Niddah 59a — the Talmud in English

The meitivi: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

If there were upon her drops of blood below,

that is, small drops of blood,

and drops of blood above,

that is, large drops of blood—

she may attribute

even

to

the stain

above,

the large one—

up to the size of a split bean. Is it not that the size of a split bean

itself is included

below,

and this size too is considered “small”—and she is pure?

And the Gemara rejects this:

No. The size of a split bean

itself is considered

from above

and its law is that of a large stain, which is not attributed to a crushed louse.

It was stated: If a stain the size of a split bean and more was found upon her, and

upon

that “more”

blood

was crushed

[smeared]

a louse.

Rabbi Hanina says—

she is impure.

Rabbi Yannai says—

she is pure.

And the Gemara explains the dispute:

Rabbi Hanina says: She is impure, because attribution applies

to all stains only

when it is the size of a split bean,

but

when it is the size of a split bean and more—

attribution does not apply,

and a stain in which a louse was crushed is no different from the other stains.

Rabbi Yannai says: She is pure,

because

these words

that one does not attribute a stain the size of a split bean and more—

are where no louse was crushed in it.

But where a louse was crushed in it—

the matter is evident that this “

more

” is the blood of the louse.

And since it is clear to us that the “more” is not from her body, it is not part of the stain, and

there remains

uncertain blood only, of the size

of a split bean

alone. And

since ordinarily attribution applies

if there was blood the size of a split bean—

here too attribution applies.

Rabbi Jeremiah raised a question: If she handled the size of a split bean

of bird blood,

and a split bean and more was found upon her—

what is [the law]?

Does the fact that the size of a split bean is attributed to the bird mean that this part is not considered part of the stain, since we have determined its source, and only the “more,” concerning which there is uncertainty from where it came, has the law of a stain? But since it is small, its law is that of a stain smaller than a split bean, which does not render her impure?

And the Gemara explains:

It is a question according to Rabbi Hanina; it is a question according to Rabbi Yannai,

who disputed in the case where a louse was crushed in the “more” of the split bean.

It is a question according to Rabbi Hanina: Rabbi Hanina said there only that she is impure up to this point

and the “more” in which a louse was crushed is also included in the stain—

only because she had not handled

other blood, and only at the time the stain was found did we see the louse, and therefore it too is included in the stain.

But here,

where we know

that she had handled

bird blood—

she attributes

the split bean to it, and it turns out that the uncertain blood is less than a split bean.

Or perhaps: Even according to Rabbi Yannai, who said

there

that she is pure, these words apply—

where a louse was crushed in it,

for the fact that the louse is found upon the blood proves that this blood is from it.

But where no louse was crushed in it, she does not attribute,

despite the fact that she had been occupied with other blood.

Come and hear: If she handled

blood

that was red—

she does not attribute to it

blood

that was black.

If she handled

a small amount—

she does not attribute to it

a stain whose size is

large.

What are the circumstances

in which it is necessary to teach us that one does not attribute a small amount to a large amount?

Is it not in a case such as this,

where the large amount exceeds what she handled by less than a split bean, and the beraita teaches that it is impossible to remove the blood that she handled from the calculation and purify the remainder under the law of a stain smaller than a split bean?

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

Here it is speaking

of a case where she handled the size of a split bean, and a stain was found upon her

of the measure of

two split beans and more.

The Gemara objects:

If so, what does it teach us?

Is it not obvious that we will not permit such a large stain because she handled a small amount of blood, and there is no need for the beraita to teach us this law?

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say: Take the size of a split bean

of

bird

blood with which she was occupied and

place

it

in the middle

of the two other split beans of blood, and say that there were two separate stains, neither of which contained the measure of a split bean, and afterward the bird blood fell between these two stains and joined them into one stain; it follows that the stain before us is fundamentally three separate stains, and

go here—

in one stain—

there is no measure; go here

in the second stain—

there is no measure,

and the blood between them also does not render her impure, since it is from a bird.

It teaches us

that we do not say this.

Rava said: If one kind

of substance resembling blood was found upon her, and she does not know how this stain came there, but it is clear that it is not blood—

she may attribute to it

even

several kinds

of blood-colors upon her, including stains whose shades differ from the shade of the colored stain.

The meitivi: If she handled red—

she does not attribute black to it,

and one attributes a stain only to a color resembling it, from which it is possible that it came.

And the Gemara answers:

Handling

red

is different,

for since she knows that she handled a particular color, it is impossible to permit a stain whose color is different. But this woman did not handle anything; rather, one kind of color was found upon her without her knowing how that color came upon her body. Necessarily, one color splashed upon her without her noticing the matter, and if so, it is possible that additional blood also splashed upon her and she likewise did not notice it; therefore all her stains are purified.

There are those who say: Rava said: If she handled one kind

and knows that it is possible that blood splashed during this activity—

she may attribute to it several kinds,

even though their shades differ from the shade in which she was occupied.

The meitivi: If she handled red—

she does not attribute black to it.

And the Gemara answers:

When Rava said [this],

it was specifically

when she handled a chicken, which contains several kinds of blood,

and every red appearance that she finds could have been blood in the chicken of such a color; but when she knows precisely the color of the blood with which she was occupied, she does not attribute to it a stain of a different shade.

We learned in the Mishna:

An incident involving a woman

whose stain Rabbi Akiva declared pure, because “the Sages said the matter not to be stringent but to be lenient.”

The Gemara objects:

But it was taught in a beraita: The Sages said the matter

the decree concerning stains

not to be lenient, but to be stringent!?

And it answers:

Ravina said:

the meaning of the beraita is that the primary enactment concerning stains

did not come to be lenient regarding words of Torah

[but]

rather to be stringent regarding words of Torah,

and to prohibit a stain that certainly came from the source. Rabbi Akiva was speaking of stains concerning which there is uncertainty whether they are from a wound, in which they were lenient, since

the stains themselves

are only a decree

of the Rabbis.

We learned in the Mishna:

The cloth that was placed

under the pillow, and blood was found upon it: if the appearance of the stain is round, she is pure. But if its appearance is elongated, she is impure; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok.

They raised a question before them: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok, or not?

Come and hear: A stain

made of several drops of blood, when each individual drop does not contain the measure of a split bean. If the appearance of the stain is

elongated,

that is, the blood has extended and the shape of the stain is elongated—

they join

to the measure of a split bean and more, and the stain is judged as a whole and not each drop separately.

However, if the stain is composed of

drop by drop

whose shape is rounded, the drops do not join one to another; and since no drop contains the size of a split bean, she is pure.

And the Gemara discusses:

Who is [the author],

the tanna who taught this beraita?

If it is Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok—

why do I need joining,

in order to render an elongated stain impure?

For he said: An elongated [stain]

even when its size is

any amount—

is impure!

And it can be rendered impure because of each elongated drop, even without joining the drops into one stain.

Rather, is it not—

the Rabbis,

who taught this beraita?

Learn from it: They disagree,

the Rabbis disagree with him and purify even an elongated stain if it does not contain the measure; therefore it is impure only because all the elongated drops are joined into one large stain.

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

Actually—

it is Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok

who is [the author].

And when Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok said

that an elongated stain is impure whatever its size, it is with regard to a stain found

on an examination cloth.

But concerning a stain

found upon her body or garment—

not

did he say [this].

Come and hear: For Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok.

And from the fact that it is necessary to determine in accordance with whose

halakha -

it follows that they disagree

the Sages dispute him.

And the Gemara concludes:

derive from it.

We shall return to you, Chapter “One Who Sees a Stain.”