## Niddah Daf 2b

###### Niddah 2b:1
[Niddah 2b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:1)

כֵּיוָן דְּמִגּוּפַהּ קָחָזְיָא — לָא אָמְרִינַן אוֹקְמַהּ אַחֶזְקָתַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**since** it is her nature **to see** blood flow **from her body** at regular intervals, **we do not say: Establish her in her presumptive status** of ritual purity. Her body is constantly changing, and therefore she has no such presumptive status.


###### Niddah 2b:2
[Niddah 2b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:2)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִמִּקְוֶה? דִּתְנַן: מִקְוֶה שֶׁנִּמְדַּד וְנִמְצָא חָסֵר — כׇּל טְהָרוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל גַּבָּיו לְמַפְרֵעַ, בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — טְמֵאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the opinions of both Shammai and Hillel, the Gemara asks: **And** in **what** way **is** this case **different from** that of **a ritual bath? As we learned** in a mishna (*Mikvaot* 2:2): In the case of **a ritual bath** that was known to have contained the requisite forty *se’a*, **which was** then **measured and found lacking** in its quantity of water, **all pure items that had been rendered** pure **in it,** i.e., any impure items that had been purified through immersion in this ritual bath, **retroactive** to when the ritual bath was last measured, **whether** this ritual bath is found **in the private domain or in the public domain, are impure.**


###### Niddah 2b:3
[Niddah 2b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:3)

לְשַׁמַּאי קַשְׁיָא לְמַפְרֵעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **According to** the opinion of **Shammai,** the mishna poses **a difficulty from** its statement that the change in the ritual bath’s status is assumed **retroactive** to the time when it was last measured, as he maintains that a menstruating woman’s status changes only at the present moment, not retroactive to the last time she examined herself.


###### Niddah 2b:4
[Niddah 2b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:4)

לְהִלֵּל קַשְׁיָא וַדַּאי, דְּאִילּוּ מֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁבְּנִדָּה תּוֹלִין — לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין, וְאִילּוּ הָכָא טוּמְאָה וַדַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to** the opinion of **Hillel,** the mishna also poses **a difficulty** with regard to its ruling that the items purified in the ritual bath are deemed impure with **certainty, whereas** a menstruating women does not assume retroactive impurity with certainty. In other words, although according to the Rabbis there is a twenty-four-hour **period** of retroactive ritual impurity in the case **of a menstruating woman,** and according to Hillel the retroactive impurity extends back to her most recent examination, nevertheless any *teruma* that she touched during that period is not deemed definitely impure to the extent that it must be burned. Rather, the impure status of the items she touched is uncertain and the status of the *teruma* is **suspended,** i.e., one may **neither eat** it **nor burn** it. **Whereas here,** in the case of the ritual bath, any item purified in it is retroactively deemed **definitely impure.**


###### Niddah 2b:5
[Niddah 2b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:5)

הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: הַעֲמֵד טָמֵא עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ, וְאֵימָא לֹא טָבַל. אַדְּרַבָּה, הַעֲמֵד מִקְוֶה עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ, וְאֵימָא לֹא חָסַר! הֲרֵי חָסֵר לְפָנֶיךָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** in the case of a ritual bath, it is different, **since it can be said: Establish** the **impure** item **in its presumptive status and say** that **it was not** properly **immersed.** In other words, the presumptive status of the item as ritually impure is in keeping with the current deficient state of the ritual bath. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **On the contrary,** one should **establish the ritual bath in its presumptive state** of validity **and say that** the ritual bath **was not** previously **lacking** the requisite measure of water. The Gemara responds: There is no presumptive state of validity, as the ritual bath **is lacking before you,** i.e., at present, and this offsets the presumptive status that it was full.


###### Niddah 2b:6
[Niddah 2b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:6)

הָכָא נָמֵי, הֲרֵי דָּם לְפָנֶיךָ! הַשְׁתָּא הוּא דַּחֲזַאי. הָכָא נָמֵי, הַשְׁתָּא הוּא דַּחֲסַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Here too,** in the case of a menstruating woman, she is one who has experienced a discharge of **blood before you,** i.e., at present. Just as the ritual bath’s presumptive status of validity is offset by its present lack of the requisite measure of water, so too the woman’s previous presumptive status of ritual purity is offset by her present state of impurity due to menstruation. The Gemara answers: In the case of the menstruating woman, it is possible that **it is** only **now that she saw** the first emission of her menstrual blood. The Gemara retorts: One can say the same with regard to the ritual bath: **Here too, it is** only **now that** it **became lacking** in the requisite measure of water.


###### Niddah 2b:7
[Niddah 2b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:7)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: חֲסַר וַאֲתָא, חֲסַר וַאֲתָא. הָכָא מִי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: חֲזַאי וַאֲתָא, חֲזַאי וַאֲתָא? וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא?! דִּלְמָא הַגַּס הַגַּס חֲזֵיתֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of the ritual bath, **it can be said** that the water slowly trickled out and consequently the amount of water was **continuously diminishing.** Therefore, it is possible that the ritual bath lost its valid status long ago without anyone realizing. By contrast, **here,** with regard to a menstruating woman, **can it be said** that she was **continuously seeing** menstrual blood? The Gemara responds: **And what is the difficulty?** The same possibility does in fact exist in the case of a menstruating woman, as **perhaps she saw** the blood depart **bit [*hagas*] by bit.**


###### Niddah 2b:8
[Niddah 2b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:8)

הָתָם אִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי לְרֵיעוּתָא, הָכָא אִיכָּא חֲדָא לְרֵיעוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states a different answer: **There,** in the case of the ritual bath, **there are two** factors **that weaken** the suggestion that the items are ritually pure: First, the ritual bath is lacking at present; second, the item has a presumptive status of impurity. **Here,** by contrast, **there is** only **one** factor **that weakens** the possibility that the items touched by the currently menstruating woman were rendered ritually impure, i.e., that she is currently experiencing a menstrual flow. Therefore, according to Shammai she assumes impurity status only from that moment onward, and according to Hillel her retroactive impurity status applies only as an uncertainty.


###### Niddah 2b:9
[Niddah 2b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:9)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵחָבִית? דִּתְנַן: הָיָה בּוֹדֵק אֶת הֶחָבִית לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה וְהוֹלֵךְ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא חוֹמֶץ — כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים (הָרִאשׁוֹנִים) וַדַּאי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **And** according to Shammai, who holds that her time is sufficient and there is no retroactive impurity, **what is different** in the case **of a barrel? As it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Terumot* 2:8): If someone **would inspect** the contents of **a barrel** to see if it still contained enough wine **to continually** mentally **separate *teruma* from it,** i.e., to exempt other untithed wine of his until all the wine in this barrel will be *teruma*, **and afterward** the contents of the barrel **were found** to have turned to **vinegar,** which cannot be set aside as *teruma* for untithed wine, then for **all of the first three days** following his most recent inspection, it is **definitely** considered to have been wine. Therefore, any of the untithed wine for which *teruma* was separated during those days is tithed.


###### Niddah 2b:10
[Niddah 2b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:10)

מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — סָפֵק. קַשְׁיָא לְשַׁמַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **From that** point **forward,** i.e., more than three days after the most recent inspection, it is **uncertain** whether it had already turned to vinegar, and consequently any untithed wine for which *teruma* was separated during those days remains uncertainly tithed. This poses **a difficulty for Shammai,** who maintains that there is no such retroactive consideration in the case of a menstruating woman.


###### Niddah 2b:11
[Niddah 2b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:11)

הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: הַעֲמֵד טֶבֶל עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ, וְאֵימַר לֹא נִתְקַן. אַדְּרַבָּה, הַעֲמֵד יַיִן עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ, וְאֵימַר לֹא הֶחְמִיץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** in the case of the barrel, it is different, **since it can be said: Establish the untithed produce in its presumptive status,** as when it first grew it was definitely untithed, **and say** it was **not amended,** i.e., exempted, and its status continues to be untithed produce. The Gemara asks: **On the contrary,** one should **establish the wine in its presumptive status, and say** that it had **not turned to vinegar.**


###### Niddah 2b:12
[Niddah 2b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:12)

הֲרֵי הֶחְמִיץ לְפָנֶיךָ! הָכָא נָמֵי, הֲרֵי דָּם לְפָנֶיךָ! הַשְׁתָּא הוּא דַּחֲזַאי. הָתָם נָמֵי, הַשְׁתָּא הוּא דְּהֶחְמִיץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is impossible, as **it is turned to vinegar before you,** i.e., at present. The Gemara replies: **Here too,** in the case of a menstruating woman, one who has experienced a discharge of **blood** is **before you,** at present, so what is the difference? The Gemara explains: With regard to the woman, it is possible that **it is** only **now that she saw** the beginning of her menstrual blood. The Gemara responds: **There too,** it is possible that **it is** only **now that it turned to vinegar,** but not earlier.


###### Niddah 2b:13
[Niddah 2b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:13)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: הֶחְמִיץ וַאֲתָא, הֶחְמִיץ וַאֲתָא. הָכָא מִי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: חֲזַאי וַאֲתָא, חֲזַאי וַאֲתָא? וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא?! דִּלְמָא הַגַּס הַגַּס חֲזֵיתֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara again answers: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of the wine, **it can be said** that it was **continuously turning to vinegar.** Therefore, it is possible that the wine turned to vinegar much earlier without anyone realizing. By contrast, in the case of the menstruating woman, **can it be said** that she was **continuously seeing** menstrual blood? Once again, the Gemara responds: **And what is the difficulty?** The same possibility does in fact exist in the case of a menstruating woman, as **perhaps she saw** the blood depart **bit by bit.**


###### Niddah 2b:14
[Niddah 2b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:14)

הָתָם אִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי לְרֵיעוּתָא, הָכָא אִיכָּא חֲדָא לְרֵיעוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides a different answer: **There,** in the case of the barrel, there are **two** factors **that weaken** the suggestion that the wine is tithed: First, it is vinegar at present; second, the wine has a presumptive status that it is untithed. **Here,** by contrast, **there is** only **one** factor **that weakens** the possibility that the items touched by the menstruating woman were rendered ritually impure, i.e., that she is currently experiencing a menstrual flow.


###### Niddah 2b:15
[Niddah 2b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:15)

וּרְמִי חָבִית אַמִּקְוֶה: מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא וַדַּאי, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא סָפֵק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction between** the *halakha* of the **barrel** and that **of** the **ritual bath: What is different here,** in the case of the ritual bath, where the items are **definitely** impure, **and what is different there,** with regard to the barrel, where it is only **uncertain** that the produce remains untithed? In both cases the current situation, that the ritual bath is deficient and the contents of the barrel have turned to vinegar, should lead to a definite status.


###### Niddah 2b:16
[Niddah 2b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: מַאן תְּנָא חָבִית? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דִּלְגַבֵּי מִקְוֶה נָמֵי סְפֵקָא מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura says: Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** the *halakha* of the **barrel? It is Rabbi Shimon, who, with regard to a ritual bath also considers it** as a matter of **uncertainty,** rather than as definitely impure. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the two *halakhot*.


###### Niddah 2b:17
[Niddah 2b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:17)

דִּתְנַן: מִקְוֶה שֶׁנִּמְדַּד וְנִמְצָא חָסֵר — כָּל הַטְּהָרוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל גַּבָּיו לְמַפְרֵעַ, בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, טְמֵאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Mikvaot* 2:2): In the case of **a ritual bath** that was known to have contained the requisite forty *se’a*, **which was** then **measured and found lacking** in its quantity of water, **all pure items that had been rendered** pure **in it,** i.e., any impure items that had been purified through immersion in this ritual bath, **retroactive** to when the ritual bath was last measured, **whether** this ritual bath is located **in the private domain or in the public domain, are impure.**


###### Niddah 2b:18
[Niddah 2b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/2b:18)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים טְהוֹרוֹת, בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד תּוֹלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **Rabbi Shimon says:** If the impure items were immersed in a ritual bath that was **in the public domain,** they are deemed **pure.** But if they were immersed in a ritual bath that was **in a private domain,** the status of any *teruma* that touched them is **suspended,** i.e., it is neither consumed nor burned. Rabbi Shimon holds that even in the case of a ritual bath, the items are not retroactively deemed definitely impure. Rather the status is uncertain, just as in the case of the barrel.