Kommentar zu Niddah 4:1

בנות כותים נדות מעריסתן – from their youth, when they are placed in the cradle, the Rabbis decreed concerning them that they defile on account of being menstruating women, as it is written (Leviticus 15:19): “When a woman has a discharge”/ואשה כי-תהיה זבה. And it is taught in a Baraita: I do not have [from this verse] anything other than a woman when she is an adult, from where do I learn that a baby one-day old is a menstruant woman? The inference teaches us: "ואשה"/when a woman. But the Cutheans (i.e., Samaritans) do not expound upon [the difference between]"אשה" "ואשה" - a woman, when a woman, for when they see them as minors (i.e., babies), they do not separate/set them aside, therefore, the Rabbis decreed concerning it that all of them [at whatever age] defile.

Introduction The first three mishnayot of chapter four deal with the menstrual impurity of women from three groups that were considered outside of the Jewish fold, as determined by the rabbis: Samaritans, Sadducees and Gentiles.

מטמאין משכב התחתון כעליון (they convey uncleanness to a couch beneath as to a cover above-see also Tractate Kelim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3) – what is below that of someone who has sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman is unclean/impure just as that which is above a person with gonorrhea/זב, that just as what is above a person with gonorrhea does not defile anything other than foods and liquids, even that which is below the person having sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman does not defile anything other than foods and liquids. And that which is above the person with gonorrhea is that which is removed from upon the person with gonorrhea, we derive from Scripture that he does not defile a person and/or utensils but only food and liquids, as it is written (Leviticus 15:10): “whomever touches anything that was under him shall be impure [until evening],” what is תחתיו/under him? If you were to say that which is underneath the person with gonorrhea/זב – he derives from everything that he would touch when lying down, but the person who comes in contact with anything where the person with gonorrhea is below him becomes defiled, and since we do not combine them and write, “and anyone who comes in contact with everything that is below him and who carries them should wash his clothing,” and we make the religious ruling concerning him that he defiles, it follows that this, “and he defiles,” does not speak of people and utensils, but rather [only] foods and liquids. But Cutheans who engage in having sexual relationships with menstruating women, defile food and liquids that are lying underneath them , but not humans or utensils, like as to a cover above of a person with gonorrhea that he also defiles food and liquids but not a person or utensils. And all of these things were not stated other than at the time when the Cutheans uphold the Torah and are punctilious in many of the commandments like Israelites. But after they (i.e., the Rabbis) examined and found with them [things] like the image of a pigeon at the top of Mount Gerizim that they worship, they made them like complete heathens for all of their things, whether for matters of [ritual] impurity and purity or for the rest of the laws of the Torah, there is no difference between them and between heathens at all.

The daughters of the Samaritans are regarded as menstruants from their cradle. The Samaritans separated from the other Jewish communities (those whose center of worship was Jerusalem, the Samaritan center of worship was in Shechem) at a pretty early period in history, probably sometime during the first Temple period. As we shall see in section two, they did observe the laws of menstruation, but not according to rabbinic interpretation. One thing they did not believe was that young girls could become menstruants (we shall see in chapter five that the rabbis believed that they could). Therefore, all Samaritan girls had to be considered menstruants from the time they were born.

והן יושבות על כל דם (continue unclean for any sort of blood) – meaning to say, therefore, the Cuthians engage in sexual intercourse with menstruating women, therefore, they continue [to be] unclean for any sort of blood, for all blood that she sees, whether red whether green, she continues unclean for it the days of the menstruant woman, and this is a snare/stumbling block for them, that if she sees green blood today, she begins to count from today seven days of menstrual uncleanness , but if she sees during those actual days of menstrual uncleanness red blood, she does not count other than from the first sighting, but that blood was pure, and from the second sighting she needs to count.

And Samaritans impart uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above, since they have intercourse with menstruants, because [their wives] sit [unclean for seven days] on account of any blood. The problem with Samaritan practice is not that they ignore the laws of niddah. They just observe them in the wrong way. Samaritan women treat all blood as if it were menstrual blood and they sit seven unclean days for any blood flow. If the blood that flowed on the first day was not actually menstrual and then the woman bled blood a subsequent day, she would treat that blood as if it was the continuation of her menstruation and she would go to the mikveh after seven days [Remember, according to the Torah one is impure for seven days after menstruation begins, even if it continues for several days]. According to rabbinic law, she should have begun the count only when actual menstrual blood began. Going to the mikveh too early will be ineffective (according to rabbinic law). Thus, Samaritan women will always be unclean. The men who have relations with them are also unclean and they will always defile any number of cushions upon which they sit, which is the rule concerning one who has relations with a menstruant (see Kelim 1:3). We should note that by declaring all Samaritans impure from birth, the rabbis were able to distance themselves from them. This in my opinion is probably a strong part of the reason for the laws of this mishnah. The rabbis are using the laws of niddah to distance Samaritans from mingling with their community. However, we should also note that simultaneously the Mishnah defines Samaritans as Jews, at least in a genetic sense. Mishnah three deals with Gentiles, and Samaritans are not considered Gentiles.

ואין חייבין עליהן - a person who wears or covers [himself] with those clothing and enters into the Sanctuary, is exempt from a sacrifice. Or if those clothing of their couch came in contact with heave-offering, we suspend them.

However, on account of their [uncleanness] no obligation is incurred for entrance into the Temple nor is terumah burned on their account, since their uncleanness is only of a doubtful nature. However, it is not certain that all Samirtan women (and men) are unclean, since the women do go to the mikveh. It is theoretically possible that they went to the mikveh on the correct day. Therefore, they only defile due to doubt. If a rabbinic Jew is defiled by contact with a Samaritan, and then he enters the Temple, he is not liable for entering the Temple while impure. If he touches terumah, the terumah is not burned (although it may not be eaten). These two rules always apply in cases of doubtful terumah.

מפני שטומאתן ספק – for we don’t know if she is a menstruating woman or not. But in the Gemara (Tractate Niddah 33b) it raises an objection on our Mishnah from that which is taught inTractate Tohorot, Chapter 4 (Mishnah 5): “On account of six matters of doubt do they burn the heave-offering,” [and one of them is] “because of a doubt concerning the clothing of a common, uneducated person [who is not punctilious in the observance of the laws of ritual purity],” that is to say on the clothing of a common, uneducated person if they came in contact with it (i.e., heave-offering), it is burned, because perhaps it was [ritually] impure, and this Cuthean also, we derive it that if his couch came in contact with heave-offering, it would be burned, because he is a common, uneducated person, and he has the clothing of a common, uneducated person. And it (i.e., the Talmud) responds that our Mishnah speaks regards a Cuthean who immersed [in a ritual bath] in our presence and came up [from the Mikveh] and tread upon the clothing of a member of the group dedicated to the precise observance of the Mitzvot (i.e., a חבר) who is naked, or that he wore the clothing of a member of the group dedicated to the precise observance of the Mitzvot, or immersed his clothing in his presence (i.e., of the member of the group dedicated to the precise observance of the Mitzvot) in a manner whereby the clothing of the Cuthean when they are trodden upon [from a person with gonorrhea immediate treading, leaning against] did not come in contact with the clothing of the member of the group dedicated to the precise observance of the Mitzvot when he treated upon him, and afterwards, the clothing of the member of the group dedicated to the precise observance of the Mitzvot that the Cuthean tread upon them with heave-offering, we don’t burn the heave-offering on their account. For if it was because of the ritual impurity of the common, uneducated person, he would immerse himself. But if it was because of someone engaging in sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman, perhaps he did not engage in close sexual contact, and the days of his [ritual] impurity had already passed and the ritual immersion is effective. But if you wish to say that he engaged in close sexual contact, perhaps his wife was not continuing unclean for any sort of blood, but rather only on pure blood, and this is a compound uncertainty, and we on a compound uncertainty, we don’t burn the heave-offering.