Niddah 58a (נח.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara resolves this:

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: Shmuel concedes that she is impure

by rabbinic decree

even without sensation, as the Sages instituted that one must be concerned lest she experienced a sensation but was unaware of it.

Rav Ashi said:

Shmuel completely declared pure the stain found on the ground, and not merely because of the absence of sensation when the blood emerged, but

Shmuel stated his ruling in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya,

who declares pure all stains found on an object that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and the ground is not susceptible to ritual impurity. And in all the places where we find that stains are a source of concern even without sensation, the case is one in which they were found on an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity.

As we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Neḥemya says —

any object that is not susceptible to ritual impurity

and upon which a stain is found—the blood

does not receive

ritual

impurity from stains,

for the Sages’ decree of impurity with regard to stains applies only when the stain is found on an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity.

The Gemara challenges the first resolution:

Granted, according to Rav Ashi,

who said that Shmuel’s novel teaching is that the halakha follows Rabbi Neḥemya, that a woman does not become impure through a stain found on an object that is not susceptible to ritual impurity—

this is why he said

that Shmuel said: “She examined the

ground

of the world and sat upon it, and found blood upon it; she is pure.” Shmuel had to emphasize that she sat upon the ground, which is an object that is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

But according to Rav Yirmeya,

who said that Shmuel’s novel teaching is that any blood that emerged without her experiencing a sensation does not render her impure by Torah law,

why specifically

did Shmuel mention in his novel teaching: “She examined the

ground”?

But

even a garment as well,

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

The Gemara resolves:

“It is not necessary”

is what

Shmuel said, and this is the meaning of his statement:

“It is not necessary to state a garment, which is not examined thoroughly,”

and therefore it is easy to declare her pure by Torah law when she experienced no sensation, since

there is

a possibility to attribute the stain to another source and

to say that

it

came from elsewhere

and is not menstrual blood, but blood from another source that had been present on the garment even before the examination.

“Rather, even the ground, which is examined thoroughly, on

which

it is possible to say

that the blood certainly

came from her body!”

For she examined the place where she was sitting thoroughly and found no blood before sitting upon it. Nevertheless, if she found blood upon it, the stain is

pure

by Torah law, because she experienced no sensation.

We learned in the Mishna: Blood found

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

she is impure.

The Gemara asks:

Granted,

if the blood is found on her

heel,

she is impure, because

it can happen that

her heel

touches that place.

But

if the blood is found on

the tip of her big toe—

what is the reason

that she is impure? It is not common for the tip of her big toe to touch that place?!

And if you would say that sometimes

the tip of the big toe on one foot touches

the heel

of the other foot, and that is why she is impure—

This cannot be the resolution. For:

Do we ascribe impurity from one place to another?

After all, only a stain found in a place where it could have dripped directly from the source is impure; but when it is found in a place that is not directly opposite the genital area, she is pure. We do not assume that the blood dripped onto another place and that she subsequently touched it, transferring it to the place where it was found.

The Gemara proves its contention:

And was it not taught in a beraita: If she had a wound on her neck,

and she found blood opposite the genital area, she is pure, for the Sages were lenient with regard to stains: Whenever there is a possibility

to attribute

the blood to a source other than menstrual blood, namely, that it came from elsewhere,

she attributes it to that source. When she has a wound on her neck, it is possible that she bent her neck forward, and the blood from the wound reached a point opposite the genital area.

to that source. When she has a wound on her neck, it is possible that she bent her neck forward, so that the blood from the wound reached a place opposite the vaginal area.

But if the wound was

on her shoulder, from which she cannot attribute

the blood to the possibility that it dripped from the shoulder to a point opposite the genital area, since the two places are not directly opposite one another—

she does not attribute it

to the wound, and she is impure.

The Gemara infers:

And we do not say

that she should attribute the blood and declare her pure, because

perhaps she took it with her hand—

the blood from the wound on her shoulder—

and brought it there,

in front of her, opposite the genital area.

The Gemara proves from here: Just as we do not ascribe purity from one place to another, by attributing the blood in front of her to the wound on her shoulder on the basis that she touched the wound and brought the blood forward, so too we do not ascribe impurity from one place to another. We therefore have no reason to be concerned that the blood on her big toe came through contact with the blood on her heel.

The Gemara resolves:

Rather, the case of the tip of the big toe is different,

for the Sages declared her impure if blood is found upon it because—

When she takes a step, it can happen that

the tip of her big toe is beneath the genital area, so that the blood drips directly onto the tip of the toe. Even though the tip of the big toe is not always directly opposite the genital area, it is sufficient that it is sometimes opposite it for us to be concerned and declare her impure.

The Gemara returns to clarify the earlier assumption:

And

if

we do not ascribe impurity from one place to another?

But was it not 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 certainly impossible for the blood to have come from the genital area to the back of her hand,

because hands are active.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason

that they declare her impure?

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

at the genital area, and blood was found upon it, on the palm of the hand, which is the customary place for examining,

and she touched

the palm of her hand, together with the menstrual blood,

with the other hand

on the back of the hand? This proves that we do ascribe impurity from one place to another.

The Gemara rejects this:

No! The case of her hand is different, since the entire hand can touch the area!

The meaning is that the Gemara retracts its assumption that there is no concern that the blood reached the back of the hand directly from the genital area, and holds that there is concern that she sometimes examines herself with the back of her hand, and it touches the blood in that place.

We learned in the Mishna:

On her thigh and on the inner surfaces of her feet

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

The Gemara explains:

“On the inside”—

up to where

is the inside of the thigh considered to extend?

The school of Rabbi Yannai said: Up to the place of the clasp,

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

A dilemma was raised before them: The place of the clasp

itself—what is its status,

as inside or as outside?

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

as part of the very statement of the school of Rabbi Yannai,

explicitly: The school of Rabbi Yannai said: Up to the place of the clasp, and the clasp itself is considered inside.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question:

If it is found on her body:

a.

A bloodstain whose shape is round

like a bracelet—[

a solid band]—

what is its status?

b.

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

like a row—

what is its status?

c.

A stain composed of

drops upon drops

of blood, with the drops intermixed without order—

what is its status?

d.

Drops of blood lying

across her thigh—

what is their status? None of these shapes ordinarily results from blood flowing from the source; can one rely on the shape to prove that the blood did not come from her body?

Come and hear: Blood was found

on

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

she is impure.

The Gemara infers:

“On her flesh”—

does this not mean that it was found

in

such a manner?

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

Perhaps it was made like a strap,

with the stain extending along the thigh, as is the usual manner of blood that trickles from a woman.

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

as she was threading the warp threads and weaving the fabric; while weaving, she moved back and forth, and the blood was found on the warp threads.

She came before Rabbi Yannai.

He said to her: Go and come,

meaning that she should again thread the warp threads, weave, and move back and forth as she had done previously. If it became clear that the warp threads passed between her legs opposite that place, she would be impure.

The Gemara expresses astonishment:

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

that is, one does not perform the same act a second time and examine the results in order to resolve the uncertainty,

with regard to ritually pure items

whose status is uncertain because perhaps they became impure, as we are concerned that she might not perform the act the second time precisely as she did the first time?

And the Gemara resolves:

When we say that one does not repeat -

it is in a lenient matter.

But in a stringent matter -

one does repeat ,

and in our sugya it is a stringency, since the stain was found neither on her flesh nor on her garment, and it should be assumed that the blood did not come from her. Without the examination, she would have been pure, whereas the examination can only make her status more stringent and render her impure if the threads are found opposite that place.

We learned in the Mishna:

If she was removing it

for laundering 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

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

I ruled in the city of Rome that it was forbidden

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

and told them of my ruling,

they said to me -

You ruled well.

The Sages taught:

A woman

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

a woman

who is 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 is also opposite the genital area of the short woman -

both are impure,

since it is not known from which of them the stain came.

But if not,

if the place on the garment where the stain was found is not opposite the genital area of the tall woman, but it is 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 beraita was taught: She examined her garment

after removing it , and it was found to be clean,

and lent it to her companion,

who found a stain on it.

She,

the first woman -

is pure,

but

her companion -

may attribute the stain to her,

as the blood came from the first woman.

And the Gemara explains:

Rav Sheshet said: And with regard to the monetary law

namely, who is responsible for laundering the garment,

we learned

that the second woman is exempt. For she can claim against the first woman that she does not believe her assertion that she examined the garment, and there is a doubt from which woman the blood came; the burden of proof rests upon one who seeks to extract money .

But with regard to ritual impurity -

she,

the first woman who examined it,

is pure, and her companion,

who found the stain,

is impure,

since even if the second woman’s claim is true, that the first woman did not examine the garment, the second woman is impure, as explained in the previous beraita: When two women wore a garment and a stain was found on it, both are impure.