Niddah 19a — the Talmud in English

They disagreed

Rabbi Judah and the First Tanna

only when she miscarried, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

and she does not know what she miscarried,

because that piece of flesh was lost, and we do not know whether its appearance was like the appearance of pure blood or like the appearance of impure blood.

Rabbi Judah held —

go after

the appearance of

most pieces

of flesh that a woman miscarries.

And

the appearances of

most pieces

that a woman miscarries

are of four types of impure blood

that are impure—

they are!

And therefore Rabbi Judah deems her impure.

And

if

the Rabbis held: “Go after the majority of pieces” -

we do not say so!

For according to their view, the majority of pieces do not have the appearance of impure blood.

And Rabbi Yohanan, by saying that in only those three places did they follow the majority, came to teach us that according to Rabbi Judah, who follows the majority concerning the pieces of flesh of a woman who miscarried, his intention is not to a law of certainty but only to a law of uncertainty: to suspend judgment, but not to burn teruma on account of it .

Mishna:

Five

types of

impure blood

exist

in a woman,

and when they emerge from her, they render her impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman.

a.

The red.

b.

And the black 173 .

c.

And like the radiance of saffron.

The appearance of the blood is like the leaves of saffron, which shine with their redness .

d.

And like the water of earth,

like the appearance of water placed upon a type of red earth [and at the end of the Mishna the type of earth will be explained].

e.

And

the appearance of red wine

mixed

with water, whose color is lighter than unmixed red wine.

Beit Shammai say: Also like the water of fenugreek,

whose appearance is like water in which fenugreek was soaked,

and like [

and like the juice that flows from roasted meat ]

the water of roasted meat. And Beit Hillel deem pure

these two appearances.

Blood

that is green —

Akavya ben Mahalalel deems it impure

it,

and the Sages deem it pure

entirely.

Rabbi Meir said

to the Sages: Why do you deem green blood entirely pure, to the extent that you do not even consider it a liquid whose placement upon food renders the food fit to receive impurity?

For even

if

green blood

does not render impure on account of a stain

with the impurity of a menstruating woman, why does it not

render impure [

make food fit to receive impurity ]

on account of being a liquid,

whose placement upon food renders the food fit to receive impurity?!

Rabbi Yose says: Not so,

not according to the words of Akavya ben Mahalalel, who holds that green blood has the status of certainly impure blood, and not according to the words of Rabbi Meir, who holds that green blood renders seeds fit.

And not so,

according to the words of the Sages, who deem it certainly pure; rather, green blood is doubtfully impure .

And the Mishna explains what the appearance of the five bloods is:

a.

What is “red”? —

Like the blood of a wound.

b. What is

“black” —

Like ink, [

a type of black color used for dyeing hides ]. And not only blood whose appearance is exactly like ink is impure, but also a black appearance that is

deeper [

darker ]

than it [

than ink ] —

impure!

But a black appearance that is

pale [

light ]

than it —

pure!

c.

And

what is the appearance

“like the radiance of saffron” —

like the clear

appearance of the leaves

“therein,”

whose redness is exceedingly clear.

d.

And

what is the appearance

“like the water of earth” —

he brings earth

from the valley of Beit HaKerem [

a place name ]

and heaps

upon it

water.

e. And what is the appearance

“like mixed” —

he brings

two parts of water and

one part

of wine from Sharon wine,

and mixes them together.

Gemara:

And the Gemara asks:

From where do we know that there is pure blood in a woman? Perhaps every blood that comes from her is impure

?

And it answers:

Rabbi Hama bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: The verse says: “When a matter of judgment is hidden from you, between blood and blood” —

between pure blood and impure blood!

And the Gemara asks:

But if that is so,

the verse

“between affliction and affliction,”

shall we also

likewise

expound it and distinguish

between an impure affliction and a pure affliction?

And should you say, likewise,

that this distinction is indeed stated, this cannot be, because —

is there a pure affliction? And should you say

that there is a pure affliction, as stated in the verse:

“It has all turned white —

it is pure.”

But

that

when it spreads over all his flesh

is called a “bright spot”

and not an affliction?!

The Gemara continues its question:

Rather,

since it is impossible to distinguish between a pure affliction and an impure affliction, the meaning of the verse “between affliction and affliction” is only to distinguish

between afflictions of people, afflictions of houses, and afflictions of garments

in their details of law; but —

all of them are impure,

for the intention of the verse is not to say that some of them are impure and some of them pure.

And if so,

here too,

the intention of the verse “between blood and blood” is not to distinguish between pure blood and impure blood, but rather

between menstrual blood and discharge blood, and all of them are impure?!

The Gemara answers:

What is this?

How is it possible to say that the intention of the verse “between blood and blood” is not to distinguish between pure blood and impure blood? For this passage, “When a matter of judgment is hidden from you, between blood and blood,” is discussing the disagreement of the rebellious elder with the Sanhedrin, and the intention of the verse is to say that they disagreed among themselves between blood and blood, and the rebellious elder did not accept the opinion of the Sanhedrin. And if we say that there is no pure blood at all, and the intention of the verse is to distinguish between discharge blood and menstrual blood, then concerning what did the rebellious elder and the Sanhedrin disagree?

Granted, there,

concerning afflictions, it is possible to explain the verse “between affliction and affliction”—that all are for impurity—and the intention of the verse is to distinguish between afflictions of people, afflictions of houses, and afflictions of garments, because concerning all three types of affliction we find a disagreement among tannaim. Therefore, it is possible that the disagreement between the rebellious elder and the Sanhedrin was this disagreement: the Sanhedrin decided the practical halakha according to one Tanna, and the rebellious elder came and disagreed with their decision and instructed that one act according to the opposing Tanna.

And the Gemara specifies: a.

It is possible to disagree concerning afflictions of people, and in the disagreement of Rabbi Joshua and the Rabbis, as we learned: If the bright spot preceded the white hair,

meaning that the black hair within the bright spot became white after the bright spot had already existed —

he is impure, and if the white hair preceded the bright spot —

he is pure.

And if there was a

doubt

whether the bright spot preceded the white hair or the reverse ,

he is impure.

And Rabbi Joshua says: It is dim [

it is like an affliction whose appearance has become dim ] ,

and Rabba said: Dim and pure!

b. And likewise there is a disagreement

concerning afflictions of houses, for this is the disagreement of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis:

As we learned: Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: The house is never impure

in the laws of afflictions of houses

until it appears

the affliction in the measure of

about two gris on two stones, on two walls, at a corner. Its length

of the affliction is

about two gris

in length,

and its width —

a gris!

And Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagreed with him concerning it.

And by way of an aside the Gemara explains:

What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon?

It is written “wall,” and it is written “walls” —

which wall is like two walls? You must say —

this is a corner.

C. And we find a dispute

concerning afflictions of garments, in the dispute between Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtulmos and the Sages:

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtulmos says: From where [do we know] that the spreading of the affliction over a garment makes it pure?

When the tzaraat spread and extended over the entire garment.

Because it is learned by a gzera shava:

“Baldness” and “baldness” are stated concerning garments, and “baldness” and “baldness” are stated concerning a person; just as there,

in the case of a person,

if it spread

the affliction

over all of it, he is pure, so too here,

in the case of garments,

if it spread over all of it, he is pure!

Rather, here,

in the case of a woman’s blood, if

there is no pure blood —

over what did they dispute

the Sanhedrin and the rebellious elder? Rather, necessarily, there is pure blood in a woman, and they disputed in the dispute of the tannaim in our Mishna: which blood is pure and which blood is impure. And the verse “between blood and blood” means between impure blood and pure blood!

And the Gemara explains another matter in the Mishna:

And from where is it that these

bloods

are pure, and these are impure?

Rabbi Abbahu said: For the verse says: “And Moab saw the water red like blood,” to say that blood —

is red!

And the bloods enumerated in the Mishna are all red.

And we examine it:

But say: “red,” and no more,

that only blood that is “the reddest of the reds,” like the blood of a wound, makes impure, but not the other bloods, which, even if they are red, are not as intense in their redness as it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abbahu said: The verse says

concerning the blood of childbirth, “And she shall be pure from the source of

her bloods,”

and likewise it says, “And she uncovered the source of

her bloods” —

there are here four

bloods stated in it.

And we refute:

But we learned: “Five

impure bloods

[are impure]”?!

And we answer:

Rabbi Hanina said:

Blood

that is black —

blood

is red, but it became damaged 187 ,

it deteriorated and became black.

It was taught likewise

that black blood is red blood that became damaged — for it was taught in a beraita: Blood

that is black —

it is the black

like ink.

If the black color was

deeper than this —

it is impure!

If it faded, even

though it remained in its blackness

like blue —

it is pure!

And

this black blood —

it is not black from the beginning, but

only

when it is detached

from the body

does it become black [

and after it becomes damaged].

A comparison to the blood of a wound

which

becomes black only when it is detached.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: even

blood whose appearance is

like fenugreek water:

And we examine it:

And

when

Beit Shammai do not have

the exposition

“her bloods” —

“her bloods”

there are here four? And we answer:

If you wish, say:

They do not have it.

And if you wish, say: They do have it.

Rather,

did Rabbi Hanina not say:

Blood

that is black is red, but it became damaged! So too

blood that has the appearance of fenugreek water — it is red, but that

it became damaged is what occurred.

We learned in the Mishna:

And Beit Hillel declare pure.

The Gemara asks:

This is identical to the first tanna,

who said that only five bloods are impure?