## Niddah Daf 49a

###### Niddah 49a:1
[Niddah 49a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49a:1)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּלְאַחַר הַפֶּרֶק, וְלֵית לֵיהּ חֲזָקָה דְּרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that the *tanna* who taught this ruling was **Rabbi Shimon,** and the *baraita* is referring to an examination conducted **after the age** of majority. **And** Rabbi Shimon **does not** accept **the presumption of Rava** that a girl of this age has already developed signs indicating puberty.


###### Niddah 49a:2
[Niddah 49a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49a:2)

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֶפְשָׁר כּוּ׳. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הָא תָּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that according to the Rabbis a young woman who apparently developed the upper sign before the lower sign has reached majority, and therefore if her childless husband died she either performs *ḥalitza* or enters into levirate marriage with her husband’s brother. This ruling is **due to** the fact **that** the Sages **said:** It is **possible** for the lower sign of puberty to appear before the upper sign, but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign. The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **this additional** repetition of this point? **It was** already **taught in the first clause** that it is impossible for the upper sign to appear without the lower sign having already appeared.


###### Niddah 49a:3
[Niddah 49a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49a:3)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָעֵי לְמִסְתְּמַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן — פְּשִׁיטָא! יָחִיד וְרַבִּים — הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that it is repeated **because** the *tanna* **wants** to teach **an unattributed** mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** in order to establish that the *halakha* follows their opinion in their dispute with Rabbi Meir, that cannot be the case. The Gemara explains why this suggestion is incorrect: This is **obvious,** as there is a principle that in a dispute between **an individual** Sage **and a majority** of other Sages, the ***halakha*** is always decided **in accordance with** the opinion of **the majority.**


###### Niddah 49a:4
[Niddah 49a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49a:4)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּקָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ קְרָאֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִתְנֵי ״כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the *tanna* to state that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis despite the fact that they are the majority, **lest you say that the rationale for** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir is** more **reasonable.** One might have thought this, **as the verses** cited above **support it:** “Your breasts were fashioned, and your hair was grown,” and: “When they from Egypt bruised your breasts for the sprouting forth of your young womanhood.” Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. **And if you wish, say** instead that the *tanna* repeated the claim that the upper sign cannot precede the lower one **because** he **wants to teach** a case in the next mishna which is **similar to** this one, i.e., this summary provides a transition to the *halakha* brought in the following mishna.


###### Niddah 49a:5
[Niddah 49a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49a:5)

**מַתְנִי'** כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ, כׇּל כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁהוּא מַכְנִיס — מוֹצִיא, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁמּוֹצִיא וְאֵינוֹ מַכְנִיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Similar to** the order of the appearance of the signs of puberty in a girl, where it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign, there is an analogous principle with regard to the mutual dependency of two items: **Any earthenware vessel** with a hole **that enables entry** of liquid into the vessel certainly **enables exit** of liquid through that hole, and it thereby ceases to be a vessel fit for sanctification of the waters mixed with the ashes of the red heifer. **And there are** holes **that enable exit** of liquids from the earthenware vessels **but do not enable entry** of liquids from outside the vessel, and therefore it remains a vessel.


###### Niddah 49a:6
[Niddah 49a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49a:6)

כׇּל אֵבֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ צִפּוֹרֶן — יֵשׁ בּוֹ עֶצֶם, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עֶצֶם וְאֵין בּוֹ צִפּוֹרֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, **in any limb** of the body **where there is a nail, there is** certainly **a bone in it** as well. If it is the limb of a corpse, it transmits ritual impurity through contact, movement, and in a tent, even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk. **And there are** limbs **in which there is a bone but** yet **there is not a nail in it.** That limb does not transmit impurity in a tent if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk.


###### Niddah 49a:7
[Niddah 49a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49a:7)

כׇּל הַמִּטַּמֵּא מִדְרָס — מִטַּמֵּא טְמֵא מֵת, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁמִּטַּמֵּא טְמֵא מֵת — וְאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא מִדְרָס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **any** item **that becomes ritually impure** with impurity of a *zav* imparted by **treading,** e.g., a vessel designated for sitting, **becomes ritually impure** with **impurity imparted by a corpse. And there are** vessels **that become ritually impure** with **impurity imparted by a corpse but do not become ritually impure** with impurity of a *zav* imparted by **treading.**


###### Niddah 49a:8
[Niddah 49a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49a:8)

**גְּמָ'** מַכְנִיס — פָּסוּל לְמֵי חַטָּאת, וּפָסוּל מִשּׁוּם גִּסְטְרָא. מוֹצִיא — כָּשֵׁר לְמֵי חַטָּאת, וּפָסוּל מִשּׁוּם גִּסְטְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that any earthenware vessel with a hole that enables entry of liquid into the vessel certainly enables exit of liquid through that hole, whereas there are holes that enable exit of liquids but do not enable entry. The Gemara explains the halakhic significance of this distinction. A vessel that contains a hole that is large enough to enable liquid to **enter** is no longer considered a vessel and is therefore **unfit to** contain the **water of purification. And** it is also **disqualified as a shard [*gastera*]** of a vessel. A shard still has some utility and is therefore susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, an earthenware vessel that contains a small hole **that enables** only the **exit** of liquids is **fit for** the **water of purification, but** is **disqualified as a shard** of a vessel.


###### Niddah 49a:9
[Niddah 49a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49a:9)

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי, שׁוֹנִין: כְּלֵי חֶרֶס שִׁיעוּרוֹ בְּכוֹנֵס מַשְׁקֶה, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ מוֹצִיא מַשְׁקֶה אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן גִּסְטְרָא בִּלְבַד. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים ״הָבֵא גִּסְטְרָא לְגִסְטְרָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Asi says** that **they teach** the following *halakha*: In the case of **an earthenware vessel, its measure** of a hole that renders it no longer ritually impure is one that is large enough **to enable liquid to enter** it. **And they said** that the measure of a small hole is that **which enables** the **exit** of **liquids only with regard to a shard.** The Gemara inquires: **What is the reason** for this? **Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said:** It is **because** people **do not say: Bring** another **shard to** seal the leak of **a shard;** rather, they throw it out immediately. A shard is used as a plate beneath a perforated earthenware vessel. If the shard itself is also perforated and leaks, it is no longer of any use.


###### Niddah 49a:10
[Niddah 49a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49a:10)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד בּוֹדְקִין כְּלִי חֶרֶס לֵידַע אִם נִיקַּב בְּכוֹנֵס מַשְׁקֶה אִם לָאו? יָבִיא עֲרֵיבָה מְלֵאָה מַיִם, וְנוֹתֵן קְדֵרָה לְתוֹכָהּ. אִם כְּנָסָהּ — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁכּוֹנֵס מַשְׁקֶה, וְאִם לָאו — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁמּוֹצִיא מַשְׁקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ On the topic of holes in earthenware vessels, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **How does one test** a broken **earthenware vessel to know if it was pierced** with a hole **that enables liquid to enter** it **or not? One brings a tub filled with water and places** the broken **pot into it. If** the water from the tub **enters** the pot, **it is known that** the pot contains a hole **that enables liquid to enter. And if** the water does **not** enter the pot, **it is known that** the vessel contains only a small hole **that** merely **enables** the **exit** of **liquids.**