## Niddah Daf 4a

###### Niddah 4a:1
[Niddah 4a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:1)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי חִזְקִיָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּקוּפָּה בְּדוּקָה, מָר סָבַר: הָא בַּדְקַהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: אֵימוֹר עִם סִילּוּק יָדוֹ נָפַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree,** it is **with regard to a basket** that was **examined.** One **Sage,** Ḥizkiyya, **holds** that **since** it **was examined** before the produce was placed inside and was found to be clean of creeping animals, it is reasonable to assume that the creeping animal entered only after the ritually pure produce was removed. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, **holds** that one can **say** that it is possible that **when he removed his hand** after feeling around to examine the basket, the creeping animal **fell** in.


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

וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דְּאִשָּׁה קָתָנֵי, וְאִשָּׁה בְּדוּקָה הִיא! כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁכִיחִי בָּהּ דָּמִים — כְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּדוּקָה דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t** the case of a basket **taught** as being **similar to** the case of a menstruating **woman?** Hillel had cited the case of the basket as a difficulty with regard to Shammai’s opinion in the case of a menstruating woman. **And** since **a woman is** considered fully **examined,** since she examines herself with examination cloths twice a day, the other case must also be referring to a basket that had been examined. The Gemara answers: **Since blood is commonly found** flowing from **her,** as women regularly experience menstrual flows, it is **considered as** though she were **not examined.**


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

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי מוֹדוּ שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל בְּקוּפָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְכוּסָּה, כִּי פְּלִיגִי חִזְקִיָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּקוּפָּה מְכוּסָּה. מְכוּסָּה — הֵיכִי נְפַל? כְּגוֹן שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישָׁהּ עַל יְדֵי כִּסּוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another resolution of the apparent contradiction between the ruling of Ḥizkiyya and the opinions of Hillel and Shammai. **And if you wish, say: When Shammai and Hillel agree,** it is **with regard to a basket that is not covered. When** do **Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree? With regard to a basket** that is **covered.** The Gemara asks: If the basket **is covered, how did** the creeping animal **fall** inside? The Gemara answers: **For example, if** the basket **is used by** removing its **lid.** Ḥizkiyya holds that the creeping animal must have fallen in after the produce was removed, because as long as the produce was inside one would be careful not to allow anything else inside. Rabbi Yoḥanan is concerned that perhaps while the basket was uncovered a creeping animal could have fallen inside without one noticing.


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

וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דְאִשָּׁה קָתָנֵי, וְאִשָּׁה מְכוּסָּה הִיא, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁכִיחִי בַּהּ דָּמִים — כְּשֶׁאֵין מְכוּסָּה דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But **isn’t** the case of a basket **taught** as being **similar to** the case of a menstruating **woman? And** just as a woman **is considered covered,** since no outside blood can enter her, so too in the case of a basket, it must be one where it is constantly covered. The Gemara explains: **Since blood is commonly found** flowing from **her,** as women regularly experience menstrual flows, it is **considered as** though she is **not** always **covered.**


###### Niddah 4a:5
[Niddah 4a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:5)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי מוֹדוּ שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל בְּזָוִית קוּפָּה, כִּי פְּלִיגִי חִזְקִיָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּזָוִית בַּיִת, וְהָא ״קוּפָּה״ קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another resolution. **And if you wish, say: When** do **Shammai and Hillel agree?** In a case where the produce was stored **in** the **corner** of **a basket.** By contrast, **when Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree,** it is in a case where the produce was stored **in** the **corner** of **a house.** The Gemara expresses puzzlement at this suggestion: **But** the Gemara on 3b explicitly **states** that they are referring to a case of **a basket.**


###### Niddah 4a:6
[Niddah 4a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:6)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: קוּפָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהּ טְהָרוֹת בְּזָוִית בַּיִת זוֹ, וְטִלְטְלוּהָ בְּזָוִית אַחֶרֶת, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁרֶץ בְּזָוִית אַחֶרֶת. חִזְקִיָּה סָבַר: לָא מַחְזְקִינַן טוּמְאָה מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר: מַחְזְקִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **this** is what the Gemara on 3b **is saying:** If one has **a basket that was used** as a container for **ritually pure** produce **in this corner** of the **house, and** after the produce was removed **it was** subsequently **carried to another corner, and** the carcass of **a creeping animal was found** in the basket while it was **in** that **other corner, Ḥizkiyya holds:** The produce remains ritually pure, as **we do not presume** that **ritual impurity** moved **from place to place.** In other words, the impure creeping animal is not assumed to have moved from the first corner where the produce was kept. Instead, it fell inside while the basket was in the second corner, and therefore the produce that it previously contained remains pure. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan holds:** The produce is retroactively considered impure, as **we** do **presume** that ritual impurity, i.e., the carcass of the creeping animal in the basket, moved from place to place.


###### Niddah 4a:7
[Niddah 4a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:7)

וּמִי מַחְזְקִינַן? וְהָתְנַן: נָגַע בְּאֶחָד בַּלַּיְלָה, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם חַי אִם מֵת, וּלְמָחָר הִשְׁכִּים וּמְצָאוֹ מֵת — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַהֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: **And do we presume** that ritual impurity moved from place to place? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Teharot* 5:7): If someone **touched one** other person **at night, and he does not know whether** the person he touched was **alive or dead, and on the following day he arose and found him dead,** and he is uncertain whether or not he contracted ritual impurity from contact with a corpse, **Rabbi Meir deems him** ritually **pure.** It is assumed that the deceased was still alive until the point that it is known with certainty that he was dead.


###### Niddah 4a:8
[Niddah 4a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:8)

וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִין, שֶׁכׇּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis deem him** ritually **impure, as** it is presumed that **all** ritually **impure** items had already been in the same state as they were **at the time they were discovered.** Just as the deceased was found dead in the morning, so too, it is presumed that he was dead when he was touched in the middle of the night.


###### Niddah 4a:9
[Niddah 4a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:9)

וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן, וּבִמְקוֹם מְצִיאָתָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes its question: **And it is taught with regard to** this mishna: It is presumed that ritually impure items had been in the same state as they were **at the time they were discovered, but** only **in the place** in which **they were discovered.** In other words, if the corpse had been found in a different spot than he was at night, it is not presumed that he was already dead in the first spot, and the man who touched him remains ritually pure. If so, how can Rabbi Yoḥanan maintain that we presume impurity moved from place to place?


###### Niddah 4a:10
[Niddah 4a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:10)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי לִשְׂרוֹף, אֲבָל לִתְלוֹת — תָּלֵינַן? וּמִי תָּלֵינַן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** in response: **This statement,** that impurity is presumed only in the place in which it was discovered, applies specifically with regard to definite impure status, i.e., **to burn** *teruma*, **but** with regard to uncertain impurity, i.e., **to suspend** the status of *teruma*, **we** do in fact **suspend** its status and it may be neither burned nor eaten; is this distinction correct? **Do we** in fact **suspend** the status of ritually pure items in such a case, due to the concern that the dead man whom this individual touched might have already been dead in the first location?


###### Niddah 4a:11
[Niddah 4a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:11)

וְהָתְנַן: מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מְלֵאָה חֲלוּדָּה אוֹ שְׁבוּרָה — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁכׇּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא: הַאי מֵעִיקָּרָא מַחַט מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא, וְהַשְׁתָּא הוּא דְּהֶעֱלָה חֲלוּדָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Teharot* 3:5): With regard to a previously impure **needle that is found** on top of *teruma* and it is **full of rust or broken,** and therefore no longer contracts or transmit ritual impurity, the *teruma* remains **pure, as** it is presumed that in **all** cases of **impurity,** the items in question had already been in the same state as they were **at the time they were discovered? But why** should that be the case? **Let us say** that **initially,** when it had fallen onto the *teruma*, **this needle was a proper,** non-rusty and unbroken, **needle,** capable of contracting and transmitting ritual impurity, **and it is** only **now that rust** had **formed** on it. The status of the *teruma* should at least be held in suspension. Rather, it is evident that the *teruma* is considered definitely pure and is not held in suspension due to the possibility that it might have become impure from the nail at a previous time or, presumably, in a previous place.


###### Niddah 4a:12
[Niddah 4a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:12)

וְעוֹד תְּנַן: מָצָא שֶׁרֶץ שָׂרוּף עַל גַּבֵּי הַזֵּיתִים, וְכֵן מַטְלִית הַמְהוּמְהָם — טָהוֹר, שֶׁכׇּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, we learned** in a mishna (*Teharot* 9:9): If one **found** the carcass of **a burned creeping animal on top of** a pile of **olives,** and that animal no longer transmits impurity as it is burned, **and similarly** if one finds **a tattered rag** of a *zav*, which likewise no longer transmits impurity, on top of a pile of olives, the olives are **pure.** The reason is **that** it is presumed in **all** cases of **impurity,** the items in question had already been in the same state as they were **at the time they were discovered.** Once again, this demonstrates that when this presumption is applied, the item is considered definitely pure, and is not held in suspension due to uncertainty.


###### Niddah 4a:13
[Niddah 4a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:13)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן בֵּין לְקוּלָּא בֵּין לְחוּמְרָא, וּבִמְקוֹם מְצִיאָתָן, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מְצִיאָתָן — מִשְׂרָף לָא שָׂרְפִינַן, מִתְלֵא תָּלֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that there is a difference between these last cases, where the items did not move, and the case of the basket that moved, this distinction is not correct. The suggestion is that in the last cases the items are treated entirely as if they had always been as they were **at the time they were discovered, whether** this leads **to a leniency,** as in the cases of the needle and the rag, **and whether** it leads **to a stringency,** in the case of one who touched someone at night, when he is considered to be definitely impure, **but** this is the *halakha* only with regard to the **place** where **they were discovered,** i.e., if they did not move. **But** with regard to a location that is **not the place** where **they were discovered,** we do suspect that ritual impurity moved from place to place, and therefore although **we do not burn** the *teruma* in question, **we hold it in suspension.**


###### Niddah 4a:14
[Niddah 4a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:14)

וְהָתְנַן: כִּכָּר עַל גַּבֵּי הַדַּף, וּמַדָּף טָמֵא מוּנָּח תַּחְתָּיו, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִם נָפְלָה אִי אֶפְשָׁר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָגְעָה — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אָדָם טָהוֹר נִכְנַס לְשָׁם וּנְטָלָהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this suggestion: **But didn’t we learn** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Teharot* 4:3): There was **a loaf** resting **on top** of **a shelf, and** there was **an item of light impurity,** e.g., a garment of a *zav*, which transmits impurity to food but not to people or vessels, **lying underneath it,** and the loaf was later found on the ground. **Even though** the situation was such **that if** the loaf **fell** to the ground it would be **impossible** for it to have done anything **other than touch** the impure garment on its way down, nevertheless the loaf is **pure.** The reason is **that I say** that **a ritually pure man entered there and took it** off the shelf and placed it onto the ground without it touching the impure garment.


###### Niddah 4a:15
[Niddah 4a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:15)

עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר: ״בָּרִי לִי שֶׁלֹּא נִכְנַס אָדָם שָׁם״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִמְקוֹם מִדְרוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: This ruling applies **unless someone says: It is clear to me that no person entered** there. **And Rabbi Elazar says:** This principle is **necessary only when** the top shelf is **an inclined surface.** In other words, even if it is very likely that the loaf rolled off the shelf and touched the garment on its way down to the ground, nevertheless it is assumed to be pure. This indicates that one does not presume that the loaf contracted impurity and then fell to the ground where it was found. Since such a possibility is not even entertained to the extent that the *teruma* is held in suspension, this demonstrates that in a case involving a movement from one place to another there is no presumption of ritual impurity at all.


###### Niddah 4a:16
[Niddah 4a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4a:16)

הָתָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that no proof can be cited from **there, as** that *baraita* explicitly **teaches** the **reason** for its ruling: