## Niddah Daf 3a

###### Niddah 3a:1
[Niddah 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:1)

וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא לְמָדוּהָ אֶלָּא מִסּוֹטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains their reasoning: **And both** *tanna’im* **derived** their respective opinions **only from** the case of **a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [*sota*],** who is forbidden to engage in intercourse with her husband just like a definite adulteress.


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

רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: כִּי סוֹטָה, מָה סוֹטָה סָפֵק הִיא, וַעֲשָׂאוּהָ כְּוַדַּאי — הָכָא נָמֵי סָפֵק, וַעֲשָׂאוּהָ כְּוַדַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Rabbis hold:** This case of a ritual bath is **like** the case of **a *sota*. Just as** in the case of **a *sota*** it is **uncertain** whether **she** was actually unfaithful, **and** nevertheless the Torah **rendered her like** one who **definitely** committed adultery in that she is forbidden to her husband until she drinks the water of a *sota*; **here too,** in the case of a ritual bath, it is **uncertain** whether it was lacking the requisite measure of water **and** yet the Torah **rendered it as** though it was **definitely** lacking water, to the extent that *teruma* that touched an item that had been immersed in it must be burned.


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

אִי מִסּוֹטָה, אֵימָא כִּי סוֹטָה: מָה סוֹטָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים טָהוֹר, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים טָהוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If** the *halakhot* of the ritual bath are derived **from** those of **a *sota*,** then one can **say** that it should be **like** the *halakha* of a ***sota*** in another respect: **Just as a *sota*** who is suspected of having been unfaithful **in a public domain** is considered **pure,** i.e., she does not undergo to rite of a *sota*, **here too,** any impure item that was immersed in a currently deficient ritual bath that is situated **in a public domain** should be considered **pure.**


###### Niddah 3a:4
[Niddah 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:4)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם מִשּׁוּם סְתִירָה הוּא, וּסְתִירָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לֵיכָּא. הָכָא מִשּׁוּם חָסֵר הוּא, מָה לִי חָסֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, מָה לִי חָסֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **How can** these cases **be compared?** One cannot apply the *halakha* of a *sota* in a public domain to any other case. **There,** the reason why a *sota* is treated as having definitely been unfaithful is **due to** her **seclusion** with another man. **And** as a proper **seclusion in the public domain is not** possible, she does not assume the status of a *sota*. By contrast, **here,** in the case of the ritual bath, the uncertainty **is due to** the **lack** of the requisite measure of water in the ritual bath. If so, **what** difference is it **to me** if the ritual bath is **lacking in a public domain** or if it is **lacking in a private domain?**


###### Niddah 3a:5
[Niddah 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:5)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָא כׇּל סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים טָהוֹר! כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי לְרֵיעוּתָא — כְּוַדַּאי טוּמְאָה דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And if you would say** that the guiding principle in **any** case of **uncertainty** involving **impurity in a public domain** is that it is **ritually pure,** and therefore all items immersed in a ritual bath situated in the public domain should be pure even if there is uncertainty about its status of purity, that suggestion can be rejected, as follows: **Since there are two** factors **that weaken** the possibility that the items are ritually pure: First, the ritual bath is currently lacking, and second, the item has a presumptive status of impurity, it is therefore **considered as** an item of **definite impurity.**


###### Niddah 3a:6
[Niddah 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:6)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: כִּי סוֹטָה, מָה סוֹטָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — טָהוֹר, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After analyzing the reasoning of the Rabbis, the Gemara turns to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. **And Rabbi Shimon holds:** This case of a ritual bath is just **like** the case of **a *sota*. Just as a *sota*** who is suspected of having been unfaithful **in a public domain** is considered **pure, here too,** any impure item that was immersed in a currently deficient ritual bath that is situated **in a public domain** is considered **pure.**


###### Niddah 3a:7
[Niddah 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:7)

אִי מִסּוֹטָה, אֵימָא כִּי סוֹטָה: מָה סוֹטָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — טְמֵאָה וַדַּאי, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — טְמֵאָה וַדַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the *halakhot* of the ritual bath are derived **from** those of **a *sota*,** then one can **say** that it should be **like** the *halakha* of a ***sota*** in another respect: **Just as a *sota*** who secluded herself with the man **in a private domain** is deemed **definitely impure,** i.e., she is forbidden to her husband until she undergoes the rite of the *sota*, **here too,** any ritually impure item that was immersed in a currently deficient ritual bath situated **in a private domain** should be considered **definitely impure.** If so, any *teruma* that comes in contact with the immersed vessel should be burned. Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon rule that its status is suspended and it is neither consumed nor burned?


###### Niddah 3a:8
[Niddah 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:8)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם יֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר, שֶׁהֲרֵי קִינֵּא לָהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה. הָכָא מַאי רַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of a *sota*, **there is a basis for the matter.** She is considered definitely impure, **as** her husband **issued a warning to her** about this particular man **and she** then **secluded** herself with him. By contrast, **here,** in the case of a ritual bath, **what basis for the matter is there?** Why should one assume impurity with certainty?


###### Niddah 3a:9
[Niddah 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:9)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: גָּמַר סוֹף טוּמְאָה מִתְּחִלַּת טוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that **this is** the **reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon:** He does not base his ruling on the case of a *sota*; rather, he **derives the end of impurity from the beginning of impurity,** i.e., he derives the *halakha* of the immersion of an impure item into a ritual bath from the *halakha* of the initial contraction of ritual impurity.


###### Niddah 3a:10
[Niddah 3a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:10)

מָה תְּחִלַּת טוּמְאָה, סָפֵק נָגַע סָפֵק לֹא נָגַע — בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים טָהוֹר, אַף סוֹף טוּמְאָה, סָפֵק טָבַל סָפֵק לֹא טָבַל — בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Just as** with regard to the **beginning of impurity,** if there is **uncertainty whether or not** a pure item **came into contact** with a source of impurity, if this occurred **in the public domain** it is considered ritually **pure; so too** in the case of the **end of impurity,** if there is **uncertainty whether or not** the impure item was **immersed** in a ritual bath with the requisite amount of water, the *halakha* is that if the ritual bath is located **in the public domain,** the item is considered **pure.**


###### Niddah 3a:11
[Niddah 3a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:11)

וְרַבָּנַן? הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם גַּבְרָא בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה קָאֵי, מִסְּפֵקָא לָא מַחֲתִינַן לֵיהּ לְטוּמְאָה. הָכָא גַּבְרָא בְּחֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה קָאֵי, מִסְּפֵקָא לָא מַפְּקִינַן לֵיהּ מִטּוּמְאָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how would **the Rabbis** respond to this claim? They would respond: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** with regard to the beginning of impurity, **the man** who might have touched an impure item **remains with the presumptive status** of **ritual purity.** Consequently, **we do not lower his** status to one who has contracted **ritual impurity** merely **due to uncertainty. Here,** in the case of the ritual bath, **the man** who immerses in that ritual bath **has the presumptive status** of **ritual impurity.** Therefore, **we do not remove him** from **his** status **of ritual impurity due to uncertainty.**


###### Niddah 3a:12
[Niddah 3a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:12)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִמָּבוֹי? דִּתְנַן: הַשֶּׁרֶץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּמָּבוֹי — מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר: ״בָּדַקְתִּי אֶת הַמָּבוֹי הַזֶּה וְלֹא הָיָה בּוֹ שֶׁרֶץ״, אוֹ עַד שְׁעַת הַכִּיבּוּד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to its analysis of the mishna. Shammai said: For all women, their time is sufficient, i.e., women who discern that menstrual blood emerged do not need to be concerned that perhaps the flow of blood began before they noticed it. The Gemara asks: In **what** way **is** this case **different from** that of **an alleyway? As we learned** in a mishna (66a): With regard to the carcass of **a creeping animal that is found in an alleyway,** it **renders** any item in the alleyway **ritually impure retroactively to** the time **that** a person can **say: I examined this alleyway and there was no** carcass of **a creeping animal in it, or until the time of the** last **sweeping** of the alleyway.


###### Niddah 3a:13
[Niddah 3a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:13)

הָתָם נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא שְׁרָצִים דְּגוּפֵיהּ, וּשְׁרָצִים דְּאָתוּ מֵעָלְמָא — כְּתַרְתֵּי לְרֵיעוּתָא דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There too,** one can explain: **Since there** are two types of carcasses of creeping animals that are likely to be found in the alleyway, **creeping animals from** the alleyway **itself and creeping animals that came from the world** at large, **it is compared to** a case where there **are two** factors **that weaken** the possibility that the items are ritually pure. Therefore, even Shammai agrees that in such a case the impurity extends retroactively back in time.


###### Niddah 3a:14
[Niddah 3a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:14)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּשַׁמַּאי: הוֹאִיל וְאִשָּׁה מַרְגֶּשֶׁת בְּעַצְמָהּ, וְהִלֵּל — כִּסְבוּרָה הַרְגָּשַׁת מֵי רַגְלַיִם הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that **this is the reason** for the opinion **of Shammai: Since a women senses within herself** if she is experiencing a flow of blood, if she felt the flow only at present, it is certain that she did not experience a flow previously. **And Hillel** holds that she might have experienced a flow earlier while she was urinating and **she thought it** was all **the sensation of** her flow of **urine.**


###### Niddah 3a:15
[Niddah 3a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:15)

וּלְשַׁמַּאי, הָאִיכָּא יְשֵׁנָה? יְשֵׁנָה נָמֵי, אַגַּב צַעֲרַהּ מִיתַּעְרָא, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַהַרְגָּשַׁת מֵי רַגְלַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Shammai, isn’t there** the case of **a sleeping** woman, who would not sense her flow of menstrual blood? The Gemara answers: **A sleeping** woman would **also** sense her flow, and **due to her discomfort** she **would awaken, just as it is with the sensation** of the need to **urinate.**


###### Niddah 3a:16
[Niddah 3a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:16)

וְהָאִיכָּא שׁוֹטָה! מוֹדֶה שַׁמַּאי בְּשׁוֹטָה. הָא ״כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים״ קָתָנֵי! ״כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים״ — פִּקְּחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty with regard to the opinion of Shammai: **But there** is the case of **a mentally incompetent** woman, who does not properly understand what she is sensing. She might have previously experienced a flow of menstrual blood that she did not notice. The Gemara answers: **Shammai concedes** in the case **of a mentally incompetent** woman that she is impure retroactively. The Gemara asks: **But** the mishna explicitly **teaches** that Shammai mentioned **all women,** which apparently includes even the mentally incompetent. The Gemara answers: When the mishna teaches: **All women,** it is referring to all **mentally competent** women.


###### Niddah 3a:17
[Niddah 3a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:17)

וְלִיתְנֵי ״נָשִׁים״! לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: ״אַרְבַּע נָשִׁים״ וְתוּ לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** if so, **let** the mishna **teach** that Shammai’s opinion applies to: **Women,** rather than referring to all women. The Gemara answers: The inclusive statement: All women, serves **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer. As Rabbi Eliezer said** in a mishna (7a): There are **four women** with regard to whom the *halakha* is that their time is sufficient. This indicates that there are only four, **and no more.** Therefore, the mishna **teaches us: All women,** to include all mentally competent women, not only the four mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer.


###### Niddah 3a:18
[Niddah 3a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:18)

וְהָאִיכָּא כְּתָמִים! לֵימָא תְּנַן כְּתָמִים דְּלָא כְּשַׁמַּאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מוֹדֶה שַׁמַּאי בִּכְתָמִים. מַאי טַעְמָא? בְּצִפּוֹר לֹא נִתְעַסְּקָה, בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים לֹא עָבְרָה, הַאי דָּם מֵהֵיכָא אָתֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises yet another difficulty against the opinion of Shammai: **But there is** the case of blood **stains.** The mishna teaches (66a) that a woman who finds a blood stain is impure retroactive to the last time she examined her clothing and found them clean. **Shall we say** that **we learned** the mishna with regard to **stains not in accordance with** the opinion of **Shammai? Abaye said: Shammai concedes** in the case **of stains.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason?** The reason is **that she neither engaged in** handling a slaughtered **bird nor** did **she pass through a marketplace of butchers.** If so, **from where** could **this blood** stain on her clothing have **come?** Since it must be from her last menstrual flow, Shammai agrees that she is impure retroactively.


###### Niddah 3a:19
[Niddah 3a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:19)

אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמֵיהּ דְּשַׁמַּאי: דְּאִם אִיתָא דַּהֲוָה דָּם מֵעִיקָּרָא — הֲוָה אָתֵי. וְהִלֵּל — כּוֹתְלֵי בֵּית הָרֶחֶם הֶעֱמִידוּהוּ, וְשַׁמַּאי — כּוֹתְלֵי בֵּית הָרֶחֶם לָא מוֹקְמִי דָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another analysis: **Or if you wish, say** that **this is the reason** for the opinion **of Shammai:** She is impure only from that point onward, **as, if it is so that there was** any menstrual **blood** previously, **it would have come** out **at the outset,** i.e., at the earlier time. The Gemara explains why Hillel maintains that there is ritual impurity retroactively, in light of this analysis: **And** as for **Hillel,** he holds that the **walls of the womb,** i.e., the walls of the vaginal canal, **held back** the menstrual blood from leaving the body entirely, and therefore there might have been a previous emission from the uterus into the vaginal canal that was not visible on the outside. The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Shammai** respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Shammai maintains that the **walls of the womb do not hold back blood.**


###### Niddah 3a:20
[Niddah 3a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:20)

מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּמוֹךְ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מוֹדֶה שַׁמַּאי בִּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּמוֹךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to** a woman who **engages in intercourse** while using a contraceptive absorbent **cloth** in the form of a wad that she inserts in her vagina at the opening of her womb so as not to become pregnant, **what is there to say?** In other words, how does Shammai explain why there is no retroactive impurity status in such a case, as it cannot be claimed that any previous menstrual blood would have flowed out earlier. **Abaye says: Shammai concedes with regard to** a woman who **engages in intercourse** while using a contraceptive **cloth** that she is impure retroactively.


###### Niddah 3a:21
[Niddah 3a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:21)

רָבָא אָמַר: מוֹךְ נָמֵי, אַגַּב זֵיעָה מִכְוָיץ כָּוֵיץ, וּמוֹדֶה רָבָא בְּמוֹךְ דָּחוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** Here **as well,** in a case where a woman engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive absorbent **cloth,** any previous menstrual blood would have flowed out, as the absorbent cloth does not hermetically seal the womb. The reason is that the cloth **wrinkles due to perspiration,** leaving space for blood to pass through. The Gemara adds: **And** nevertheless **Rava concedes** to Abaye that Shammai agrees that she is retroactively impure in a case **where** a woman engages in intercourse while using a tightly **packed** absorbent **cloth.**


###### Niddah 3a:22
[Niddah 3a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/3a:22)

וּמַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין הָנֵי לִישָּׁנֵי לְהַאיְךְ לִישָּׁנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara suggested that the reasoning for Shammai’s opinion is that the woman would have felt any previous menstrual flow, or that any prior menstrual blood would have flowed out previously. Yet, earlier the Gemara suggested that his reason was that the woman retains her presumptive status of ritual purity. With regard to the explanations given for the opinion of Shammai, the Gemara asks: **What** difference **is there between these versions and that version** suggested earlier?