Niddah 20a — the Talmud in English

It was objected: An incident occurred, and Rabbi Meir suspended a

stain

on eye-paint. And Rabbi suspended one on sycamore sap! When the woman had been occupied with them, it is proven that the appearance of the redness of the eye-paint resembles the appearance of menstrual blood, for otherwise it would not have been possible to suspend [the stain] on it, even though the appearance of the eye-paint is not strongly red. And this objection is difficult both according to Rav Naḥman, who required strong redness like blood from bloodletting, and according to Rabbi Abbahu, who distinguishes between the appearance of the blood of an unmarried man and the blood of a married man, and according to Ze'iri, who distinguishes between the blood of a louse on the head and the blood of a louse on the body—for the appearance of the eye-paint is weaker than theirs, and nevertheless it resembles menstrual blood?

The Gemara explains its question:

What, is it not referring to red,

when she found a red stain and Rabbi Meir declared it permitted because she had been occupied with eye-paint, proving that strong redness is not required?

And it answers:

No,

the incident involved an appearance other than red. Rather,

in the other bloods

listed in the Mishna, which resemble eye-paint, but not a red appearance. For only when it is strong in its redness is it menstrual blood.

Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were sitting before a bloodletter who was letting blood with a horn. They took the first horn from Ameimar, the practitioner took some of Ameimar’s blood with the first horn.

Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were sitting before a bloodletter

who drew blood with a horn.

He saw it,

Ameimar saw his blood inside the horn,

he said to them,

Ameimar said to Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi:

“The ‘red’ that we learned”

in the Mishna concerning the five impure bloods—is blood

“like this!”

They took it

the bloodletter took blood with

another

horn.

He said to them,

Ameimar, when he saw the blood in the second horn,

—

“It changed!”

This is not the same appearance, and its counterpart in a woman does not impart impurity.

Rav Ashi said,

when he heard Ameimar’s words—

“For someone like me, who does not know

how to distinguish

between this and that,

between the color of the blood in the first horn and the color of the blood in the second horn—

I certainly should not examine blood!”

I should not issue rulings concerning blood appearances!

We learned in the Mishna: Black—

like ink!

And the Gemara brings three examples of what the black mentioned in the Mishna is: [a]

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: “The ‘ink’ that they said”

is the black color mixed into

ink,

whose appearance is dark, and not black color mixed with water, whose appearance is light.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: Black— like ink. And the black that they said—

ink!

That is, the blackness of the ḥeret dissolved into ink.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

Let the

tan­ nay state briefly: Black—like

ink!?

And it answers:

If he had said,

“Black”—

“ink,”

I would have thought that

even that which resembles

the upper layer of ink,

like the appearance of the liquid ink above after the ḥeret settles into it, when its appearance is not so black, is impure—

it teaches us

that the appearance of black blood in a woman that imparts impurity is specifically when its appearance is

like the blackness of ink,

which is the blackness of the ḥeret settled at the bottom of the vessel, which is exceedingly black.

They raised a dilemma before them: In which appearance of ḥeret in ink did they say—the

wet

ink or the dry one?

Come and hear: Rabbi Ami

when he came to examine blood whose appearance was black, he would

split

a piece of ink,

a dry piece of ink containing ḥeret,

and examine with it,

by comparing the appearance of the blood with the appearance of the dry ink.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

A woman who saw a blood appearance black

like wax,

like ink

204, and like a black grape—

she is impure! And this is what we learned:

in our Mishna, that if the black color was

deeper than this—

she is impure.

Rabbi Elazar said: A black appearance like an olive, like tar 205, and like a raven— is pure! And this is what we learned: “Lighter than this [than ḥeret]— is pure!” [b]

black grape—is

ritually impure! And this is what we learned

in our Mishna: If the black color was

deeper than this,

deeper than ink-black, she is

ritually impure.

Rabbi Elazar said:

A black appearance

like an olive, like tar,

Ulla said:

The black in our Mishna means

like the garment of Siwa,

the people in the place called Siwa customarily wear black garments.

Ulla happened to come to Pumbedita. He saw a certain Arab wearing a garment— black. He said to them, Ulla said to the people of Pumbedita: The appearance of blood, “black” that we learned— is like this! And the people of Pumbedita were happy that they had something with which to examine the appearance of black blood. They plucked from him, from his black garment,

a little at a time, and they gave four hundred zuz for it! [c]

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The black appearance in our Mishna is

the garments of the wool-workers,

the garments of the bathhouse attendants

that come from overseas,

which are black.

And the Gemara asks:

Does this mean that they are black

those garments?

But Rabbi Yannai said to his sons: My sons, do not bury me in black garments, nor in white garments.

In

black

garments, do not bury me—

perhaps I shall merit

judgment and be like a mourner among bridegrooms,

for the righteous in the Garden of Eden are dressed in white. And in

white

garments, do not bury me,

perhaps I shall not merit and be like a bridegroom among mourners

in Gehinnom; rather, bury me

in the garments of the wool-workers that come from overseas!

The Gemara asks:

Does this mean that the garments that are black

black

are

those garments?

But Rabbi Yannai said to his sons: “My sons, do not bury me either in black garments or in white garments.”

In

black

It follows

that the wool-workers’ garments

are not black?!

And it answers:

This is not difficult: this

is with regard to the cloak,

for the cloaks of the wool-workers are red and not black, and Rabbi Yannai requested to be buried in them.

This

is with regard to the tablecloth,

for the tablecloths and sheets of the wool-workers are black. And Rabbi Yohanan referred to these black garments.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: And all of them, all five bloods, are examined only on a white cloth, on which the appearance is clearly visible.

the garments of the bathhouse attendants

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdumi said:

And the examination of black blood,

if it is like ḥeret, must be performed

on

a red garment.

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: And they do not disagree—

This

that the examination must be performed on a red garment refers to examination of the appearance of

black. This

that the examination is performed on a white cloth refers to

the other

bloods! Rav Ashi challenged Rav Yirmeya of Difti: If so, that Shmuel agrees that a black appearance is examined on a red garment— let Shmuel say, “Except for black!”? Rather, Rav Ashi said: They disagree concerning black itself, Shmuel and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi.

We learned in the Mishna that concerning a black appearance, “deeper than this is impure; lighter than this is pure,” and the Gemara brings four methods concerning the status of the other appearances when they are darker or lighter than what is explicit in the Mishna. [a]

Ulla said: All of them,

in all the bloods, if the red appearance was

deeper than this,

with redness darker than what is taught in the Mishna,

is impure!

And if it is

lighter than this,

the red appearance

is lighter than what is taught in the Mishna, it is

pure!

For the law of all four bloods is

like black,

whose law was explained in the Mishna: if it is deeper than it, it is impure, and if it is lighter, it is pure.

Rav Yirmeya of Difti:

If so,

given that Shmuel agrees that a black appearance is examined on a red garment,

let Shmuel say, “Except for black!”

Rather, Rav Ashi said: They disagree concerning black itself,

Shmuel and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi.

And the Gemara explains:

But what is different about “black,” which he mentioned

the tanna in the Mishna, mentioning only it?

It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Ḥanina said, “Black—

is red, except that it has been stricken, therefore even if it is lighter than this, it too should be impure,”

for it is red, and its blackness is only the result of a change; therefore, we might have thought that even if the black is lighter

it is impure, and the law of a black appearance differs from that of the other red bloods.

It teaches us the tanna in the Mishna, and explicitly wrote the law that lighter is pure with regard to black, to teach us that black too is included in this. The reason for the purity of light black is that red blood that becomes black through being stricken does not ordinarily become lighter; and if, in any event, the black becomes lighter, this is a sign that some of its redness is lacking. [b]

paler than this,

the red appearance being paler than the color taught in the Mishna, it is

Rabbi Ami bar Abba said: And all of them, deeper than this—

impure; lighter than this—

also impure, except for black,

which, if lighter than this, is pure.

The Gemara asks: Rather, what benefit is there from the measures of the Sages, by which the Mishna specified which red appearances are impure, for in every case, whether they are lighter or darker, they are also impure? And it answers: To exclude “the lightest of the light,” which is extremely light. [c] And some say: Rami bar Abba said: All of them, deeper than this— pure; lighter than this— pure, except for black, whose law was explained in the Mishna: if it is deeper than it, it is impure, and if it is lighter, it is pure. And for this reason the measures of the Sages are useful, for the bloods are impure specifically according to the measure of the redness in the Mishna, but not if lighter than this, and not even if deeper than this.

But then, why did the tanna mention “black”

alone in the Mishna?

It might have entered your mind to say: Since Rabbi Ḥanina said, “Black

it is impure; if lighter than this,

is red that has been afflicted and changed; therefore, even if it is paler than this, it should also render her impure,”

since it is red, and its blackness results only from a change. Accordingly, one might have thought that even if the black color were pale, it would be impure, and that the law of black differs from that of the other red blood colors.

The tanna therefore teaches us

in the Mishna by explicitly stating that pale black is pure that black too is included in this rule. The reason that pale black is pure is that red blood that turns black because of an affliction does not normally become pale. If the black appearance is nevertheless pale, this indicates that its redness is deficient. [b]

who specified in the Mishna which red appearances are impure? In every case, whether the appearances are lighter or darker, they are also impure.

Rabbi Ami bar Abba said: All of them, if deeper than this—

are impure; if paler than this—

are also impure, except for black,

which is pure when paler than the specified color.

The Gemara asks:

But then, what purpose is served by the measurements established by the Sages,

who specified in the Mishna which red appearances are impure, if in every case—whether they are paler or darker—they are also impure?

And it answers:

To exclude “extremely pale,”

a color that is exceptionally pale. [c]

for the bloods are impure specifically when they match the degree of redness specified in the Mishna, but not when they are lighter or even darker than it.

And some say: Rami bar Abba said: All of them, if deeper than this—

are pure; if paler than this—

are pure, except for black,

whose law is explained in the Mishna: if it is deeper than the specified color, it is impure, while if it is paler, it is pure.

And this is the purpose served by the measurements established by the Sages:

only blood matching the degree of redness specified in the Mishna is impure, but not blood paler than this, and not even blood deeper than this.

Bar Kappara said: And all of them: deeper than this, —

impure; paler than this, pure—except for diluted wine: deeper than this, pure; paler than this, pure.

And the Gemara brings an incident:

they brought before Bar Kappara

a blood appearance resembling diluted wine that was pale, in order to ask him about it —

and he declared it pure [and purified it], and likewise

[they declared it pure], and likewise

they deepened it for him,

a blood appearance resembling the appearance of diluted wine that was deeper than that mentioned in the Mishna,

and he declared it pure [and purified that one as well].

[he declared that one pure as well].

Rabbi Hanina said: How great is the man, whose heart

is able to distinguish among the appearances of blood —

in accordance with his teaching! [according to the laws that he teaches].

[in accordance with the laws he teaches].

We learned in the Mishna:

And like the horn of saffron.

The tanna taught:

like the appearance of a saffron horn,

moist and not dry.

And the Gemara brings four baraitot concerning the color of saffron and afterwards explains that they do not disagree with one another:

A.

One [baraita] taught —

like the lower one and not like the upper one.

B.

And another [baraita] taught —

like the upper one and not like the lower one.

C.

And another [baraita] taught —

like the upper one, and all the more so like the lower one!

D.

And another [baraita] taught —

like the lower one, and all the more so like the upper one!

Abaye said: There are three rows

of leaves, one above the other, in a saffron horn,

and there are three leaves [and in each row there are three leaves, one above the other].

[with three leaves in each tier, one above the other].

And if you come to examine a blood appearance corresponding to a saffron horn,

take the middle row,

examine according only to the leaves in the middle row,

and the middle leaf is in your hand!

Among the three leaves in the middle row, the superior one is the middle leaf among them. But examination with this leaf is not indispensable; rather, all three middle leaves are fit for examination.

And accordingly, this is the explanation of the baraitot:

A. Like the lower one and not like the upper one — like the middle row and not like the upper row above it.

B. Like the upper one and not like the lower one — like the middle row and not like the lower row beneath it.

C. Like the upper one, and all the more so like the lower one — like the upper leaf in the middle row, and all the more so like the middle leaf beneath it.

D. Like the lower one, and all the more so like the upper one — like the lower leaf in the middle row, and all the more so like the middle leaf above it.

When they came before Rabbi Abbahu

to examine according to the saffron horn,

he said —

They taught [this] in their clumps!

When they are attached to the earth beneath them, and not when they are detached from it , for then their color changes.

We learned in the Mishna:

And like the waters of earth.

The Sages taught: “Like the waters of earth” —

one brings rich earth from the valley of Beit Kerem and floods it with water; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Akiva says:

one brings earth

from the valley of Yodefat.

Rabbi Yose says: From the valley of Sakhnin.

Rabbi Shimon says: Even from the valley of Ginnosar, and the like

of them.

Another [baraita] taught: “And like the waters of earth” —

one brings rich earth from the valley of Beit Kerem and floods it with water to the thickness of a garlic peel.

And there is no measure for the water, because there is no measure for the earth,

that is, he should bring enough water to flood, to the measure of a garlic peel, the quantity of earth before him.

And one does not examine them

when the water is

clear, but

when it is

cloudy,

so that the earth is mixed into the water and its appearance is discernible.

If they become clear,

the water [became clear]

he returns and makes them cloudy; and when he makes them cloudy, he does not make them cloudy by hand, but with a vessel!

They raised a question before them:

What is the explanation of the last law in the baraita,

“One does not make them cloudy by hand, but with a vessel”?

Is the explanation —

that he should not throw

the earth

by hand and make it cloudy,

that is, he should not fill his hands with earth and mix the earth into the water while it is still in his hand, and afterwards place it in the vessel,

but in a vessel,

if the earth is already lying in a vessel with the water,

when he makes it cloudy with his hand, it is fine,

for when his hand merely mixes the earth lying in the vessel, it does not cause a change in the appearance.

Or perhaps

the explanation is —

that he should not make them cloudy by hand

at all,

but with a vessel

the mixing too should be done, and he should take another vessel and mix it in that.

Come and hear: When he examines them

for the waters of earth,

he examines them only in a cup

and not by holding earth mixed with water in his hand and examining it. It follows that he must place the earth into a vessel with the water and mix it there, and not hold it in his hand.

And still you have a question,

for indeed the

examination

itself must be performed when the earth is

in a cup,

and not when it is in his hand, but

the making-cloudy itself remains a question for you: with what

must it be performed—specifically with a vessel, or also by hand?

And we conclude:

teyku!

When they came before Rabba bar Avuha

to examine with the waters of earth,

he said to them

to those who brought the earth: “The waters of earth” —

we learned [that it must be done] in its place!”

The examination is effective only if he examines in the same place from which the earth was taken; but if he transfers the earth to another place, its appearance changes, and it is impossible to examine on its basis.

Rabbi Hanina Peli,

[meaning] he split off

a piece of earthen clod and examined with it. Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yose cursed him,

meaning that whoever performs such an examination should be punished

with askara.