Niddah 58a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: Shmuel concedes that she is impure ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

by rabbinic ordinance

even without sensation, for they instituted concern lest she experienced a sensation but was unaware of it.

Rav Ashi said:

that Shmuel completely declared pure the stain found on the ground, and not only because of the absence of a sensation at the emergence of the blood, but rather

Shmuel spoke in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah,

who declares pure all stains found upon something that is not susceptible to impurity, and the ground is not susceptible to impurity. And in all the places where we find that there is concern for stains even without a sensation, it is referring to stains found upon something susceptible to impurity.

For we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Nehemiah says—

anything that is not susceptible to impurity

and a stain—blood—is found upon it,

does not receive

impurity of

stains,

for the rabbinic decree of impurity concerning stains that the Sages enacted was stated only when the stain was found upon something susceptible to impurity.

The Gemara raises an objection to the first answer:

Granted, according to Rav Ashi,

who said that Shmuel’s innovation is that the halakha follows Rabbi Nehemiah, that the woman does not become impure through a stain found upon something that is not susceptible to impurity—

this is why he said

Shmuel, “She examined the

ground

of the world and sat upon it, and found blood upon it—she is pure.” For Shmuel had to emphasize that she sat upon the ground, which is something that is not susceptible to impurity.

But according to Rav Yirmeya,

who said that Shmuel’s innovation is that every blood that emerged without her experiencing a sensation does not convey impurity by Torah law,

why specifically

did Shmuel mention in his innovation, “She examined the

ground”?

But

even a cloak as well,

if she examined it, sat upon it immediately, and found blood, she is pure by Torah law because of the absence of a sensation?!

And the Gemara answers: “

It is not necessary”

he said,

and this is the meaning of his words:

It is not necessary to state a cloak, for it is not examined well,

and therefore it is easy to declare her pure by Torah law in a case where she did not experience a sensation, since

there is

a possibility of attributing [the stain] and

saying

that

it came from elsewhere,

the stain, and this is not menstrual blood but blood from elsewhere that had been present on the cloak even before the examination.

Rather, even the ground, which is examined well, that

upon it

there is a possibility of saying

that the blood certainly

came from her body!

For she examined her place of sitting thoroughly and did not find blood before sitting upon it. Nevertheless, if she found blood upon it, this is a

pure

stain by Torah law—for she did not experience a sensation.

We learned in the Mishna: the blood was found

on her heel and on the tip of her great toe—

she is impure.

And the Gemara asks:

Granted,

the blood was found on

her heel,

she is impure because

it is common for

the heel

to touch that place 33 .

But

if the blood was found on

the tip of her great toe—

for what reason

is she impure? But it is not common for the tip of her great toe to touch that place?!

And if you say that sometimes it touches

the tip of her great toe on one of her legs

[her] heel

on her other leg, and therefore she is impure—

It is impossible to answer thus. For:

Do we establish impurity from one place to another?

But only a stain found in a place to which it is possible that it dripped directly from the source is impure; but when it is found in a place that is not aligned opposite the house of shame, she is pure, and we are not concerned lest the blood dripped to another place, and afterward she touched it and it passed to the place where it was found.

The Gemara proves its claim:

But it was taught in a beraita: If she had a wound on her neck,

and found blood opposite the place of the house of shame, she is pure, for the Sages were lenient regarding stains: every blood

that she can attribute

as not being menstrual blood, but as having come from another place,

she attributes [to that source],

and when she has a wound on her neck, it is possible that she bent her neck before her, and the blood of the wound reached opposite the place of the house of shame.

But if the wound was

on her shoulder, from which she cannot attribute

that the blood dripped from the shoulder to opposite the house of shame, for they are not aligned one opposite the other—

she does not attribute

the blood to it, and she is impure.

And the Gemara infers:

And we do not say

that she should attribute [the blood] and be declared pure because

perhaps she took it with her hand

from the blood of the wound on her shoulder

and brought it there,

before her, opposite the place of the house of shame.

The Gemara proves from here: just as we do not establish purity from one place to another, for we do not attribute the blood before her to the wound on her shoulder by saying that she touched it and brought it before her, so too we do not establish impurity from one place to another, and we have no reason to be concerned that the blood on her great toe came through contact with the blood on her heel.

And the Gemara answers:

Rather, the great toe is different,

for the Sages rendered her impure if blood was found upon it because—

when she steps, it is common for it to happen

that the tip of her great toe is beneath the place of the source and the blood drips directly upon the tip of the great toe. Even though the tip of the great toe is not always aligned opposite the house of shame, it is sufficient that sometimes it is opposite it for us to be concerned and render [her] impure.

The Gemara returns to clarify the previous assumption:

And

if

we do not establish impurity from one place to another?

But it was taught in a beraita: Blood was found

on the

knuckles of her fingers,

on the back of her hand—she is

impure,

even though it is certain to us that the blood could not have come from the place of the source to the back of the hand,

because hands are active.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

that they render [her] impure?

Is it not because we say that she examined with one hand

in the place of the source, and blood was found upon it, on the palm of the hand, with which it is customary to examine,

and it touched

the palm of the hand with menstrual blood

the other hand

on the back of the hand? And it is proven that we establish impurity from one place to another.

And the Gemara rejects:

No! The hand is different, for the entire hand is liable to touch!

And this means that the Gemara retracts its assumption that there is no concern that the blood came directly from the place of the source to the back of the hand, and holds that there is concern that sometimes she examines with the back of her hand, and it touches the blood at that place.

We learned in the Mishna:

on her thigh and on the inner parts of her legs

she is impure; on the outside, she is pure.

And the Gemara explains:

On the inner part—

up to where

is the inner part of the leg called [the inner part]?

They said in the house of Rabbi Yannai: Up to the place of the clasp,

which is the place where the tendons connecting the thigh to the leg are stretched.

They raised a question: The place of the clasp

itself—its law is

like the inner part or like the outer part?

Come and hear: Rav Ketina taught: Up to the place of the clasp, and the clasp itself is like the inner part. Rav Hiyya, son of Rav Avya, taught it

in the very words of the house of Rabbi Yannai

explicitly; they said in the house of Rabbi Yannai: Up to the place of the clasp, and the clasp itself is like the inner part.

Rabbi Yirmeya asked:

if [a stain] was found on her body:

A.

A bloodstain whose shape is round

like a bracelet—[

a bracelet]—

what is [the law]?

B.

A stain composed of several drops of blood placed one beneath the other, and their shape is

like a row—

what is [the law]?

C.

A stain composed of

drops upon drops

of blood, with the drops mixed together without order—

what is [the law]?

D.

Blood drops lying

across her thigh—

what is [the law]? For none of these forms commonly results from blood that flowed from the source; is it possible to rely upon the form as proof that the blood is not from her body?

Come and hear:

blood was found

on her flesh; it is uncertain whether it is impure or pure—

[she is] impure.

And the Gemara infers:

“On her flesh”—

is it not

that it was found

in such a manner?

And the Gemara rejects:

No.

Perhaps it was made like a strap,

with the stain extending along the thigh, for this is the ordinary manner of blood trickling from a woman.

There was a certain woman who found blood on the warp,

for she was threading the warp threads and weaving the fabric, and while weaving she was moving back and forth, and the blood was found on the warp threads.

She came before Rabbi Yannai.

He said to her: Let her go and come,

that she should again thread the warp threads, weave, and move back and forth in the manner in which she had acted previously. And if it became clear that the warp threads came between her legs opposite that place, she would be impure.

And the Gemara expresses surprise:

But it was taught in a beraita: One does not repeat,

one does not repeat the same action a second time and examine the results in order to decide the uncertainty

concerning pure things

whose status of impurity is unknown, because we are concerned lest the second time she not act precisely as she did the first time.

And the Gemara resolves:

When we say that one does not repeat—

for leniency.

But for stringency—

one does repeat ,

and in our sugya it is a stringency, for the stain was not found either on her flesh or on her garment, and it should be assumed that the blood did not come from her; and without the examination she would have been pure, while the examination can only make her ruling more stringent and render her impure if the threads are found opposite that place.

We learned in the Mishna:

If she was spreading it

over a partition and it covered every place where the stain was found, she is impure.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei said: This matter

where a stain was found on a garment with which she covered herself, not opposite the genital area,

I ruled in the city of Rome that it was forbidden

43 . And when I came to the scholars in the South

and told them of my ruling,

they said to me—

You ruled well.

The Sages taught:

A woman

who was tall and wore the garment of a short woman, and

a woman

who was short and wore the garment of a tall woman, if

the place on the garment where the stain was found

is opposite the genital area of the tall woman,

and certainly it is also opposite the genital area of the short woman—

both are impure,

for it is not known from whom the stain came.

And if not,

that the place on the garment where the stain was found is not opposite the genital area of the tall woman, but it does reach opposite the genital area of the short woman,

the tall woman—

is pure, and the short woman—

is impure 44,

because it is opposite her genital area.

Another [teaching] was taught: She examined her garment

after removing it , and it was found clean,

and lent it to her companion,

and the second woman found a stain on it.

She,

the first one—

is pure,

but

her companion—

attributes it to her,

for the blood came from the first woman.

And the Gemara explains:

Rav Sheshet said: And with regard to the law

as to upon whom the obligation of laundering falls,

we learned

that the second woman is exempt. For she argues against the first woman that she does not believe her that she examined it, and there is a doubt from whom the blood came; and upon the claimant for money rests the obligation of proof .

But with regard to impurity—

she,

the first one who examined it,

is pure, and her companion,

who found the stain,

is impure,

for even if the truth is as the second woman says—that the first woman did not examine it—the second woman is impure, as is explained in the preceding beraita, that when two women wore a garment and a stain was found on it, both of them are impure.