A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 15: Niddah: Commentary (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity) [Reprint ed.] 1597529397, 9781597529396

Citation preview

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME SIX

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART FIFTEEN

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART FIFTEEN

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES BY

JACOB NEUSNER University Professor Professor of Religious Studies and The Ungerleider Distinguished Scholar of Judaic Studies Brown University

PART FIFTEEN

NIDDAH COMMENTARY

Wipf&Stock PUBLISHERS Eugene,Oregon

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 15 Niddah: Commentary By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1976 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-59752-939-6 ISBN 10: 1-59752-939-7 Publication date 3/19/2007 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1976

For

Yifpaq D. Gilat

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Abbreviations and Bibliography Transliterations Introduction I. Niddah Chapter One II. Niddah Chapter Two III. Niddah Chapter Three VI. Niddah Chapter Four V. Niddah Chapter Five VI. Niddah Chapter Six . VII. Niddah Chapter Seven VIII. Niddah Chapter Eight IX. Niddah Chapter Nine X. Niddah Chapter Ten XI. Sifra and Niddah Appendix: Aphraate, Qumran, et les Qarai:tes JEANOUELLETTE, Universite de Montreal Indices for Parts XV and XVI are at the end of Part XVI

IX XIII • XVIII

1 17

36 49

62 79 90 100 109 117

133 152

163

PREFACE The legal texts before us are meant to provide a picture of the meanings associated with purity in earlier rabbinic Judaism, ultimately to lead us into the consciousness and world-view of the rabbis who shaped that Judaism. The purpose in examining the laws remains historical knowledge in a narrow and precise sense, even though the sources are almost wholly legal, non-historical in any sense. We want to know what purity meant to the people who made up laws about purity, the view of reality which the self-evidently obsessive-compulsive life legislated by the rabbis was intended to impose and convey. That is why we have with close attention to attend to the laws in their historical unfolding, hoping to learn something of what is in the minds of the people behind them. Professor Ramsey MacMullen ( Romtm Social Relations. 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 [New Haven and London, Yale University Press: 1974]) concludes his preface (p. ix) with words which well serve as apologia for the diverse means of the present work: Such, among others, are the devices that must be resorted lo in any attempt to understand social feelings and the sense of place in antiquity. But the task is very difficult. "I can call up spirits from the vasty deep," boasts Shakespeare's Glenclower. To which Hotspur replied, "But will they come when you call for them?"

We do not know. But ,ve may be sure that if we do not call in their language and patterns of thinking about, and making statements on, reality, they surely will not come. Since the effort carried forward here is to uncover the structure and historical development of Talmudic Judaism, specifically, the history of the ideas of Talmudic Judaism in their earliest stages, we have to explore the structure and development of the laws of Mishnah-Tosefta. For that document comes earliest in the formation of Talmudic literature and most reliably tells us about the fundamental stratum of Talmudic Judaism as a system of ideas. Mine is not the first fundamentally historical approach to these ideas, of course. Five important scholars based their historical work in Talmudic Judaism upon the history of legal ideas: Y. I. Halcvy, Louis Ginzberg, G. Allon, and, among the living, Louis Finkelstein and Yi~l;aq D. Gilat. I believe Halevy was the first to insist upon the priority of law in the study of the history

X

PREFACE

of the Jews revealed in Talmudic texts. In many ways his work, unjustly reviled and neglected at the same time, stands as a guide and inspiration to those that follow. But in no way is it useful any longer, except for episodic exegesis of specific pericopae. The effort to use law for history does not predominate in the corpus of Louis Ginzberg and never was systematically worked out, except, once again, for primarily exegetical purposes. The greatest achievements of G. Allon are his essays. He left no history; the published lecture notes are embarassing. The major work which he might have given us was not done. The conceptual limitations of the work we do have, for example, "Tel.mman shel hilkhot tohorah," (Mef?qarirn betoledot yisra'el [Tel Aviv, 1957], I, pp. 148-176), are alluded to in my Idea of Purity in Ancient fudaisrn (Leiden, 1973 ), pp. 3-4. The acute insight of Allan's work endures as a guide and standard for all which follows. But, as in the case of Ginzberg, Allon did not produce a sustained account of the historical development of the law or any large part of it in the centuries before ( or after) Mishnah-Tosefta. Two scholars did, Finkelstein, to whom Part XVI is offered in homage, and Yi~}:iaqD. Gilat. Gilat is the only scholar whom I believe I have wronged, gratuitously so, in critical remarks, and I take this occasion to apologize. In my Bliezer ben Hyrcanus. The Tradition and the Man (Leiden, 1973) II, p. 286, having cited Gilat's English summary of his The Teachings of R. Bliezer b. Hyrcanos and their Position in the History of the Halakha (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv, 1968) and entered specific objections to some of the main points, I concluded with a judgment which, upon reflection, I find stupid, altogether too harsh and uncomprehending. Gilat correctly rebuked me for it, and I accepted his rebuke. The friendship which has followed has been both intellectual and personal, a source of much blessing. A master of law, Gilat shares with me perplexity about how law produces history, but exceeds my capacities at the analysis of the law's conceptions. I off er this work in his honor, a gesture of collegial friendship. My students, Professors Richard Sarason and Tzvee Zahavy, kindly took time from their work to read the manuscript of this book and further to check it against the original text and commentaries. I am deeply obliged to them and express my thanks. Sustaining a project of the length and exacting requirements of the present one is not easy. I have to repeat procedures, techniques, and methods which already are proved tried and true. What makes the work continue to be interesting is the substance of the results alone,

PREFACE

XI

since there are no further methodological problems---or surprises-- to be worked out for the present purpose. ( The tradental-redactio11al inquiry can be undertaken only with the whole Order of Purities in view, that is, in the introductory studies which come at the end.) But there is a second source of continuing interest and vitality in the work, the intellectual collaboration of my graduate stuck:nts at Brown University, of my former students, now teaching in American, Canadian, and Israeli universities, as ,vell as of other colleagues, in both universities and seminaries, who are engaged in work on pertinent and even parallel problems of historical interpretation. I have been deeply gratified by the reception accorded to my earlier projects, those which led to the present one, and by the interest currently expressed in the volumes of Commentary and Problems in connection with Purities. I thank those many men and women, old and young, who share my conviction that the way forward lies through the hc1ldkhic literature, who even tolerate my belief that a fresh exegesis of literature studied for seventeen centuries now is required, and, above all, who constructively criticize and kindly propose corrections of what they deem to be in error. I thank them for their correction, but even more, for their understanding and good will. There is no more discouragement. There is only an open road. What is especially gratifying is that earlier work of mine has been rendered obsolete by new work of others, both of my own students and of people I do not know, except in mind, at all. The present project, of course, must be carried thtough lo a conclusion for the whole of MishnahToscfta. The inquiries which then will become possible 110,v can scarcely be imagined. Since mnch of the present work is taken up with translation, which is one form of exegesis, and with interpretation as well, I found much insight and wisdom in George Steiner, Af fer Babel. L1spects of Lcmgudge rind Trmzslc!tion (New York and London, 1975). I think he there provides us with a profound and right understanding of our work as historians. I found there, as translators and commentators--therefore ioo, those words which spe,1k for all of us engaged in work of unending d ctail and limitless opportunity for small error. He cites ( p. 311- 312) Horace: ncc scmper feriet quodcurniue minabitur arcus. verum ubi plura nitent in carmine non ego paucis offendar maculis, quas aut incuria fudit aut humana parum cavit natura, c1uid ergo est?

XII

PREFALl'S

ut scriptor si peccat idem librarius usque, quamvis est monitus, venia caret; ut citharoedus ridetur chorda qui semper oberrat eadem: sic mihi qui mu.ltum cessat fit Choerilus ille, quern bis terve bonum cum risu miror: at idem indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus?

Pope's variant in the Essay on C1·iticismis given by Steiner: Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see, Thinks what neJer was, nor is, nor eJer shall be. In every work regard the writer's end, Since none can compass more than they intend; And, if the means be just, the conduct true, Applause, in spite of trivial faults, is due

And from Hints from Horace, Byron's version also is given: Where frequent beauties strike the reader's view, We must not quarrel for a blot or two, But pardon equally to books or men, The slips of human nature, and the pen.

It remains to express thanks to Professor Jean Ouellette, whose continuing work, both in improving my own on Aphrahat and in developing new lines of research, is of special interest to those who follow these inquiries. To facilitate access to his research among those whose primary interest is in ancient Judaism, rather than Semitics, I include his current paper.

J. N.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY AE Ah. AL Albeck Anglia Ar. Asher Auerbach A.Z. AZ

b.

B.B. B.M. B.Q. Ber. Bes. Be1allel Bik. Blackman BY

C

Cohn Dan. Danby Dem. Deut. Ed. Edels EG EK Eruv. Epstein, N rmaf? Epstein, Tan. Git. GRA

CAqivaEger, 1761-1837. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887). Ahilot Sefer carukh tanner ca/ massekhet Niddah. Jacob Ettlinger (N.Y., n.d.). I;I. Albeck, Seder 'fohorot (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1958). Tossafot f?okhme Anglia ca/ massekhtot Niddah. cAvodah Zarah. ed. Abraham Sofer (Jerusalem, 1971) . CArakhin Rabbenu Asher. Commentary to b. Niddah. See Hoffmann. cAvodah Zarah Sefer cassefat zeqenim cat massekhet Niddah (Tel Aviv, 1972). Bavli, Babylonian Talmud Bava:l Batra:l Bava:l M~ica:l Bava' QammaJ Berakhot Be~ah ]Jokhmat Befallel. Pitf?e Niddah. Be~allel Rensburg. (Jerusalem, 1968). Bikkurm Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth. VI. Order Taharoth (London, 1955). Bet Yosef. Joseph Karo, Tur yoreh deCah. Hilkhot Niddah. (Repr. Bene Beraq, n.d.). H. Loewe, The Mishnah of the Palestinian Talmttd (Hamishnah cat pi ketav-yad Cambridge) (Jerusalem, 1967). See Hoffmann. Daniel Herbert Danby. The Mishnah (London, 1933). DemaJi Deuteronomy CEduyyot Samuel Edels (Maharsha), 1555-1631. Commentary to b. Niddah. ~iiddushe Etiyyahu miGreiditz. From Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887). CEzrat kohanim. See Rappaport. CEruvin See Nussaf? See Tan. Gittin Elijah ben Solomon Zalman ("Elijah Gaon" or ''Vilna Gaon"), 1720-1797. From Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887), for M., and from standard text of Tosefta Sede:r Tohorot in Babylonian Talmud, for T.

XIV

Gruenemann HA Hag. Hai Hal. HaRa

HD

J-foffmann

Hor. Hul.

ID Jastrmv

K Katsh

Kel. Ker. Kil. KM

L

lev.

Lieberman, TR

Liebenrnm, YK Lisowsky M

ABBREVIA'flON/;

AND BJBUOGRAPHY

I_J;dd11shim ube)urim behilkhot Niddah. I::Iayyim Sha)uJ Gruenemann (J ems alem, 1968). Hon )ashh-. Emanuel Hai b. Abraham Riqi. In Qevu:at me/orshe hmnmishnah (Jerusalem, 1962. Vol. VI). I;Iagigah Hai Gaon, Pcr11sh caJ Seder Tohorot (Berlin, 1857), reprint 1970.

I:Iallah ed. Abraham lf.iddushe Hc1R:1° c,tl mmsekhet Niddah, Shoshana (NY., 1971). lf.asde David. David Pardo, Sefer ~lasde D,1vid. P,trt IV. Tosefet Memhah, v£b11j)uJtsh Ca/ haTosefta Seder Tohorot. I. Kelim, Ahilot. II. Negaim, P,wah, Niddah (Jerusalem 1970). David Hoffmann, Mischnctjot. VI. Ordmmg Toharot. Punktiert, ins Detttsche ilbersetzt, 1md erklart (Third edition: Basel, 1969). From M. Negaim 3:7 through Miqva,ot: John Cohn. Niddah through CUq~in: Moses Auerbach. Horayot I:Iullin 3 lmre Dacat. N:1th,m Lieberman. In Qev!!,dl hammishnah (Jerusalem, J 962) Vol. VI. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictio11,1ry of the Targttmim, etc. (Reprint N.Y. 1950). Georg Beer, F,1ksimile-z1i!sgabe des Mischnilcodex Kc111/mann A 50 (Reprint: Jerusalem, J 968). Abraham L Katsh, Ginze Mishnah. One Hundred and FiftyNine Fragments from the Cairo Geniza in the SaltykovSchedrin Ubrary in Leningrad (Jerusalem, 1970) Plates 139-148. Kelim Keritot Kila 3 yim Kesef Mishnch. Joseph Karo. Commentary to Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. Published in Venice, 1574-5. Text used: Standard version of .Maimonides, Mishneh Tol(/h. The Palestinim1 '.talm11d. Ltiden MS. Cod. Srnl. 3. ,1 Petesimile of the Orip;inal .Manttscript. With lnlrolt' 7,,::i

CHAPTER ONE

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE Our chapter opens the tractate with a discussion of matters of doubt, phrased, however, in terms quite separate from those important in M. Tohorot. The doubt is whether a woman has imparted uncleanness to objects she has unknowingly touched during her menstrual cycle. Do we regard the first appearance of a drop of menstrual blood as the sign that the period has just now begun? If we do, then the objects touched by her during a finite period before that time are deemed clean. If we do not, however, then for how long a time do we regard as unclean the objects touched by the woman before she became aware of the beginning of her menstrual period? At M. 1:1 Shammai takes the position that, in the case of all women, we regard the period of uncleanness as beginning only from the moment the woman sees a drop of blood. Objects she touched before that time are deemed clean. Shammai wholly rejects the principle of retroactivity. Hillel, by contrast, takes the view that retroactivity does apply. His saying furthermore assumes that that is the case and supplies a definition for the period of retroactive contamination. It extends from the present examination, at which the woman discovers the blood, to the preceding examination, at which no blood was found. One of the curious problems of the chapter now comes to the fore. Sages declare "not in accord with this one or that one," which should mean that sages will reject the position of both Shammai and Hillel and effect a compromise of some kind between them. But they do no such thing. They implicitly take for granted that retroactive contamination does take place, against Shammai. They explicitly reject the position taken by Hillel, "From one examination to the next." And they further reject the position assigned to no authority ( !) , "During the antecedent twenty-four hours." They compromise by having the one, the period of twenty-four hours' retroactive contamination, limit the other, the period between examinations, and vice versa. Obviously, Shammai knows of no such limitation, since he holds that retroactive contamination does not take place in any event. Hillel's positionexamination to examination-makes sense, while the formal, therefore artificial, limitation, the preceding twenty-four hours, does not. What z

18

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE

reasonable basis is there to assume that nothing can have happened before the beginning of the preceding twenty-four hours? A further problem is the situation of a woman who has a fixed period. Why should there be any doubt in the case of a woman who knows when her period is going to begin? We should hardly invoke the principle of retroactive contamination of all objects she has touched for a time before the discovery of the blood. And, indeed, M. 1: 1G is clear that a woman who has a fixed period (WST) falls under Shammai's rule. M. 1:2 then develops the apodosis of Shammai's saying, Sufficient for her is her time, explaining what this means in practice. Interestingly, M. 1 :2E refers to the antecedent twenty-fourhour period, "Even though they have said, 'She renders unclean what she has touched during the preceding twenty-four-hour period.' " But no one in M. 1: 1 takes that position. Hillel says we impose uncleanness 'from examination to examination.' Sages are explicit in saying, "Not in accord with this--examination to examination-nor in accord with that-twenty-four-hour period.'' Accordingly, M. 1 :2E takes for granted that the opposition to Shammai has said "Twenty-four hours" and does not trouble to spell out the saying assigned to Hillel at all. M. 1 :3-5 take up a separate opinion, that assigned to Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, again ignoring Hillel and dealing with Shammai. The saying appears in the first place as a dispute with Joshua, M. 1 :3. Then M. 1 :4-5 spell out elements of Eliezer's saying and present Ushan clarifications of his position. Eliezer's view balances Shammai's. The latter's saying is in two parts, All women and sufficient for them is their time. The complement, sufficient ... , has been worked out. Now the matter concerns those ("all women") who fall within the formulary, Sufficient for them is their time. As is clear, the supposition will be that women who have a fixed period do not contaminate for a period retroactive from the time at which they first discovered the blood. Eliezer's view is that that lenient rule does not apply to all women. But it does apply to women who do not usually have a flow of blood. In such instances the appearance of blood is of necessity the beginning of the point at which contamination can have taken place. For the women under discussion-virgin as to menstrual cycle, pregnant woman, nursing mother, and woman at menopause-do not regularly menstruate, the sages believe. When they do, we take for granted it marks the beginning of the cycle. The Ushans then develop this matter, stressing that the woman near menopause who misses three periods is deemed to have ceased regularly to menstruate; the first drop of blood

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE 1: 1

19

we discover in her regard therefore is assumed indeed to be the beginning of the matter. Eliezer/Eleazar (very likely, Eleazar b. Shammuca), holds that that rule applies to any woman who has missed three periods. Yose says it pertains only to the pregnant woman or the nursing mother. The final pericope, M. 1:7, contains a set of rules applicable to women in general (if we revert to Shammai, M. l:lA) or solely to those who have a fixed period (M. l:lG, which is the unanimous view of commentaries). Even such a woman must inspect herself twice daily, as well as in connection with sexual relations. Another Ushan, Judah, adds to this matter and attests the unit. The chapter poses no major exegetical difficulties. Problems in connection with T.'s supplementary materials are generally worked out in the baraita-stratumof Bavli and leave no insuperable difficulties. The gemarot supply little of interest for the discussion of MishnahTosefta in terms of their primary meaning, though of course the laws are made dense and complex in the Amoraic and later strata. 1:1 A. Shammai says, "[For} all women [it is] sufficient for them [to reckon uncleanness from] their time [of discovering a flow]." (KL HNsYM-DYYN scTN). B. Hillel says, "[They are deemed unclean retroactively] from the [time of] examination, [ at which the flow of blood was discovered] to the [last] examination [she made beforehand] (MPQYDH) LPQYDH). C. "And even for many days." D. And sages say not in accord with the opinion of this one nor in accord with the opinion of that one, but: E. [the woman is held to have been indean only] during [the preceding] twenty-four hours (McT UT) [when] this lessens the period from the examination to the [last} examination (McT LCT MMCTf CL YD MPQYDH LPQYDH), F. [and she is held to have been unclean only] during the period from examination to examination [when] this lessens the period of twenty-four hours (MPQYDH LPQYDH MMcTT ct YD McT UT). G. Every woman who .has a fixed period-sufficient for her is her time. [Slotki: "For any woman who has a settled period it suffices to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she discovers the flow."] H. She who makes use of test-rags, lo, this is equivalent to an examination,

20

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE

1 :1

I. which (L: HMMcTT) lessens either the period of the twentyfour hours or the period from examination to examination. (HRY 'ZW KPQYDH, WMMCTT CL YD MCT LCT wcL YD MPQYDH LPQYDH). M. 1:1 ( = M. Ed. 1:1, b. Shab. 15a; G: b. Nid. 63b)

The dispute, A-B, gives the named authorities unbalanced sayings, DYYN scTN vs. MPQYDH LPQYDH. The sages' saying, D-F, presupposes a dispute between McT L cT, for Shammai, as against MPQYDH LPQYDH, for Hillel. The balance, moreover, is concep· tual, not merely formal. That is, do we retroactively assign uncleanness to everything the woman has touched for a period of twenty-four hours, as should be the position of Shammai, or do we retroactively do so for a period covering the entire span of time from the woman's previous examination of her condition, at which point she was found to be clean, to the present examination, at which point she has discovered a drop of menstrual blood? Both parties-Hillel, sagesagree, therefore, on the principle of retroactivity. They therefore are able to dispute about the extent of the retroactive uncleanness. Shammai entirely rejects the principle of retroactivity, standing outside the framework of the dispute between Hillel, someone who holds McT LcT, and the sages, who effect a compromise, within the limits of the 'established' principle of retroactivity. The opposite of Shammai's view is simply the negative of A, which then is developed, through a definition of the limits of retroactivity, at B. Or it is at G. With whom does Shammai differ? It must be with someone who, like himself, wholly rejects the matter of retroactivity, but who holds that not all women, but only some, may rely upon the first drop of blood as a sign that at that point, and no earlier, menstrual uncleanness has begun. G, as I said, will serve. But that party, in fact, is Eliezer, M. 1:3A ( + Joshua, M. 1:3C). And M. 1:4K-M show us that, within the limits of the position established by Eliezer, Meir and sages do counterpose McT L'T to DYYH 8°TH. Then M. 1:5P-Q have a further dispute on the applicability of the principle of non-retroactivity. M. 1 :1 therefore is to be divided into two major units, A-F, Shammai vs. Hillel + the sages, and the separate item, M. 1:lG-I. This last unit is subdivided, moreover, for G is unequivocal. If a woman has a fixed period, then, when she discovers the period has begun, she is deemed unclean, but objects she has touched before that time

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE 1: 1

21

are not deemed unclean. ( b. Nid. 4b assigns this view to Dosa.) H thus is separate from G. It simply develops the point of Hillel, concerning examinations. Test-rags, that is, cloths used to see that no blood is on the genitals of wife before, and husband after, intercourse, constitute a suitable examination. Therefore if test-rags are used, we invoke the principle of E-F, a neat way of uniting the conceptions of Hillel and sages. Accordingly, G is an extension-but a limitationof A, and H, of B, read in the light of E-F, an intricate secondary development of the primary dispute. The actual law involved is not complicated. As indicated, the issue for Shammai is whether a woman renders objects unclean retroactively, from the point that she discovers that her period has begun, to some prior time. He holds that that is not the case. Hillel and sages concur that that is the case. Hillel says that we ( quite reasonably) take for granted the woman has been unclean from the present moment, at which she has examined herself and found she is menstruating, to the previous examination, at which point we know she was clean. Sages limit the effect of retroactivity to a twenty-four-hour period, and, further, limit the twenty-four-hour period to that portion of the period after which a prior, negative examination has taken place. G, as is clear, stands within Shammai's theory, but limits its application, and H within Hillel's, restricting Hillel's conception along the lines of sages' qualification. A. How does a period of twenty-four hours diminish the period from one examination to the next examination? B. [If] she examined herself after the Sabbath and found herself clean and spent Monday and Tuesday and did not examine herself, and on Wednesday she examined herself and found herself uncleanlo, this one imparts uncleanness in the preceding twenty-four hour period and not from one examination to the next. [b. Nid. 4b: They do not say, Let her impart uncleanness from one examination to the next, but only during the preceding twentyfour hours.] T. 1:1, p. 222, ls. 3-6 (y. Nid. 1:1, b. Nid. 4b) C. How does the period from one examination to the next examination diminish the period of twenty-four hours? D. [If] she examined herself in the morning and found herself clean and spent the second hour and third hours, not examining herself, and then at the fourth hour examined herself and found herself unclean-lo, this renders unclean from examination to examination and not for a given twenty-four hour period.

22

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE

1:1-2

E. And this is that to which they referred, saying, The period of twenty-four hours is diminished by the period from one examination to the next examination, and the period from one examination to the next examination is diminished by the period of twenty-four hours. T. 1:2, p. 222, ls. 7-12 (b. Nid. 46, y. Nid. 1:1)

We follow Liberman's reading of B and D, TR III, p. 256. T. comments on M., cited verbatim. The example is clear. Interestingly, T.'s expansion of M. 1:l's sages' saying is now matched by M. 1:2, which does the same for M. 1:lA or G-that is, the meaning of DYYH scTH (whether this applies to all women, only to those women who make use of test-rags, or only to those women who have a fixed period). Why the present pericope belongs in T. while its exact functional parallel is in M. I cannot say. The difference is not formal, for each presents a hypothetical case in illustration of the substantive principle. We now observe, moreover, that the bulk of our chapter consists in expositions and expansions of the opening pericope. 1:2 A. How [is the case in which] her time suffices for her [ = M. 1:lA,G]? B. [If] she was sitting on the bed and engaged in things requiring cleannessand arose and saw [ a drop of blood], C. she is unclean, D. but all of those [things requiring cleanness] are clean. E. Even though they have said, "She [Rashi: who lacks a fixed period] renders unclean [whatever she touched during the preceding] twenty-four hour period," she takes count [of the days prescribed in the Torah] only from the time that she saw a drop of blood. M. 1:2

We proceed with the development of the primary materials of M. 1:1, explaining the several apodoses, DYYH scTH, McT L'T, and MPQYDH LPQYDH, in sequence. B-D ( = M. 1: lA) require no comment. The woman is unclean from the moment she sees the blood. But what she has touched prior to that time is deemed clean. The commentaries ( e.g., Bert., TYY) read the pericope as an extension of M. 1:lG, not A. E limits the matter of the opinion of sages, M. 1 :lD-F. But no one has said what is cited here ( !) , which is curious. We should have wanted sages of M. 1:1 to say, McT LcT, for E to rest upon such a formula. The point is that the counting of the seven days of men-

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE 1 :2-5

23

struation begins from the moment of the discovery of blood, not the moment at which, in the cited opinion, the woman has begun to impart uncleanness to everything she has touched-thus a restriction in the direction of further strictness upon the already stringent opinion. The woman is deemed unclean for twenty-four hours ( more or less) before the actual count of the seven days of her period begins. 1:3-5 A. R. Eliezer says, "Four women [who do not regularly have a flow ( = M. l:lG) (Maimonides)} fall into the category of those for whom the time [of first seeing blood] suffices [Danby: that they be deemed unclean only from their time of suffering a flow J: B. " ( 1) the virgin, ( 2) the pregnant woman, (3) the nursing mother, and ( 4) the old lady." C. Said R. Joshua, "I heard only [ that this rule applies to the] virgin." D. But the law is in accord with the opinion of R. Eliezer. M. 1:3

E.

Who is (1) the virgin? Any girl who never in her life saw a drop of [menstrual] blood, even though she is married. G. (2) A pregnant woman? H. Once it is known that the foetus is present [ = three months]. I. (3) A nursing mother? J. Until she will wean her son { = twenty-four months, M. Git. 7:6]. K. [If} she gave her son to a wet-nurse, weaned him, or he diedL. R. Meir says, "She conveys uncleanness [to everything she touched] during the preceding twenty-four hours." M. And sages say, "Sufficient for her is her time." ["It is enough for her that she be deemed unclean only from her time of suffering a flow."] M. 1:4 N. (4) Who is an old woman? 0. Any woman for whom three periods have gone by without a flow near to the time of her old age [menopause]. P. R. Eliezer (MS, M, P, PB, L: Eleazar [see Nussalp, p. 1176]) says, "Any woman [not only an old lady] for whom three periods have passed without her suffering a flow--sufficient for her is her time." ["It is enough for her that she be deemed unclean only from her time of suffering a flow."] Q. R. Yose says, "A pregnant woman and a nursing mother for whom three periods have passed [ without their suffering a flow]sufficient for them is their time." M. 1:5 (y. Nid. 1:3, 4) F.

24

NIDDAH CHAPTER

ONE

1:3-5

The present unit is devoted to the exposition of Eliezcr's opinion, M. 1:3A. As noted, he has his dispute with Shammai, M. 1:lA, All women vs. four women; or with M. 1:lG. His point is clear. In these four cases, he holds a drop of blood signifies the onset of the menstrual cycle. But all other women who have a regular flow ue unclean retroactively. Eliezer does not specify the extent of the retroactivity. Perhaps Meir supplies the limits of his opinion. Since retroactivity is a concession, it should be the shorter of the two intervals, twenty-four hours or the period from the last examination (M. 1:lD-F), and I take it that Meir selects the former as the shorter. The main point in all four instances is that the appearance of blood is unusual, in which case we depend upon the first appearance to delimit the start of the capacity to effect contamination. Joshua's dispute, along the lines of his sayings at M. Par. l: 1 ( Part IX, pp. 2 3), has to do with what he claims is an oral tradition. D of course is a gloss; it certainly is logical to assign the decided hw to the party whose opinions are nmv carefully to be spelled out, not bypassed. M. l :4K-M supply an Ushan gloss to Eliezer's opinion, explaining the matter of the status of the nursing mother. Sages say that for the first twenty-four months, during which time the woman is in the status of the nursing mother, the leniency applies, even though the actual nursing no longer is done by her. M. 1:5N·Q then take up a separate matter, the old woman. This category is first defined, 0. P-Q are added because of the reference to the passing of three periods \1:ithout menstrual blood. Eliezer/ Eleazar, P, does not wish to limit the rule to a woman near menopause, so he differs from 0. The same applies to anyone, not only to the woman near old age. Yose disagrees with Eliezer/Eleazar, P, limiting the matter to a pregnant woman and a nursing mother, as against any wonltln of 0 and P. Do Eliezer/Eleazar and Yose disagree with Eliezer of M. 1 :3A? It is difficult to say, sinee their sayings stand quite separate from Eliezer's at A. That is, M. l :3A's Eliezer says four women fall into the present category, as against any woman who has missed three periods not exactly to the point. Yose then limits matters, as I said, to the pre,~nant woman and nursing mother, two of Eliezer of M. 1:3's four rntegories--again, not quite precisely the terms of M. 1:3's Eliezer, but clrnrly the terms of M. 1:S's Eliezer/ Eleazar. Accordingly, I am inclined to see the last dispute, P-Q, as autonomous of the original matter, generated by M. 1:5N-0, but secondary and

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE 1 :3-5

25

peripheral to M. 1:3A-B. Does Yose disagree with M. 1:4G, I? On the surface, he surely does, since M. 1 :4 says that a pregnant woman and a nursing mother fall into the category of those for whom the moment of discovery begins the period of uncleanness, without retroactive contamination, and Y ose says that is the case only if we have three months in which the period is missed. But, in redactional context, Yose is made to disagree with Eliezer/Eleazar, and we shall have to follow the redactor in interpreting his opinion in the setting of P, although, as is clear, it can be read as a disagreement with the articulation of M. 1 :4. The difference is trivial. A. R. Eliezer says, "Four women-sufficient for them is their time: a virgin, a pregnant woman, a nursing mother, and an old woman." B. Said R. Joshua, "I heard only the virgin." C. Said to him R. Eliezer, "They do not say to him who has not seen the new [ moonJ to come and give testimony, but to him who has seen it. "You have not heard, but we have heard. "You have heard one, but we have heard four." D. All the days of R. Eliezer the people followed the rule laid down by him. After R. Eliezer died, R. Joshua restored the matter to its former status. E. And the law is in accord with R. Eliezer. T. 1:5, p. 223, ls. 5-12 (b. Nid. 7b, y. Nid. 1:2, b. Eruv. 41a)

A-B = M. 1 :3A-C; E = M. 1 :3D. What is supplied is C and D. See Eliezer I, pp. 323-4, and, on other versions of D, TR III, p. 257. Who is a virgin? Any girl who has never seen a drop of blood in her life, and even if she is married and had children, I call her a virgin, until she will see the first drop [ of menstrual blood J. D. It comes out that they did not refer to virgin in respect to the tokens of virginity but a virgin in respect to menstrual blood. T. 1:6, p. 223, ls. 13-16 (y. Nid. 1:3, b. Nid. sb) A. B. C.

A-B = M. 1:4E-F. C-D supplement M. A. B. C. y. Nid.

Who is a pregnant woman? Once the presence of the foetus is recognized[Zuckermandel, p. 642, 1. 1, Lieberman, TR III, p. 257, 1:3, b. Nid. Sb: Said Sumkhos in the name of R. Meir:]

26

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE

1 :3-5

three months, as it is said, And it came to pass at the end of three months (Gen. 38:24). D. [If] she was in the presumption of being pregnant and saw a drop of blood and afterward she miscarried something which is not a human foetus-[b. Nid. 8b: she is still presumed to be pregnant and] sufficient for her is her time. E. And even though there is no Scriptural proof of the matter, there is Scriptural allusion to the matter: We were with child, we writhed, we have as it were brot,ght forth wind (Is. 26:18). T. 1:7, p. 223, ls. 17-21 (y. Nid. 1:3, b. Nid. 8b)

A-B = M. 1 :4G-H. D is an important addition, because it gives a liberal definition of those pregnant women subject to M. l:3A's lenient ruling. y. gives D in the name of Judah. A. A girl who did not reach her time for seeing blood and who saw a drop of bloodB. at the first and at the second appearance of the blood, sufficient for her is her time. C. [But when she sees] the third drop of blood, she imparts uncleanness [to what she touched] during the preceding twenty-four hour period. D. [If] she missed her flow for three periods and then saw a drop of blood, sufficient for her is her time. E. And once [ a girl] has reached her time for seeing blood and she saw a first drop [TR III, p. 257:] sufficient for her is her time, and [ after she sawJ a second, she imparts uncleanness during the preceding twenty-four hour period. F. And at the third [period]-sufficient for her is her time. G. [If] she missed three periods and then she saw a drop of blood, she imparts uncleanness during the preceding twenty-four hour period. [b. Nid. 9b: If she missed three periods and again observed a discharge, sufficient for her is her time.] T. 1:8, p. 224, ls. 1-6 (b. Nid. 9b) H. And from what time is a girl likely to see [ a drop of blood]? I. From the time that she will produce two pubic hairs. J. Said R. Eleazar, McSH B: "A young girl in Haitalu (y.: cYYTLW) whose time had come to see blood and who missed three periods, and the case came before sages, and they said, 'Sufficient for her is her time [ of actually observing a flow J.' " K. They said to him, "It was an interim ruling [ and not meant as established law].'' [y. Nid. 1:4: "You were a minor, and a minor has no right of testimony."] T. 1:9, p. 224, ls. 7-10 (y. Nid. 1:1,4; b. Nid. 9b)

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE

1 :3-5

27

T. now supplies secondary materials, pertinent to M. 1 :3Bl, the virgin. How do we legislate for the passage of a girl from the one status, a virgin, for whom the time of the appearance suff ies to delimit the period of presumed contamination, to that of a woman, who, Eliezer holds, contaminates for the preceding twenty-four hours ( or, presumably, for less than that time if there have been intervening examinations)? A-D spell out the stages in the progress to womanhood. In the case of a girl before puberty, we rule as follows: At the first and second appearance of blood, the girl remanns a virgin ( in the present sense). At the third, she is deemed to be like all other women. E then introduces a second problem. What happens if a girl has reached puberty? Then it is expected that she will menstruate regularly. Therefore, once the girl has reached puberty, the first drop leaves her in the former status, but the second confirms her new status as a woman. G brings us to M. 1 :5P, a woman who has missed three periods. There Eliezer/Eleazar has told us that sufficient for her is her time, so b. Nid. 96: When, however, a girl had attained the age of menstruation, after the first observation, it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observed the discharge, while after the second time she causes uncleanness retrospectively for twenty-four hours or from her previous examination to her last examination. If [G] subsequently three periods have passed over her [ without discharge] and she again observed a discharge, it suffices for her to reckon her tmcleanness from the time she observed it.

b. thus states matters in accord with Eliezer at M. And why not? For the theory requires that, once the girl has missed three periods, we regard the new drop of blood as the very beginning of the restoration of her former status. That is why the uncleanness is reckoned from the moment of the appearance of the blood, and not retroactively. She has no antecedent record of producing menstrual blood. There is no reason to hold that she may have produced blood during the antecedent twenty-four hour period. The main point is that once a woman has a regular flow, she may have made something unclean before the ( routine) discovery of the blood. But if it is unusual for her to produce a flow, we do not take account of that possibility and declare her uncleanness to commence only from the moment of her discovering the blood. Maimonides (Couch 4:3) gives the rule of T. 1:8A-D as follows:

28

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE

1:3-5

If a young girl's time to suffer a flow has not yet come, and she suffers a flow a first time and then a second time, she need be deemed unclean only from her time of suffering the flow. If she suffers a third flow, she conveys uncleanness retroactively. If three more months pass by her and she then suffers a flow, she need be deemed unclean only from her time of suffering the flow; but if three more months pass by her and she then suffers a flow, she conveys uncleanness retroactively.

For T. 1:8E-G, Maimonides ( Couch 4:4) gives: If a young girl's time to suffer a flow comes, and she suffers a flow for the first time, she need be deemed unclean only from her time of suffering the flow; but when she suffers a flow a second time, she conveys uncleanness retroactively. If three months pass by her and then she suffers a flow, she need be deemed unclean only from her time of suffering the flow; if three more months pass by her and then she suffers a flow, she conveys uncleanness retroactively.

I take it the point of the final clause is that we now deem her to have established a menstrual cycle over the three-month-period, in which case she now falls into the category of all women who have a regular period. b. thus states matters in accord with M. 1:5 (TR III, p. 258). H picks up the matter of E, at what point we impose the distinction fundamental to A/E. J-Kraise a further issue. What if a girl reaches puberty and does not menstruate? Sages are alleged by Eleazar to say that she falls into the category of a woman who has had a period and then misses it for three successive months. His position is therefore the same as the Eleazar/Eliezer of M. 1:5P and is assigned to sages. K rejects the precedent. A. R. Yose and R. Simeon say, "A pregnant woman and a nursing mother-her time is not sufficient for her until she will miss three periods. B. "And the days of her pregnancy join together with the days of her nursing." T. 1:10, p. 224, ls. 11-13 (y. Nid. 1:4, b. Nid. 106, 36a)

Yose ( = M. 1:5Q) and Simeon do not agree with Eliezer, M. 1:3B2 + 3. They demand evidence that the menstrual cycle has been interrupted. B further qualifies the matter. B is explained at b. Nid. 10b: "In what manner? If there was a break of two periods during her pregnancy and of one during her nursing, or of two during her

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE

1:3-5

29

nursing and one during her pregnancy, or of one and a half during her pregnancy and one and a half during her nursing, they are all combined into a series of three periods," A. [If} an old lady missed three periods and then saw a drop of blood-sufficient for her is her time [ for she is assumed to have entered menopause}. B. [If} she [ again} missed three periods and saw a drop of blood, [ still} sufficient for her is her time. C. [If} she [ again J missed three periods and saw a drop of blood, lo, she is equivalent to all other women. She renders unclean for the preceding twenty-four hours or from one examination to the next. D. Not [only] that she has settled on a fixed period, but even if she has diminished [ or J she has added to it. E. If she missed three of them and saw a drop of blood, sufficient for her is her time. F. If she [again} missed the three of them and saw a drop of blood, sufficient for her is her time. G. If she [ again J missed the three of them and saw a drop of blood, lo, she is like all other women and conveys uncleanness for the preceding twenty-four hour period or from one examination to the next. H. But that she has established a period for herself. T. 1:11, p. 224, ls. 13-19, p. 225, ls. 1-2 (y. Nid. 1:5, b. Nid. 9b)

T. carries forward the issue of M. 1 :5. We have said that an old woman, for whom the time of flow suffices to define the period of contamination, is one who has missed three periods near the time of menopause. But what happens if there is a renewed flow? A-B hold that for a period of six months-missing the flow three periods, then seeing it, two such sequences in succession-the woman remains in her established status. But if this then happens in a third three-period sequence, the old woman falls into the category of normal women, as at C. She has established a regular period, F, but if she again misses it, she conveys uncleanness retroactively (TR III, p. 258). b. Nid. 9b's version of C is, "This is the case not only where she observed the flow at perfectly regular intervals, but even where she observed it at successively decreasing intervals or increasing intervals." Following Rashi, Slotki (p. 60, n. 10) comments, "Irrespective of whether (a) the first interval extended over ninety-three days, the second over ninety-two, and the third only over ninety or (b) the first extended over ninety-one days, the second over ninety-two, and the third over ninety-three days."

30

NIDDAH CHAPTER ONE l :3-5

A. The four women concerning whom they have said, Sttfficient for them is their time-how so? B. [If} she saw a bloodstain and afterward saw a drop of blood--sufficient for her is her time [and the stain is not deemed equivalent to blood}. C. [If} she missed three periods between one appearance and another appearance of blood and did not see a drop of blood and afterward saw a drop of blood-sufficient for her is her time. D. [If} she missed three periods during the days of her purifying and did not see a drop of blood, and afterward saw a drop of blood, sufficient for her is her time. T. 1:12, p. 225, ls. 3-7 (y. Niel. 1:4, b. Niel. 36a)

A = M. I :3A. Now we have an illustrative case, parallel to M. I :2. The stain is distinct from the drop of blood. The point of the set is the same as at T. 1 :8 for t.he young girl who missed the three periods, and T. I :11 for the old lady. Missing the periods does not remove the woman from the present rntegory. A. "A nursing mother whose infant died during the twenty-four months of nursing imparts uncleanness within the preceding twentyfour hour period. B. "Therefore if she goes on and nurses her infant, even ifound me in Sidon. He said to me, "When you go to R. cAqiva, say to him, 'Until what time does a girl exercise the right of refusal?' B. "If he says to you, 'Until she will produce two pubic hairs,' say to him, 'And before all of you did not Ben Shelaqit gave testimony in Yavneh, 'Until she will have a full crown of hair around the pudenda'? C. "And when I came and laid the matters before R. cAqiva, he said to me, 'I do not know 'a full crown of hair' and I do not know Ben Shelaqit, and I know only 'until she will bring two pubic hairs.' " T. 6:6, p. 241, 1. 18, p. 242, ls. 1-6 (b. Nid. 52b)

T. supplements the foregoing pericope. See Epstein, Tan., p. 80 for a revised version of B. A. The two pubic hairs of which they spoke [ establish puberty J even [ if] one is on the hand and one on the foot, B. one on the armpit and one in the loin, C. even two between two joints of his fingersD. lo, these join together. T. 6:7, p. 242, ls. 7-9 A. All those who are inspected are inspected only by women. B. So did R. Eliezer give over to his wife [girls who had to be inspected for the appearance of pubic hairs], and R. Ishmael gave them over to his mother. C. R. Judah says, "Before the period [ eleven years and one dayJ and after the period [twelve years and one day] women inspect them. "Because on the testimony of women they do not permit to marry girls whose status may be in doubt.'' D. R. Simeon says, "Even during the period itself.'' E. A woman is permitted to testify in such wise as to impose a stringent ruling but not to impose a lenient ruling. F. A woman is permitted to testify, "She is a minor," so that she should not carry out the rite of lpalifah.And "she is an adult," so that she should not exercise the right of refusal. But she is not permitted to testify, saying, "She is a minor," so that the girl may exercise the right of refusal, or, "She is an adult," so that she may carry out the rite of /palifah." T. 6:8, p. 242, ls. 10-17 (b. Nid. 48b)

The issue is one of doubt, the time from eleven years and one day to twelve years and one day. T. is autonomous of M.

6:12 A. The two hairs which are mentioned in connection with the [ red] cow and in connection with plagues and which are stated in every regard-

96

NIDDAH CHAPTER SIX

6:12-13

B. "[they have to be so long] that their tip can be bent to their root," the words of R. Ishmael. C. R. Eleazar [Eleazar: C,K,N,PB,P,Pa; Eliezer: Katsh Plate 143] says, "So long that one can grasp it by the finger-nails." D. R. c Aqiva says, "So long that they can be cut off with a scissors." M. 6:12

The foregoing rule is now augmented with a definition of the length of the hairs under discussion. The pubic hair is conspicuous by its absence; Parah and Negaim are better candidates for the location of the pericope (e.g., M. Par. 2:5, M. Neg. 4:4, 10:2-3). 2 6:13 A. She who sees a bloodstain [ on her garment ]-lo, she is in disarray. B. "And she takes account of the possibility that she is unclean because of Zibah," the words of R. Meir. C. And sages say, "Bloodstains are not subject to uncleanness because of Zibah." [Danby: "Bloodstains are not accounted of as being of the nature of flux."] M. 6:13

If a woman finds a bloodstain on her garment, she does not know when it appeared. Her period is in disarray. She does not know when the eleven days of Zibah begin, which separate one period from the next (Rashi, Bert.). If she sees the stain after three days of Zibah, and it is of the size of a bit more than three split beans (b. Nid. 52b), we take account of the possibility that on each day she produced a stain the size of a split bean and a bit more, which is the size requisite for the stain to be unclean, and the woman is deemed a Zabah (B). Sages say that the stain does not produce the possibility of her being a Zabah at all. A. ''[If] she saw a stain and afterward she saw blood, lo, this one takes account of the possibility of flux [ Zab ]," the words of R. Meir. B. And sages say, "She does not take account of the possibility of flux." C. "She who sees a stain-if there is in it sufficient [blood] for it to be divided into three drops for three days, lo, this one takes 2 "The redaction here is on broadly thematic lines. We simply have a small composite organized around 'two hairs,' drawing on many legal contexts."-Richard S. Sarason.

NlDDAH

CHAPTER SIX

6: 13

97

account of the possibility th,it it is flux, and if not, she does not take account of the possibility that it is flux," the words of R. Meir. D. R. Judah b. Agra says in the name of R. Yose, "One way or the other, she takes account of that possibility." T. 3:3,

p. 228, ls. 11-16

E. Said Rabbi, "The opinion of R. Judah b. Agra appears to me sound when she did not examine herself, and the opinion of R. Meir appears to me sound when she examined herself." F. R. IJananiah b. Antigonos says, "One way or the other, she does not take account of the possibility tlut it is flux. "Should she blame her stain on others? It is logical that she should blame her stain on herself." T. 3:4, p. 228, ls. 17-20 (b. Niel. 53a)

G. Sometimes stains do put a woman into the category of one afflicted with flux. H. How so? I. If she put on herself five shirts which had been examined by her, J. if she saw on them three drops [ of blood J on three days, K. or if she saw a stain and afterwards she saw two unclean days--L. lo, this one takes account of the possibility of flux. T. 3:5, p. 229, ls. 1-15

T. augments M. 6:13B-C. Meir consistently treats the stain as equivalent to a drop of blood, so A and C. Yose concurs with Meir, but goes even further. ~Iananiah, F, takes the position of M. 6:13C's sages. His view, F, is that if one might attribute the stain to others, M. 9 :4, all the more so it is attributed to herself as a single drop of blood. T. 3:5 M-P belong at M. 2:2, cited above, p. 41. A. "If one saw ,l bloodstain and afterward saw blood, lo, this one attributes her bloodstain to her appearance of blood for a period of twenty-four hours," the words of Rabbi. B. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, "For the same day." C. Said Rabbi, "I approve the words of R. Simeon b. Leazar." T. 9:11, p. 254, ls. 4-7 (b. Niel. 53b)

According to Rabbi, we attribute uncleanness to objects touched from the point the blood was found, not to when the garment was last washed. Simeon says this is the case only when ,ve find the stain on the same d,1y as the discharge of blood. But if the stain is found by day and the blood after sunset, ~e do not attribute the one to the other. b.'s version adds to C, "Since he improves her position while I make it worse." Citing Rabbenu I:fananel, Slotki (p. 371, n. 10) 7

98

NIDDAH CHAPTER SIX

6:13-14

explains: "According to Rabbi, who for a period of twenty-four hour ascribes the stain to the observation of the blood, the woman is deemed to have been unclean on the day of her observation as well as on the previous day. If, therefore, she were to observe some blood on the next day following, she would be regarded as a confirmed zabah, while according to R. Simeon who ascribes a stain to blood observed during the same day only, the woman would be deemed unclean on one day only and could not become a confirmed zabah unless blood was observed on the two following days also." 6:14 A.

She who sees [blood] 1. on the eleventh day at twilight 2. at the beginning of her menstrual period 3. or at the end of her menstrual period 4. at the beginning of her period of Zibah 5. or at the end of her period of Zibah 6. on the fortieth day ( of cleannessJ for the male, 7. or on the eightieth day of cleanness of the female child B. -at twilight in (the case of] all of theme. lo, these err [in their reckoning. Danby: "Such will be at fault in their reckoning."] D. Said R. Joshua, "Before you repair the affairs of the foolish women [M. 2:1 ], repair those of the intelligent ones."

In line with the foregoing pericope, M. now lists eight turning points in the process of menstruation and other unclean times: how do we treat twilight? Is it deemed part of the foregoing day, which comes to an end, or the following day, which now commences? b. Nid. 536 logically interprets Al-4 to refer to the beginning of the menstrual period and the end of the period of Zibah, the end of the menstrual period and the beginning of the period of Zibah. At twilight on the eleventh day we do not know whether the blood appeared at night, at the beginning of the menstrual period, in which case the woman is unclean for seven days, or while it was still light on the eleventh, at the end of the Zibah-period, in which case the woman watches day by day. If the blood appears at twilight on the menstrual days at the end of the week, if it is assigned to the day, the woman immerses in the evening and is clean; if it was at night, siie has to watch day by day, and if she sees blood two further, consecutive days, she is Zabah. If the blood appears on the fortieth day of the male or eightieth of the female, if it was by day, the blood is deemed clean, and if it was

NIDDAH CHAPTER SIX

6:14

99

by night, the blood is deemed unclean. B goes back over the foregoing. C says that the reckoning is out of kilter; the woman brings the offering for Zibah because of doubt, but the purification-offering is not eaten (M. Tern. 7:6, M. Ar. 2:1). Joshua's comment evidently alludes to M. 2:1. The intelligent women take care of those unable to care for themselves-but now we see that they too are in need of care ( Albeck, p. 396); b. Nid. 54a-b presents examples of such cases of perplexity. Maimonides (Those Prohibited from Intercourse 6:19) states the rule with the usual clarity: If a woman saw blood at the end of the seventh day of her menstrual period at twilight, and then she saw blood on the ninth and on the tenth days, lo, this one is in the status of a Zabah by reason of doubt. (The reason is that] the first appearance of the blood may have been on the evening of the eighth day, and it turns out that the woman then has seen blood on three days one after the other at the beginning of the days of her Zibah-period. And so, if she saw blood on the ninth and on the tenth days of her Zibah-period and saw blood at the end of the eleventh day at twilight, lo, this one is a Zabah by reason of doubt. (The reason is that] the final appearance may have been on the eleventh day, and lo, she has seen blocd three days one after the other in her Zibah period.

CHAPTER SEVEN

NIDDAH CHAPTER SEVEN While the chapter before us is small and covers diverse issues, it does focus upon issues of uncleanness. The first rule, M. 7:1, deals with the capacity of unclean fluids to contaminate when wet and when dry, a matter familiar from M. 4:3. The blood of the menstruating woman and the flesh of the corpse impart uncleanness whether wet or dry, but the Zab's flux, phlegm, and spit, as well as the creeping thing and carrion, and semen impart uncleanness only when wet, but not when dry. The rule bears Ushan attestations. M. 7:2 goes on to another matter, but is logically joined to the foregoing. We come, specifically to a reprise of M. Toh. 6:6: the rule on the retrospective uncleanness of an alleyway if we find a creeping thing there; the point of relevance is at the second example, the uncleanness, imputed retrospectively, of a garment if we find a spot of blood on it. The link joining this matter to the foregoing is at the end: the dispute of Simeon and sages on whether it imparts uncleanness retrospectively when it is dry and wet, or only when it is dry. The referent of it is not clear and is under dispute among the commentaries, beginning in Eleazar's view, b. Nid. 56b. The last group, M. 7:3-5, form a second coherent unit, joined to the former by interest in Samaritan matters. Bloodstains whose origin is unknown are the problem, that is, just as at M. 7:2, we deal with matters of doubt. If the stains derive from a gentile village, they are clean. If they derive from an Israelite one, and if ( M. 7 :4) they are located in the public domain, they are probably clean, because Israelite women put away their stained rags and do not leave them lying about. The status of rags of Samaritan origin is in doubt; Meir holds that they are unclean, and sages rule that they are clean, "because they are not suspect on account of their bloodstains," that is, as M. 7:4 states as a generalization, women do put them away carefully. The concluding matters of M. 7:4-5 deal with other Samaritan practices. They bury their abortion in a dump ( "house of uncleanness" ) . Since they accept the biblical rule that burial of an abortion means a place is unclean, they are believed if they state that an abortion is buried in a given place. Since they accept the biblical rule on the first-born, they

NIDDAH CHAPTER SEVEN

7:1

101

are believed in testimony on such a matter. They are not believed about the affects of overshadowing of foliage or rocks, evidently because they do not regard these as productive of uncleanness through the Tent ( these are not, after all, tents made by man) . And the general rule is that they are not believed about matters concerning which their own piety is in doubt. The chapter, as I said, is well-organized; its units both well put together internally and also cogent with one another. 7:1 A. The blood of the menstruating woman and the flesh of a corpse ( 1) impart uncleanness when they are wet, B. and (2) impart uncleanness when they are dry. C. But the [Zab's] flux (ZWB), phlegm, spit, and the creeping thing, carrion, and semen ( 3) impart uncleanness when they are wet D. and ( 4) do not impart uncleanness when they are dry. E. And if they can be soaked and return to their former bulk, they ( 5) impart uncleanness when they are wet, F. and they ( 6) impart uncleanness when they are dry. G. And how long are they to be soaked? H. In lukewarm water, for twenty-four hours. I. R. Y ose says. "The flesh of the corpse [which} is dry and cannot be soaked and return to its former bulk is clean." M. 7:1 (y. Nid. 1:2)

What is formally interesting is the repeated use of the verb, MTM' / yn for each rule. The Houses' dispute, M. 4:3, uses MTM' LI-:I WYBS, not repeating the verb; and indeed, when it comes to state, imparts uncleanness wet but not dry, the Houses' pericope avoids the direct formulation entirely in favor of circumlocutions. We have two contrasting rules, A-Band C-D, with E-F augmenting D, and G-H, E. I is independent, referring back to A-B; Yose does not agree that dry corpse-matter imparts uncleanness at all. C in fact refers to the flux of the Zab, the phlegm, spit, and the like also of the Zab. This is not stated clearly. The point, then is that the blood of the menstruating woman and corpse-matter impart uncleanness whether wet or dry, but the things pertaining to the Zab only do so when they are wet. E-F, as noted, reverse this point. A. The blood of a menstruating woman and the flesh of the corpseB. All these which became mouldy [ crumbled}-lo, they are clean.

102

NIDDAH CHAPTER SEVEN

7:1-2

C. In the name of R. Nathan did they state, "Any piece of bread which became mouldy does not become unclean by reason of the uncleanness pertaining to food, and they burn it in its place." D. And how much [TR III, p. 277: And in what (BMH/KMH)] is its soaking? In luke warm water. [TR: And how long is its soaking?] E. Judah b. NaqosaJ says, "Until it will be [in] lukewarm water for twenty-four hours." T. 6:11, p. 243, ls. 6-10 (D-E: b. Nid. 56a)

A = M. 7:lA. I take it B refers to flesh. If it has no bone and became mouldy, we have nothing left to produce uncleanness. D = M. 7:lG, and E assigns the matter to Judah b. NaqosaJ. For C, Lieberman, TR III, p. 277, refers us to b. Pes. 45b. The version of D-E at b. Nid. 56a improves on T.: For how long must they be soaked in lukewarm water? Judah b. NaqosaJ says, "For twenty-four hours, lukewarm at the beginning though not at the end." R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "Lukewarm for the entire twenty-four hours."

Accordingly, b.'s baraita improves the matter ( of D) by having all parties agree on how long the soaking must take place and disagreeing on the sort of water which is to be used, surely support for Lieberman's proposed emendation. 7:2 A. The creeping thing which is found in the alleyway imparts uncleanness retroactively, B. until one will state, "I inspected this alleyway and there was no creeping thing in it," C. or until [Pa, Katsh #144, P, PB, N, C, K: WKNJ the time that it [last was] cleaned. D. And so: a stain which is found on a garment imparts uncleanness retroactively, E. until one will state, "I inspected this garment, and there was no bloodstain on it," F. or until [C: WKNJ such time as it [was last] washed. G. And it [Meiri: the bloodstain] imparts uncleanness whether wet or dry. [Meiri: Even wet, and we do not suppose the wet spot is made wet by water which just now fell on it. J H. R. Simeon says, "The dry [Meiri: creeping thing] imparts uncleanness retroactively, and the wet imparts uncleanness only so long as it can have been wet." [Slotki, p. 392: Only to a time when it could still have been wet.] [Meir: Simeon agrees with G, and speaks here only of the creeping thing.] M. 7:2

NIDDAH CHAPTER SEVEN

7:2

103

At B-C, M reads, "inspected this alleyway and there was no creeping thing in it at the time of the cleaning" -better than either WKN or ,w BscT HKBWS. A-F are in balance with one another and separate from G-H. The certainty of A-Bis familiar from M. Toh. 6:6A-D (Part XI, p. 153). The several readings of C do not change the picture. The main point is that it is from the point at which we know the alley was clean that the retroactive period of uncleanness commences ( = M. 1: 1, Hillel). The pericope was constructed independently of our tractate ( all the more so, this chapter). That is why A-B are joined with D-E, with their respective additions, C, F. D does belong. The stain imparts uncleanness retroactively to whatever touched the garment. (M. 2:3 has already told us a pertinent and parallel rule.) In my view the rule of G on the stain in respect to imparting uncleanness when wet or dry is independent, though G depends for its subject on D's stain. The stain is deemed parallel to the menstrual blood itself, M. 7:lA, and therefore imparts uncleanness whether wet or dry. Simeon turns matters around. He deals with two issues, the matter of wet vs. dry, and the issue of retroactivity. He agrees that the dry and the wet both impart uncleanness in the case of the stain. As to retroactive contamination, he says, that which is dry imparts uncleanness retroactively. But the wet imparts uncleanness retroactively only to that time at which, if there were uncleanness in the rag, it would still be wet. The period of retroactive contamination is defined by the end of the dampness of the stain. But before that time it does not impart uncleanness, because, if there were uncleanness before that time, it would not still be wet ( Albeck, p. 397). This is another way of saying that the wet does not (invariably) impart uncleanness retroactively. But for the referent of H, b. Nid. 566 supplies: "R. Eleazar explained, 'This [ = HJ applies only to the creeping thing, but a wet bloodstain also causes uncleanness retroactively [ to the time that it was last washed], for it might be assumed that it was already dry but water had fallen upon it .... " Accordingly, the accepted exegeses of G-H read the pericope as a unified essay ( 1 ) on the single theme of the creeping thing or the bloodstain in the alleyway, or ( 2) only on the creeping thing (b. Nid. 56b, Bert., TYY, MA). Thus G is meant to say, It-the creeping thing or stain- conveys uncleanness-retroactively-whether it is wet or dry-when discovered. Simeon says, If it is dry when discovered, it causes uncleanness retroactively[Slotki, p. 392, n. 5: J to the times previously indicated, since it is

104

NIDDAH

CHAPTER SEVEN

7:2

possible that the creeping thing or stain may have been there soon after the alley had been swept or the shirt washed. But if it is wetwhen discovered- it causes uncleanness only to a time when it could still have been wet-[Slotki, n. 6:]-And not to the times previously indicated if they are earlier. For if it had been there since the earlier times it would have been dry by now. Accordingly, we are supposed to understand that Simeon's point, H, allows the dry object to impart uncleanness retroactively for a longer period than the wet object. To sustain this unitary perspective, further, we should have wanted a plural verb at G, just as we have, inserted with such care, at M. 7:1. And the logical relationship between the bloodstain and the creeping thing should be indicated. That is, we should have some grounds for deeming the two comparable in their legal status, just as we know that the items of M. 7: 1 bear common traits. What the two items have in common-at best-is that they are the sorts of things one might find in an alleyway, not that they share intrinsic traits. The dead creeping thing, after all, is a Father of uncleanness. The bloodstain may or may not be menstrual blood; its status is a matter of doubt. Why should the rule about the wetness or dryness of the one have any relationship, formal or substantive, with that of the other? Maimonides reads G-H to ref er solely to the creeping thing and restates the rule ( Other Fathers of Uncleanness 18:4) as follows: If a creeping thing is found in an alleyway, it conveys uncleanness retroactively as far back as the time when one can say, 'I examined this entry on such a day and there was no creeping thing in it.' Even if he swept it but did not examine it, the creeping thing conveys uncleanness retroactively as far back as the time before the sweeping. This applies if it is found dry. But if it is found moist, it does not convey uncleanness retroactively but only from the time when it could have died there and still be moist at the time when it is found.

A. Said R. Judah [b. Nid. 56b: Meir] "Why did they say concerning the creeping thing, Until the time of cleaning [and not even before that timeJ? B. "For if one did not examine [it}, it imparts uncleanness retroactively. C. "And on what account did they say of the bloodstain, Up to the time of washing? D. "For it is the way of the Israelite women that they examine their bloodstain when they wash them. E. "If she did not examine her bloodstain, it imparts uncleanness retroactively." T. 6:12, p. 243, ls. 11-15 (b. Nid. 56b)

NTDDAH CHAPTER SEVI,N 7:2-3

10'5

Judah explains M. 7:2A-F. The point is that we assume the person inspects the alley when he sweeps; if he does not, retroactive contamination begins still earlier. A. R. Al;rn says, "Let her launder it. If it grows dim (DHH), it imparts uncleanness retroactively. "If it does not grow dim, it does not impart uncleanness retroactively." B. Rabbi says, "The bloodstain before washi11g is not like the bloodstain after washing. That before washing penetrates, and that after washing remains clotted [ on the surface]." T. 6: 13, p. 243, ls. l 6-19

A~1a explains what to when it was washed. It fades, we assume it was assume that it was there TR III, p. 277.

do if someone did not examine the garment is to be washed a second time. If the color made after the previous washing. If not, we before the washing. On the verbs of B, sec

A. A spade which was stolen from the house--it [the house] is unclean retroactively, until one will state, ''1 inspected this place and it was here." B. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel declares clean, C. for I say, "Perhaps one lent it to someone else and he forgot it, or perhaps he left it in the corner and it was stolen." T. 6: l4, p. 243, 1. 20, p. 241, ls l-3 (b. Pes. IOb)

The point of A is p,uallel to M. 7:2. We assume an unclean person stole the spade, and impose retroactive uncleanness until the time specified in A. Simeon says the house is clean.

7:3 A. B.

All the bloodstains which come from Reqem are clean. R. Judah declares unclean, because they are converts and err. C Those which come from among the gentiles are clean. D. [Those which come J from among Israelites [b. Nid. 56b: are 1mclean] and among SamaritansE. R. Meir declares unclean. F. And sages declare clean, because they were not suspect in regard to their bloodstains. M. 7:3 (b. Ycv. 16a, B.Q. 38b)

The status of bloodstains is under discussion, but in a curious way. As we shall see, M. 7:4 is clear that Israelite women do not dispose carelessly of rags containing menstrual blood, but carefully put them

106

NIDDAH CHAPTER SEVEN

7:3

away. Therefore if we find a bloody cloth in Israelite territory, we do not assume it is unclean but clean, that is, it is not menstrual blood. When we come to M. 7:3, we find two major units, A-Band C-F. The first unit takes for granted that gentile stains are clean ( compare M. 4:3). Judah's view is that the inhabitants of the village are converts; their stains are unclean; and they may err. That is, they may not keep the days of menstrual uncleanness properly and regard their actually unclean stains as clean. The next unit, C-F, poses a problem. C is clear that gentile stains are clean, just as A has said, and for the same reason. D regards stains which come from among Israelites and Samaritans as subject to dispute. E-F concern the Samaritan stains, and F is clear on that point. Certainly Meir deems the Samaritan ones unclean. Sages hold they are clean, because Samaritans are not assumed to hand over to a stranger a garment which has a bloodstain deriving from menstrual blood. M. 7:4 agrees on this point and differs from Meir. In Albeck's view, in line with M. 7:3F, we have to read D as an argument about both Israelite and Samaritan stains and hold that stains which derive from other sources are deemed clean, with Meir holding the contrary view. But if we read the dispute without Al beck's spectacles, it supposes Israelite stains are unclean, for the dispute is only about Samaritan ones. If the Israelite ones are not unclean, none is unclean, so far as sages are concerned. b. Nid. 56b therefore reads: "from Israelitesunclean." Albeck, p. 588, persuasively stresses that D's language is come from. We refer then to stains which derive from, which are sent by, Israelites. These are clean, because Israelites and Samaritans will not send out their garments while bloodstains are on them. But if ( M. 7 :4) stains are not sent away, as M. 7:3 says, but are located in the home and hidden away, then we assume they are unclean, the women having put them aside because they contain the menstrual blood. Accordingly, M, 7:3-4 do not contain contrary views on the status of Israelite bloodstains. But GRA has a still simpler view. We speak of bloodstains found in a town in which both Israelites and Samaritans ( = D) dwell. There are no gentiles. Meir holds that the Samaritan women may be menstruating, and they are suspect of disposing carelessly of their bloodstains. Sages declare clean, because they are not suspected of disposing of their bloodstains without care, and so they deem the blood to be that of a beast. M. 7:4 then assumes that Israelites, but not Samaritans, with care dispose of their bloodstains. If one is carefully put away, therefore, it is likely to be menstrual blood.

NIDDAH CHAPTER SEVEN

7 :4-5

107

7:4 A. All the bloodstains which are found anywhere [in Israelite territory] are dean, except for those which are found in the rooms [better: I:IRRYM = holes (Epstein, Nusah II, p. 1259)] or around a place of uncleanness. B. The place of uncleanness of Samaritans imparts uncleanness through overshadowing, because they bury their abortions there. C. R. Judah says, "They did not bury their abortions, but they tossed them out, and the beast drags them off." M. 7:4 Israelite women do not leave bloody rags lying about. Therefore those which are found in general belong to gentiles and are clean. If rags are found in some place which indicates they have been put away, then they are unclean. B-C are separate, and the point is clear as stated. For C, compare T. Oh. 16:13, Part IV, p. 317. Maimonides ( Rendering Couch and Seat Unclean 4:10) states the whole rule of bloodstains as follows: Bloodstains that come from Israelites are presumed to be unclean, and such as come from gentiles are presumed to be clean. Such as are found in cities of the Israelites are clean, for Israelites are not suspected of casting away their bloodstains but, rather, they conceal them. Therefore bloodstains found anywhere are clean except those found in holes or in the neighborhood of a 'house of uncleanness.' And the uncleanness of all of them is in doubt. A. Others say in the name of R. Ne]:iemiah, "All the bloodstains which are found in the bathhouses of women are unclean." B. The bathhouse of Samaritans imparts uncleanness through overshadowing, because they bury their abortions there. C. And R. Judah declares clean, because the weasel and the leopard drag them away forthwith. T. 6:15, p. 244, ls. 4-7 B-C augment M. 7:4B-C. A is autonomous. But surely Ne):ierniah will not disagree with M. 7 :4A; bathhouses are parallel to rooms of M. 7:4A. See TR III, p. 278 on the parallel of room and bath house.

7:5 A. They are believed to say, "We buried abortions there," or, "We did not bury [abortions there]." B. They are believed to say concerning a beast whether it has borne a firstling or has not borne a firstling. C. They are believed concerning the marking out of graves.

108

NIDDAH CHAPTER SEVEN

7: 5

D. And they are not believed either about interlaced foliage or protruding stones [M. Oh. 8:2] or about the Bet Haperas. E. This is the principle: Concerning something about which they are suspect, they are not believed. M. 7:5

The subject is the Samaritans. The rule continues the foregoing. The point of D is that Samaritans are not believed to testify that the space in the shadow of the specified protrusions is clean. Presumably they will not regard natural protrusions of leaves or rocks as comparable to the tent referred to in Num. 19:14, which speaks of a tent made by man, and not space under a tree. A. The Samaritan is believed to say, "A grave which was ploughed up by me is not a grave," B. for he testifies solely about the grave itself. C. And [he is believed if he says of] a tree which overshadows [the grave}, "There is not a grave [beneath it]," D. for he testifies only about the grave itself. T. 6:16, p. 244, Is. 8-10

The assertions here concern the uncleanness of the grave itself, which the Samaritan does accept as unclean. This is parallel to M. 7:5C. At D I read McYD rather than M,HYL, in line with B.

CHAPTER EIGHT

NIDDAH CHAPTER EIGHT We have still another brief chapter, continuing the problem of the bloodstain, the origins of which are unknown, M. 7:2-4( + 5). The chapter is in two units, M. 8:1-3, and M. 8:4, a single sentence. The first unit distinguishes between a bloodstain which may derive from the woman's sexual organs and one which may not. The former is deemed unclean, the latter clean. The point is illustrated through several, fairly obvious examples. M. 8:2 beginning with and, then adds that one attributes blood to any conceivable cause, so long as the net result is that the woman is held to be dean. This again is illustrated and somewhat limited. M. 8: 3 is simply a precedent in which the lengths to which cAqiva would go to produce a decision of cleanness are illustrated and then explained. Scriptural evidence· for the uncleanness of a bloodstain, the origin of which is unknown, in fact is entirely lacking. M. 8:4, the other 'unit,' consists of a single sentence assigned to Eleazar b. R. $adoq and lacking in a contrary opinion, which T. makes up. The rule has to do with different shapes of bloodstains.

8:1 A. B.

She who sees a bloodstain on her flesh(if] it was near the pudenda, she is unclean. C. And (if] it was not near the pudenda, she is clean. D. (If it was] on her heel, or on the end of her big toe, she i~ unclean. E. [If it wasJ on her thigh or on her feet on the inside, she is unclean. F. (And if it was] on the outside, she is clean. G. [If it was] on both sides, she is clean. H. [If] she saw it on her garment, [if it is] from the belt and downward, she is unclean; from the belt and upward, she is clean. I. [If] she saw it on the sleeve of [her J garment, J. if it reaches to near the pudenda, she is unclean, and if not, she is clean. K. [If] she had stripped it off or put it on during the nightL. any place on which a bloodstain is located-she is unclean, M. since it [ can have been J turned about. N. And so in the case of a pallium [large square mantle, any part

110

NIDDAH CHAPTER EIGIIT

8:1

of which in turn could be worn in such a way as to reach the lower parts of the body (Danby, p. 754, n. 1) J. M. 8:1

A serves as the topic sentence for the entire set, which gives us the following units: A+B-C, spelled out at D, E-G, H, I-J, K-M+N, thus six rules, all of which make the same point, that is B-C' s. We assess whether the bloodstain is likely to have been menstrual blood. This depends upon whether the place on which it is located is in contact with the sexual organ. D's point is that when the woman squats down, her heel or big toe are apt to be near the pudenda. The same is so at E for the inside of the thigh or the feet. But the blood on the outside is deemed not apt to derive from the sexual parts. G raises the natural question and answers in the lenient way. That is, we attribute the blood to some cause other than menstruation, as M. 8:2-3 tell us. (But I see no reason to suppose that G is generated by the principle of M. 8:2 and added to make the little unit before us consistent with that principle.) H spells out B-C, now with respect to the garment, and I-J say the same thing. The point of K-M is stated at M. Even though the woman covered only her head or upper body, the garment can have shifted about during the night. A. If it is found on her ribbons, lo, this one is unclean, because when she lets it loose, it touches the pudenda. B. And if there was a wound on her neck and it is found on her shoulder, lo, this one attributes [the blood to} it. C. If it [the wound] is found on her thigh, lo, this one attributes it [blood that is found on the thigh]. D. And they do not take account of the possibility that her hand brought it there. E. [If} it is found on her hand [b. Nid. 58a: finger joints}, she is unclean, because the hands are always busy. T. 6:19, p. 245, ls. 7-11

T. 6:19A augments M. 8:lA-C. B is difficult. b. Nid. 58a has a more viable reading: [If she had a} wound on her neck in a position to which the bloodstain might be attributed [Slotki, p. 406, n. 2: if the position of the wound was such that when the woman bends down, some blood might drop from it on to the spot where the stain was discovered], she may so attribute it. If it was on her shoulder, in which case she cannot so attribute it, she must not so attribute it.

NIDDAH

CHAPTER EIGHT

8:1

111

A. [If] there were on her two bloodstains, one above and one below, B. even if the one below is large and the one above is small, she blames the lower one [ on the upper one}, C. up to the size of a split bean, D. for I say, From the place from which the upper one came, the lower one came also. [A-D lacking in editio princeps.] E. [If} there were two bloodstains on her breast, one above and one below, even though the lower one is large and the upper one is small, she blames the lower one [ on the upper one], F. up to the size of a split bean, G. for I say, From the place from which the upper one came, the lower one came. T. 6:20, p. 245, ls. 12-17

The upper stain is dean, as at M. 8:lH. The lower one is presumed unclean. Nonetheless we deem the spots clean, for the reason given at D. T. thus links M. 8:1 to M. 8:2, at M. 8:2A, G-H. A. [ If] it was found on the sleeve of her tunic, if it reaches to opposite the pudenda, she is unclean, and if not, she is clean. B. Said R. Eleazar b. R. Yose, "This law did I teach in Rome, declaring her unclean, and when I came to my colleagues, they said to me, 'You taught well.' " T. 7:1, p. 245, 1. 19, p. 246, ls. 1-3

T. A corresponds to M. 8:11-J. On B, compare T. Miq. 4:7, Part XIII, p. 110. On JWNQLY, see TR III, p. 279. b. Nid. 58a-b refers B to M. 8:lK-N. A. A short girl who put on the garment of a tall girl, and a tall girl who put on the garment of a short girlB. [if] it is found near the pudenda of the tall girl, they are both unclean. C. [If] it is found near the pudenda of the short girl, she is unclean, but the tall girl is clean. D. Two of them were grinding with a handmill, and it [blood} was found on the foot of the inner oneE. they are both unclean. F. [If] it is found on the foot of the outer one, she is unclean and her girlfriend is clean. G. [If] it is found between them [b. Nid. 60b: both are unclean]H. this was a case, I. and it was found on the edge of a bath, J. and on an olive leaf with which she was lighting the ovenK. and the case came before sages, and they declared them unclean. T. 7:3, p. 246, ls. 7-14 (A-C: b. Nid. 58a, D-K: b. Nid. 6ob)

112

NIDDAH CHAPTER EIGHT

8:1-3

The point of A-C is the same as M. 8:11-J. G-K give us cases declared unclean, contrary to the theory of cAqiva at M. 8:3Q. Lieberman, TR III, p. 280, explains H-J as follows: We have a case involving two women who lit the oven to heat the bath, one standing on one side of the bath, the other on the second side. A drop of blood was found on the rim of the bath and on the olive leaves beneath the women. Sages declare them unclean. b. Nid. 58a-b cites A-C in connection with M. 8:1.

8:2-3 A. And she blames it on [ attributes blood to J anything on which she can blame it: B. [if] she slaughtered a beast, a wild animal, or a bird, C. or if she was busy with [ anything which causesJ bloodstains, D. or if she sat down beside people who were engaged in [anything that produces bloodstains]. E. [If] she killed a louse, F. lo, this one blames it on it. G. How much may she blame it on it? H. R. lfanina b. Antigonos says, "Up to the size of the split bean." I. 1. And [ it may be attributed to a louseJ even though she did not kill it. 2. And she blames it on her son or her husband. J. [N, PB, Katsh #133: w,MJ If there is a wound [covered by a scabJ on her and it can open again and bleed, she may blame it on that. M. 8:2

K. M'~H B: One woman came before R. 'Aqiva. She said to him, "I have seen a bloodstain." L. He said to her, "Perhaps there was a wound on you?" M. She said to him, "Yes, but it has healed." N. He said to her, "Perhaps it can open and bleed?" 0. She said to him, "Yes." P. And R. cAqiva declared her clean. Q. His disciples did he see staring at one another. He said to them, "Why is this matter hard in your eyes? For the sages stated the rule not to produce a strict ruling, but to produce a lenient ruling, as it is said, And if a woman have an issue and her issue in her flesh be blood (Lev. 15:19)-not a stain but blood." M. 8:3 The pericope follows the formal structure of the foregoing; that is, it announces a general rule and illustrates it. The point of A is best explained by Q. We extend every sort of leniency in determining the origin of the bloodstain. This is illustrated by B, C, D, E, and then F repeats A's point, four examples. G's question carries forward E,

NIDDAH CHAPTER EIGHT

8:2-3

113

which suggests that E-I are separate from the foregoing, thus three illustrations, then a further, independent unit on the same matter. 1:fanina's reply to E concerns the amount of blood which may be deemed to be left by the killing of a louse. 12 is a further augmentation, as noted, of E, just as D augments C. Or, as Rashi says, following T. 7:5E-F, H-Il are a single statement, and l:fanina disagrees with E; E says she may blame the blood on the louse only if she killed the louse, and l:fanina, H-I, says that is so even if she did not herself kill the louse ( Albeck, p. 399, Bert., TYT, etc.). I think it much more likely that we have a parallel, secondary gloss of the entire structure, D for C and I for E-F, with G-H an independent and intruded gloss. J is independent of the foregoing and introduces the story of K-Q. cAqiva' s point is that so far as Scripture is concerned, bloodstains are clean. A. She blames [the bloodstain] on anything on which she can blame it [ = M. 8:2A]. B. M'SH W: R. Meir blamed it on collyrium (QYLWR) [a reddish eyesalve which the woman had handled that day (Slotki, p. 130, n. 27) ]. C. And Rabbi blamed it on the sap of a sycamore. D. If there is a matter of doubt whether or not she has passed through the market of the butchers, lo, this one does not blame [ it on the blood of slaughtered animals]. E. [If] she [certainly] passed through, [but] it is a matter of doubt whether [blood] spurted on her or did not spurt on her, lo, this one blames [it on blood's spurting on her]. F. If she was handling things which are red, she does not blame [on those things] a stain which is black. G. If she was handling a small quantity, she does not blame on it a large quantity. H. She who blames it on a gentile womanI. R. Meir says, "She may do so only if it is a gentile woman capable of producing blood." T. 6:17, p. 244, ls. 11-17 (b. Nid. 59a, 6oa)

T. augments M. 8:2, citing M. 8:2A at A, then giving two illustrations. D-I are independent of M. but supplement M.'s ruling. There are limits, that is, to A. Solid grounds must exist for an attribution of a red stain to something other than the menstrual cycle. If the woman has certainly passed through the shambles, we then are able to assign the blood to that origin. F is a second limitation, and G a third. Meir does not require that the gentile actually be producing blood, only that she be able to do so. 8

114

NIDDAH CHAPTER EIGHT

8:2-3

A. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "She may blame a minor [uncleanness} on a major one. B. "How [ does she blame a minor uncleanness on a major one} ? C. "She blames her stain on a woman [to whom she had previously lent the garment as at M. 9:3} who was awaiting a day for a day, and [ this is the case} if it was the latter's second day, .and to a woman who counted seven days before performing immersion. D. "Therefore this one is in good estate though the other is in disarray." E. Rabbi says, "She does not blame [her bloodstain on the other, to whom she lent the garment}. F. "Therefore they are both in disarray." G. All agree that she blames it on a woman [to whom she lent the garment} who is watching day against day on the first day, or to a woman who is sitting out the blood of cleanness, or to a virgin whose blood is clean. H. If it was found on her son, while he is sitting by her side, lo, this one is unclean, because he turns this way and that. I. And not on her son alone did they so state, but in respect to any man, but sages spoke in language applicable to current conditions. T. 6:18, p. 244, ls. 18-20, p. 245, ls. 1-6 (b. Nid. 6oa)

The unit 1s in two parts, A-G and H-I. The first presents an interesting dispute. Simeon b. Gamaliel carries the principle of M. 8:2A to its logical extreme. If the woman lent her garment to another woman, and a drop of blood is found on the garment, she attributes it to the other woman, even when it is to the disadvantage of the other party. This is what Rabbi denies. The details of C and G are now to be explained. As to the former, the woman is counting day against day. The day on which the woman had worn the garment was the second day. If we then attribute the spot of blood to the woman's second day, that means she has to wait another day because of the now known condition of uncleanness. Why? During the period of Zibah, she observed a discharge. On the next day she observed none. But we assume the blood did occur and is attributable to her on that second day. Accordingly, the woman who borrowe!L'"-l? Wi"T~ Cl':l"Tll"l~TI niir,;, 'tvlN ';,:s,:cf. RB, 63, 1956, p. 61.

172

APPENDIX

11faut done considerer comme tres significatif le fait qu' Aphraa te, tout en ayant recours parfois a des procedes exegetiques employes surtout par les rabbins, ne connaisse des doctrines juives que celles qu'il trouvait clans l'Ecriture. 40 D'ailleurs, comme l'a souligne J. Neusner, ni Aphraate ni son interlocuteur juif ne se referent jamais explicitement a une seule tradition rabbinique precise. Cela ressort clairement de l'homelie (Demonstration XV) qu'il consacre aux lois alimentaires juives et dont seules les composantes proprement bibliques lui sont familieres. 41 II decoule aussi des etudes de Neusner qu' Aphraate ne semble avoir connu aucune des personnalites qui eussent pu exercer quelque autorite sur le communaute juive de Babylonie ou sur le mouvement rabbinique. 42 N'est-il pas possible, alors, de mettre legitimement en doute Jes allegations de tous ceux qui ont cru deceler clans la pensee d' Aphraate une dependance etroite par rapport a la tradition rabbinique qui avait force en son temps? 43 Selon nous, il serait plus prudent d'affirmer qu' Aphraate a du con4 ° Cf. J. Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, p. 147. On sait que le Talmud maintient une distinction entre deux categories de sages designes respectivement comme Xip~ ,1,:r,r::i, 'hommes de l'Ecriture', et l"lltv~,1,:r,r::i, 'hommes de la Mishna'. Voir les references au Talmud et aux Midrashim citees par A. Paul, Ecrits de Qumran et SectesJuives aux Premiers Siecles avant I' Islam, etc., p. 82. Sur !'utilisation que feront plus tard !es Qaraites de telles formules et autres semblables, voir op. cit., p. 134. 41 Cf. J. Neusner, op. cit., p. 147. En !'absence d'une etude systematique des textes de l'Ancien Testament cites par Aphraate, ii convient de rappeler la remarque de P. Kahle sans toutefois que nous puissions en apprecier la justesse: "Aphrahat used a text which followed the Hebrew text more closely than did the text in common use in the sixth century ... " Cf. The Cairo Geniza, etc., p. 266. Sur les citations du Nouveau Testament clans !es homelies d' Aphraate, voir maintenant l'etude de T. Baarda, The Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage, Vol. I (avec appendice), Aphrahat's Text of the Fourth Gospel, Amsterdam, 1975. 42 Voir, outre les auteurs mentionnes plus haut (n. 37), L. Haefeli, Stilmittel bei Afrahat, Leipzig, 1932, p. 3, qui parle d'une "auffallend starken Abhangigkeit von der rabbinischen Dberlieferung", ou enc;ore I. Ortiz de Urbina, art. cit., Studia Missionalia, 3, 1947, p. 85, qui declare, en s'appuyant sur l'ouvrage de S. Funk, Die haggadi.schenElemente in den Homelien des Aphraates des persischen Weisen, Vienne, 1891, qu' Aphraate a du subir !'influence des "teorie rabbiniche". 43 Nous ne voulons pas suggerer ici qu'une barriere etanche devait separer le judaisme traditionnel, de type rabbinique, de l'ideal ascetique reflete clans les textes de Qumran. En soulignant a l'exces l'apport des sources exterieures qui ont pu marquer le judaisme qumranien d'un caractere particulier, on oublie trop souvent que le milieu juif de l'epoque etait loin, Jui aussi, d'etre impermeable a ces memes influences. Peut-etre a-t-on neglige, parfois, de considerer l'attrait indeniable que continuaient a exercer les traditions proprement bibliques: voir la-dessus les remarques de B. Thiering, "The Biblical Source of Qumran Asceticism", ]BL, 93, 1974, pp. 429-444, pp. 440ss. II se pourrait done, comme le fait observer B. Thiering (ibid., p. 444), que l'ideal ascetique qumranien ne soit pas aussi incompatible qu'on le pretend avec le judaisme traditionnel ou avec l' Ancien Testament.

APPENDIX

173

naitre des Juifs mesopotamiens qui n'avaient que peu ou pas de contacts avec les rabbins de Ba.bylonie et dont on peut dire, en l'absence de toute allusion, meme voilee, au concept rabbinique d'une Loi orale revelee a Moise au meme titre que la Loi ecrite, qu'ils se satisfaisaient d'observer litteralement les preceptes d'une religion qu'ils savaient fondee sur l'autorite de l'Ecriture. 44 Qu'Aphraate ait connu ce type de Juifs nous parait indeniable mais que toutes ses connaissances en matiere de judaisme lui soient venues de ses contacts avec les Juifs de son temps nous parait moins certain. Il se pourrait fort bien, par exemple, que quelques-uns des paralleles rabbiniques mis en lumiere par des auteurs tels que Funk, Ginzberg et Gavin, proviennent en fait des targumim, par le truchement de la Peshitta, si telle est, en verite, la version de la Bible qu'utilisait Aphraate. 45 Dans d'autres cas, il est possible que ce soit a travers des enseignements res:us au sein meine de l'Eglise qu' Aphraate soit parvenu a la connaissance de certaines traditions exegetiques juives. 46 Ainsi, par exemple, clans l'homelie sur les persecutions (Demonstration XXI), fait-il etat, pour la refuter, d'une vieille tradition concernant la restitution finale de Sodome. L'argument, il va de soi, est presente par son interlocuteur juif. Or, on trouve un echo de cette tradition non seulement clans le Midrash, mais encore chez Origene et Jerome qui affirment tous deux la tenir des "Hebreux". 47 Non seulement Aphraate se definit-il comme un exegete des saintes Ecritures, mais il exige aussi de son adversaire juif qu'il respecte les principes elementaires de !'interpretation scripturaire. Ainsi, toujours clans le cadre de la discussion sur Jerusalem et Sodome, Aphraate s'efforce-t-il de faire admettre a son opposant la validite d'une regle Cf. J. Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, pp. 147-148. Il n'est pas impossible, en tous cas, qu' Aphraate ait dispose d'une version fortement influencee par la tradition targumique. S. Funk lui-ml:me a reconnu cette possibilite et cite plusieurs cas de paralleles possibles entre l'exegese d' Aphraate et le Targum Onkelos: voir J. Neusner, op. cit., p. 156. 46 Cf. Neusner, ibid., p. 157. 47 Exod. R. ii,, 21, se lit ainsi: 1;,"l)'1;, l"l'lll ili~ll'i ciio ,i,,DNi. Sur les temoignages d'Origene et des. Jerome, voir G. Bardy, "Les traditions juives clans l' oeuvre d'Origene", RB, 34, 1925, pp. 217-252, pp. 232,242. Ce texte de Jerome, cite par Bardy (ibid., p. 242, n. 3) est particulierement interessant: Iudaei inter ceteras fabulas et interminabiles genealogias et deliramenta quae fingunt, etiam hoc somniant in adventu Christi sui, quern nos Antichristum scimus, et in mille annorum regno Sodomam esse restituendam in antiquum statum".· On trouvera le texte d'Aphraate clans !'edition de Parisot, Vol. I1, cols. 936ss. Dans ses notes sur ce texte, J. Neusner omet (cf. op. cit., p. 164, n. 42 et p. 204, n. 42) de signaler !es references que nous venons de mentionner. 44 45

174

APPENDIX

hermeneutique qu'il enonce d'abord sous forme de question: "Lorsque les paroles des prophetes sont proferees avec colere, est-ce que tout le passage (doit s'interpreter comme) un jugement, ou peut-etre une partie seulement comme un jugement et l'autre comme une (prophetie de) consolation?" Pris de court, l'interlocuteur d' Aphraate repond axiomatiquement: "Un passage qui est un jugement l'est en entier et il ne comporte pas de paix". 48 Or, une analyse de quelques-uns des titres ou qualificatifs employes par Aphraate pour designer son opposant juif s'avere toute aussi revelatrice en ce qui concerne I'activite specifique a laquelle devait se livrer ce dernier en tant que membre et peut-etre meme delegue de la communaute qu'il representait. Ces titres, sans etre necessairement empreints d'un caractere tres officiel, ne semblent pas non plus avoir ete inventes par Aphraate pour les besoins de la discussion puisque lui-meme nous rapporte, clans l'homelie sur les persecutions, que son interlocuteur etait deja connu comme "le sage des Juifs". 49 Ce terme de "sage" est tres frequemment employe clans les homelies d' Aphraate et represente pour nous, de ce fait, un interet particulier. 50 En effet, N~•~n semble correspondre, pour le sens, a l'hebreu ':i•~w~, un titre

48 Demonstration XXI, col. 936, 11.25-26. Le texte se lit ainsi: N~lliDi ,~Ni N~':i!I'.' i1:l n•':,i N':il'.l NTlii ;,':,~ Nmii. II n'est pas sans interet de remarquer que le debat sur la reconstitution finale de Sodome et de Jerusalem est dos par un argument afortiori: si Sodome, dont l'iniquite etait moindre que celle de Jerusalem, n'a pas ete reconstruite, comment pourrait-il en etre autrement de la Ville de David? Voit la-dessus l'essai de P. Aug. Spijkerman, "Afrahat der Persische Weise und der Antisionismus", Studii Biblici Francistani Liber Annuus V, 1954-5, 1955, pp. 209-210. A en juger d'apres !'utilisation que le Sage juif et Aphraate font d'Ez. 16: 55, il semblerait qu'ils citent tous deux de memoire ce texte si important pour le debat qui s'engage. II est difficile, en effet, de reduire le texte syriaque dont font etat les deux interlocuteurs aux lectures suggerees par les diverses versions, le texte massoretique y compris. Le verbe hebreu 1:iwn, de la racine :iiw, est d'abord rendu (col. 936, 1. 8) par J"l:llil, verbe forme a partir de la racine i1l:J. Cette traduction oriente deja, pour ainsi dire, la discussion, la quelle s'amorce clans un sens qui n'est pas necessairement requis par la traduction litterale du texte hebreu. Plus loin, le meme verset est explique grace au recours ala racine :in• (l"i1:in•:ir,:,: col. 936, 1. 16; n:in• N':i,N:in• N5: col. 944, 11.12-13; 1:in• N':i: col. 944, 1. 25). Mais ailleurs, Aphraate emploie TlPnl (col. 944, 1. 22), se conformant ainsi au texte de la Peshitta. Pour d'autres exemples de textes bibliques cites de memoire par un apologete chretien ecrivant en langue syriaque, cf. A. P. Hayman, The Disputation of Sergius the Stylite, etc., p. 8*. Selon Hayman, il y aurait id des cas de changements deliberes du texte par rapport a la Peshitta. 49 N•ii:,•i Nl'.l•~nNipnl'.li N-,:Jl: cf. Dem. XXI, col. 932, 1.9. 60 II importe de souligner, cependant, que ce terme de "sage" ne s'applique pas qu'aux seuls Juifs: cf, Dem. XXII, col. 992, 1.1 et col, 1040, 1.16.

175

APPENDIX

que les Qaraites, comme on sait, affectionnaient specialement. 61 On peut demontrer assez facilement, d'ailleurs, que le Targumet la Peshitta etablissent parfois une correspondance entre des derivatifs de la racine 1;,:,wet des termes formes a partir de la racine c:,n. C'est ainsi qu'en Jer. 3: 15 l;,•:,irmdevient N~:i,n dans la traduction targoumique alors qu' en Esd. 8: 18 1;,:,ww•N·est traduit par N~•:,nNi::u.52 Quant a savoir si le terme l;,•:,w~s'emploie clans la litterature qaraite dans un sens transitif ouintransitif nous parait etre une questiond'importance somme toute secondaire. 53 Ce qui est certain, c'est que ',•:,w~ evoque l'idee de sagesse. On ne peut guere douter, non plus, comme N. Wieder l'a montre de fas;on concluante, que ',•:,w~ ait ete considere par les Qaraites comme un synonyme de 'maitre'. 64 Cet argument de Wieder se trouve singulierement renforce par le fait qu' Aphraate lui-meme n'hesite pas a accoler au titre de "sage" celui de "maitre d'Israel" (1,•io•N'i Nlt>,~ N~•:,n). 55 Poussant !'analyse plus loin, il nous faut aussi remarquer que le terme l;,•:,tv~se retrouve deux fois clans le Documentde Damas (XII: 21 ; XIII: 22) avec un sens tres voisin de 'maitre' comme on le voit clans la phrase (XIII:7) c•:1-,:,r1N',•:,w-, que l'on peut rendre: "Il (!'intendant du camp) instruira les Nombreux". 56 Signalons enfin que deux des grands manuscrits retrouves a Qumran, soit la Reg!ede la Communaute et les Hymnes, font etat d'un personnage appele egalement le "Maski!",

:i,,~,

51

Quand Ibn Ezra, commentant le texte de Dan. 11: 33, applique le terme

C"?":>W~ aux Sages de la Mishna, il ne fait que reagir contre !'appropriation de cette designation par les Qaraites. Telle est du moins !'interpretation de N. Wieder clans Thejudean Scrolls, etc., p. 107, n. 2. Sur !'utilisation du terme par les Qaraites, voir S. R. Driver, The "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah According to theJewish Interpreters, Oxford, 1887, p. 19, n. b et A. Paul, Ecrits de Qumran, etc., pp. 111-113. Sur clans le livre de Daniel et clans les ecrits de Qumran, voir M. l'emploi de c•,.,:,w~ Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel, Paris, 1971, pp. 15ss. 52 A noter aussi que le Targum de Jer. 9:23 traduit l'hebreu 1;,:,w par C":>M. 53 N. Wieder, op. cit., p. 105, opte pour le sens transitif ("maitre") alors que d'autres savants, tels J. Mann et L. Nemoy, preferent le sens intransitif et traduisent respectivement par "wise man" et "man of understanding". Voir la discussion clans A. Paul, op. cit., p. 112. 64 L'equation ?":>ID~ = = 'itvi~ qu'il avance nous parait decisive en faveur du sens transitif de l;,•:,w~:op. cit., p. 107. Sur l'idee de sagesse impliquee voir J. Carmignac et P. Guilbert, Les Textes deQumran, vol. I, clans le terme ,.,:,w~, Paris, 1961, p. 21, n. 1. 55 Cf. Dem. XVII, col. 804, 1. 19. 56 Cf, J. Carmignac, E. Cothenet et H. Lignee, Les Textes de Qumran, vol. II, Paris, 1963, p. 200. Voir aussi les remarques de N. Wieder, op. cit., p. 112.

:i,,~

176

APPENDIX

"qui parait etre tantot l'organisateur de la Communaute en personne, tantot l'un de ses successeurs". 67 11n'est pas sans interet, ace stade de notre discussion, de souligner la moderation verbale dont fait preuve Aphraate clans ses debats avec son opposant. 58 On ne trouve chez lui ni le ton haineux ni les exces de langage qui contribuent a donner un caractere tellement virulent a la polemique d'un s. Jean Chrysostome, par exemple. La moderation d' Aphraate, cependant, ne I' empeche pas, a l' occasion, de laisser libre cou:rs a sa subjectivite et de laisser transparaitre ses sentiments au point meme de qualifier d'insense (N':i::>o) celui qu'il honorait, quelques instants auparavant, du titre prestigieux de "sage, maitre d'Israel". 69 On songe id a !'anecdote rapportee par Qirqisani et selon laquelle Daniel al-Qumisi, apres avoir decerne a 'Anan le titre de "premier des sages" (t:1'':i'::>tzn~:, WNi) pour le denoncer ensuite comme le "premier des insenses" (t:1'',,o:,:,wNi). 60 11 nous reste a evaluer le sens et la portee d'un autre titre qu' Aphraate, en trois occasions, accole a l'epithete "sage" lorsqu'il veut s'adresser a son opposant juif. Le titre apparait sous la forme Ntzni'T N~:s7'T N~':,n, que l'on pourrait traduire, litte:ralement: "o sage debattant du peuple". 61 Ailleurs, cas isole, le titre se lit simplement Ntzni'T i,,,o'N'T, i.e. "le debattant d'Israel". 62 Sans doute Aphraate se refere-til id ace qu'il envisageait comme devant etre !'occupation spedfique, pour ne pas dire professionnelle, de son interlocuteur: l'interp:retation des Ecritures. Cela ressort clairement, pensons-nous, du passage clans lequel Aphraate, supreme ironie, reproche au "sage debattant du peuple" de ne pas "scruter" (in::i N':i),comme il se doit, les "mots de la Loi". 63 Aphraate semble done considerer comme tout a fait normal qu'un 57 Voir A. Paul, Ecrits de Qumran, etc., p. 113. Les textes auxquels nous nous referons sont Jes suivants: 1QS III, 13; IX, 12, 21; .1QH XII, 11. Cf. aussi 1QM X, 10. Toutes ces donnees sont resumees par A. Paul, ibid., p. 135. 58 Cf. J. Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, p. 5 and R. Wilken, Judaism and the Ear{y Christian Mind, etc., pp. 67-68. 59 Cf. Dem. XVII, col. 804, 1. 19; 805, I. 14. Voir aussi Dem. XVIII, col. 833, I. 19. 6 ° Cf. J. Mann, "Early Karaite Bible Commentaries",JQR, XII, 1922, pp. 435526, p. 516. 61 Cf. Dem. XII, col. 512, 11.2-3; Dem. XV, col. 744, II. 15-16; Dem. XVIII, col. 825, 11. 7-8. Voir aussi !es remarques de J. Neusner, op. cit., p. 128. 62 Dem. XVIII, col. 821, 11.2-3. 63 Dem. XII, col. 512, 1. 3. Sur l'utilisation, par !es Qaraites, du verbe Wi'Ten contexte exegetique, voir N. Wieder, op.cit., p. 68, n. 2.

APPENDIX

177

Nwi,,sache "scruter" la Torah. Le plus remarquable est que le verbe (~)w,,,,se retrouve dans au moins deux

iD,i, dans !'expression ;,iin;,

manuscrits importants en provenance de Qumran de meme que dans le Document de Damas et fasse partie des vocables ou formules qui cristallisent, selon A. Paul, la theologie d'un Daniel al-Qumisi. 64 Quant au verbe ,n::i qu'emploie Aphraate pour caracteriser l'activite qui consiste a"scruter" la Torah, on peut aisement le rapprocher, pour le sens tout au moins, de chacun des synonymes qui entrent dans la vigoureuse exhortation que le Qaraite Sahl ben Ma~lia}:iadressait a ses freres: i,pn, WJDniiTU,ii ii~',.

65

11 se trouve aussi qu' Aphraate, parfois, applique a ceux dont il cherche a refuter les opinions des expressions entieres qu'il emprunte a la Bible. Ainsi, dans sa toute premiere homelie (Demonstration I), cite+il le texte d'Ez. 13: 10 tout en l'adaptant aux besoins de la controverse sur le Messie. 11 commence par identifier les pretres et les Pharisiens a ces batisseurs (N~l::i)qui ont rejete la pierre dont fait etat le Psalmiste (Ps. 118: 22) et dans laquelle les chretiens voient le Messie. Puis, il poursuit en affirmant du Messie, precisement, la parole d'Ezechiel: "et lui batissait une muraille". 66 Le plus etrange, c'est la fac;on dont Aphraate comprend la suite de ce verset. Alors que le v. 10c, dans sa version massoretique, peut se traduire: "mais eux l'enduisaient d'un crepi", Aphraate, lui, interprete le l;,E,z,de l'hebreu comme s'il s'agissait d'une forme verbale de la racine 1?Dl.D'ou la lecture qu'il nous propose: 1?Dni ;,I;, ii;, J''it,, i.e. "ils l'assiegeaient au point de la faire tomber". 01 L'expression m:ique vient d'utiliser Aphraate nous ramene, une fois de plus, au Documentde Damas et aux ecrits des Qaraites. Parmi ces derniers, on sait qu'un Daniel al-Qumisi, par exemple, ne s'est pas gene pour predire, en se fondant sur l'autorite du chapitre 13 d'Ezechiel, la

rn

64 A. Paul, clans Ecrits deQumran, etc., donne Jes references suivantes: 1QS VI, 6; 4QF1 I, 11. Cf. aussi Document de Damas, VI, 7; VII, 18. Enfin, signalons que clans 1QH II, 15, 32 on trouve !'expression nipl;,n ~!U,ii. 65 Nous citons le texte hebreu d'apres A. Paul, Ecrit1 de Qumran, etc., p. 173, n. 69. Sur !'expression n,in;, ~Dn~ et le l;,ippuscomme methode d'interpretation scripturaire chez les Qaraites, cf. N. Wieder, The Judean Scroll!, etc., pp. 63-64; p. 68, n. 2; p. 76. 66 Cf. Ez. 13:10-11 et Demonstration I, col. 16, 11.14ss. 67 Demonstration I, col. 16, 11. 21-22. Est-on en droit de penser qu' Aphraate ait voulu ce jeu de mots portant sur l'hebreu 1?~%;1 et le syriaque I;,~~ ou doit-on simplement admettre qu'il ya eu confusion au niveau meme de la lecture du texte hebreu etant donnee la proximite des mots 1?El:) et 1?~i;,au v. 11? Mais peut-on supposer qu' Aphraate avait acces au texte original?

178

APPENDIX

fin des faux prophetes du judal:sme rabbinique. 68 Et, comme l'a note N. Wieder, d'autres auteurs, comme Salmon hen Yerul:_i.imet Hadassi ont cru bon d'employer "la metaphore du 'crepissage du mur' pour caracteriser les chefs religieux du camp rival". 69 Quant au Documentde Damas, la aussi on y retrouve a plusieurs reprises !'expression "batisseurs du mur" et il semble bien que dans chaque cas ce soient des opposants de la secte qui soient ainsi designes. 70 II est clair, cependant, que la formule acquiert id un sens nettement pejoratif qui contraste avec !'interpretation messianique qu'en donne Aphraate. A cette difference pres, on peut quand meme discerner une certaine continuite dans la fas;on dont le DocumentdeDamas, Aphraate et les ecrits qaral:tes exploitent a leurs fins l'imagerie sous-jacente au texte d'Ez. 13: 9-10. Une telle continuite clans la developpement d'une tradition exegetique entre des poles en apparence si eloignes clans le temps et l'espace peut paraitre etonnante et d'aucuns vouclront y voir une pure co'incidence. Mais les chances d'un developpement fortuit s'amenuisent a la consideration du fait que de nombreu:x fragments du Documentde Damas ont ete retrouves clans les grottes IV, Vet VI de Qumran. 71 Ced ne prouverait rien du point de vue qui nous occupe si des savants n'avaient pas deja note certaines similarites entre les lois qui figurent clans le DocumentdeDamas et les lois qaral:tes.72 Malheureusement, la critique de la halachaque nous offre Aphraate est trop generale et trop fragmentaire pour donner lieu a une etude comparative, sous l'angle proprement legal, de ses homelies d'une Cf. The judean Scrolls, etc., pp. 145-146. Cf. op. cit., p. 147. 7 ° Cf. Document de Damas, IV:19; VIII: 12, 18; XIX:25, Il faut remarquer que la forme :il::l, au singulier clans le TM, apparait au pluriel ici. L'expression a res;u diverses explications: voir R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseetdoepigraphaof the Old Testament, Oxford, 1913, vol. II, pp. 818-819; H. H. Rowley, The Zadokite Fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford, 1956, p. 39, n. 7; N. Wieder, Thejudean Scrolls, etc., pp. 146-147; G. R. Driver, Thejudean Scrolls, Oxford, 1965, pp. 91-92. J. Murphy O'Connor clans "The Critique of the Princes of Judah", RB, 79, 1972, pp. 200-216, p. 210, 11. 31, nie que !'expression ait toujours le meme sens clans !es textes cites. 71 Voir la-dessus !es remarques de Joseph A. Fitzmyer clans son introduction a l'ouvrage reedite de S. Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, New York, 1970, vol. I, p. 15. 72 Voir surtout P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, pp. 17-18; S. Lieberman, "Light on the Cave Scrolls from Rabbinic Sources" clans Texts and Studies, New York, 1974, pp. 190-199, p. 197. On pourra aussi consulter N. Golb, "Literary and Doctrinal Aspects of the Damascus Covenant in the Light of Karaite Literature",JQR, 48, 1956-7, pp. 354-374. 68

69

APPENDIX

179

part et, d'autre part, des textes de Qumran ainsi que des ecrits qarai:tes. 11 n'est pas exclu, cependant, qu'une telle etude puisse, a l'occasion, s'averer fructueuse, a condition qu'elle soit entreprise clans les limites qu'imposent les objectifs generaux que poursuit Aphraate lorsqu'il traite de pratiques religieuses specifiques. Ainsi, clans l'homelie sur la "distinction des aliments" (Demonstration XV), Aphraate s'appliquet-il a demontrer que la consommation de chair animale equivaut a la consammation d'herbes ou de legumes (Np,,,,7,N).73 Aphraate doit, pour justifier sa position, s'appuyer sur le texte de Gen. 9: 3 dont il elargit la portee en l'accolant aune cascade de citations bibliques. Mais de ces citations il ne garde, a la fin, que les elements qui semblent le mieux servir son propos. On peut se demander si Aphraate, clans ce passage, ne s'adresse pas en fait a des coreligionnaires ou meme a ceux de ses adversaires qui croyaient de leur devoir de s'abstenir de toute viande. Or, un texte du Documentde Damas a ete interprete par certains comme contenant une prohibition qui viserait a interdire la consommation de toute chair animale, meme de celle qui serait consideree comme pure selon les normes bibliques. 74 Par ailleurs, on sait que la plupart des premiers Qara:ites se sont abstenus, eux aussi, de manger de la viande. 70 Si, a une epoque ulterieure, !'interdiction fur levee, les Qarai'.tes qui habitaient Jerusalem n'en continuerent pas mains de se conformer a cette regle des premiers temps. 76 Pour completer ce bilan des affinites qumraniennes de la pensee d'Aphraate, un autre terme de comparaison s'offre a nous. Les Odes de Salomon, que D. Plooij avait, des 1913, soumises a un examen comparatif sur uo point tres precis de la doctrine du Sage persan, nous permettent, en effet, de pousser plus avant l'analyse des rapports entre la pensee d' Aphraate et les ecrits qumraniens. 77 On sait que plusieurs savants, ces dernieres annees, se sont appliques a relever des paralleles tant de forme que de contenu entre les Odes de Salomon et certains

Col. 736, 11.4 et 14. Voir Gen. 9:3. Ceci a ete bien montre par N. Golb, "The Dietary Laws of the Damascus Covenant in Relation to those of the Karaites",JJS, 8, 1957, pp. 51-69, pp. 51-52. Le texte du Document de Damas (XII: 11ss) se lit comme suit: ?'lNIZ.''Nfj:'W' 7N 1:1;,~?::>N?w~,m;,•n;, 1,i::,:iilZ.'Ell. 75 Cf. N. Golb, art. cit., p. 55. 76 Voir J. Mann, Collected Essays, vol. III, Gedera, 1971, p. 122; pp. 242-243. Cf. aussi id., Texts and Studies, vol. I, New York, 1972, p. 6. 77 Voir D. Plooij, "Der Descensus ad inferos in Aphrahat und den Oden Salomos", ZNW, 14, 1913, pp. 222-231. 73

74

180

APPENDIX

textes en provenance de Qumran. 78 Nous ne saurians presumer ici des resultats que pourrait donner une etude exhaustive des homelies d'Aphraate et des Odes. Il nous suffira d'attirer !'attention sur certaines expressions et images auxquelles ont recours Aphraate et l'auteur des Odes. Ces expressions semblent avoir appartenu a un vocabulaire religieux commun qui n'etait pas tout a fait etranger a celui qu'avaient utilise avant eux les auteurs des ecrits qumraniens. Mentionnons d'abord cette notion faisant appel a !'existence d'une communaute de "saints", un terme qui apparait frequemment clans les Odes et encore plus souvent peut-etre clans les manuscrits de Qumran. 79 Or, cette notion constitue un des poles de la pensee ascetique et mystique d' Aphraate, comme on le voit surtout a !'analyse de la Demonstration VI consacree, on le sait, a la vie monacale. Les moines sont appeles, de par leur vocation, non pas seulement a prendre sur eux le "joug des saints" (col. 249, 1. 1; col. 253, 1. 11) mais, supreme recompense, a joindre les rangs des "saints" dont parle le livre de Daniel. 80 Pour caracteriser l'ideal ascetique des moines, Aphraate a aussi recours a !'image du concours athletique. 81 Aux vainqueurs du concours spirituel, cependant, est promise une "couronne" (1,,1,:::>) imperissable, celle dont Paul parlait deja clans I Cor. 9: 25.82 Or, clans certain textes de Qumran, nous trouvons des references explicites a la couronne de gloire (ii:i:> 1,,1,:::>) destinee aux saints. 83 Pour l' auteur des Odes (9: 9), "les guerres se livrerent a cause de la couronne", mais, paradoxalement, la paix (~~?Tl.'),pour lui, est aussi associee a !'image de la couronne promise aux saints, une association qui semble tout aussi naturelle a Aphraate. 84 Enfin, clans un passage qu' Aphraate consacre a une denonciation 78 Voir la liste de ces travaux clans J. H. Charlesworth, "Les Odes de Salomon et les Manuscrits de la Mer Morte", RB, 77, 1970, pp. 522-549, p. 523. Sur la langue des Odes, voir aussi A. Voobus, "Neues Licht zur Frage der Originalsprache der Oden Salomos", Le Museon,75, 1962, pp. 275-290. 79 Voir les textes cites par J. H. Charlesworth clans son article de la RB, 77, 1970, pp. 529-530. 8 Cf. Demonstration VI, col. 241, ligne 20; 248, 10; 272, 22. Voii: aussi !'utilisation que fait Aphraate de Dan. 7:21, 25, 27 clans la Demonstration V, col. 221, lignes 1 et 2; 232, 12. 81 Cf. Demonstration V, col. 202, lignes 2 et 7; Demonstration VI, 248, 20; Demonstration VII, 313, 12; 360, 19; Demonstration XIV, 612, 7. 82 Cf. Demonstration VI, 248, 20. 83 Cf. J. H. Charlesworth, art. cit., pp. 533-534. 84 Charlesworth, art. cit., p. 534; Demonstration XIV, 680, 15.

°

APPENDIX

181

vigoureuse des actes qu'il juge incompatibles avec la vraie foi, figure l'avis suivant: le croyant, ecrit-il, doit voir a ne pas se laisser seduire par les "paroles flatteuses". 86 La formulation meme de cette mise en garde n'est pas sans rappeler la fas:on dont les termes n,p,net n,p,p,n sont utilises clans certains textes de Qumran ainsi que clans la litterature qaralte pour caracteriser la doctrine enseignee par les adversaires respectifs des deux sectes. 86 La conclusion qui termine le passage en question est egalement significative du point de vue qui nous occupe presentement: Aphraate affirme, en effet, que les oeuvres de la foi ont pour fondement le "veritable rocher qui est le Messie" (Nni~,lll NDN=i), une expression qui se retrouve textuellement clans les Odes de Salomon (31: 11). 87 Nous concluerons cet essai par quelques remarques sur la fas:on dont Aphraate a exploite le theme de la grappe benie (cf. Is. 65: 8 et Mi. 7: 1), une image qui a connu une fortune immense dans la litterature et l'art juifs de la fin de l'antiquite. 88 Selon Aphraate, la grappe benie fut d'abord preservee en la personne d' Adam mais trouva son point d'aboutissement en Jesus. Entre ces deux poles, la benediction fut transmise de generation en generation par une toute une serie d'intermediaires qu' Aphraate identifie aux personnages les plus connus de l'histoire d'Israel. Le personnage Noe est mentionne explicitement et il n'est pas impossible que le moine Aphraate fasse echo id a une vieille tradition juive puisque, comme l'a montre Gary G. Parton, le Targum d'Is. 65: 8 et le Midrash (Gen Rabb.) etablissent egalement un lien entre le heros du deluge et la grappe benie (hebreu ,i::i!ZIN,syriaque Nn~r,ir,). so

On peut deceler en outre certaines similarites entre la fas:on dont Aphraate aborde ce theme de la grappe benie et la maniere dont Israel Demonstration I, 44, 20ss; 45, 1ss; voir aussi Rom. 16: 18. Cf. N. Wieder, Thejudean Scrolls ... , etc., pp. 135-140. 87 Voir la-dessus R. J. Murray, "The Rock and the House on the Rock: A Chapter in the Ecclesiological Symbolism of Aphraates and Ephrem, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 30, 1964, pp. 352-354. 88 Aphraate consacre toute une homelie (Demonstration XXIII) a la metaphore de la vigne. II voit dans celle-ci un symbole qui lui permet d'aborder commodement le theme du rejet d'Israel. L'image de la vigne apparait sporadiquement dans !'oeuvre d'Aphraate: voir, par exemple, la Demonstration XIX, col. 861. Le theme de la grappe benie dans le judaisme ancien a ete etudie recemment par G. G. Porton: cf. "The Grape-Cluster in Jewish Literature and Art of Late Antiquity", a paraitre prochainement dans ]JS. Nous tenons a remercier M. Porton d'avoir bien voulu mettre a notre disposition une copie manuscrite de son article. 89 Cf. Gary G. Porton, art. cit., p. 3ms. 85

86

182

APPENDIX

est compare a une vigne clans un poeme, ecrit en hebreu, que l'on a attribue a Moshe b. Asher. 90 I1 n' est pas sans inten~t de rappel er que P. Kahle a releve clans ce poeme des indices lui permettant de conclure a une filiation de pensee entre les Qarai:tes et la grande famille des Massoretcs de Tiberiade. 91 Notons d'abord qu'une meme imagerie, sans doute emprnntee a Is. 5: 16, sous-tend la symboliquc du poeme attribue a Moshe b. },.sher et la problematique particulierc d' Apbraatc qui consiste a rendre la plus probante possible sa these du rejet d'Israel. Dans la Demonstration XIX (col. 861), Aphraate se refere explicitement au texte d'Is. 5: 1-6 alors que l'auteur du poeme procede plut6t par allusion discrete en ne gardant du texte d'Isa:ie que ccrtaines expressions caracteristiques: :ip"'1itvl!ll lili~l illiN. Il semblerait done qu' Aphraate et l'auteur du poeme de la vigne adoptcnt tous deux une typologie que l'on sait maintenant ctre bien representee clans l'ancienne litterature rabbinique de meme gue clans l'art juif antique. Dans le poeme attribue a Moshe b. Asher, la vigne du Seigneur a d'abord ete representee par les tribus de Jacob tandis que Juda signifiait la plantation de choix (i"tvitvli10 :ll'~l)du Seigneur. Or, dans clans la Demonstration XXIII, consacree, comme on sait, au theme de la grappe benie, Jacob et Juda, par le biais d'une citation d'Isaie (65: 8-9), apparaissent tous deux en tcte de liste des personnagcs evoques par Aphraate. 92 Mais alors que pour ce dernier les branches de la vigne symbolisent le peuple d'Israel, pour l'auteur du poeme, ces memes branches reprcsentent a la fois les prophetes (1. 4) et les pieux de ce .,,,on: 1. 7), c'est-a-dire, plus specifiquement Abraham, monde (l:l"ii:17 Isaac et Jacob. A ces personnages, cependant, Aphraate, comme il sied, ne manque pas d'assigner un role capital clans la transmission de la benediction rattachee a la vigne. 93 Quant au theme des mechants, a qui a etc retiree la benediction de la vigne, il est traitc differemment par Aphraate et par l'auteur du 90

On trouvera le rexte de ce poeme dans P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, etc.,

pp. 83-86. Lepoeme fut d'abord publie par B. Klar dans Tarbis, XV, 1944, pp. 44ss. " 1 Cf. P. Kahle, op. cit., p. 82. Kahle ne semble pas avoir pris en consideration les objections formulees par A. Dntan clans "Ben-Asher etait-il vraiment un Qaraite?" (en hebreu). Cet article fut public pour la premiere fois dans Sinai, 1957. On le trouvera maintenant reproduit clans The Canon and the Masorah of the Hebre1p Bih!e, ed. Z. Lciman, New York, 1974, pp. 710-745. Voir tout specialcment !es pages 740ss. 92 Demonstration XXIII, col. 40, 11. 5ss. Voir J. Ncusner, Aphrabat and J11daism, p. 113. 93 Demonstration XXIII, col. 42, 44-45.

183

APPENDIX

poeme de la vigne. Aphraate est d'avis que les mechants ont tous peri lors du deluge qui frappa la generation de Noe. 94 On ne trouve pas d'allusion au deluge ni a Noe clans le poeme de la vigne mais on y lit plut6t qu'il incomba au roi David de £rapper la multitude des mechants qui se trouvaient en Moab, en Edom, au pays d' Ammon et chez les Philistins. 95 Aphraate voit clans l'exil un chatiment merite par les mechants. I1 nous donne l'exemple de Joachaz qui, n'ayant plus en lui la benediction de la vigne, fut deporte en Egypte ou il mourut. Aphraate cite encore le cas tragique de Joachim "en qui etait cachee la benediction des justes" et qui trouva la mort aux mains de Nabuchodonosor. 96 L'auteur du poeme de la vigne omet de parler des exils auxquels Aphraate semble attacher une si grande importance. Mais il se refere tout de meme a une deportation (ci,mi: 1. 28) a No, en Egypte, laquelle constitue a ses yeux une affliction imposee aux "parfaits de la vigne" (l!:ll:-t,r.,,r.,n: 1. 22) par ceux qu'il appelle les "rois des Grecs". Ces sages, "heritiers des prophetes" (c,K,!ll:-t,tv.,,,:1. 22) ont etabli sur une base sure !'interpretation des Ecritures, et entoures eux-memes des commandements dont ils avaient orne la Torah, ils ont donne l'exemple de la fidelite "en ne deviant pas de la voie" (7,ir., ,,:i: I. 26). On se rappellera que clans la Regle de la Communaute(X:21), ainsi que clans le Documentde Damas, les ennemis de la secte sont precisement representes comme "ayant devie de la voie", une expression que les Qaraites reprendront pour qualifier leurs opposants rabbiniques. 97 On s'etonnera moins, apres ces considerations, de voir qu'Aphraate met clans la bouche de ceux qui ont decide de suivre Jesus la phrase que void: "Puisque nous avons res;u ces commandements de Jesus ... , nous ne sommes pas capables de