Niddah 57b (נז:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

A. A woman

who sees a bloodstain

of blood

on her flesh,

without having felt it issue from her body, but rather having found the bloodstain on her flesh—

if

the place where the bloodstain was found

is opposite the genital area

of the woman, she is

impure

by rabbinic law, since the Sages decreed impurity for bloodstains found on her body and garment. But by Torah law, a woman becomes impure as a niddah only when she feels the blood issuing.

V

If the bloodstain was found

not opposite the genital area—

she is

pure!

Since blood issuing from the genital area cannot fall there, we attribute the blood to another source, and it is not niddah blood.

Likewise, if the blood was found

on her heel

or on the tip of her big toe,

even though they are not directly opposite the genital area—she is

impure!

For sometimes these places too are opposite the genital area.

V

If it was found

on her lower leg and on her feet: on the inside [that is,

on the inner sides], where blood from the genital area can fall—she is

impure!

But if the blood was found

on the outside [that is,

on the outer sides of the lower leg and feet]—she is

pure!

V

If it was found

on the sides, on both sides [that is,

on the front and back]—she is

pure!

For blood from the genital area cannot fall onto these places.

B.

If she saw a bloodstain on her garment: from the belt

and below,

which is opposite the genital area—she is

impure!

But if the blood was on her garment

from the belt upward,

which is above the genital area—she is

pure!

If she saw a bloodstain on the sleeve of a garment: if the place

where the bloodstain is on the sleeve

reaches opposite the genital area—she is

impure!

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

But if not,

meaning that the bloodstain was found in a high place—she is

pure!

If she spread it out

as a garment

and covered herself with it at night—

then

every place where a bloodstain is found—she is

impure, because it turns over

from one side to the other.

And likewise with a polius [that is,

a scarf with which she covers her head ], wherever she finds a bloodstain, she is impure, because it turns over and comes from one side to the other.

Gemara:

Samuel said: If she examined bare ground

before sitting on it and found the place clean,

and then sat on it and found blood on it—she is

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

until she feels it

in her flesh. This woman did not feel the blood issuing in her flesh, and therefore, even though we know that the place was clean before she sat there, so that the blood must necessarily have come from her body, she is pure .

The Gemara asks:

This phrase, “in her flesh,”

is needed

to derive another law:

that she becomes impure inside as she does outside,

meaning that as soon as the blood leaves the source and enters the vaginal canal, even while it is still inside the body, she becomes impure with niddah impurity?!

The Gemara answers:

If so,

if the verse were intended only for this exposition,

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

until she feels

the blood issuing

in her flesh!

The Gemara returns and asks:

But it is still needed

also to expound the letter heh:

“in her flesh”—

but not in a shafir or in a piece,

meaning that if the blood issues inside a membranous sac or inside a piece of flesh and does not touch the woman’s flesh as it issues, she does not become impure. From where, then, do we exclude blood that issues in the ordinary manner without sensation?

The Gemara answers:

Both are learned from it,

as the two expositions are equally valid and neither one should be excluded .

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

Ta shma:

A woman who is relieving herself

and urinating

and sees blood,

and is uncertain whether this blood came from the source, in which case she is impure, or whether it came from a wound at the place where the urine issues, in which case she is pure.

Rabbi Meir says: If

she urinated while

standing,

because the pressure of the urine prevented her from holding it until she sat down—she is

impure,

as we say that because of the pressure, the urine returned toward the source of her blood and caused blood to issue from the source .

But if

she urinated while

sitting—

she is

pure,

as we attribute the blood to a wound she has at the place where the urine issues, since blood coming from the source does not ordinarily issue on its own together with urine .

And the Gemara proves this:

What are the circumstances? If she sensed

that the blood emerged from the source,

the seated woman—

why is she pure?

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

Rather, is it not that she did not sense

the blood emerging from the source

and it teaches: “

the standing woman—impure,”

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

And the Gemara rejects this:

Actually—

she did sense!

However, since the sensation occurred while she was releasing urine, it was not necessarily caused by the blood emerging from the source,

and say—

it was the sensation of urine!

For the sensation of urine emerging resembles the sensation of blood emerging . Therefore, if she is

standing—

she is impure, for we say that because of the pressure,

the urine returned toward the source and brought out blood.

And the seated woman—

pure,

because since menstrual blood does not ordinarily come with urine, we attribute the sensation to the release of urine and not to the blood emerging from the source.

And the Gemara raises another difficulty:

Come and hear: A cloth

[a sheet] with which she examined herself

that

she used to examine herself at the beginning of the night, and afterward

was placed beneath the pillow, and blood was found on 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 came from the examination—

the examination with which she examined herself—

if

the shape of the blood was

round—

it is

pure.

For ordinarily blood resulting from wiping during an examination is elongated, and it is therefore more reasonable to attribute the blood to a louse that was crushed against the cloth, causing its blood to spread in a round shape.

And if

the shape of the blood was

elongated—

it is

impure,

as we attribute it to blood being drawn across the cloth during the examination .

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances? If she sensed—

why is the round blood pure?

For she sensed the blood emerging?!

Rather, is it not that she did not sense, and it teaches: “The elongated blood—

impure,”

which demonstrates that even without sensation, menstrual blood renders her impure; and this is difficult for Shmuel, who said that she is impure only once she senses in her flesh?!

And the Gemara answers:

No, actually she sensed,

but one cannot determine the matter on the basis of the sensation, for

perhaps—

“it was the sensation of the cloth,”

she sensed the examination and not the emergence of blood, because the sensation of the examination resembles the sensation of menstrual blood emerging . She may have erred in distinguishing between the sensations; therefore:

elongated—

it certainly came from her body,

because since blood resulting from wiping during an examination is ordinarily elongated, and there was also some sensation here, we attribute the blood to menstrual blood and say that the sensation was the sensation of blood emerging from the source. But—

round—

pure!

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

And the Gemara adds another difficulty against Shmuel:

Come and hear: If blood is found

on the examination cloth

belonging to him,

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

they are impure,

the husband and the woman, with certainty [the woman because of niddah, and the man because he had intercourse with a woman who was a niddah]

and they are liable to bring a sacrifice,

a sin offering , because the blood was certainly present during intercourse. But if

the blood is found

on the examination cloth

belonging to her,

meaning that she wiped herself after intercourse, the matter depends on when she wiped herself: If the wiping was

immediately,

directly after intercourse, then the blood was certainly present during intercourse as well, and therefore—

they are impure and liable to bring a sacrifice.

But if she did not wipe herself immediately, rather,

the blood was found

on

the

cloth

belonging to her after some time—

they are impure by uncertainty

alone,

and exempt from the sacrifice,

because perhaps the blood emerged only after intercourse .

What are the circumstances? If she sensed

the blood emerging during intercourse, then she certainly became impure during intercourse, and if so, even if the blood was found

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

For the sensation demonstrates that the blood had already emerged during intercourse?

Rather, is it not that she did not sense

during intercourse, and therefore, when the blood is found after some time, there is a doubt whether it had been present beforehand or emerged only now; nevertheless, although the case is one in which she did not sense,

and it teaches: If it is found on her cloth immediately—

they are impure and liable to bring a sacrifice!

This demonstrates that she is impure even without sensation, contrary to Shmuel?!

And the Gemara answers:

No! Actually

the case is one in which she

did sense,

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

perhaps—

it was the sensation of the male organ!

For its sensation also resembles the sensation of menstrual blood emerging from the source, and she may have confused the sensations. Therefore, since she did not find the blood immediately, the sensation is not sufficient proof that the blood emerged during intercourse. But if she found the blood immediately, we do not entertain the possibility that the sensation was not that of the blood emerging but that of the male organ ; rather, since she saw blood immediately, we attribute it to blood seen with a sensation.

The Gemara raises another difficulty against Shmuel:

Come and hear: You thereby have three uncertainties concerning a woman:

The blood is found

on her flesh,

and it is

uncertain whether it is impure or pure—

she is impure!

The blood is found

on her garment

and it is

uncertain whether it is impure or pure—

she is pure!

And with regard to contact and carrying,

where she did not find a stain but is uncertain about her purity, and does not know whether she rendered impure the pure items with which she came into contact or which she moved,

follow the majority!

And the Gemara explains:

What does “

with regard to contact and carrying,

follow the majority” mean?”

Is it not referring to a case in which

speaking of a case in which

if most of the days

of this woman

are impure,

because she regularly sees blood, and therefore even when she does not find a stain, she is concerned by uncertainty regarding the items with which she came into contact and those which she moved , so that she is

always impure

by uncertainty.

And the Gemara infers:

And even though she did not sense,

she is impure, for she is rendered impure

always,

even when she did not sense?! And the Gemara rejects this:

No!

A woman is never rendered impure without sensation; rather, the explanation of the beraita is:

If most of her days she sees with sensation,

she is always concerned, even when she did not pay attention to her sensation. And she is

impure

because

perhaps she sensed but was unaware of it.

But if she paid attention and is certain that she did not sense, she is not impure!

The Gemara returns and explains the beginning of the beraita:

“On her flesh”—

“Whether it is impure or pure”—

“It is impure.”

“On her garment”—

“Whether it is impure or pure”—

“It is pure!”

What are the circumstances? If

the stain was found

below the girdle,

which is opposite the genital area,

why is it pure when found on her garment?

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

“It is impure”?!

And if

the stain was found

above the girdle,

not opposite the genital area,

why is it impure when found on her flesh?

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

“She is pure”?!

The Gemara answers:

If you wish, say—

below the girdle.

And if you wish, say—

above the girdle!

And it explains:

If you wish, say that it is below the girdle!

And

for example, she passed through a butchers’ market,

a place where blood splashes, and it can be presumed that the stain she found was from animal blood. Therefore, if the stain was found

on her flesh,

it is presumed that

it came from her body, for if it came from elsewhere,

on her garment

as well

it should have been found!

For how could the splashed blood have penetrated and reached her flesh without touching the garment covering it? But if the stain was found

on her garment,

it is presumed that

it came from elsewhere, for if it came from her body,

on her flesh

as well

it should have been found!

And if you wish, say that it is above the girdle:

And

for example, she straightened herself,

bending backward, in which case even above the girdle it can be presumed that the blood flowed upward when she bent backward. Therefore, if the stain was found

on her flesh, it certainly came from her body,

since it is only from this location that blood could reach beneath the garment without touching the garment.

For if it came from elsewhere—

it should have been found on her garment.

But if the stain was found

on her garment,

it is presumed that

it came from elsewhere, for if it came from her body—

it should have been found on her flesh!

Our Mishna, which does not distinguish between a garment and flesh, and whose only distinction is between above the girdle and below it, is speaking of a woman who neither passed through a butchers’ market nor straightened herself.

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 impure or pure”—

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

she is impure, which is difficult for Shmuel?

The Gemara adds another difficulty:

“And furthermore, we learned in the Mishna: ‘If one who sees a stain on her flesh opposite the genital area

is impure,’”

and the unqualified wording of the Mishna indicates that every stain renders her impure,

even though she did not feel it!?