Niddah 57b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

A. A woman

who sees a stain

of blood

upon her flesh,

who did not feel the emergence of the blood from her body, but rather found the stain upon her flesh—

if

the place where the blood stain was found is

opposite the place of disgrace

of the woman, she is

impure

by rabbinic law, for they decreed impurity concerning stains upon her body and garment. But by Torah law a woman does not become impure as a niddah except when she felt the emergence of the blood.

V

If the blood stain was found

not opposite the place of disgrace—

she is

pure!

Since blood falling from the place of disgrace cannot fall there, we suspend judgment, saying that the blood came from another place, and it is not menstrual blood.

Likewise, if the blood was found

on her heel

and on the head of her great toe,

even though they are not aligned opposite the place of disgrace—

she is impure!

For sometimes they too are opposite the place of disgrace.

V

If it was found

on her calf and on her feet: on the inside [

on the inner sides], where blood from the place of disgrace can fall—

she is impure!

But if the blood was found

on the outside [

on the outer sides of the calf and feet]—

she is pure!

V

If it was found

on the sides, here and here [

the front and the back]—

she is pure!

For blood from the place of disgrace cannot fall upon these places.

B.

She saw on her garment: from the belt

and below,

which is opposite the place of disgrace—

she is impure!

But if the blood was on her garment

from the belt and above,

which is above the place of disgrace—

she is pure!

She saw on the sleeve of a garment: if it reaches

the place on the sleeve where the stain is

opposite the place of disgrace—

she is impure!

For we are concerned that when she extended her arm the blood fell.

But if not,

that the stain was found in a higher place—

she is pure!

If she spread it out

as a garment

and covered herself with it at night—

then

every place where a stain is found—

she is impure, because it turns

from side to side.

And likewise with a polius [

a kerchief with which she covers her head ] wherever she finds a stain upon it, she is impure, because it turns and comes from side to side.

Gemara:

Samuel said: She inspected the open ground

before sitting upon it, and found the place clean.

And she sat upon it, and found blood upon it—

she is pure. For it is stated, “in her flesh” —

until she feels in her flesh,

and this woman did not feel in her flesh the emergence of the blood. Therefore, even though we know that the place was clean before she sat there, and necessarily the blood came from her body, she is pure .

The Gemara raises an objection:

This “in her flesh”—

is needed to him

to expound from it another law:

that she becomes impure inside as outside,

for as soon as the blood leaves the source and enters the passage, even though it is still within the body, she already becomes impure with niddah?!

It answers:

If so,

if the verse were stated only for this exposition,

let the verse say “in flesh.” What is “in her flesh”? Infer from it—

until she feels

the emergence of the blood

in her flesh!

The Gemara returns and asks:

But it is still needed to him

also to expound the additional letter heh:

“in her flesh”—

and not in a sac and not in a piece of flesh,

for if the blood emerged inside a skin sac or inside a piece of flesh, and at its emergence did not touch the woman’s flesh, she does not become impure; and from where do we exclude blood that emerged in its ordinary manner without sensation?

It answers:

Derive both from it,

for the two expositions are equal, and one of them cannot be removed.

The Gemara discusses Samuel’s permission concerning blood that emerged without sensation:

Come and hear:

A woman who is relieving herself

and passing urine

and sees blood,

and is uncertain whether this blood is from the source, in which case she is impure, or whether the blood came from an injury that she has at the place where the urine emerges, in which case she is pure.

Rabbi Meir says: If

she passed urine while

standing,

for she could not restrain herself until she sat because of the pressure of the urine—she is

impure,

for we say that because of the pressure, the urine returned to the source of her blood and brought the blood out from the source .

And if

she passed urine while

sitting—

she is

pure,

for we suspend judgment, saying that the blood emerges from an injury that she has at the place of the urine, since blood coming from the source does not ordinarily emerge on its own together with urine .

And the Gemara proves:

What are the circumstances? If she felt

that the blood emerged from the source,

the one sitting—

why is she pure?

For since she felt that the blood emerged from the source, we may not attribute it to a wound.

Rather, is it not that she did not feel

the emergence of the blood from the source?

And it teaches: “the one standing—

impure,”

which is difficult for Shmuel, who said that without feeling she does not become impure?!

And the Gemara rejects this:

Actually—

she did feel!

However, since the feeling occurred while she was passing urine, it is not necessarily on account of the emergence of blood from the source,

and say—

it was the feeling of urine!

For the feeling of the emergence of urine resembles the feeling of the emergence of blood . And therefore, if

the one standing—

impure, for we say that on account of the pressure

the urine returned to the source, and brought blood.

And the one sitting—

pure,

for since menstrual blood does not ordinarily come with urine, we attribute the feeling to the passing of urine and not to the emergence of blood from the source.

And the Gemara raises another difficulty:

Come and hear: A cloth [A0063]]with which she examines herself,

[a sheet] with which she examines herself,

that

she examined herself with at the beginning of the night, and afterward

was placed beneath the pillow, and blood was found upon it,

and it is not known whether it is the blood of a crushed louse that was crushed against the cloth during the night, or whether the blood is from the examination—

the cloth with which she examined herself—

if

the form of the blood was

round—

it is

pure.

For ordinarily the form of blood that comes as a result of wiping with an examination cloth is elongated; therefore it is more reasonable to attribute it to a louse that was crushed against the cloth, whose blood spread in a round form.

And if

the form of the blood was

elongated—

it is

impure,

for we attribute it to the blood having been drawn across the cloth at the time of the examination .

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances? If she felt—

why is the round [blood] pure?

For she felt the emergence of the blood?!

Rather, is it not that she did not feel, and it teaches: “elongated—

impure,”

and it is demonstrated that even without a feeling menstrual blood renders her impure, which is difficult for Shmuel, who said, “until she feels it in her flesh”?!

And the Gemara answers:

No, actually she did feel,

but one cannot decide the matter on account of the feeling, for

and say—

“it was the feeling of the cloth,”

she felt the examination and not the emergence of blood, for the feeling of the examination resembles the feeling of the emergence of menstrual blood , and it is possible that she erred in identifying the feeling. Therefore:

elongated—

it certainly came from her body,

for since blood resulting from wiping in an examination ordinarily is elongated, and there was also a certain feeling here, we attribute it to menstrual blood, and the feeling was the feeling of the emergence of blood from the source. But—

round—

pure!

For it is more reasonable to attribute the blood to a louse and say that the feeling was caused by the examination with the cloth.

And the Gemara adds another difficulty against Shmuel:

Come and hear: Blood was found

on his examination cloth,

his,

for the husband wiped himself after intercourse and found the blood on his cloth—

they are impure,

the husband and the wife with certainty [the woman on account of niddah, and the man on account of one who had intercourse with a menstruant]

and they are liable for a sacrifice

a sin-offering , for the blood was certainly present at the time of intercourse. But if

blood was found

on the cloth

hers,

for she wiped herself after intercourse, the matter depends on when she wiped: if the wiping was

immediately,

directly and immediately after intercourse, then the blood was certainly also present at the time of intercourse, and therefore—

they are impure and liable for a sacrifice.

But if she did not wipe immediately, rather

the blood was found

on

on

the cloth

hers after some time—

they are impure by uncertainty

only,

and exempt from the sacrifice,

for perhaps the blood emerged only after intercourse .

What are the circumstances? If she felt

at the time of intercourse, with the emergence of the blood, then certainly she became impure at the time of intercourse; and if so, even if the blood was found

after some time, why are they exempt from the sacrifice,

for the feeling proves that the blood had already emerged at the time of intercourse?

Rather, is it not that she did not feel

at the time of intercourse, and therefore, when the blood is found after some time, there is uncertainty whether it was present previously or emerged only now; and nevertheless, although the case is one in which she did not feel,

and it teaches: blood was found on hers immediately—

they are impure and liable for a sacrifice!

And it is demonstrated that she is impure even without a feeling, contrary to Shmuel?!

And the Gemara answers:

No! Actually

the case is one in which

she did feel,

and the reason that she is not certainly impure when the blood is found after some time is that

perhaps—

it was the feeling of the organ!

For its feeling too resembles the feeling of the emergence of menstrual blood from the source, and it is possible that she confused one feeling with the other. Therefore, since she did not find the blood immediately, the feeling is not sufficient proof that the blood emerged at the time of intercourse. But if she found the blood immediately, we do not suspect that perhaps the feeling was not of the emergence of blood but of the organ ; rather, since she saw blood immediately, we attribute it to her having seen it with a feeling.

The Gemara raises another difficulty against Shmuel:

Come and hear: You find three uncertainties concerning a woman:

The blood was found

on her flesh,

and it is

uncertain whether it is impure or whether it is pure—

impure!

The blood was found

on her garment,

and it is

uncertain whether it is impure or whether it is pure—

pure!

And concerning contacts and carrying,

where she did not find a stain but is uncertain concerning her purity, and does not know whether she rendered impure the pure items that she touched or carried.

Follow the majority!

And the Gemara explains:

What does “

concerning contacts and carrying

follow the majority” mean?

Is it not

speaking of a case in which

if most of the days

of this woman are

impure,

for she sees blood regularly, and therefore even when she does not find a stain she is uncertainly concerned regarding the items she touched and carried , then she is

always impure

by uncertainty.

And the Gemara infers:

even though she did not feel

she is impure, for they render her impure

always,

even in a place where she did not feel?! And the Gemara rejects this:

No!

Actually, a woman is never rendered impure without a feeling, and the explanation of the beraita is:

If most of her days she sees with a feeling

she is always concerned, even in a case where she did not notice her feeling. And she is

impure

because

perhaps she felt and did not notice.

But in a case where she noticed and is certain that she did not feel, she is not impure!

And the Gemara returns and explains the beginning of the beraita:

“The statement ‘on her flesh’” —

“whether it is uncertainly impure or uncertainly pure” —

“it is impure.”

“On her garment” —

“whether it is uncertainly impure or uncertainly pure” —

“it is pure!”

“What are the circumstances? If”

the stain was found

“from the girdle and below,”

which is opposite the genital area,

“why is it pure when it is on her garment?”

“But we learned in the Mishna: ‘From the girdle and below’” —

“it is impure?!”

“And if”

the stain was found

“from the girdle and above,”

which is not opposite the genital area,

“why is it impure when it is on her flesh?”

“But we learned in the Mishna: ‘If she saw blood on her flesh, not opposite the genital area’” —

“she is pure?!”

And the Gemara answers:

“If you wish, say” —

“from the girdle and below.”

“And if you wish, say” —

“from the girdle and above!”

And it explains:

“If you wish, say: from the girdle and below!”

And

“for example, she passed through a market of butchers,”

which is a place where blood splashes, and it can be attributed that the stain she found is from the blood of an animal. Therefore: if the stain was found

“on her flesh,”

we attribute it to the fact that

“it came from her body, for if it came from outside” —

“on her garment”

as well

“it should have been found!”

For how is it possible that the splashed blood should penetrate and reach her flesh without touching the garment that is upon her? But if the stain was found

“on her garment,”

we attribute it to the fact that

“it came from outside, for if it came from her body” —

“on her flesh”

as well

“it should have been found!”

“And if you wish, say: from the girdle and above”:

and

“for example, she arched herself,”

meaning that she raised herself backward, in which case even above the girdle it can be attributed that the blood flowed upward when she arched herself backward. Therefore, if the stain was found

“on her flesh, it certainly came from her body,”

for it is only from this place that it is possible for blood to reach beneath the garment without touching the garment.

“For if it came from outside” —

“it should have been found on her garment.”

But if the stain was found

“on her garment,”

we attribute it to the fact that

“it came from outside, for if it came from her body” —

“it should have been found on her flesh!”

And our Mishna, which does not distinguish between her garment and her flesh, and whose entire distinction is between above the girdle and below it, is speaking of a woman who did not pass through a market of butchers and did not arch herself.

And after explaining the beraita, the Gemara raises a difficulty against Shmuel:

“In any event, it teaches”:

that a woman who finds a bloodstain

“‘on her flesh, whether it is uncertainly impure or uncertainly pure” —

“it is impure,’ even though she did not feel it,”

she is impure, and this is difficult against Shmuel?

And the Gemara adds another difficulty:

“Furthermore, we learned: ‘One who sees a stain on her flesh opposite the genital area” —

“she is impure,’”

and from the unqualified wording of the Mishna it follows that every stain is impure,

“even though she did not feel it?!”