## Niddah Daf 49b

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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כּוֹפֵף אׇזְנֵי קְדֵרָה לְתוֹכָהּ וּמֵצִיף עָלֶיהָ מַיִם, וְאִם כּוֹנֵס — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁכּוֹנֵס מַשְׁקֶה, וְאִם לָאו — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁמּוֹצִיא מַשְׁקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says** that the method for determining whether an earthenware vessel contains a hole that allows liquid to enter is as follows: One takes the **handles of the pot and turns it over,**placing it upside down **in** an empty tub, **and** he then **covers** the pot with **water. If** water **enters** the pot, **it is known that** it contains a hole **that enables liquid to enter, and if** the water does **not** enter the pot, **it is known that** the vessel contains a small hole **that enables** only the **exit** of **liquids.**


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

אוֹ שׁוֹפְתָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאוּר, אִם הָאוּר מַעֲמִידָהּ — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁמּוֹצִיא מַשְׁקֶה, וְאִם לָאו — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁמַּכְנִיס מַשְׁקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or** one can determine the size of the hole by the following method: One **places** the pot, with liquid in it, **on the fire. If the fire holds** the liquid back and does not allow it to exit the vessel, then **it is known** that the vessel contains a small hole **that enables** only the **exit** of **liquids. And if** the fire does **not** hold the liquid back and does not prevent it from exiting the vessel, then **it is known** that it contains a hole **that enables liquid to enter.**


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

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף לֹא שׁוֹפְתָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאוּר מַעֲמִידָהּ, אֶלָּא שׁוֹפְתָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי הָרֶמֶץ. אִם רֶמֶץ מַעֲמִידָהּ — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁמּוֹצִיא מַשְׁקֶה, וְאִם לָאו — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁכּוֹנֵס מַשְׁקֶה. הָיָה טוֹרֵד טִיפָּה אַחַר טִיפָּה — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁכּוֹנֵס מַשְׁקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says: One should not place** the pot with liquid in it **on the fire.** This is not a reliable test for determining the size of the hole, as it is possible that the hole is actually large enough to enable liquid to enter, but nevertheless **the fire prevents** the liquid from exiting. **Rather, one places** the pot with liquid in it **on hot ash. If the hot ash holds** the liquid back and does not allow it to exit the vessel, then **it is known** that the vessel contains a small hole **that enables** only the **exit** of **liquids. But if** the hot ash does **not** hold the liquid back and does not prevent it from exiting the vessel, **it is known** that it contains a hole **that enables liquid to enter.** Another manner of testing is to fill the vessel with liquid. If it **drips** one **drop after** another **drop, it is known** that it contains a hole **that enables liquid to enter.**


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

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין תַּנָּא קַמָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר עוּלָּא: כִּינּוּס עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** difference **is there between** the method of testing stated by **the first *tanna*,** placing the vessel in a tub of water, and that **of Rabbi Yehuda,** placing the vessel upside down into the tub and then covering it with water? **Ulla said:** The difference **between** their opinions is whether liquid that **enters** through a hole **with difficulty,** i.e., as the result of force, is considered entering. According to Rabbi Yehuda, placing the vessel directly into a tub of water constitutes the use of force to a certain degree, and he maintains that if water enters the vessel in such a case, this does not count as liquid entering the vessel. Therefore, he rejects the testing method of the first *tanna*.


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

כׇּל אֵבֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ צִפּוֹרֶן וְכוּ׳. יֵשׁ בּוֹ צִפּוֹרֶן — מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וּבְאֹהֶל; יֵשׁ בּוֹ עֶצֶם וְאֵין בּוֹ צִפּוֹרֶן — מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **In any limb** of the body **where there is a nail,** there is certainly a bone in it as well. But it is possible for there to be limbs that contain a bone without a nail. The Gemara explains the halakhic significance of this distinction. A limb **in which there is a nail** and which therefore certainly contains a bone has the status of a full-fledged limb. Therefore, it **transmits impurity** through **contact, movement, and in a tent,** even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk. By contrast, if **there is a bone in** the limb **but there is no nail,** it **transmits impurity** through **contact and movement** even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk, **but** it does **not transmit impurity in a tent** unless its size is that of an olive-bulk.


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

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה רַבֵּינוּ הַגָּדוֹל אֲמָרוֹ, הַמָּקוֹם יִהְיֶה בְּעֶזְרוֹ. אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עֶצֶם וְאֵין בּוֹ צִפּוֹרֶן — מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda says: The** following **matter was stated by our great rabbi,** Rav, **may the Omnipresent** come **to his assistance. An extra finger** on one’s hand **in which there is a bone but there is no nail transmits impurity** through **contact and movement** even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk, **but** it does **not transmit impurity in a tent.**


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

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּכְשֶׁאֵינָהּ נִסְפֶּרֶת עַל גַּב הַיָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And** this is the *halakha*, that it must contain both bone and a nail for it to be considered a limb, only in a case **where** this finger **cannot be counted along the back of the hand,** i.e., the extra finger is not aligned with the others. But if it is aligned with the other fingers then it is considered like any other limb and imparts impurity in a tent, whether or not it contains a nail.


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

כׇּל הַמְטַמֵּא מִדְרָס וְכוּ׳. כֹּל דַּחֲזֵי לְמִדְרָס — מִטַּמֵּא טְמֵא מֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further teaches: Similarly, **any** item that **becomes ritually impure** with impurity of a *zav* imparted by **treading** becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara explains that this means that **any item that is fit to** become impure with the impurity of a *zav* imparted by **treading** is fit to **become ritually impure** with **impurity imparted by a corpse.**


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

וְיֵשׁ שֶׁמִּטַּמֵּא טְמֵא מֵת וְאֵין מִטַּמֵּא מִדְרָס. לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי סְאָה וְתַרְקַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **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.** The Gemara asks: **What is added** by this statement? The Gemara answers: This serves **to add** a measuring vessel, e.g., the measure of **a *se’a* or a half-*se’a* [*vetarkav*].**


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

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהַיּוֹשֵׁב עַל הַכְּלִי״, יָכוֹל כָּפָה סְאָה וְיָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ, אוֹ תַּרְקַב וְיָשַׁב עָלָיו, יְהֵא טָמֵא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to the impurity of the treading of a *zav*: **“And he who sits on** any **object** whereon the *zav* sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and is impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:6). One **might** have thought that if a *zav* **turned over** a vessel used to measure **a *se’a* and sat on it, or** if he turned over a vessel used to measure **a half-*se’a* and sat on it,** that vessel **should be** rendered **impure** as a seat upon which a *zav* sat.


###### Niddah 49b:11
[Niddah 49b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49b:11)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו הַזָּב״ — מִי שֶׁמְיוּחָד לִישִׁיבָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states:** “And he who sits on any object **whereon the *zav* sits”** (Leviticus 15:6). The wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking of an object **that is designated for sitting,** i.e., upon which people generally sit, **excluding such** a vessel, with regard to **which we say to** someone sitting on it: **Stand up and** allow us to use it to **do our work,** i.e., to measure. This is not defined as a vessel used for sitting, as it serves another function.


###### Niddah 49b:12
[Niddah 49b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49b:12)

**מַתְנִי'** כׇּל הָרָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת — רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁרָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Any** person **who is fit to adjudicate** cases of **capital law is fit to adjudicate** cases of **monetary law, and there are** those **who are fit to adjudicate** cases of **monetary law but are unfit to adjudicate** cases of **capital law.**


###### Niddah 49b:13
[Niddah 49b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49b:13)

**גְּמָ'** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yehuda said:** The statement of the mishna that some are fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law but are unfit to adjudicate cases of capital law serves **to add** the case of **a *mamzer*.** Although he may not adjudicate cases of capital law, nevertheless he may adjudicate cases of monetary law.


###### Niddah 49b:14
[Niddah 49b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49b:14)

תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, וְאֵין הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ, לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַמְזֵר. חֲדָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי גֵּר, וַחֲדָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to teach this here? **We** already **learned** this on **another occasion,** in a mishna (*Sanhedrin* 32a): **All are fit to judge** cases of **monetary law, but not all are fit to judge** cases of **capital law. And we discussed it,** and asked **what is added** by the phrase: All are fit to judge. **And Rav Yehuda said** in response that this serves **to add** the case of **a *mamzer*.** The Gemara answers: **One** mishna serves **to add** the case of **a convert, and one** other mishna serves **to add** the case of **a *mamzer*.**


###### Niddah 49b:15
[Niddah 49b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49b:15)

וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גֵּר — מִשּׁוּם דְּרָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל, אֲבָל מַמְזֵר דְּאֵין רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל, אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And** both additions **are necessary. As, if** the *mishnayot* had **taught us** only that **a convert** is fit to judge cases of monetary law, one might have said that the *halakha* is lenient in the case of a convert **because** he is **fit to enter into the congregation,** i.e., marry a Jewish woman. **But** with regard to **a *mamzer*, who is unfit to enter into the congregation,** one might **say** that **he** is **not** fit to judge cases of monetary law.


###### Niddah 49b:16
[Niddah 49b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49b:16)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מַמְזֵר — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאָתֵי מִטִּפָּה כְּשֵׁרָה, אֲבָל גֵּר דְּקָאָתֵי מִטִּפָּה פְּסוּלָה — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the *mishnayot* had **taught us** only that **a *mamzer*** is fit to judge cases of monetary law, one might have said that the *halakha* is lenient in the case of a *mamzer* **because he comes from a fit drop** of semen, i.e., his father is Jewish. **But** with regard to **a convert, who comes from an unfit drop,** as he was born a gentile, one might **say** that he is **not** fit to judge cases of monetary law. Therefore, it is **necessary** to teach the *halakhot* of both a convert and a *mamzer*.


###### Niddah 49b:17
[Niddah 49b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49b:17)

**מַתְנִי'** כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר לָדוּן — כָּשֵׁר לְהָעִיד, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁכָּשֵׁר לְהָעִיד וְאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לָדוּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Any** person **who is fit to adjudicate** a case and serve as a judge **is fit to testify** as a witness, **and there are** those **who are fit to testify but are not fit to adjudicate.**


###### Niddah 49b:18
[Niddah 49b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/49b:18)

**גְּמָ'** לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְאֵתוֹיֵי סוֹמֵא בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו. וּמַנִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is added** by this statement, that some people are fit to testify but not to adjudicate? **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** This serves **to add one who is blind in one of his eyes. And** in accordance with **whose** opinion is this ruling?