 he does not mention. R. Hanina son of R. Ika replied: He46 only mentioned those47 which do not change50 into their original condition51 but one which does change to its original condition52 he does not mention. Rabina replied: He53 only mentioned that to which a purchaser is likely to object54 but that to which a purchaser is not likely to object55 he does not mention. But do not people object?56 Was it not in fact taught, 'R. Hiyya stated: As leaven is wholesome for the dough so is menstrual blood wholesome for a woman'57 and it was also taught in the name of R. Meir, 'Every woman who has an abundance of menstrual blood has many children'?57 — Rather say: He53 only mentioned that which a purchaser is anxious to acquire58 but that59 which a purchaser is not anxious to acquire60 he does not mention. Our Rabbis taught: What is meant by a virgin soil? One which61 turns up clods62 and whose earth is not loose. If61 a potsherd is found in it, it may be known that it had once been cultivated;63 if flint, it is undoubtedly64 virgin soil. 'A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY'? ONE WHOSE EMBRYO 'CAN BE DISCERNED. At what stage65 is the embryo discernible? — Symmachus citing R. Meir replied: Three months after conception. And though there is no actual proof for this statement there is an allusion66 to it, for it is said in Scripture, And it came to pass about three months after67 etc. 'An allusion to it' [you say], is not this a text of Scripture and a most reliable68 proof? — [It can only be regarded as an allusion] because some women69 give birth after nine months and others after seven months.70 Our Rabbis taught: If a woman was71 in a condition of presumptive pregnancy and after observing a discharge of blood she miscarried an inflated object72 or any other object which had no vitality73 she74 is still deemed to be75 in the condition of her presumptive pregnancy and it suffices for her to reckon her period of menstrual uncleanness from the time of her observation of the discharge.76 And though there is no actual proof for this ruling77 there is an allusion78 to it, for it is said in Scripture, We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind.79 But why only 'an allusion to it' seeing that the text provides actual80 proof? — That text was in fact written about males.81 I would, however, point out an incongruity: If a woman was in hard labour82 for two days83 and on the third day84 she miscarried an inflated object or any thing that had no vitality, she85 is regarded as bearing in the condition of a zabah.86 Now if you maintain that such miscarriage is a proper birth - To Next Folio -
|
||||||
![]() |
![]() |