Niddah 58b (נח:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises an objection:

What is different from that which was taught in a beraita: “Two women who were occupied with one bird, and throughout the bird’s body there was no

more than

a sela of blood, and

blood

the size of a sela was found on

one woman

and a sela on the other—

both are impure!”

The blood found on each woman is not attributed to the blood of the bird.

Since both women were occupied with one bird, only one stain could be rendered pure by attributing it to the bird; it is not possible to purify both on the basis of uncertainty. Rather, both are rendered impure.

The same should apply to two women who wore a garment one after the other, and blood was found on it: since it is impossible to purify both, we should have to render both impure?

And if this is because the first woman examined the garment, her examination is not completely conclusive, as it is possible that she did not examine it properly and failed to notice the stain that was on her garment.

The Gemara answers:

It is different there,

in the case of the two women occupied with the bird,

as there is an additional sela

of blood: blood was found on each woman, and we have no way to attribute the blood by saying that the blood on this woman was from the bird and the blood on her fellow was menstrual blood. What distinguishes this blood from that blood? Both women found blood, and both had been occupied with the bird.

But in the case of two women who wore a garment one after the other, the cases of the two women are not completely equal, since the first woman examined the garment. Although her examination is not entirely conclusive, it is nevertheless more reasonable to purify her than her fellow; the two sides are not completely equal, as they are in the case of the two women occupied with the bird.

The Sages taught:

A woman who

wore

one over another

three garments that had been examined for her

and found to be free of blood, and afterward found blood on one of them—

If she can attribute

the blood to something that came from elsewhere, for example, she passed through a butchers’ market,

she attributes it

to that source,

even

if the blood was found

on the

garment

underneath

alone. Although it is not usual for blood from outside to flow to the innermost garment without touching the outer garment, the blood is nevertheless attributed to blood that splashed upward from below, between her legs, and therefore was found only on the innermost garment.

And if she

cannot attribute

the blood, because she did not pass through a butchers’ market or the like,

she does not attribute

the blood found to something that came from elsewhere,

even

if the blood was found

on the

garment

above

alone. One might have said that the fact that the inner garment is clean proves that the blood did not come from her body, since how could blood from the uterus bypass the inner garment and reach the outer garment?

The Gemara explains:

How

is it understood that she can attribute the blood or cannot attribute it?

If she passed through a butchers’ market—

she attributes

the blood to it

even

if it was found

on the bottom garment

alone.

If she did not pass through a butchers’ market—

even

if the blood was found

on the upper garment

alone,

she does not attribute it!

Mishna:

And she attributes

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

to anything to which she can attribute

the source of the blood; for example—

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

or

was occupied with stains

belonging to other women, or with blood stains from other places on her body,

or sat beside those occupied with them,

she attributes the blood to that source, and she is pure!

Likewise, if the woman

killed

a

flea (a louse) and afterward found a stain on her flesh or garment—

she may attribute

the blood

to it,

and she is pure.

To what extent may she attribute

the blood to the blood of a flea?

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

However, if the stain was larger than this measure, she cannot attribute it to the blood of the flea, since the blood of a flea is not more than this amount.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus further said—and with this ruling he comes to dispute the first tanna:

Every woman may attribute any stain smaller than the measure of a bean-gris to the blood of a flea,

even though she did not knowingly kill

a flea. The Sages were lenient and allowed every stain smaller than the size of a gris to be attributed to flea blood, because fleas are common, and it is possible that she crushed a flea without realizing it.

And she may attribute

the blood found by a woman who discovers a stain—even one larger than a gris—

to her son or her husband,

if they slept beside her and they have a wound .

Likewise,

if she herself has

on her body

a wound, and it

[the wound]

can open and release blood, she may attribute

her stain

to it,

even though the wound is currently dry, since it is capable of opening and releasing blood.

It happened that a certain woman 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 had a wound in the past,

and it had healed,

meaning that it had partially healed and a scab had formed over it.

He said to her—

Perhaps it can

the wound

open (by becoming exposed when the scab peels off)

[by becoming exposed when the scab peels away]

and release blood?

She said to him—

Yes!

And Rabbi Akiva declared her pure

on the basis of attributing the stain to her wound, even though the wound was not currently releasing blood in actuality, but was merely capable of opening and releasing 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 was merely capable of releasing blood.

He said to them—

What seems difficult to you?

It is possible to be lenient with regard to stains even through a remote attribution. For

the Sages did not say

the

matter

of the decree concerning stains

in order to be stringent

and render a woman impure even where the stain can be attributed to another source.

On the contrary, the basis of the decree concerning stains is that it is possible

to be lenient

and attribute the stain to any other source to which it can be attributed, even if that source is remote.

The Sages had the authority to be lenient with regard to the prohibition of stains, because the prohibition exists only by virtue of their enactment; by Torah law, stains do not render a woman impure,

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

blood, but not a stain!

Until

the cloth with which the woman examined herself

was placed beneath a cushion

and the woman did not inspect it after the examination to see whether it contained blood, but put it away beneath the cushion,

and blood was found on it,

with it unknown whether the blood appeared during her examination, rendering her impure, or whether during the night she crushed a flea that had been beneath the cushion, rendering her pure:

If the shape of the stain is

round—

it is pure,

since ordinarily when a flea is crushed against the examination cloth, its blood spreads in the shape of a circle, and it is therefore reasonable to attribute the round stain to a flea. But if the appearance of the blood in the stain is

streaked—

it is impure,

since blood that emerges during an examination normally becomes streaked across the cloth as a result of the examination.

These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok.

Gemara:

We learned

and it is explained in our Mishna

this

law that was stated in a beraita:

For the Sages taught: It once happened that Rabbi Meir attributed a stain to eye ointment

(a bandage) ,

and Rabbi attributed it to sap

of

a sycamore tree,

whose color is red. This law can be derived from our Mishna, which states: “And she attributes it to anything to which she can attribute it.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“Or if she sat”:

And the Gemara infers:

“sat”

beside those occupied with bloodstains —

yes,

she may attribute the stain to them.

“Did not sit” —

no,

she may not attribute it to them; we do not leniently say that perhaps she sat with them and now does not remember it.

We learned

this precisely from the wording of the Mishna, which states, “she sat

[and not merely]

as stated explicitly in the beraita”:

The Sages taught: If she passed through a marketplace of slaughterers, and it is uncertain whether blood splashed onto her or whether it did not splash onto her —

she may attribute the stain to them.

But if

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

she is impure,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

“She killed a louse.”

And the Gemara infers:

“She killed” —

yes; “she did not kill” —

no.

We do not attribute the stain to the possibility that a louse was crushed on her garment without her noticing.

Whose view is expressed in the Mishna?

It is the view of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

As it was taught:

A woman who found a bloodstain, if

she killed

a louse,

she may attribute the stain

to it.

If she did not kill one —

she may not attribute the stain to it; this is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

And the Sages say: In either case,

even if she did not kill a louse,

she may attribute the stain

to it, since lice are common, and it is possible that she killed one without realizing it.

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

as I am exceedingly stringent: if she did not kill a louse, she may not attribute the stain to anything at all, and even if she found a tiny stain the size of a mustard seed, I would deem her impure.

And according to my colleagues’ view, there is no limit,

as they are excessively lenient in declaring her pure, even if she did not kill a louse and even if the bloodstain was extremely large.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explains his statement:

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

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

because

“you have no bed in the entire world that does not contain several drops of louse blood,”

since lice are found everywhere, and every bed contains bloodstains produced by crushing them. Therefore, any woman who finds a stain on her bed and does not know with certainty that she killed a louse is impure.

“According to my colleagues’ view, there is no limit” —

“for you have no woman who is not pure for her husband, since you have no sheet in the world”

“that does not contain several drops of blood,”

and any stain she finds may be attributed to a louse; thus all women are pure.

“But the statement of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus appears preferable”

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

“than mine and 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-griss.”

“And according to his view, we concede”

that even if she did not kill a louse, if the stain was no larger than a bean-griss, she may attribute it to a louse and is pure. Thus there is a limit to the matter, and we do not render impure every woman who finds a stain on her bed. If the stain was larger than a bean-griss, then even if she killed a louse she may not attribute the stain to it, and there is an end to the matter; we do not declare every stain pure.

The Gemara asks:

“And according to the Sages, who say that she may attribute the stain”

to the killing of a louse —

“up to what extent”

is the measure for such attribution? Surely a large stain cannot be attributed to a louse.

It answers:

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

whose stain is large,

and up to

the width of

a turmus

she may attribute the stain to it.

The Sages taught: This bedbug has equal length and width

[67], and its taste is like its smell; it has an established characteristic

meaning that its odor is so strong and foul that

anyone who crushes it detects its smell

and its unpleasant odor.

The Gemara explains why the beraita taught the bedbug’s structure and the properties of its odor:

“Its length is equal to its width” —

with regard to bloodstains.

If one finds a stain whose length equals its width, one may attribute it to a bedbug, even when it is as large as a turmus.

“Its taste is like its smell” —

with regard to

eating

teruma,

which one is obligated to guard and prevent from becoming spoiled, for in certain circumstances one is permitted to spit out teruma in the middle of eating it, even though from that point onward it will no longer be eaten.

As we learned:

If one was eating teruma and they told him, “You were impure, and the teruma was impure,”

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

he may not continue eating, since a bedbug is a sheretz and is forbidden to eat. -

“He must spit it out.”

The Gemara asks:

“How does he know”

that he tasted a bedbug in his mouth? After all, an ordinary person has never eaten a bedbug in his life. And it answers: Because

“its taste is like its smell.”

The Gemara continues to ask:

“But still, how does he know?”

Since he has never smelled the odor of a bedbug. And it answers:

“It has an established characteristic”

with regard to a bedbug:

“Anyone who crushes it” —

“detects its smell.”

This explanation resolves why the beraita taught us that “its taste is like its smell” and that “anyone who crushes it detects its smell”: These signs are necessary to teach when one who eats teruma is permitted to spit out the teruma and cause it to be lost. This is all the more so with regard to one who eats non-sacred food and tastes the taste of a bedbug: he is obligated to stop eating.

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

one need not be concerned about bloodstains,

since they eat creeping creatures and insects and splatter blood.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And this

place called

“Dukart” —

“is comparable to a city in which there are pigs,”

because there are many slaughterers there, and creeping creatures and insects are also common there.

We learned in the Mishna:

“To what extent may she attribute the stain” —

up to the size of a bean-griss.

Rav Huna said: A griss

itself —

she may not attribute the stain.

Smaller than a griss —

she may attribute it.

And Rav Ḥisda said: A griss —

she may attribute it; larger than a griss —

she may not attribute it. 71

The Gemara explains:

“Shall we say that they disagree about

whether ‘up to’ includes the stated measure?”

They disagree over this.

For Rav Huna maintains

that wherever the Sages said

“up to,”

it means up to but not including the stated measure:

“the stated measure is not included”;

therefore, in our Mishna as well, which states “up to a griss,” the griss itself is not included.

And Rav Ḥisda maintains

that wherever it says

“up to” —

“the stated measure is included,”

and in our Mishna as well, a stain exactly the size of a griss is included among the stains that are pure.

Rav Huna could have said to you:

No, this is not a general rule. Rather,

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

Here it is stringent, and there it is stringent,

and with regard to bloodstains too, we are stringent and prohibit a stain exactly the size of a griss.

And Rav Ḥisda could have said to you: In general, I could say

that I agree with Rav Huna —

we say “up to” includes the measure when this is stringent, but we do not say so when this is lenient.

But here

I hold

in accordance with Rabbi Abbahu.

For Rabbi Abbahu said: All measures of the Sages —

when they are stringent, except for a griss with regard to bloodstains,

since the entire prohibition is only rabbinic, and its measure is calculated

leniently.

Some say that this statement was taught independently,

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

Rav Huna said: The measure is a gris—

as more than a gris, and Rav Ḥisda said: The measure is a gris—

as less than a gris

73 . And they disagree over"

the limit and the limit itself

are included,” as Rav Huna holds

that here

the ruling is stringent,

as we say

everywhere, whereas Rav Ḥisda holds that the law concerning ketamim is different, and that one rules leniently with regard to them.