## Niddah Daf 3b

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

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ לְמִרְמֵי חָבִית וּמִקְוֶה וּמָבוֹי — לְהַאיְךְ לִישָּׁנָא אִיכָּא לְמִרְמִינְהוּ, לְהָנֵי לִישָּׁנֵי לֵיכָּא לְמִרְמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The difference **between** them is with regard to the possibility **of raising a contradiction** between Shammai’s ruling here and the cases of **a barrel, a ritual bath, and an alleyway. According to that version,** that Shammai’s reasoning is based upon the principle that an item retains its presumptive status, **there is** room **to raise these contradictions,** as the Gemara explained. By contrast, **according to these** other **versions,** that the woman would have felt any previous menstrual flow or that any prior menstrual blood would have flowed out previously, **there is no** room **to raise** such **contradictions,** as those rulings do not contradict the *halakha* here, where a unique factor is relevant.


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

וּמַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין הַאי לִישָּׁנָא לְהַאיְךְ לִישָּׁנָא? לְאַבָּיֵי אִיכָּא מוֹךְ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **And what** difference **is there between this version,** that any prior menstrual blood would have flowed out, **and that version,** that she would have felt any previous menstrual flow? The Gemara answers: **According to Abaye,** who maintains that Shammai agrees that a woman who engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive cloth is impure retroactively, **there is** a difference in a case where the woman engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive **cloth.** If Shammai’s reasoning is that a woman senses the emission of blood, in this case too it is assumed that she did not emit blood earlier. By contrast, if his reasoning is that any prior menstrual blood would have come out at the outset, it is possible that the cloth blocked the emission of blood, and she already emitted blood. Consequently, she is impure retroactively.


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

לְרָבָא אִיכָּא מוֹךְ דָּחוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to Rava,** who maintains that blood can emerge even if the woman engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive absorbent cloth, **there is** a difference between the two interpretations in a case where she engages in intercourse while using a tightly **packed** absorbent **cloth,** as such a cloth will prevent the blood from flowing out, but it does not affect her ability to sense an emission.


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

תַּנְיָא כִּי הַאי לִישָּׁנָא, דְּאִם אִיתָא דַּהֲוָה דָּם מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה אָתֵי. אָמַר לוֹ הִלֵּל לְשַׁמַּאי: אִי אַתָּה מוֹדֶה בְּקוּפָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהּ טְהָרוֹת בְּזָוִית זוֹ, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁרֶץ בְּזָוִית אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁטְּהָרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת טְמֵאוֹת? אָמַר לוֹ: אֲבָל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **taught** in a mishna (*Teharot* 4:4) **in accordance with this version,** i.e., that Shammai’s reasoning is **that if it is so, that there was** menstrual **blood** previously, **it would have come** out **at the outset: Hillel said to Shammai: Don’t you concede** to the following *halakha*: In the case **of a basket** that **was used** as a container for **ritually pure** items, and those items were placed **in** one **corner, and** subsequently the carcass of **a creeping animal was found in a different corner** of the basket, the *halakha* is **that the** items **initially** considered **ritually pure** are now retroactively considered **impure? Shammai said to him: Indeed,** that is correct.


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

וּמָה הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין זוֹ לָזוֹ? לָזוֹ יֵשׁ לָהּ שׁוּלַיִם, לְזוֹ אֵין לָהּ שׁוּלַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Hillel continues: **And** if so, **what difference** is there between **this** case of the pure items stored in the basket, which are now considered retroactively impure, **and that** case of the ritually pure woman who experiences a menstrual flow, who is impure only from that point onward? Shammai answers: **This** one, the basket, **has a base** on which it rests, and therefore the creeping animal might have been there earlier unseen. **That one,** the menstruating woman, **has no base,** i.e., there is nothing to impede her menstrual blood from flowing out. Shammai’s response indicates that she is not retroactively impure because if she had experienced a previous menstruation it would have flowed at that stage.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: טַעְמָא דְשַׁמַּאי מִשּׁוּם בִּטּוּל פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אָמַר לוֹ שַׁמַּאי לְהִלֵּל: אִם כֵּן, בִּטַּלְתָּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says:** The **reason for** the opinion of **Shammai** that a woman who experiences menstruation is not deemed ritually impure retroactively is **due to the dereliction of** the mitzva to **be fruitful and multiply.** If woman is always deemed retroactively impure, she and her husband might abstain from engaging in sexual intercourse out of fear that she is already impure even if she has not yet experienced bleeding. The Gemara adds **that this** explanation **is also taught** in a *baraita*: **Shammai said to Hillel: If** it is **so,** that a woman is rendered retroactively impure as you claim, **you** will **have caused the Jewish women to be derelict in** the mitzva to **be fruitful and multiply.**


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

וּמַאן דְּתָנֵי הַאי לִישָּׁנָא, הָא תַּנְיָא כִּי הַאיְךְ לִישָּׁנָא, דְּאִם אִיתָא דַּהֲוָה דָּם מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה אָתֵי. הָתָם, הִלֵּל הוּא דְּקָטָעֵי, הוּא סָבַר טַעְמָא דְּשַׁמַּאי דְּאִם אִיתָא דַּהֲוָה דָּם מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה אָתֵי, וְקָא מַקְשֵׁי לֵיהּ קוּפָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to **the one who taught this version,** i.e., Rava, there is a difficulty: **Isn’t it taught in** the aforementioned mishna **in accordance with that** other **version,** that Shammai’s reasoning is **that if it is so, that there was** any menstrual **blood** previously, **it would have come** out **at the outset?** The Gemara answers: There, in that mishna, **it is Hillel who erred. He thought** the **reason** of **Shammai** is **that if it is so, that there was** any menstrual **blood** previously, **it would have come** out **at the outset. And** therefore, **he raises a difficulty** against Shammai’s opinion from the case of the **basket.**


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

וְאָמַר לֵיהּ שַׁמַּאי: טַעְמָא דִּידִי מִשּׁוּם בִּטּוּל פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, וּלְמַאי דְּקָטָעֵית נָמֵי דְּקָמַקְשֵׁית קוּפָּה — לָזוֹ יֵשׁ לָהּ שׁוּלַיִם, וּלָזוֹ אֵין לָהּ שׁוּלַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shammai said to** Hillel: You are mistaken. **My reasoning** is actually **due to the dereliction of** the mitzva to **be fruitful and multiply. But even according to your erroneous** reasoning **that** led **you to raise a difficulty** from the case of the **basket,** I have an answer for that as well: **This** basket **has a base,** and therefore the creeping animal could have been there earlier, unseen; **but that** menstruating woman **has no base.**


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

וּלְמַאן דְּתָנֵי הַאי לִישָּׁנָא, הָא תַּנְיָא כִּי הַאיְךְ לִישָּׁנָא, מִשּׁוּם בִּטּוּל פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks the reverse question: **And according to the one** who **teaches this** other **version,** that Shammai’s reasoning is that if there was previous menstrual blood it would have come out at the outset, **isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with that** other **version,** that Shammai’s reasoning is **due to the dereliction of** the mitzva to **be fruitful and multiply?**


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

הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ הִלֵּל לְשַׁמַּאי: אִין, טַעְמָא קָאָמְרַתְּ, דְּאִם אִיתָא דַּהֲוָה דָּם מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה אָתֵי, וּמִיהוּ עֲשֵׂה סְיָיג לִדְבָרֶיךָ, דְּמַאי שְׁנָא מִכׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ דְּעָבְדִינַן סְיָיג?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: That *baraita* was recorded at a later point in their discussion, as **this** is what **Hillel is saying to Shammai: Yes,** the **reason** that **you say** for your opinion has merit, **that if it is so, that there was** any menstrual **blood** previously, **it would have come** out **at the outset. Nevertheless,** you should **enact a safeguard for your statement** and render her retroactively impure, **as** in **what** way **is** this case **different from the rest of the entire Torah, where** the Sages **enact safeguards?**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן, בִּטַּלְתָּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה! וְהִלֵּל — מִפְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה מִי קָאָמֵינָא? לִטְהָרוֹת הוּא דְּקָאָמֵינָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Shammai **said to** Hillel: **If so,** i.e., if she is considered impure retroactively as a safeguard, **you** will **have caused the Jewish women to be derelict in** the mitzva to **be fruitful and multiply.** The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Hillel** respond to Shammai’s reasoning with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? The Gemara explains that Hillel would answer: Although I rule that she is retroactively impure, **did I say** that she is forbidden to her husband and must therefore abstain **from** the mitzva to **be fruitful and multiply? I said** only **that** she renders impure any **ritually pure** items that she touched.


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

וְשַׁמַּאי — לִטְהָרוֹת נָמֵי לָא, דְּאִם כֵּן לִבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ וּפוֹרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how would **Shammai** reply to this? The Gemara answers: Shammai maintains that **even** a safeguard that renders **ritually pure** items impure should **not** be imposed. The reason is **that if** it were **so,** the **heart** of a scrupulous husband might **strike him** with pangs of conscience over sins that he could transgress **and he** would **separate** from his wife, out of fear that she is impure.


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

(שׁוּלַיִם, בְּדוּקִין, מְכוּסִּין בְּזָוִית — סִימָן). אִיתְּמַר: קוּפָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהּ טְהָרוֹת בְּזָוִית זוֹ, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁרֶץ בְּזָוִית אַחֶרֶת — חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: טְהָרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: טְהָרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת טְמֵאוֹת. וְהָא (בֵּית) שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל מוֹדוּ בְּקוּפָּה דִּטְהָרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת טְמֵאוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides **a mnemonic** for the ensuing discussions: **A base; examined; covered; in a corner.** It **was stated:** If one has **a basket** that **was used** as a container for holding **ritually pure** produce, and those items were placed **in** one **corner** of the basket, **and** subsequently the carcass of **a creeping animal was found in a different corner** of the basket, **Ḥizkiyya says:** That produce **initially** considered **ritually pure** is still **pure. Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The produce **initially** considered **ritually pure** is now retroactively deemed **impure.** The Gemara asks: **But** how can Ḥizkiyya rule that it is pure? After all, don’t **Shammai and Hillel agree in** the case of the **basket that** the produce **initially** considered **pure** is now retroactively **impure?**


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

כִּי מוֹדוּ שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל בְּקוּפָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שׁוּלַיִם, כִּי פְּלִיגִי חִזְקִיָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּקוּפָּה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שׁוּלַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **When** do **Shammai and Hillel agree** that all the produce is retroactively impure? **With regard to a basket that has a base.** In such a case, the carcass of the creeping animal might have previously been in the basket and it went unnoticed when one removed the pure produce items. **When Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree,** it is **with regard to a basket that has no base,** i.e., both ends were open and the basket was used while it was lying on its side. In that situation, the contents of the basket are emptied by raising one end, which causes all items inside to fall out. Consequently, any creeping animal that was found subsequently must have entered the basket only after that produce was removed, which is why Ḥizkiyya rules that the produce remains pure.


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

אֵין לָהּ שׁוּלַיִם, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? אֵין לָהּ שׁוּלַיִם, וְיֵשׁ לָהּ אֳוגָנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a case where the basket **has no base, what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan** for ruling that the produce is ritually impure? The Gemara answers: The basket **has no base but it** does **have** an inward-curved **rim.** Therefore, it is possible that the carcass of a small creeping animal might have been held back by the rim and remained inside the basket even after it was turned over. Rabbi Yoḥanan rules that the produce is retroactively impure, due to the possibility that the creeping animal might have been in the basket previously together with the initially pure produce.


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

וְהָתַנְיָא: הַמַּדְלֶה עֲשָׂרָה דְּלָיִים מַיִם בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁרֶץ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן — הוּא טָמֵא, וְכוּלָּן טְהוֹרִין. וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לָהּ אֳוגָנִים, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ אֳוגָנִים — כּוּלָּן טְמֵאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who draws ten pails of water one after another,** i.e., he draws out water in one pail and from it he fills another ten pails with water, **and** the carcass of **a creeping animal is found in one of them, that** pail of water **is ritually impure but all** the rest **of them** are **pure. And Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai:** This *halakha* was **taught only** in a case **where** the pail **has no** inward-curved **rim.** Consequently, its contents are entirely emptied each time it is overturned, which means that the creeping animal must have entered only this pail. **But** if the pail **has a rim, all of** the water that had been drawn is **impure,** as the creeping animal might have entered the pail earlier and the rim held it back each time the pail was overturned.


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

לֵימָא חִזְקִיָּה לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי? מַיָּא שָׁרְקִי, פֵּירֵי לָא שָׁרְקִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty: **Shall we say** that **Ḥizkiyya,** who is not concerned that the rim of the basket might have held back the creeping animal, does **not agree** with the opinion **of Rabbi Yannai?** The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two cases: **Water is slippery,** whereas **produce is not slippery.** In order to pour water out of the pail it is not necessary to turn it over completely. Therefore, the rim might hold back a creeping animal. By contrast, a basket must have one end fully raised in order to empty out all the produce it contains. In such a case Rabbi Yannai would agree that nothing could have been held back, and therefore the emptied produce remains pure.


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

אִי נָמֵי: מַיָּא לָא קָפֵיד עֲלַיְיהוּ, פֵּירֵי קָפֵיד עֲלַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Alternatively, there is a different reason why one does not overturn a pail of water entirely: In the case of **water, one is not particular about it,** i.e., he does not mind if some is left over. Therefore he does not overturn the pail completely. By contrast, in the case of **produce one is particular about it,** so he raises one end of the basket entirely to ensure that every last piece of produce is emptied. Consequently, in the case of produce Rabbi Yannai would agree that even if the basket has a rim, all the produce remains pure.


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

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי מוֹדוּ שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל בְּקוּפָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּדוּקָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As an alternative to its previous resolution that Ḥizkiyya is discussing the case of a rimmed receptacle, the Gemara suggests another resolution of the apparent contradiction between Ḥizkiyya’s ruling and the opinions of Hillel and Shammai. **And if you wish, say: When** do **Shammai and Hillel agree? In** the case of **a basket that was not examined.** Since he did not examine the basket when he placed the pure produce there, a creeping animal might have already been inside. Consequently, they agree that the produce does not retain its presumptive state of purity but is considered retroactively impure.