|  |  | Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah ### Folio 59a If a woman had drops of blood on her body below her belt1 and drops of blood above it, she may attribute [the former to the blood that is assumed to be the cause of the drops] on the latter2 up to the size of a split bean. Now does not this3 mean a stain of the size of a split bean below her belt?4 — No, a stain of the size of a split bean above the belt.5 It was stated: If on the body of a woman6 was found a stain of the size of a split bean plus some addition,7 and to that addition clung a louse, R. Hanina ruled: She is unclean;8 and R. Jannai ruled: She is clean.9 'R. Hanina ruled: She is unclean', since she may attribute a stain to a louse only where the former is of the size of a split bean but not where it is of the size of a split bean plus. 'R. Jannai ruled: She is clean', since this restriction10 applies only where no louse clings to the addition, but where a louse clings to it, it is quite evident that the addition is the blood of a louse, so that only a stain of the size of a split bean remains;11 and since such a size may elsewhere12 be attributed to a louse it may also here be so attributed. R. Jeremiah enquired: What is the ruling where a woman handled some blood of the bulk of a split bean but on her body was found a bloodstain of the size of a split bean and a little more? This question arises according to R. Hanina and it also arises according to R. Jannai. 'This question arises according to R. Hanina', since R. Hanina may have maintained his view there13 that the woman was unclean, only because she did not handle any blood, but here, where she did handle some, she may well attribute [the stain to an extraneous cause].14 or is it possible that, even according to R. Jannai who ruled13 that she was clean, the ruling applies only where a louse clings to the stain, but where no louse clings to it, the stain may not be attributed to it? — Come and hear: If she was handling red stuff she may not attribute to it a black stain; if she was handling a small quantity15 she may not attribute to it a large stain. Now how is one to imagine the circumstances?16 Would you not agree that they were of the same nature?17 — No, this16 might be a case, for instance, where she handled a quantity of blood of the bulk of a split bean while on her body was found a stain of the size of two split beans and a little more in excess.18 But if so,19 what was the need of mentioning it?20 — It might have been presumed that one takes the part of the stain21 that may be attributed to the blood of the bird22 to be in the middle23 so that there remains less than the prescribed minimum on either of its sides,24 hence we were informed [that the stain cannot be attributed to it25 at all]. Raba ruled: If one kind of material26 was found upon a woman27 she may attribute to it any kind of stain.28 It was objected: If she was handling red stuff she may not attribute to it a black stain!29 — A case where she had handled the stuff is different.30 There are some who say: Raba ruled, If a woman was handling one kind of material, she may attribute to it any kinds of stain.28 It was objected: If she was handling red stuff she may not attribute to it a black stain!31 — When Raba laid down his ruling he referred to a woman who was handling a hen which contains several kinds of blood. A WOMAN ONCE etc. But was it not taught: Seeing that the Sages did not lay down the rule in order to relax the law but rather to restrict it?32 — Rabina replied: The meaning is that they did not lay down the rule to relax Pentateuchal laws,33 but rather to add restrictions to them;34 but the uncleanness of bloodstains is altogether a Rabbinical enactment.35 IF ON A TESTING RAG THAT WAS PLACED. The question was raised: Do the Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok or not? — Come and hear: A long stain is counted36 but scattered drops are not combined.37 Now whose view does this represent? If it be suggested: That of R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok [the difficulty would arise:] Why was there need38 for the combination, seeing that he ruled that even a stain that was only slightly elongated is unclean. Must we not then conclude that it represents the view of the Rabbis? Thus it follows, does it not, that they differ from his view? — No, this may indeed represent the view of R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok, for he laid down the law39 in regard to a testing rag40 but not in regard to a bloodstain.41 Come and hear42 what Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok'. Now since the halachah had to be declared it follows that they43 differ from him.44 This is conclusive. To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files So Tosaf. and Tosaf. Asheri, (contra Rashi) whose interpretation is here followed. Lit., 'on the upper'. As the drops above the belt may be attributed to blood from a source external to her body so may also the drops below it. The prescribed 'size of a split bean'. But if so, it would follow that only where there are bloodstains above the belt are stains of the size of a split bean below it regarded as originating from the same extraneous source as those above and, therefore, treated as clean, but that where there are no drops of blood above the belt, even a stain of the size of a split bean below it is regarded as unclean. An objection against R. Hisda who ruled that a stain of such size is invariably attributed to vermin and is, therefore, clean. Sc. so long as the stain above is not smaller than the size of a split bean the stain below, though bigger than the size of a split bean, may be attributed to the same cause as that of the stain above. When the stain below, however, is no bigger than the size of a split bean, it is invariably clean irrespective of whether the body above was or was not stained with drops of blood. Lit., 'upon her'. Lit., 'and more'. It being regarded as due to menstrual blood. Sc. it is not attributed to blood of menstruation. That only a stain no bigger than a split bean is attributed to a louse. In doubt as to its origin. Where there is no addition to it. In the statement just cited. One part of the stain, to the extent of the size of a bean, might be attributed to the blood of the same quantity that she had previously handled while the remainder might be attributed to some vermin. Of the blood of a bird (cf. infra). In the latter case. As the case submitted by R. Jeremiah. Would then a solution be forthcoming from here? As the excess over the size of a split bean amounts to more than a split bean, it cannot possibly be attributed to vermin. Hence the uncleanness. Cf. prev. n. A ruling that is self-evident. The size of one split bean. Cf. supra n. 5. Lit., 'take like the size of a split bean; threw it in the middle' of the stained area. Lit., 'go here there is no prescribed size (bis)'. As the stain is thus smaller than the size prescribed it might have been presumed to be clean. The blood of the bird. Collyrium or sap, for instance, which leaves a stain after it is removed. Lit., 'upon her'. That she subsequently discovers; though the latter is not of the same colour as the material to which it is attributed. How then can Raba maintain that a stain of any colour may be attributed to any stuff that was previously found on the woman? From where, unknown to herself, something had clung to her body. In this latter case, since she was unaware of the particular stuff that clung to her, she may well be presumed to have been unaware also of the presence upon her of the substance from which the stain had originated. In the former case, however, where she had handled a red substance and was fully aware of it no ground for such an assumption exists. Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut. An objection against R. Akiba. Regarding menstruation. Sc. by declaring certain stains (which are Pentateuchally clean) to be unclean they have added restrictions to the Pentateuchal laws. Hence wherever it is possible to attribute one to a cause that would exempt it from uncleanness the lenient course must be followed. Lit., 'combined', sc. is regarded as compact in respect of the prescribed size of a split bean. Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. in the case of a long stain. That even a stain that is only slightly elongated is unclean. An elongated stain on which is obviously the natural shape of one obtained in the course of the test. Which he does not regard as unclean unless it was no less in size than a split bean. In reply to the question whether the Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok. The Rabbis. Had they been in agreement with him the question of the halachah would not have arisen. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Niddah 59b ## CHAPTER IX MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN WHEN ATTENDING TO HER NEEDS1 OBSERVED AN ISSUE OF BLOOD, R. MEIR RULED: IF SHE WAS STANDING SHE IS UNCLEAN2 BUT IF SHE WAS SITTING SHE REMAINS CLEAN. R. JOSE RULED: IN EITHER CASE SHE REMAINS CLEAN. IF A MAN AND A WOMAN ATTENDED TO THEIR NEEDS1 IN THE SAME BOWL AND BLOOD WAS FOUND ON THE WATER, R. JOSE3 RULED THAT IT WAS CLEAN,4 WHILE R. SIMEON RULED THAT IT WAS UNCLEAN, SINCE IT IS NOT USUAL FOR A MAN TO DISCHARGE BLOOD, BUT THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT BLOOD ISSUES FROM THE WOMAN. GEMARA. Wherein does the case where the woman WAS STANDING differ [from that of sitting]? [Obviously] in that we presume that the urine had returned to the source5 and brought back blood with it. But then, even where SHE WAS SITTING why should it not also be assumed that the urine had returned to the source and brought back blood with it? — Samuel replied: The reference is to a woman who discharges in a gush.6 But even where a discharge is gushing is it not possible that7 the blood issued8 after the water had ceased to flow?9 — R. Abba replied. The reference is to a woman who sat on the rim of a bowl, discharging into the bowl, and blood was found within the bowl, [in which case it is obvious] that if the blood had issued after the water had ceased to flow it10 should have been found on the rim of the bowl.11 Samuel ruled or, as some say, Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose; and also R. Abba gave a ruling to Kala:12 The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose. IF A MAN AND A WOMAN etc. The question was asked: Where both the man and the woman were standing.13 what, pray tell me, is the ruling of14 R. Meir?15 Did R. Meir maintain his view16 only where one doubt17 is involved, but where a double doubt18 is involved he does not hold the woman to be unclean, or is it possible that there is no difference? — Resh Lakish replied: His ruling19 is the same in both. Whence is this20 inferred? — Since it was not stated:21 R. Meir and R. Jose22 ruled that she remains clean'. If so,23 [the difficulty arises:] Now that R. Meir holds the woman to be unclean where a double doubt is involved,24 was there any need for his ruling25 where only one doubt is involved?26 — Yes, in order to inform you how far reaching is the ruling27 of R: Jose who laid down that the woman is clean even where only one doubt is involved. But, instead of disputing about such a case involving only one doubt in order to inform you how far reaching is the ruling of R. Jose, why should they not dispute about a case involving a double doubt in order to inform you how far reaching is the ruling of R. Meir?28 The power of a lenient view29 is preferred.30 R. Johanan, however, replied: R. Meir gave his ruling31 only where one doubt is involved, but where a double doubt is involved32 he did not maintain his view. But if so,33 why was it not stated:34 R. Meir and R. Jose35 ruled that she remains clean? — This should indeed have been done,36 but since he had just left R. Jose37 he also began38 With R. Jose. As to R. Jose, however, since he holds the woman clean where only one doubt is involved,39 was there any need for his ruling where a double doubt is involved?40 — As it might have been presumed that his ruling applied only ex post facto41 but not ab initio,42 we were informed43 that the ruling applied even ab initio. It was taught in agreement with R. Johanan: If a man and a woman attended to their needs in the same bowl and blood was found on the water, R. Meir and R. Jose declared it clean and R. Simeon declared it unclean. The question was raised: Where a woman44 was sitting,45 what, pray tell me, is the ruling of46 R. Simeon? Did R. Simeon maintain his view only where she is standing, since her passage is then compressed.47 but not where she was sitting;48 or is it possible that there is no difference? — Come and hear what was taught: If she was sitting she may attribute [any discharge of blood to an internal wound], but if she was standing she may not attribute [it to it]; so R. Meir. R. Jose ruled: In either case she may attribute [it to it]. R. Simeon ruled: In either case she may not attribute [it to it]. The question was raised: Where a man and a woman were sitting.49 what, pray tell me, is the ruling of46 R. Simeon? Did R. Simeon maintain his view only where the woman was standing, since her passage is then compressed,50 or where she was sitting, since only one doubt is involved, but not where a double doubt is involved;51 or is it possible that there is no difference? — Come and hear: Since R. Simeon ruled, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT BLOOD ISSUES FROM THE WOMAN,52 no distinction is to be made between an issue when they53 were standing and one when they were sitting. MISHNAH. IF SHE LENT HER SHIRT TO A GENTILE WOMAN OR TO A MENSTRUANT SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE A STAIN54 TO EITHER.55 IF THREE WOMEN HAD WORN THE SAME SHIRT OR HAD SAT ON THE SAME WOODEN BENCH AND SUBSEQUENTLY BLOOD WAS FOUND ON IT, ALL ARE REGARDED AS UNCLEAN.56 IF THEY HAD SAT ON A STONE BENCH57 OR ON THE PROJECTION WITHIN THE COLONNADE OF A BATH HOUSE,57 R. NEHEMIAH RULES THAT THEY ARE CLEAN;58 FOR R. NEHEMIAH HAS LAID DOWN: ANY THING THAT IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO STAINS.59 GEMARA. Rab explained: The reference60 is to a GENTILE WOMAN - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Making water. This is discussed in the Gemara infra. Who regards the blood as clean even where, as in the first clause, only one doubt is involved, viz., whether the blood originated in the menstrual source or in a wound in the bladder. Since in addition to the doubt mentioned (cf. prev. n.) there is also the one whether the blood issued from the woman or from the man. The necessity for this ruling will be discussed infra in the Gemara. Whence the menstrual blood issues. Sc. in the natural manner, no strain being involved in the process. Only when a strain is involved (as where the woman is standing or where the discharge is slow) is it likely for the urine to return to the source and to re-issue mixed with blood, but not where the discharge is flowing normally and easily. Though the urine does not return to the source. From the menstrual source, independently of the other discharge. Why then is the woman regarded as clean? Since the discharge of blood is not bow-shaped. As, however, it was found within the bowl it must be assumed to have found its way there together with the water. A person who sought 'his opinion on the question. When attending to their needs; and blood was found in the bowl. Lit. 'what, to me, said'. Who (v. our Mishnah) regards a woman as unclean if she was standing alone. cf. prev. n. Whether the blood emanated from the menstrual source or from a wound in the bladder. Lit., 'doubt of a doubt'. Firstly there is the doubt whether the blood emanated from the woman or from the man; and secondly, even if it emanated from the woman, there remains the doubt previously mentioned (cf. prev. n.). That the woman is unclean. Resh Lakish's statement. In our Mishnah in the case where A MAN AND A WOMAN ATTENDED etc. Instead of the latter name alone. That even in the latter case, where a double doubt is involved (cf. n. 11). R. Meir holds the woman to be unclean. Cf. prev. n. In the first clause of our Mishnah. Apparently not. For if the woman is unclean in the case of a double doubt it is obvious that she is unclean in the case of one doubt. Why then was R. Meir's ruling given in the first clause, from which the second cannot be derived, instead of in the second clause from which the first would be self-evident? Lit., 'the power'. Who even in such a case regards the woman as unclean. As is that of R. Jose who holds the woman to be clean. To that which is more restrictive. While the former must be the result of careful study and conviction the latter may be due to mere indecision and doubt. That the woman is unclean. As in the case of A MAN AND A WOMAN etc. That in the latter case (cf. prev. n.). R. Meir is of the same opinion as R. Jose that the woman is clean. In our Mishnah in the case where A MAN AND A WOMAN ATTENDED etc. Instead of the latter name alone. Lit., 'yes, thus also'. At the conclusion of the preceding clause. The clause under discussion. In the first clause of our Mishnah. Cf. supra p. 418, n. 11. Where the woman, for instance, had already handled clean things. Sc. if she had not yet come in contact with clean things she is to be ordered to keep away from them. By the additional and apparently superfluous clause. Alone. When attending to her needs; and blood was found in the bowl. Lit., 'what, to me, said'. Lit., 'the world is pressed for her'. As a result of the narrowness of the passage blood from the menstrual source might well be presumed to issue together with the returned urine, and since this presumption almost amounts to a certainty there remains no more than one doubt, as to whether the blood emanated from the man or the woman, which well justifies R. Simeon's ruling that the blood is unclean. And the passage allowed of the free movement of the urine. Any blood discharged in this case might well be attributed to a wound in the bladder, and, therefore, regarded as clean. When attending to their needs; and blood was found in the bowl. And the presumption that the blood emanated from the menstrual source is then so strong that, despite the double doubt involved, R. Simeon, disregarding one of the doubts, maintains his view. Whether (a) the blood issued from the woman or the man and (b) if from the woman whether from the menstrual source or from some internal wound. Which clearly indicates that he never attributes it to the man. The man and the woman. That was found on it after she herself had worn it. Lit., 'on her'; and she remains clean. Such a presumption is permitted since neither the gentile woman nor the menstruant is thereby placed at a disadvantage, the former being free from the restrictions in any case while the latter is already in a state of uncleanness. Since each one might be presumed to have been the cause. Which, unlike a wooden one, is not susceptible to uncleanness. [The same applies to one woman sitting on a stone bench etc. The plural is used here in continuation of the preceding clause. v. Strashun]. Sc. no uncleanness of the person is assumed by reason of a stain that was found on it. This is further explained in the Gemara infra. In our Mishnah. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |