AccueilÉtudeTanakhBibliothèqueSujetsParachaDivrei TorahRabbanimSagesHistoireÀ proposMes favorisFaire un don
Retour

Traité Niddah

19b

Étude de Niddah 19b

Étude de la Guémara 19b

Guémara
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : with regard to whether to leave in abeyance, i.e., to treat as uncertain, blood the color of water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked, or the color of the liquid that drips from roast meat. According to the first tanna of the mishna there are five types of blood that are definitely impure, whereas other types, such as those mentioned by Beit Shammai, are deemed impure due to uncertainty. By contrast, Beit Hillel maintain that blood of these colors is entirely pure.
לִתְלוֹת.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna states: Blood that is green, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems it impure. The Gemara asks: But does Akavya ben Mahalalel not accept the exposition of Rabbi Abbahu that the two verses: “Dameha” (Leviticus 12:7), and: “Dameha” (Leviticus 20:18), indicate that there are four types of blood here?
הַיָּרוֹק, עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל מְטַמֵּא. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לַעֲקַבְיָא ״דָּמֶיהָ״ ״דָּמֶיהָ״ — הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבָּעָה?
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Akavya ben Mahalalel does not accept this opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as he maintains that there are more than four types of blood in a woman. And if you wish, say instead that Akavya ben Mahalalel accepts Rabbi Abbahu’s exposition, and the apparent contradiction can be resolved as follows: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina say, with regard to the black blood mentioned in the mishna, that it is actually red but its color has faded? Here too, with regard to the green mentioned by Akavya ben Mahalalel, one can say that it was initially red but its color faded and turned green.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לֵית לֵיהּ, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִית לֵיהּ, מִי לָא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שָׁחוֹר — אָדוֹם הוּא, אֶלָּא שֶׁלָּקָה? הָכָא נָמֵי, מִלְקָא הוּא דְּלָקֵי.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna states with regard to blood that is green: And the Rabbis deem it pure. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this opinion of the Rabbis identical to the opinion of the first tanna? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to whether to leave in abeyance blood that is green. According to the first tanna of the mishna there are five types of blood that are definitely impure, whereas other types, such as green, are impure due to uncertainty. By contrast, the Rabbis maintain that green blood is entirely pure.
וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין. הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ לִתְלוֹת.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna states that Rabbi Meir said: Even if the green blood does not transmit impurity due to the halakhot of a blood stain or the blood of a menstruating woman, it is blood in that it renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to its status as one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible.
אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: ״אִם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם״ כּוּ׳.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Meir accepted the opinion of Akavya ben Mahalalel and deemed green blood impure as blood of a menstruating woman. And as for his statement in the mishna, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Granted that in a case where a woman finds a green stain on an article of clothing you do not deem her ritually impure, as its greenness is an indication that it did not come from her body. But in a case where she actually sees green blood come from her body, she shall be impure.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יָרַד רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְשִׁיטַת עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל, וְטִימֵּא. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן: נְהִי דְּהֵיכָא דְּקָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ כֶּתֶם יָרוֹק אַמָּנָא לָא מְטַמְּאִיתוּ, הֵיכָא דְּקָחָזְיָא דַּם יָרוֹק מִגּוּפַהּ — תְּטַמֵּא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara raises a difficulty with this interpretation: If so, why did Rabbi Meir say: Even if it does not transmit impurity due to the halakhot of a blood stain, it renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to its status as a liquid? According to the above explanation, he should have said: If the woman saw the emission of this blood, she is impure as a menstruating woman.
אִי הָכִי, אִם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם, מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם מַשְׁקֶה? מִשּׁוּם רוֹאָה מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Granted that in a case where the woman sees green blood from the outset you do not deem her ritually impure, but in a case where she sees red blood and then sees green blood, she shall be impure. This is just as it is with regard to the halakha of the fluids of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] and a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava]. All fluids emitted by a zav or zava, such as saliva and urine, are impure. Likewise, green blood that is emitted by this woman who has already emitted red blood should be impure.
אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: נְהִי הֵיכָא דְּקָא חָזְיָא דָּם יָרוֹק מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא מְטַמְּאִיתוּ, הֵיכָא דְּחָזְיָא דַּם אָדוֹם וַהֲדַר חָזְיָא דָּם יָרוֹק — תְּטַמֵּא, מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַמַּשְׁקֶה זָב וְזָבָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis respond to this? The Gemara answers: They maintain that the impure fluids of a menstruating woman are only those that are similar to saliva: Just as when saliva leaves one’s mouth it is first gathered together and then expelled from the body, so too, all impure fluids are those that are gathered together and then expelled. This definition serves to exclude this green blood, which is not gathered together and expelled. The Gemara asks: If so, the Rabbis spoke well to Rabbi Meir, i.e., their answer is convincing. Why does Rabbi Meir deem green blood impure?
וְרַבָּנַן, דּוּמְיָא דְּרוֹק: מָה רוֹק שֶׁמִּתְעַגֵּל וְיוֹצֵא, אַף כֹּל שֶׁמִּתְעַגֵּל וְיוֹצֵא, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הַאי דְּאֵין מִתְעַגֵּל וְיוֹצֵא. אִי הָכִי, שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Let green blood be at least like one of the seven liquids that render seeds upon which they fall susceptible to ritual impurity. Why is green blood deemed pure even with regard to this matter? And the Rabbis disagree because they require that every type of blood that renders food susceptible to ritual impurity be like that mentioned in the verse: “And drink the blood of the slain” (Numbers 23:24), i.e., the blood that flows at the time of death; and green blood is not the type that flows at the time of death. Therefore, it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara again asks: If so, the Rabbis spoke well to Rabbi Meir. Why does he disagree with them?
אֶלָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לֶהֱוֵי כְּמַשְׁקֶה לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים. וְרַבָּנַן בָּעֵי ״דַּם חֲלָלִים״, וְלֵיכָּא. אִי הָכִי, שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Learn this halakha that green blood renders food susceptible to ritual impurity from the following verbal analogy: It is written here, in a description of the beloved woman that alludes to her menstrual blood: “Your shoots [shelaḥayikh] are an orchard of pomegranates” (Song of Songs 4:13), and it is written there: “Who gives rain upon the earth, and sends [veshole’aḥ] waters upon the fields” (Job 5:10). This verbal analogy indicates that menstrual blood is similar to water in that both render food susceptible to ritual impurity.
אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: אַלְּפוּהָ בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״שְׁלָחַיִךְ פַּרְדֵּס רִמּוֹנִים״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וְשֹׁלֵחַ מַיִם עַל פְּנֵי חוּצוֹת״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir, as they do not have a tradition that this is an accepted verbal analogy, and there is a principle that although a person may derive an a fortiori inference on his own, i.e., even though he was not taught that particular logical argument by his teachers, a person may not derive a verbal analogy on his own, but only if he received it by tradition.
וְרַבָּנַן? אָדָם דָּן קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵעַצְמוֹ, וְאֵין אָדָם דָּן גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה מֵעַצְמוֹ.
Niddah 19b
100%
נדה י״ט במַסֶּכֶת נִדָּה