Niddah 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

Likewise, she does not know whether, on the third day when she discharged it, blood emerged from her or not—

this is an uncertain childbirth and an uncertain zivah

[and there are three possibilities before us: a. She may have discharged a fetus, in which case she is a woman who has given birth and not a zava. b. She may have discharged air, and blood emerged with it, in which case she is a zava and not a woman who has given birth. c. She may have discharged air without blood emerging with it, in which case she is neither a woman who has given birth nor a zava who is obligated to bring a sacrifice, since she saw blood for only two days. Therefore, in order to purify herself from the uncertainty]

she brings a sacrifice

[in case she is a zava or in case she is a woman who has given birth; however, since there is a third possibility in which she may be entirely exempt from a sacrifice]—

and it may not be eaten!

because her sacrifice is a bird sin-offering brought in a case of uncertainty, and it is killed by pinching, and if she is not obligated to bring it, it is an animal carcass.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: She brings a sacrifice

because of the uncertainty whether she is a zava or a woman who has given birth,

and it may be eaten,

since she is certainly one of the two—either a woman who has given birth or a zava—

because it is impossible for the opening of the womb to occur without

the emission of

blood!

Therefore, if she discharged air, she is a zava, since she saw blood on the third day as well. And if she discharged a fetus, she is a woman who has given birth, but she is not a zava, because the blood is childbirth blood.

Some say it in another formulation:

[This formulation is identical to the first formulation, differing only in that Rabbi Yohanan follows the position of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and they do not disagree at all with the first formulation].

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Rabbi Yehuda declared impure only a piece containing the four types of blood, but in the case of the other types of blood, she is pure.

Is that so? But when Rav Hoshaya came from Nehardea, he came and brought a beraita with him:

“If a woman discharges a red or black piece, or a green or white piece, if blood accompanies it she is impure, and if not, she is pure. Rabbi Yehuda says: In either case she is impure.”

It teaches: “Red and black, green and white,” and Rabbi Yehuda disputes

and declares even green and white, which are pure colors, impure?!

And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda disputes only with regard to red and black,

but a piece that is

green or white he does not

declare impure,

rather, “green and white”—for whom were they taught? If you say that it is according to the Rabbis, now

a piece that is

red and black the Rabbis declare pure; is it necessary to mention green and white? Rather, is it not so

that what was stated concerning green and white

was stated according to Rabbi Yehuda,

and

it

is therefore evident that

Rabbi Yehuda disputes

and declares even green and white impure?!

Rather, he said

[Rav Yehuda]:

Rabbi Yohanan

[Maharshal]—

they disputed whether it is possible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood,

and

it is in the dispute between these tannaim, as it was taught:

She experienced labor pains for two

days,

and on the third day she discharged something but does not know what she discharged,

a fetus or merely air,

this is an uncertain childbirth and an uncertain zivah,

and therefore—

she brings a sacrifice because of the uncertainty, but it may not be eaten. Rabbi Yehoshua says: She brings a sacrifice

and it may be eaten,

because it is impossible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood,

and therefore we know with certainty that she is either a woman who has given birth or a zava.

The Sages taught: If a woman discharges a piece

[that does not have the form of a fetus and does not convey the ritual impurity of childbirth]—

Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya likewise used to say in accordance with his opinion: She tears it open,

the piece, and examines it;

if there is blood inside it—

she is impure, and if not—

she is pure!

The Gemara says:

It accords with the Rabbis

in the Mishna, who are the position followed by Sumakhos and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, and not with Rabbi Yehuda; however, it does not accord entirely with the Rabbis, but rather

is more stringent

[more stringent]

than the Rabbis.

The Gemara explains its statement: It accords

with the Rabbis—

who say: It is possible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood!

Therefore, if she tears it open and finds no blood inside it, she is pure; we do not declare her impure on the grounds that blood must certainly have been present outside the piece as well.

And it is more stringent than the Rabbis—

for they maintain

that only when blood emerges

with it,

outside the piece,

yes,

[she is impure], but if the blood is found

inside it

alone,

no,

the Rabbis do not declare her impure. Therefore, the Rabbis did not require her to tear open the piece.

But

Sumakhos maintains—

even

if the blood is found

inside it

alone, she is impure with the impurity of menstruation.

And it was taught in another [beraita]: If a woman discharges a piece—

Rav Aḥa says: She tears it open. If its interior becomes red,

meaning that the color of the flesh inside is red, then even though no blood was found in it,

she is impure. And if not—

she is pure!

The Gemara explains that there are four positions concerning the law of a woman who discharges a piece: a. The Rabbis in the Mishna maintain that she is pure, and only additional blood that came from outside the piece renders her impure. b. Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai maintains that if there is a large amount of blood inside the piece, it renders her impure, but a small amount of blood does not render her impure. c. Sumakhos holds that any liquid blood inside the piece renders her impure, even when it is only a small amount; (d) Rav Aḥa maintains that she is impure even when the flesh of the piece is red. The reason for the Rabbis’ ruling that blood inside the piece does not render her impure was written by Tosafot [on the words “according to Rabbi”] state explicitly that the Sages in the baraita also declare red and black pure. How, then, can one say that they disagree only concerning green and white? The previous difficulty can be forced into such an interpretation: Rabbi Yehuda did not explicitly say that he declares all colors impure; only because his statement is unrestricted does it appear that he refers to everything listed by the Sages. It is therefore possible to argue that he refers only to part of what the Sages listed. But in the Sages’ own statement, it is impossible to interpret their words contrary to what they explicitly say. Because of this difficulty, [in the commentary beginning “But did Rabbi Yohanan say”] as follows: Menstrual blood is not ordinarily found inside a piece of flesh, so we attribute the blood to a wound. Another reason for declaring blood inside the piece pure will be explained later in the passage: It is derived from the scriptural exposition of the verse “in her flesh,” but not in a piece. The reason that Sumakhos and Rav Aḥa hold that even a small amount of blood or red flesh renders her impure was written by Maharam [in the commentary beginning “But did Rabbi Yohanan say”]: It is possible that a piece is not made of flesh but of congealed blood. Although ordinarily we assume that the piece is flesh and declare her pure, the blood inside it reveals that the entire piece is made of blood; it is reasonable that the entire piece consists of one substance, with the outer part congealed and the inner part remaining liquid.

The Gemara explains: Rav Aḥa, who holds

like Sumakhos

—that she becomes impure because of what is found inside the piece as well—disagrees with the Rabbis in the Mishna, who required that the blood be outside the piece.

However, Rav Aḥa does not hold entirely like Sumakhos, but rather

is more stringent than Sumakhos

—for according to Sumakhos she is impure only if she finds blood inside the piece, whereas according to Rav Aḥa, a red appearance in the flesh is sufficient.

And it was taught in another [beraita]:

another law concerning a woman who discharges a piece, with regard to the ritual impurity of childbirth.

If a woman discharges a piece,

Rabbi Binyamin says: She tears it open. If it contains

in the piece

a bone,

its mother is impure with the ritual impurity of childbirth!

This law does not concern blood inside the piece, since the impurity of a white piece is the ritual impurity of childbirth. It was brought in the Gemara incidentally, together with the laws of impurity that apply when a woman discharges a piece. Tosafot [on the words “according to Rabbi”]. Tosafot explain that the Gemara’s answer was that “a woman who discharges a red or black piece” is an independent statement, intended to teach that the Sages agree that a red or black piece renders her impure even without additional blood. If so, why did the Gemara reject this with the question, “According to whom was it taught?” This statement is needed in order to teach that the Sages agree with Rabbi Yehuda. He answered that if the statement contained no additional teaching about declaring something pure, the baraita would not have written “red and black” as part of the first section in which the Sages declare the woman pure. Instead, it would have presented the matter in an orderly way and explained the law of red and black in the latter section, among Rabbi Yehuda’s words, in which he declares the woman impure. [in the commentary beginning “If”] raised the difficulty: Why did the Gemara bring this matter in the middle of the dispute concerning the law of blood, rather than wait until it completed the matters of menstruation? They answered that the Gemara preferred to bring together the laws stated in the baraitot.\n\n\n

Rav Ḥisda said: And with regard to a white piece

they taught this with regard to a piece that is a type of flesh containing a bone, which indicates that she miscarried a fetus, and her impurity is due to childbirth.

And likewise, when the pair

of Torah scholars

from

Hadyav

a place-name

came and brought a beraita: “If a woman miscarries a white piece

she should split it open. If there is a bone inside it,

her mother is impure due to childbirth!

The Gemara returns to discuss the halakha of niddah impurity on account of blood within the piece:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:

If a woman miscarries a piece —

she should split it open. If there is congealed blood inside it

blood that has accumulated inside it in a large quantity —

she is impure.

And if not —

she is pure!

This is like the view of Sumakhos —

who likewise holds that blood inside the piece renders her impure.

And it is more lenient than all of them —

for Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai required a large quantity of blood for her to become impure, whereas according to Sumakhos even a small quantity of blood renders her impure; while according to Rav Aḥa, even a red appearance without any blood at all renders her impure.

Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira:

What is the status of a woman who sees blood through a tube

who inserted a hollow reed into that place, so that the blood did not touch the walls of the womb

?

The two sides of the uncertainty are as follows: The impurity of a niddah is derived from the verse, “When there is a discharge of blood

in her flesh,”

and since

the Merciful One stated,

“in her flesh,” she is impure only when the blood passed through the walls of the womb

and not

when it emerged

through a tube,

which separates the blood from the flesh .

Or perhaps, this phrase “in her flesh”

was not stated for this exposition, but

is needed

for another teaching:

that she becomes impure

when the blood is found

inside as it is outside,

meaning that once the blood emerges from the source into the vaginal canal, she is impure even though it has not yet emerged from the body [unlike a man with gonorrhea or one who has experienced a seminal emission, who become impure only when the discharge emerges completely outside].

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira to Rabbi Yirmeya:

“The Merciful One stated, ‘in her flesh’ —

but not through a tube!”

For if ‘in her flesh’ is needed

only to teach

that she becomes impure inside as she does outside —

then let the verse say ‘in flesh’; what is the significance of ‘in her flesh’?

Derive from this two teachings!

From the word itself we learn that she becomes impure while the blood is inside, and the additional letter heh excludes a woman who sees blood through a tube .

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: If a woman miscarries a piece,

she should split it open; if there is congealed blood inside it, she is impure, and if not, she is pure!

Yet the congealed blood does not itself emerge through the walls of the womb; it is contained within a piece of flesh. What difference is there between seeing blood inside a tube and seeing blood inside a piece of flesh?

The Gemara answers:

Can this really be compared!? There,

in the case of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai,

it is the usual manner for a woman to see blood in a piece,

and therefore there is no deficiency in the blood’s emerging while contained within the piece, since it occasionally emerges in this manner . But

here,

in the case of seeing blood through a tube,

it is not the usual manner for a woman to see blood through a tube!

The Gemara discusses the matter:

Let us say that the law of seeing blood through a

that the law of seeing through a

tube

is a dispute between tannaim!?

As it is taught in a beraita: If a woman miscarries a piece, even though it is full of

blood within it,

if there is with it,

blood that emerged together with it,

additional blood

outside the piece,

she is impure. And if not, she is pure.

Rabbi Eliezer says: “In her flesh” —

but not in a fetus sac

a fetal skin sac, which before the fetus’s limbs have developed within it is full of blood,

and not

when the blood emerges

within a piece.

The Gemara asks:

Rabbi Eliezer,

who says, “but not in a piece,”

is identical to the first tanna,

as both of them declare blood within the piece pure?!

Rather, his statement must be emended as follows:

Say —

that Rabbi Eliezer says: “In her flesh,” but not in a fetus sac and not in a piece,

and Rabbi Eliezer came only to explain the source of the first tanna’s ruling, not to disagree with him. And the Gemara cites the conclusion of the beraita:

And the Sages say

that there is another reason to declare the blood within the piece pure:

This is not niddah blood, but the blood of the piece!

There still remains a point to clarify: How do the Sages and the first tanna disagree? After all,

the first tanna also declares it pure.

This implies that they disagree about the law, and not merely about whether the verse’s exposition is necessary or unnecessary?!

The Gemara answers that there are two disputes between the first tanna and the Sages:

Rather, they differ with regard to a piece with fissures:

when there are fissures in the piece and there is blood within the fissures, only the Sages declare it pure. There is an additional dispute concerning a woman who sees blood through a tube: only the first tanna declares her pure .

The first tanna holds

that the reason blood within a piece is pure is derived from the verse

“in her flesh, but not in a fetus sac and not in a piece,”

and therefore he declared pure not only blood within a piece but

the same applies to a tube!

For from the scriptural decree we learn that any blood separated from the walls of the womb does not render her impure. However,

this applies

to a piece in which there is a separation between the blood and the walls of the womb. Therefore, only

where it is smooth,

meaning that the piece is smooth on the outside, surrounding the blood, and is neither fissured nor split, and the blood is found only within the piece, is she pure.

But when it has fissures,

where there are cracks in the piece and the blood also collects in those cracks, and the blood in the cracks touches the walls of the womb, she is impure.

What is the reason?

With regard to the blood in the cracks,

we apply to it “in her flesh,”

and she is therefore

impure.

For there is nothing separating the blood in the cracks from the walls of the womb.

And the Sages come to say —

even though it has fissures

and the blood touches the walls of the womb, it does not render her impure, because

“this is not niddah blood, but the blood of the piece.”

For the Sages did not exclude it through the scriptural decree concerning separation, but based their ruling on reasoning alone: blood found in a piece is not niddah blood but the blood of the piece. Therefore, it does not matter whether the blood of the piece touches the walls of the womb, since it is not included in the category of niddah blood.

The Gemara continues to explain the second dispute:

As for definite niddah blood,

which is not the blood of a piece, it is

impure, even

if it emerged

through a tube as well.

For the Sages do not expound “in her flesh” to exclude a separation.

It follows that the first tanna [who is Rabbi Eliezer] and the Sages also disagree about the status of a woman who sees blood through a tube?!

The Gemara rejects this:

Abaye said: No,

the first tanna and the Sages disagree only concerning one law, and with regard to a

tube —

everyone agrees that she is pure,

because the Sages, too, expound the verse “in her flesh” to exclude a separation.