Niddah 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

They disagreed

Rabbi Yehuda and the first tanna

only when she miscarried,

and does not know what she miscarried,

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

Rabbi Yehuda holds:

follow

the appearance of

most pieces

of flesh that a woman miscarries.

And

the appearance of

most pieces

that a woman miscarries

is that of the four types of blood

that are impure;

they are!

Therefore Rabbi Yehuda renders her impure.

But

if

the Rabbis hold: “Follow the majority of pieces,” -

we do not say so!

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

And Rabbi Yohanan, when he stated that only in those three places did they follow the majority, sought to teach us that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who follows the majority with regard to pieces of flesh miscarried by a woman, his intent is not a ruling of certainty but only a ruling of doubt: one may attribute the matter to the majority, but one may not burn teruma on that account .

Mishna:

There are five

types of

impure blood

that

are present in a woman,

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

a.

Red.

b.

And black 173 .

c.

And like the red 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 on a type of red earth [the type of earth will be explained at the end of the Mishna].

e.

And

the appearance of

diluted

red wine, whose color is lighter than undiluted red wine.

Beit Shammai say: Also like the water of fenugreek,

whose appearance is like water in which fenugreek was soaked,

and like the water [

and like the broth that drips from roasted meat]

of roasted meat. And Beit Hillel declare them pure

with regard to both of these appearances.

Blood

that is green—

Akavya ben Mahalalel declares it impure

it,

and the Sages declare it pure

it entirely.

Rabbi Meir said

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

Yet even

if

the green blood

does not render her impure on account of a stain

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

render

[render the food susceptible to contracting impurity]

on account of being a liquid,

so that placing it upon food renders the food susceptible to contracting impurity?!

Rabbi Yosei says: It is not so,

as Akavya ben Mahalalel says, who holds that green blood has the status of certainly impure blood; nor is it as Rabbi Meir says, that green blood renders seeds susceptible to impurity.

And it is not so,

as the Sages say, declaring it certainly pure. Rather, green blood is doubtfully impure .

The Mishna explains what the appearances of the five types of blood are:

a.

What is “red”? —

Like the blood of a wound.

b. What is

“black”? —

Like ink, [

a type of black dye used for dyeing leather]. It is not only blood whose appearance is exactly like ink that is impure; even a black appearance that is

deeper

[darker]

than this

[than ink] is

impure!

But a black appearance that is

fainter

[lighter]

than this —

is pure!

c.

And

what appearance is

“like the red of saffron”? —

Like the clear

appearance of the leaves

“of it,”

whose redness is exceedingly clear.

d.

And

what appearance is

“like the water of earth”?

One brings earth

from the Beit HaKerem Valley [

a place name]

and pours

water

upon it.

e. And what appearance is

“like diluted wine”?

One brings

two parts water and

one part

wine from Sharon wine,

and dilutes them together.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

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

?

It answers:

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

between pure blood and impure blood!

The Gemara asks:

If that is so,

the verse

“between affliction and affliction,”

should we also

likewise

expound it and distinguish

between an impure affliction and a pure affliction?

And should you say: “Likewise,”

that such a distinction is indeed intended, this is impossible, because

is there such a thing as a pure affliction? And should you say

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

“It has turned entirely 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 the details of their laws; but

all of them are impure,

for the verse does not mean that some are impure and some are pure.

If so,

here too,

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

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

The Gemara answers:

What is this?

How can it be said that the meaning of the verse “between blood and blood” is not to distinguish between pure blood and impure blood? After all, this passage, “When a matter of judgment is hidden from you, between blood and blood,” concerns the dispute of the rebellious elder with the Sanhedrin, and the meaning of the verse is that they disagreed with one another concerning blood, and the rebellious elder did not accept the opinion of the Sanhedrin. If it is said that there is no pure blood at all, and that the verse means to distinguish between zavah blood and menstrual blood, then over what did the rebellious elder and the Sanhedrin disagree?

Granted, there,

with regard to afflictions, it is possible to explain the verse “between affliction and affliction” as referring to cases in which all convey impurity, with the meaning of the verse being to distinguish between afflictions of people, afflictions of houses, and afflictions of garments. For in all three categories of affliction we find a dispute among the tannaim; consequently, it is possible that the dispute between the rebellious elder and the Sanhedrin concerned this dispute: The Sanhedrin determined the practical halakha in accordance with one tanna, and the rebellious elder disagreed with their ruling and instructed people to act in accordance with the dissenting tanna.

The Gemara specifies: a.

It is possible to disagree with regard to afflictions of people, and in the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis, as we learned: If the bright spot preceded the white hair,

that is, the black hair in the bright spot turned white after the bright spot had already appeared,

he is impure; but if the white hair preceded the bright spot —

he is pure.

And if there was

doubt

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

he is impure.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is faded [

that is, it is like an affliction whose appearance has faded] ,

and Rabba said: Faded and pure!

b. Likewise, there is a dispute

with regard to afflictions of houses, as this is the dispute between Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and the Rabbis:

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

with the impurity of afflictions of houses

until it displays

an affliction measuring

approximately two beans, on two stones, on two walls, at a corner. Its length

of the affliction is

approximately two beans

in length,

and its width is

a bean!

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagreed with him on this matter.

And, parenthetically, 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

with regard to the afflictions of garments, in the dispute between Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtulmos and the Rabbis:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtulmos says: From where is it derived that the spreading of the affliction over a garment renders it pure?

When the leprosy spreads and covers the entire garment.

Because it is derived by means of a gzera shava:

“Bald area” and “receding area” are stated with regard to garments, and “bald area” and “receding area” are stated with regard to a person; just as there,

with regard to a person,

if the affliction spread

over

the entire person, he is pure, so too here,

with regard to garments,

if it spread over the entire garment, it is pure!

Rather, here,

with regard to a woman’s blood, if

there is no pure blood—

over what did

the Sanhedrin and the rebellious elder dispute? Rather , it is necessarily the case that there is pure blood in a woman, and they disputed 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 known that these

bloods

are pure, and these are impure?

Rabbi Abbahu said: The verse says: “And Moab saw the water red as blood,” teaching that blood—

is red!

And all the bloods enumerated in the Mishna are red.

And we raise an objection:

But perhaps [the verse indicates only] “red,” and no more—

that only blood that is “the reddest of the red,” like the blood of a wound, renders impure, but not the other bloods, which, even if they are red, are not as intensely red as it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abbahu said: The verse says

with regard to 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”—

her bloods”—

here are four

bloods mentioned in it.

And we refute this:

But we learned: “five

impure bloods

[are mentioned in the Mishna]!”

And we answer:

Rabbi Ḥanina said:

The

black

blood—

is red blood, but it has deteriorated 187 ,

having become spoiled and turned black.

It was taught likewise

that black blood is red blood that deteriorated, as it was taught in a beraita: Blood

that is black

is the black

like ink.

If the black color was

deeper than this—

it is impure!

If it faded, even

if it retained its blackness

like blue—

it is pure!

And

this black blood—

does not become black from the outset; rather,

only

when it emerges

from the body

does it become black

[and after it deteriorates].

Analogous to the blood of a wound,

which

becomes black only when it emerges.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: Even

blood whose appearance is

like fenugreek water:

And we raise an objection:

And

if

Beit Shammai do not accept

the exposition

“her bloods”—

“her bloods”—

here are four? And we answer:

If you wish, say:

They do not accept it.

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

Rather,

did Rabbi Ḥanina not say:

Blood

that is black is red, but it has deteriorated? So too,

blood whose appearance is like fenugreek water is red, but it

has deteriorated.

We learned in the Mishna:

And Beit Hillel declare it pure.

The Gemara asks:

This is identical to the first tanna,

who said that only five bloods are impure?