Niddah 19b — the Talmud in English

And it answers:

there is a difference between them— ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

to suspend judgment concerning

the teruma. For the First Tanna, who wrote that only five bloods are certainly impure, his intention is not that the rest are pure, but that the rest have an uncertain impurity. It follows that according to the First Tanna, the two appearances of Beit Shammai are impure by uncertainty. And according to Beit Hillel, they are certainly pure.

We learned in the Mishna: blood that is

green —

And the Gemara asks:

Akavya ben Mahalalel declares impure.

And the Gemara asks:

and

if

Akavya does not have

the exposition of

“her bloods—

her bloods,” behold, four are here!?

And it answers:

if you wish, say:

indeed,

he does not have it!

And if you wish, say: he does have it.

Rather,

did Rabbi Hanina not say, “Black—

it is red, only that it has been stricken”; here too,

green blood — it is red, only

it has been stricken!

We learned in the Mishna:

and the Sages declare pure

the green blood.

The Gemara objects:

is this not the First Tanna

who said that only five bloods are impure?

And it answers:

there is a difference between them—

to suspend judgment concerning

the teruma, for according to the First Tanna the teruma is impure by uncertainty, whereas according to the Sages it is certainly pure.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Meir said: if he does not declare green blood impure

because of a stain—

he should declare it impure because of liquid! Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Meir descended

(agreed)

to the position of Akavya ben Mahalalel, and declared

green blood impure.

And this is what Rabbi Meir said to them,

Rabbi Meir

to the Rabbis: Granted, where she finds

the woman

a green stain on a utensil

(on her garment),

you do not declare it impure,

because it is not common for green blood to emerge from a woman’s body, and therefore we suspend judgment by saying that this blood did not come from her body. But,

where she sees green blood from her body—

she should become impure,

for it is blood?!

And the Gemara asks:

if so,

what is the meaning of Rabbi Meir’s words,

“If he does not declare it impure because of a stain—

he declares it impure because of liquid”?

For “he declares it impure

because she saw

blood”

would have been required

for Rabbi Meir to state!

Rather,

the Gemara retracts and establishes Rabbi Meir’s words in another manner:

This is what he said to them—

Granted, where she initially sees green blood, you do not declare it impure,

for the seeing of green blood is not considered a seeing of impure menstrual blood, so as to make the woman impure with menstrual impurity. This is what he said to them: “If he does not declare it impure because of a stain,” since it is unlike menstrual blood, which also renders impure because of a stain. But nevertheless,

where she initially sees red blood,

and becomes impure with menstrual impurity because of the red blood,

and afterward,

when she is already a menstruating woman,

she sees green blood, she should become impure

because of liquid—[it renders impure] a person, vessels, and pure foods that touch the green blood.

Just as it is with the liquid of a man with a flux and of a woman with a flux,

for all liquids that emerge from a man with a flux or a woman with a flux, such as spittle and urine, render impure one who touches them. And why should green blood emerging from a menstruating woman be inferior to urine or spittle, which the Sages declare completely pure?!

And the Rabbis,

who dispute Rabbi Meir and declare green blood completely pure, hold that only a liquid that is

similar to spittle renders impure because of the liquid of a menstruating woman—

just as spittle

is accustomed

to gather,

being collected first,

and emerge

afterward,

so too every

liquid

that gathers and emerges

renders impure because of the liquid of a menstruating woman.

To exclude this,

the green blood [or any other blood],

which does not gather and emerge,

for it is not collected, but drips from her immediately, drop by drop, as it is formed.

And the Gemara objects:

if so, did the Rabbis properly say to Rabbi Meir?

For Rabbi Meir too does not dispute that only a liquid that gathers and emerges renders impure. If so, why should he declare green blood impure, when it does not gather and emerge? On the strength of this question, the Gemara retracts this explanation and gives another explanation:

Rather, this is what he said to them—

why do you declare green blood completely pure, so that it does not even prepare foods to receive impurity like an ordinary liquid?

And why

should

green blood

be

an ordinary

liquid, to prepare seeds

to receive impurity?!

And the Rabbis—

they require

blood that prepares [foods] to receive impurity to be called “liquid,” for only those called “liquids” prepare [foods], and not every blood is called “liquid,” but only blood through which the soul departs, as it is stated:

“He shall drink the blood of the slain,” and there is none!

For green blood is not blood through which the soul departs.

And the Gemara returns and objects:

if so, did the Rabbis properly say to Rabbi Meir?!

Rather, this is what he said to them—

They taught it

(they taught him)

by a gzera shava

that green blood, or any other blood emerging from a woman during her menstruation, should be called a liquid and should prepare seeds to receive impurity, for

it is written here,

in the case of menstruation,

“Your channels are an orchard of pomegranates”

(see Rashi).

And it is written there, “And sending water upon the face of the streets,”

and it is learned by a gzera shava that blood emerging from a menstruating woman is called a liquid, just as water is called a liquid?!

And the Rabbis—indeed,

a person may derive a kal va-chomer on his own,

but

a person may not derive a gzera shava on his own,

and there is no received tradition of a halakha given to Moses at Sinai from which to derive this gzera shava.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yose says—

neither this nor that.

And the Gemara asks: Rabbi Yose—

is this not the First Tanna?!

For green blood is not certainly pure; rather, the teruma is suspended on account of it, and it does not prepare [foods] at all, because a person may not derive a gzera shava on his own.

And it answers:

this teaches us

the Tanna of the Mishna:

who is the First Tanna—

Rabbi Yose

is he;

and whoever states a matter in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world!

We learned in the Mishna:

which is red—

like the blood of a wound.

And the Gemara analyzes:

what is “like the blood of a wound”?

And the Gemara explains five explanations:

1.

Shmuel said: like the blood

of a slaughtered ox!

And the Gemara objects:

and let him say—

like the blood of slaughter,

and why did the Tanna state “like the blood of a wound”? And it answers:

if he had said, “like the blood of slaughter,” I would have said, like all of the slaughter,

for the appearance of slaughter blood is not uniform, and its color changes into several shades; and I would have said that all of them are considered red blood. Therefore

this teaches us

that only the appearance that is

“like the blood of a wound,”

which is

like the beginning of the striking of the slaughtering knife,

is the appearance of impure red blood.

2.

Ulla said: like the blood of a live bird,

which emerges from it when it is struck; and according to him, “like the blood of a wound” is understood literally.

They raised a question:

what Ulla said, “like the blood of a

live

bird”—is his intention blood that emerges when the bird remains alive,

to exclude

the appearance of the blood of a

slaughtered bird?

Or perhaps

Ulla’s intention was to say that only the appearance of the blood of a healthy bird is red blood,

to exclude

the appearance of the blood of a

thin bird.

And the Gemara concludes:

teyku!

3.

Ze'iri said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: like the blood of a crushed insect,

a louse

of the head!

A refutation was raised:

A woman who sees a stain on her garment, if she

killed a louse—

she may suspend it on that,

for the stain was created by the blood of the louse and not by menstrual blood.

And the Gemara infers: is it not

that she may suspend it on any louse, even a louse

of the entire body,

because the blood of all lice resembles menstrual blood, and not only the blood of a head louse?!

And the Gemara rejects:

No!

The intention of the beraita is that only if she killed a louse

of its head

may she suspend the stain on it.

4.

Ami of Vardinah said in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: like the blood of the little finger of the hand that was injured, healed, and then was injured again. And not of every person, but of a young man who has not married a woman. And until what age

is he called a “young man”?

Until the age of twenty!

A refutation was raised:

A woman who sees a stain

may suspend

her stain

on her son or on her husband

if they have an injury, for the blood did not come from her body, but came from the injury on their bodies when she touched them.

And the Gemara asks:

Granted, with her son, you can find it—

for she can suspend the stain on him when the blood of the stain resembles the blood of the little finger of a young man, as Rabbi Abbahu says.

But

with regard to suspending her stain on the injury of

her husband, how can you find it?

He is married, whereas according to Rabbi Abbahu only the appearance of blood like that of a young man who has not married a woman is impure. And it answers:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

you can find it,

for example

she entered the bridal chamber but did not have intercourse,

so that if she finds a stain, she can suspend it on an injury on her husband’s little finger!

5.

Rav Nahman said—

like blood from bloodletting!