Niddah 21b — the Talmud in English

Likewise, she does not know whether, on the third day, when she discharged the substance, blood issued from her or not.

She is therefore subject to uncertainty as to whether she gave birth and uncertainty as to whether she is a woman with a flux.

There are three possibilities before us: (a) she may have discharged a miscarriage, in which case she is a woman who gave birth and not a woman with a flux; (b) she may have discharged fluid and blood issued with it, in which case she is a woman with a flux and not a woman who gave birth; or (c) she may have discharged fluid without blood issuing with it, in which case she is neither a woman who gave birth nor a woman with a flux who is obligated to bring an offering, since she saw blood for only two days.

She brings an offering

in order to purify herself from the uncertainty—perhaps she is a woman with a flux, or perhaps she is a woman who gave birth. However, since there is a third possibility, that she is entirely exempt from the offering,

it may not be eaten!

Her offering is a bird sin-offering brought in a case of uncertainty, and it is slaughtered by pinching the back of its neck. If she is not obligated to bring it, it is an improperly slaughtered carcass.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: She brings an offering

because of the uncertainty whether she is a woman with a flux or a woman who gave birth,

and it may be eaten,

since she is certainly one of the two: either a woman who gave birth or a woman with a flux,

because it is impossible for the womb to open

without the emission of

blood!

Therefore, if she discharged fluid, she is a woman with a flux, since she saw blood on the third day as well. And if she discharged a miscarriage, she is a woman who gave birth, but she is not a woman with a flux, because the blood is the blood of childbirth.

There is another version of the discussion:

This wording is identical to the first version, differing only in that Rabbi Yohanan holds like Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and they do not disagree at all [with the first version].

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

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

“A woman who discharges a red or black piece, or a green or white piece: if blood is found with 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 disagrees

and declares her impure even in the case of green and white, which are colors that render her pure!?

And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees only concerning red and black,

but in the case of a

green or white piece, he does not

declare her impure,

rather, why were “green and white” taught? If you say that they were taught according to the Sages, now,

if concerning a piece that is

red or black the Sages declare her pure, is it necessary to state this concerning green and white? Rather, no:

the mention of green and white

was according to Rabbi Yehuda,

and it was stated

and

it follows, then, that

Rabbi Yehuda disagrees

and declares her impure even in the case of green and white?!

Rather, he said [A0158]][Rav Yehuda], [A0159]]Rabbi Yohanan [A0160]]—according to the reading of the Maharshal—

[Rav Yehuda]:

Rabbi Yohanan

[Maharshal]—

they disagreed concerning whether it is possible for the womb to open without blood,

,

it is subject to a dispute between these tannaitic authorities, as it was taught in a baraita:

She experienced labor pains for two

days

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

a miscarriage or merely fluid.

She is subject to uncertainty as to whether she gave birth and uncertainty as to whether she is a woman with a flux,

and therefore

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

and it may be eaten,

because it is impossible for the womb to open without blood,

and therefore we know with certainty that she is either a woman who gave birth or a woman with a flux.

The Sages taught in a baraita: A woman who discharges a piece

[that does not have the form of a fetus and therefore does not render her impure with the impurity of childbirth]—

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

the piece, and examines it.

If there is blood inside it,

she is impure; but if not,

she is pure!

The Gemara says:

It accords with the Sages

in the Mishna, who hold that Sumakhos and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya follow their view and not Rabbi Yehuda’s. However, it does not accord with the Sages entirely; rather, it is

more stringent

[more severe]

than the Sages.

The Gemara explains its statement: It accords

with the Sages—

who say: It is possible for the womb to open without blood!

Therefore, if she tears open the piece and finds no blood inside it, she is pure; we do not declare her impure on the assumption that there was certainly additional blood outside the piece.

It is more stringent than the Sages—

for they hold

that only when blood emerges

with it,

outside the piece,

then,

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

inside it

alone,

no,

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

But

Sumakhos holds

even if

the blood is found

inside it,

inside the piece alone, she is impure with the impurity of menstruation.

And it was taught in another baraita: A woman who discharges a piece—

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

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

she is impure. But if not,

she is pure!

The Gemara explains: Rav Aḥa, who holds

like Sumakhos,

holds that the woman becomes impure because of blood found inside the piece as well, and disagrees with the Sages in the Mishna, who require the blood to be outside the piece.

However, Rav Aḥa does not hold exactly like Sumakhos. Rather, he is

more stringent than Sumakhos:

according to Sumakhos, she is impure only if she finds blood inside the piece; according to Rav Aḥa, the flesh’s red appearance is sufficient.

And it was taught in another baraita:

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

A woman who discharges a piece—

Rabbi Binyamin says: She tears it open. If there is a

inside the piece

bone,

her mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth!

Rav Hisda said: And with a white piece

they taught that it is a kind of flesh joined together with the bone, for it is the offspring of a miscarriage, and its impurity is on account of birth.

And likewise, when the pair [

a pair of Torah scholars]

from

Hadayeve

[a place-name],

came and brought a beraita: “One who miscarries a white piece

should split it open. If it contains a bone

its mother is impure with the impurity of birth!

And the Gemara returns to discuss the law of the impurity of a menstruating woman on account of blood in the piece:

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai:

One who miscarries a piece

should split it open. If it contains congealed blood [

that has a great deal of blood gathered inside it] —

she is impure.

And if not

she is pure!

Like Symmachus

for he too holds that blood inside the piece causes impurity.

And it is more lenient than all of them

for Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai required there to be a great deal of blood for her to become impure, whereas according to Symmachus even a small amount of blood causes impurity, while according to Rav Aha even a red appearance without any blood at all causes impurity.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked Rabbi Zeira:

One who sees blood in a tube [

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

what is the law?

The sides of the question are as follows: the impurity of a menstruating woman is learned from the verse, “There shall be a discharge of blood,”

“in her flesh,”

and since

the Merciful One said, “in her flesh,”

she is impure only when the blood passes through the walls of the womb,

and not

when it emerges

in a tube

that separates between the blood and the flesh .

Or perhaps, this “in her flesh”

was not stated for this exposition, but

is needed to him

for another teaching:

that she becomes impure

when blood is found

inside as outside,

for when the blood emerges from the source into the corridor, she is impure even though it has not yet emerged outside [and this differs from a man with a flux and from one who has a seminal emission, who cause impurity only when the flux has emerged completely outside].

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Jeremiah:

“The Merciful One said, ‘in her flesh’” —

“and not in a tube!”

For if “in her flesh” is needed to him

only to teach

that she becomes impure inside as outside —

then let the verse say “in flesh”; what is the meaning of “in her flesh”?

Learn from this two things!

From the very word we learn that she becomes impure inside, and the addition of the letter “he” excludes one who sees blood in a tube .

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: One who miscarries a piece

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

But the congealed blood does not itself emerge through the walls of the womb; rather, it is gathered inside the piece of flesh. And what difference is there between one who sees blood inside a tube and one who sees blood inside a piece of flesh?

And it answers:

How can these cases be compared!? There,

in Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai’s law,

it is the way of a woman to see blood in a piece,

and therefore there is no deficiency in the blood’s emerging while gathered inside the piece, for this is its way of emerging from time to time . But

here,

in seeing blood through a tube,

it is not the way of a woman to see blood in a tube!

And the Gemara discusses:

Shall we say

that the law of seeing through a

tube —

is a dispute among tannaim!?

For it was taught: One who miscarries a piece, even though it is full

of blood inside it,

if there is with it,

that emerged with it,

blood

additional blood outside the piece,

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

Rabbi Eliezer says: “In her flesh” —

and not in the fetal sac [

a fetal skin sac, which before the fetus’s organs have taken shape is full of blood],

and not

when the blood emerges

inside a piece.

And the Gemara asks:

Rabbi Eliezer,

who says, “and not in a piece” —

is this not the first tanna,

since both of them declared blood inside the piece pure?!

Rather, his words must be corrected in this manner.

Say —

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

and Rabbi Eliezer came only to explain the source of the first tanna and not to disagree with him . And the Gemara brings the conclusion of the beraita:

And the Sages say

another reason for declaring the blood inside the piece pure, namely:

This is not menstrual blood but the blood of a piece!

It still must be clarified: what is the dispute between the Sages and the first tanna? For

the first tanna also certainly declares it pure.

And it implies that they disagree about the law and not only about the exposition of the verse, whether it is needed or not!?

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

Rather, they differ with regard to a piece with splits,

when there are fissures in the piece and there is blood inside the fissures, only the Sages declare it pure. And there is an additional dispute concerning one who sees through a tube, for only the first tanna declares her pure .

The first tanna holds

that the reason for the purity of blood in a piece is from the verse

“in her flesh, and not in a fetal sac and not in a piece,”

and therefore he declared pure not only the blood in a piece but

the same applies to a tube!

For from the scriptural decree we learn that any blood for which there is a separation between it and the walls of the womb does not cause impurity. 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,

where the piece is smooth on the outside all around and is not fissured or split, and the blood is found only inside the piece, is she pure.

But a piece with splits,

where there are fissures in the piece, and blood also gathers in the fissures, and the blood in the fissures touches the walls of the womb, she is impure.

What is the reason?

With regard to the blood in the fissures,

we apply to it “in her flesh,”

and she is therefore

impure.

For there is nothing separating between the blood in the fissures and the walls of the womb.

And the Rabbis came to say —

even though it has splits

and the blood touches the walls of the womb, it does not cause impurity, because

“this is not menstrual blood but the blood of a piece.”

For the Sages did not exclude it by the scriptural decree of separation, but by ordinary reasoning: the blood found in a piece is not menstrual blood but the blood of a piece. Therefore, it does not matter to us whether the blood of the piece touches the walls of the womb, for it is not included in the category of menstrual blood.

And the Gemara continues to explain the second dispute:

This is certainly menstrual blood,

which is not the blood of a piece; it is

impure, and even

if it emerged

through a tube as well.

For according to the Sages, we do not expound “in her flesh” to exclude separation.

It follows that the first tanna [who is Rabbi Eliezer] and the Sages also disagree concerning the law of one who sees through a tube!?

And 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 separation.