|  |  | Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah ### Folio 58a according to Rabbinic law.1 R. Ashi2 replied: Samuel gave his ruling in accordance with the view of R. Nehemiah. For we learnt: R. Nehemiah ruled, Any thing that is not susceptible to uncleanness is not susceptible to stains.3 According to R. Ashi one can well see the reason why he4 mentioned 'ground',5 but according to R. Jeremiah of Difti,6 what was the point of mentioning 'ground', seeing that even in the case of a cloak7 the woman is subject to the same law? — This is a case of an implied climax:8 There is no question [that the woman is clean where she sat on] a cloak since it cannot be thoroughly examined and one may, therefore, well assume [that the stain] emanated from an external source,9 but even [where she sat on] the ground which can well be thoroughly examined,9 and where10 it might justifiably be assumed that it emanated from her body, she is nevertheless regarded as clean. ON HER HEEL OR ON THE TIP OF HER GREAT TOE. SHE IS UNCLEAN etc. One can well concede that HER HEEL11 is likely12 to come in contact with that place,13 but what is the reason for the uncleanness in the case of a stain on THE TIP OF HER GREAT TOE? And should you reply: It might sometimes touch her heel [the objection would arise]: Do we [as regards] uncleanness presume transfer from place to place? Was it not in fact taught: If she14 had a wound on her neck in a position to which the blood stain might be attributed,15 she may so attribute it;16 if it was on her shoulder, in which case she cannot so attribute it,17 she must not so attribute it; and we do not suggest that it is possible that she had taken it18 with her hand and transferred it there?19 — The fact rather is that THE TIP OF HER TOE is in a different category.20 because [direct dropping of blood] might occur while she is walking. But do we not [as regards] uncleanness presume transfer from place to place? Was it not in fact taught: If it21 was found on her finger joints.22 she is unclean, because hands are active.23 Now what is the reason?24 Is it not this: That we assume that she had examined herself with one hand25 and then touched it with her other hand?26 — No, her hand is different20 since all of it might come in direct contact27 [with the menstrual source]. ON HER THIGH OR ON HER FEET, IF ON THEIR INNER SIDE etc. How far28 ON THEIR INNER SIDE?29 — The school of R. Jannai replied: As far as the place of hebek.30 The question was asked: Is the place of the hebek.31 regarded as the inner, or as the outer side? — Come and hear what R. Kattina learnt: As far as the place of the hebek, and the hebek itself is regarded as the inner side. R. Hiyya son of R. Iwya taught this32 explicitly: The School of R. Jannai ruled, As far as the place of the hebek and the hebek itself is regarded as in the inner side. R. Jeremiah enquired: What is the ruling33 where a bloodstain had the shape of a ring, of a straight line of drops,34 or of a splash of drops.35 or where it runs across the breadth of her thigh? — Come and hear: 'A bloodstain on her body concerning which there is doubt whether it is unclean or clean, is regarded as unclean'. Now does not 'on her body' imply stains of such shapes? — No, it might only refer to one that is shaped like a stripe.36 A woman once found blood on her web. When she came to R. Jannai37 he told her to experiment by repeating38 her forward and backward movements.39 But was it not taught: No repetition [test is recognized] in questions of cleanness?40 — We say that no repetition test is recognized only41 where the law would thereby42 be relaxed, but where it is thereby restricted we do recognize a test of repetition.43 IF SHE TAKES IT OFF etc. It was taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Jose stated, In such a case44 I gave a ruling in the city of Rome imposing a prohibition,45 and when I came to the Sages of the South they said to me, 'You have given the right decision. Our Rabbis taught: Where a tall woman put on the shirt46 of a short woman or if a short one put on the shirt46 of a tall one, if [a blood stain]47 corresponds to the position of the pudenda of the tall one, they are both unclean, but if it does not correspond to it,48 the tall one is clean while the short one is unclean. Another Baraitha taught: If a woman examined her shirt49 and then50 lent it to her friend,51 she is clean, but her friend may attribute it52 to her. R. Shesheth explained: This53 was learnt only in regard to the civil law,54 but as regards the law of uncleanness the lender is clean while her friend is unclean. To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files The ruling cited in objection to Samuel being also Rabbinical only. Samuel's ruling, however, was concerned with the Pentateuchal law. Maintaining that Samuel's ruling is not at all based on the principle that the woman must feel the discharge. Infra 59b, sc. a stain found on such an object is no cause of uncleanness to the person in whom it may possibly have originated. As the ground on which the woman sat is not susceptible to uncleanness the woman also, despite the stain found, remains clean. All the rulings cited in objection to Samuel based on the principle of 'feeling', are, therefore, irrelevant. Samuel. Since the ground is not susceptible to uncleanness. Who, as appears from his reply, accepted the view that Samuel based his ruling on the absence of sensation. If, while sitting on it, the woman experienced no sensation of a discharge. Lit., 'there is no question, he implied'. Before the woman sat on it. Since no stain was noticed before she sat down but was found after she rose. When she sits with her legs folded under her body in eastern fashion. Lit., 'does'. Euphemism. Hence the uncleanness. A woman who discovered a bloodstain near her pudenda. Sc. 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. And remain clean. Because even when she bends her head low the blood from the shoulder would not fall on the spot (cf. prev. n. but two) where the stain was discovered. The blood from the shoulder wound. How then could it be suggested here that the blood might have been transferred from the heel to the toe? From the shoulder. A bloodstain. On the back of her hand. And might, though the woman was not conscious of the fact, have touched menstrual blood. That blood on the back of the hand (cf. prev. n. but one), which one would not expect to come in contact with the menstrual source, even in the course of an examination, should be regarded as unclean. The palm of which became soiled in the process. Which proves, does it not, that we do presume transfer as regards uncleanness? Lit., 'does that it touches'. From their front and back. Sc. at what distance from their front and back is a stain regarded as being on their inner side. The sinews that connect the thigh and the leg. The part of the leg beneath this junction and the part of the thigh above it are regarded as the INNER SIDE (cf. Rashi and Tosaf. Asheri). Aliter: The place where the leg meets the thigh when the woman squats (Aruk); the part of the leg to the place where the (ankle) loop sits (Jast.). Sc. the sinews themselves (cf. Rashi and Tosaf. Asheri). Aliter: The ankle itself (Jast.). The ruling that was just given in the form of a question and answer. As regards menstrual uncleanness. Cf. Tosaf. and Tosaf. Asheri. Lit., 'drops, drops'. Running downwards, which is the natural shape that may be expected if the blood was menstrual. To enquire whether the stain was to be regarded as menstrual. At the loom. Lit., 'let her go and come'. By repeating the process several times she would be able to ascertain whether the web comes sometimes in contact with the menstrual source. Supra 5b q.v. notes. Lit., when do we say'. By sanctioning the test. Because here, since it was found neither on her body nor shirt, in the absence of evidence we assume her to be clean. Lit., 'this thing', a shirt that a woman used at night as a covering (v. our Mishnah). Sc. that the blood is regarded as menstrual and that the woman is consequently unclean. Without previously examining it. Discovered subsequently. Not reaching so low. Var. lec., 'herself and her shirt' (v. BaH.). Having made sure that it was clean. And subsequently a stain was found on it. The stain. That the borrower may attribute the stain to the lender. Sc. the lender, having no valid proof that the shirt was clean when she had lent it to the other, has no legal claim on the other for the cost of washing. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Niddah 58b But why is this case different from the following where it was taught: If two women were engaged in the preparation of one bird which contained no more than one sela' of blood, and then a stain of the size of a sela' was found on each, they are both unclean?1 — There2 the law is different since there was an additional sela'.3 Our Rabbis taught: Where a woman put on three shirts4 that she had previously examined5 [and then found blood on one of them]. if she is in a position to attribute [the blood to an external source]6 she may do so even though [the blood was found] on the lowest shirt, but if she is not in a position to attribute [it to an external cause]6 she may not do so even though [the blood was found] on the uppermost shirt. How so? If she passed through a butchers' market she may attribute the blood to it even though it was found on the lowest shirt, but if she did not pass through a butchers' market she may not attribute the blood to it even if it was found on the uppermost. MISHNAH. [A WOMAN] MAY ATTRIBUTE [A BLOODSTAIN] TO ANY [EXTERNAL] CAUSE TO WHICH SHE CAN POSSIBLY ATTRIBUTE IT.7 IF [FOR INSTANCE] SHE HAD SLAIN A DOMESTIC BEAST, A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD, IF SHE WAS HANDLING BLOODSTAINS OR SAT BESIDE THOSE WHO HANDLED THEM. OR IF SHE KILLED A LOUSE. SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE THE BLOODSTAIN TO IT. HOW LARGE A STAIN MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO A LOUSE?8 R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS REPLIED: ONE UP TO THE SIZE9 OF A SPLIT BEAN; [AND IT MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO A LOUSE] EVEN THOUGH SHE DID NOT KILL IT.10 SHE MAY ALSO ATTRIBUTE IT TO HER SON OR TO HER HUSBAND.11 IF SHE HERSELF HAD A WOUND THAT12 COULD OPEN AGAIN AND BLEED SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE IT TO IT. A WOMAN ONCE CAME TO R. AKIBA AND SAID TO HIM: I HAVE OBSERVED A BLOODSTAIN'. 'HAD YOU PERHAPS', HE SAID TO HER. 'A WOUND?' YES'. SHE REPLIED, 'BUT IT HAS HEALED'. IS IT POSSIBLE HE AGAIN ASKED HER, THAT IT COULD OPEN AGAIN AND BLEED?' 'YES', SHE REPLIED; AND R. AKIBA DECLARED HER CLEAN. OBSERVING THAT HIS DISCIPLES LOOKED AT EACH OTHER IN ASTONISHMENT. HE SAID TO THEM, 'WHY DO YOU FIND THIS DIFFICULT, SEEING THAT THE SAGES DID NOT LAY DOWN THE RULE13 IN ORDER TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS BUT RATHER TO RELAX THEM, FOR IT IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE, AND IF A WOMAN HAVE AN ISSUE, AND HER ISSUE IN HER FLESH BE BLOOD.14 ONLY BLOOD15 BUT NOT A BLOODSTAIN. IF ON A TESTING RAG THAT WAS PLACED UNDER A PILLOW SOME BLOOD WAS FOUND, IF THE STAIN IS ROUND IT IS CLEAN BUT IF IT IS ELONGATED IT IS UNCLEAN; SO R. ELIEZER SON OF R. ZADOK. GEMARA. Thus we have here16 learnt what our Rabbis taught elsewhere: It once happened that R. Meir attributed it to collyrium, and Rabbi attributed it to the sap of a sycamore.17 OR SAT. Only where SHE SAT18 but not [where she believes that] she did not sit.19 Thus20 we have here learnt what our Rabbis taught elsewhere: If a woman passed through a butchers' market, and it is a matter of doubt whether any blood was or was not squirted on her she may attribute [any bloodstain on her to a possible contingency]; but if it is doubtful whether she did or did not pass the market she21 is unclean.22 IF SHE KILLED A LOUSE. Only where SHE KILLED18 but not where she did not kill any. Whose view then does our Mishnah23 represent? — That of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. For it was taught: If she killed a louse she may attribute a bloodstain to it, but if she did not kill any she may not so attribute it; so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. But the Sages ruled: In either case she may attribute the one to the other. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: According to my view there is no limit24 and according to the view of my colleagues there is no end.24 'According to my view there is no limit' since you could hardly find25 a woman who could be regarded as clean for her husband, seeing that there is hardly25 a bed that does not contain ever so many drops of louse blood.26 'According to the view of my colleagues there is no end', since there is hardly25 a woman who could be regarded as unclean for her husband, seeing that there is hardly a sheet on which there are not ever so many drops of blood;27 but the view of R. Hanina b. Antigonus is more feasible than mine and theirs, for he has laid down, 'How large a stain may be attributed to a louse? One not bigger than the size of a split bean',28 and we rule in agreement with his view.29 But according to the Rabbis who ruled, SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE,30 how large may be the stain?31 — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: She may attribute it to a bed-bug even if it is as big as a lupine.32 Our Rabbis taught: A33 bed-bug is of the same length and breadth and the taste of it is like its odour. Whosoever crushes it cannot help34 smelling it. It was stated to be of 'the same length and breadth' in regard to bloodstains.35 'The taste of it is like its odour' has been stated in regard to terumah.36 For we have learnt: 'Or if he tasted the flavour of a bed-bug in his mouth he must spit it out.37 But how could he know this?38 Because 'the taste of it is like its odour'. But still, whence could he know this?39 [Because] 'whosoever crushes it cannot help34 smelling it'. R. Ashi ruled: In a town in which there are pigs there is no need to consider the possibility of menstrual bloodstains.40 R. Nahman b. Isaac stated: The condition of41 Dokereth42 is43 like that of a town in which there are pigs.44 HOW LARGE A STAIN MAY BE ATTRIBUTED etc. R. Huna explained: If the stain is equal in size to a split bean it may not be attributed to a louse; if it is smaller in size than a split bean it may be attributed to it. R. Hisda, however, explained: If it was of the same size as a split bean it may be attributed to it, but if it was bigger than the size of a split bean it may not be attributed to it. Must it be assumed that they45 differ on the question whether UP TO' is meant to include the terminus,46 R. Huna47 holding the opinion that 'up to' does not include the terminus48 while R. Hisda49 holds that 'up to' is inclusive of the terminus?50 — R. Huna can answer you: 'Up to' may sometimes include the terminus and sometimes exclude it, but in either case51 the meaning must be one that leads to a restriction,52 while R. Hisda can answer you: Elsewhere I agree with you53 that we adopt a meaning that leads to a restriction and not one that leads to a relaxation, but here the meaning must be in agreement with a ruling of R. Abbahu, R. Abbahu having ruled: All prescribed minima of the Sages are intended to impose restrictions, except the prescribed size of a split bean in the case of bloodstains which is intended to relax the law.54 There are others who give this tradition55 as an independent statement:56 R. Huna ruled, A bloodstain of the size of a split bean is treated as one bigger than the size of a split bean;57 while R. Hisda ruled, One of the size of a split bean is treated as one that is less than the size of a split bean;58 but they differ on the interpretation of UP TO here, as has just been explained.59 An objection was raised: - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Sc. as in this case, though one stain could well be attributed to the bird, both women are unclean, so also in the former case, since it is possible that the lender did not properly examine her shirt, both lender and borrower should be unclean. The latter case. Which cannot possibly be attributed to the bird. As the stain of one woman at least must be an unclean one, and since it cannot be ascertained which one it is, uncleanness must be imposed on both women. In the former case, however, where one woman examined the shirt and the other did not, uncleanness may well be imposed on the latter only. One on the top of the other. Lit., 'that are examined to her'. This is explained presently. And thus regard herself as clean. Lit., until how much may she attribute?' This is discussed infra in the Gemara. Contrary to the view of the Rabbis. If any of them had a wound. Though it is already dry. About bloodstains. Lev. XV, 19. Causes uncleanness. In our Mishnah. Supra 19b f q.v. notes. Does the law apply. Lit., 'yes'. Though it might well be possible that she did sit there without being conscious of the fact (cf. Rashi and Tosaf. Asheri). Since the possibility of an unconscious act is here disregarded. If any bloodstain was found on her. Cf. prev. n. but two mut. mut. Sc. the anonymous ruling which is contrary to the view of R. Hanina b. Antigonus. This is explained presently. Lit., 'since you have not'. So that the woman, unless she was certain that she killed one, would always be unclean, however minute the speck of blood. And these can be attributed to lice, however big the stain. Even if she killed nothing; while if it is bigger it is unclean even though a louse was killed. So Elijah Wilna. Cf. MS.M. Cur. edd., 'and we agree with his view'. Even if she is not aware of killing anything. To be regarded as clean. If it is very big it could not obviously be attributed to a louse. Cf. prev. n. Lit., 'this'. Lit., 'a covenant is made for it'. sc. a protection for its preservation. A stain, though bigger than a split bean, may be regarded as clean if its length is equal to its breadth since it may be attributed to a bug. And the same applies to unconsecrated produce. Terumah was mentioned because the Mishnah of Ter. cited happens to deal with terumah. Ter. VIII, 2. The taste of vermin. Its odour. Since the pigs, eating all sorts of creeping things and vermin, scatter about their blood. Lit., 'and that of'. Darankat on the Tigris. v. Obermeyer p. 197. Since it had many butchers' shops and swarmed with dung hills and vermin. Cf. prev. n. but three. R. Huna and R. Hisda. Lit., 'until and until included'. Who holds that a stain that is equal in size to a split bean may not be attributed to vermin. Which is (cf. our Mishnah) 'THE SIZE OF A SPLIT BEAN'. Who maintains that a stain of the size of a split bean may be attributed to vermin. But if so how could each respectively reconcile his view with (cf. Hul. 55a) the cases to the contrary? Lit., 'and here … and here'. As in the case of stains here under discussion the law is restricted by excluding the terminus, he justifiably maintains that the stain of the size of a split bean is excluded. Lit., 'In the world I will tell you'. Hence the inclusion of the terminus in the ruling of our Mishnah. The dispute between R. Huna and R. Hisda. Sc. not as an explanation of our Mishnah. Sc. is regarded as unclean. Is regarded as clean. R. Huna, here as elsewhere, adopting the meaning that leads to a restriction while R. Hisda regards the meaning here as an exception in agreement with R. Abbahu's ruling. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |