Niddah 58b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises an objection:

What is different from this, as it was taught in a beraita: “Two women who handled one bird, and there is no

blood anywhere on the body of the bird

except for a sela-measure of blood, and there was found

blood

of a sela-measure on

one woman

and a sela-measure on the other—

both are impure!”

And they do not attribute the blood found on each one to the blood of the bird.

Since both of them handled one bird, only one stain can possibly be declared pure, by attributing it to blood that came from the bird; they do not declare both pure on account of the doubt, but declare both impure.

And the same is true of two women who wore one shift after the other and blood was found: since it is impossible to declare both pure, we should have declared both impure?

And if it is because the first woman examined the shift—her examination is not a completely certain clarification, for it is possible that she did not examine it properly and did not notice the stain that was on her shift .

The Gemara answers:

There it is different,

in the case of the two women who handled a bird,

for there is an additional sela-measure

of blood: blood was found on each one, and we have no possibility of attributing the matter and saying that this woman’s blood is the bird’s blood and the blood on her fellow is menstrual blood. For in what way is this blood different from that blood? After all, both found blood and both handled the bird.

But in the case of two women who wore one shift after the other, the law concerning both is not entirely equal, for the first woman examined it. And even though her examination is not a completely certain clarification, nevertheless it is more reasonable to declare her pure than her fellow, and the two sides are not entirely equal as they are in the case of the two women who handled the bird.

The Sages taught:

A woman who

wore

one on top of the other

three shifts that had been examined by her

and had no blood on them, and afterward she found blood on one of them—

If she can attribute

the blood to having come from another place, for example, she passed through a market of slaughterers,

she attributes it

to that source,

even

if the blood was found

on

the

lowest

shift alone. For it is uncommon that blood should flow from outside and reach the inner shift without touching the outer one; nevertheless, they attribute it to blood that splashed from below, between her legs, and therefore it was found only on the inner shift .

And if

she cannot attribute it,

because she did not pass through a market of slaughterers or the like,

she does not attribute

the blood that was found to having come from another place,

even

if the blood was found

on

the

upper

shift alone. For it would have been possible to say that there is proof from the fact that the inner shift is clean that the blood is not from her body: after all, how could the blood from the source skip over the inner shift and reach the outer one?

The Gemara explains:

How

does the statement speak of a case where she can attribute it or cannot attribute it?

If she passed through a market of slaughterers—

she attributes

the blood to that source

even

if it was found

on the lowest

shift alone.

If she did not pass through a market of slaughterers—

even

if the blood was found

on the upper

shift alone,

she does not attribute it!

Mishna:

And she attributes

the woman who found a stain, whether on her flesh or on her shift, the blood

to anything to which she can attribute it

as having come from there. For example—

she slaughtered a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or a bird,

or

she handled stains

of other women, or bloodstains from other places on her body,

or she sat beside those handling them,

she attributes the blood as having come from there, and she is pure!

And likewise, if

the woman killed

a

louse [a vermin] and afterward found a stain on her flesh or on her shift—

she attributes

the blood

to it,

and she is pure.

Up to what extent does she attribute it

as being the blood of a louse?

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Up to the size of a bean-gris.

But if the stain was larger than this measure, she cannot attribute it to the blood of the louse, since the blood of a louse is not greater than this measure .

And Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus further said—and with this law he comes to disagree with the first tanna:

Every woman may attribute every stain smaller than the measure of a bean-gris to the blood of a louse

even though she did not knowingly kill

a louse, for the Sages were lenient and permitted attributing every stain smaller than the measure of a gris to the blood of a louse, because lice are common, and it is possible that she crushed a louse without knowing it .

And she attributes

the woman who finds a stain, even one larger than a gris, the blood found

to her son or to her husband,

if they slept beside her and they have a wound .

And likewise,

if she herself has

on her own body

a wound, and it

[the wound]

can reopen and discharge blood, she attributes

her stain

to it,

even though at present the wound is dry, since it can reopen and discharge blood.

An incident occurred involving a certain woman who came before Rabbi Akiva.

She said to him: I saw a stain!

He said to her—

Perhaps you had a wound?

She said to him—

Yes!

Indeed, I had a wound in the past

and it had healed,

having partially healed and developed a scab over it.

He said to her—

Perhaps it can

the wound

reopen

[become exposed through the scab peeling off]

and discharge blood?

She said to him—

Yes!

And Rabbi Akiva declared her pure

on the basis of attributing it to her wound, even though at present the wound was not actually discharging blood, but only could reopen and discharge blood .

Rabbi Akiva saw

his

students looking at one another

and wondering why Rabbi Akiva had been so lenient in attributing the stain to a wound that could only discharge blood.

He said to them—

What is difficult in your eyes?

After all, it is possible to be lenient concerning stains even through a distant attribution. For

the Sages did not say

the

matter

of the enactment concerning stains

to be stringent

and declare a woman impure even where it is possible to attribute the stain.

Rather, on the contrary, at the foundation of the enactment concerning stains it was stated that one may

be lenient

and attribute the stain to any other matter to which we can attribute it, even if it is a distant possibility.

And the Sages have the power to be lenient concerning the prohibition of stains, because she is forbidden only by virtue of their enactment; but by Torah law stains do not render her impure,

as it is stated: “And when a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood in her flesh”—

blood, but not a stain!

Until

the object with which the woman examined herself

was placed beneath the pillow,

for the woman did not look at it after the examination to see whether there was blood on it, but concealed it beneath the pillow,

and blood was found on it,

and it is not known whether the blood came during her examination, making her impure, or whether during the night she crushed a louse that had been beneath the pillow, making her pure:

If the shape of the stain is

round—

it is pure,

for ordinarily a louse crushed against the testing cloth spreads its blood in the form of a circle, and it is therefore more reasonable to attribute the round stain to a louse. But if the appearance of the blood of the stain is

drawn out—

it is impure,

for blood that emerges during an examination tends to be drawn across the testing cloth as a result of the act of examination ,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok.

Gemara:

We have learned

and it is explained in our Mishna

this

law that was stated in the beraita:

For the Sages taught: It once happened that Rabbi Meir attributed [a stain] to eye-paint

[a dressing] ,

and Rabbi attributed [it] to resin

of

the sycamore,

whose color is red; and this law can be learned from our Mishna, which stated: “And she attributes it to anything to which she can attribute it” .

We learned in the Mishna:

Or if she sat:

And the Gemara is precise:

“She sat”

beside those occupied with stains—

“yes,”

she may attribute it to them.

“She did not sit”—

“no,”

she may not attribute it to them, and we are not lenient and say: perhaps she sat with them, and now she does not remember it.

We have learned

this very precision from the language of the Mishna, which wrote: “She sat,”

to that

which is stated explicitly in the beraita:

For the Sages taught: If she passed through the market of slaughterers, and it is uncertain whether [blood] splashed upon her or whether it did not splash upon her—

she may attribute it [to them].

But if

it is uncertain whether she passed through or whether she did not pass through—

she is impure,

as is precise from our Mishna: if it is uncertain whether she sat beside those occupied with stains, she is impure.

We have learned in the Mishna:

“She killed a louse.”

And the Gemara is precise:

“She killed”—

yes; “she did not kill”—

“no.”

And we do not attribute [the stain], saying that perhaps a louse was crushed in her garment without her noticing.

Who is the author of the Mishna?

It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

For it was taught:

A woman who found a stain, if

she killed

a louse—

she may attribute it

to it.

If she did not kill—

she may not attribute it; these are the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

And the Sages say: In either case,

even if she did not kill a louse—

she may attribute it

to it, for lice are common, and it is possible that she killed one without knowing of it.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: According to my colleagues there is no end,

for I am exceedingly stringent: if she did not kill a louse, she may not attribute [the stain] at all, and even if she found a tiny stain the size of a mustard seed, I render her impure.

And according to my colleagues there is no limit,

for they are excessively lenient in declaring her pure, even if she did not kill a louse and even if the blood was of a very large quantity.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explains his words:

“According to my colleagues there is no end.” -

“For you have no woman who is pure for her husband,”

since

“you have no single bed in which there are not several drops of louse blood,”

for lice are found everywhere, and in every bed there are bloodstains formed from their being crushed. And every woman who finds a stain in her bed and does not know with certainty that she killed a louse is impure.

“According to the words of my colleagues there is no limit”—

“for you have no woman who is not pure for her husband; you have no single sheet”

“in which there are not several drops of blood,”

and every stain that she finds can be attributed to a louse, and all the women are pure.

“But the words of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus appear [correct],”

for he has a third approach to the matter, and his approach is more reasonable

“than mine and than theirs.”

For

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus

would say: “To what extent may she attribute [a stain]

to louse blood?—

Up to the size of a bean-gris.

And according to his words we concede

that even if she did not kill a louse, if the stain was up to the size of a bean-gris, she may attribute it to a louse and is pure; there is an end to the matter, and we do not render every woman who finds a stain in her bed impure. And if the stain was larger than a bean-gris, then even if she killed a louse, she may not attribute it to it, and there is a limit to the matter, and we do not declare all stains pure.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

And according to the Sages, who say that she may attribute it

to the killing of a louse—

up to what extent

is the measure of attribution? For it is impossible to attribute a large stain to a louse.

And it answers:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: She may attribute it to a bedbug,

whose stain is large,

and up to

the measure of the width

of a lupin

she may attribute it to it.

The Sages taught: This bedbug—its length is like its width

[64], and its taste is like its smell; a covenant has been made with it

that is, its smell spreads and makes everything so foul-smelling, until

anyone who crushes it smells

its bad smell.

And the Gemara explains for what purpose the beraita taught the structure of the bedbug and the properties of its smell:

“Its length is like its width”—

with regard to stains.

For if one finds a stain whose length is like its width, one may attribute it to a bedbug, even when it is as large as a lupin.

“And its taste is like its smell”—

with regard to

eating

teruma,

which one is obligated to guard and to ensure that it does not become spoiled, for in certain cases one permitted him to spit out the teruma in the middle of his eating, even though from that point onward it would not be eaten.

For we have learned:

If he was eating teruma and they said to him: “You were impure and the teruma was impure,”

or he tasted the taste of a bedbug in his mouth,

and he is forbidden to continue eating, for a bedbug is a creeping creature forbidden to be eaten. -

“Then he should spit it out.”

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

“From where does he know”

that he tasted a bedbug in his mouth, when an ordinary person has never eaten a bedbug in his life? And it answers: because

“its taste is like its smell.”

The Gemara further raises a difficulty:

“But still, from where does he know?”

For he did not smell the smell of a bedbug. And it answers:

“A covenant has been made with it,”

with the bedbug,

“that anyone who crushes it”—

“smells it.”

And through this explanation, the purpose for which the beraita taught us that “its taste is like its smell” and that “anyone who crushes it smells it” is understood: these signs are necessary to teach us when one who eats teruma is permitted to spit the teruma from his mouth and cause it to be lost. And it follows by a kal va-chomer that one who eats ordinary food and tastes the taste of a bedbug is obligated to stop his eating.

Rav Ashi said: A city in which there are pigs—

one need not be concerned about stains,

since they eat creeping creatures and crawling things and splash blood.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And this

place called

“Dukeret”—

is comparable to a city in which there are pigs,

because there are many slaughterers there, and creeping creatures and crawling things are also found there.

We have learned in the Mishna:

“To what extent may she attribute [a stain]?”

—up to the size of a bean-gris.

Rav Huna said: [If it is] a gris

itself—

she may not attribute [it].

[If it is] less than a gris—

she may attribute [it].

And Rav Hisda said: [If it is] a gris—

she may attribute [it]; [if it is] more than a gris—

she may not attribute [it].

And the Gemara explains:

Let us say that they dispute

whether “up to” includes the endpoint.

They dispute [this matter].

For Rav Huna holds

that wherever the Sages said

“up to,”

it means up to that point,

but the endpoint is not included.

Therefore, also in our Mishna, which wrote “up to a gris,” the gris itself is not included.

And Rav Hisda holds

that everywhere

“up to”—

“and the endpoint is included,”

and also in our Mishna, a stain whose size is exactly a gris is included among the pure stains.

Rav Huna could say to you:

No. This is not a rule. Rather,

sometimes “up to” includes the endpoint, and sometimes “up to” does not include the endpoint.

And here [we rule] stringently and there [we rule] stringently,

and with stains too we are stringent and forbid a stain whose size is exactly a gris.

And Rav Hisda could say to you: In general, I can say

like Rav Huna:

when it leads to stringency, we say it; when it leads to leniency, we do not say it.

But here

I hold

in accordance with Rabbi Abahu.

For Rabbi Abahu said: All the measures of the Sages—

are to be applied stringently, except for a gris with regard to stains,

for its entire prohibition is only rabbinic, and in it one measures

leniently.

Some say that this teaching is stated independently, and the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Hisda does not concern our Mishna:

and that the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda does not concern our Mishna:

Rav Huna said: as a gris—

as more than a gris, and Rav Hisda said: as a gris—

as less than a gris

73. And they disagree concerning "

whether “up to and up to” is included,"

for Rav Huna holds

that here

it is stringent,

as we say

everywhere, whereas Rav Hisda holds that the law is different with regard to stains, and one follows leniently in their case.