Niddah 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

Meytivi:

If there were drops of blood on it below,

that is, small drops of blood,

and drops of blood above,

that is, large drops of blood —

she may attribute it

even

to

the stain

above,

the large one—

up to the size of a gris. Is it not the case that the gris

itself is included

among those below,

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

And the Gemara rejects this:

No. The gris

itself is considered

above 75,

and its status is that of a large stain, which cannot be attributed to a louse.

It was stated: If a gris and more was found on her, and

on

that “more”

there was blood,

a louse was crushed

[smeared]

in it.

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

is made with regard to all stains only

when they are the size of a gris,

but

when they are the size of a gris and more—

there is no attribution,

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

Rabbi Yannai says: She is pure,

because

this matter

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

applies where no louse was crushed in it.

But where a louse was crushed in it—

it is evident that this

“more”

is the blood of the louse.

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

there remains

a doubtful quantity of blood, only

the size of a gris

alone . And

since generally one attributes

blood when it is the size of a gris—

here, too, one attributes it.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: If she handled a gris

of bird blood,

and a gris and more was found on her—

what is

the halakha? Since the gris is attributed to the bird, should this part not be considered part of the stain, as we have determined its source, leaving only the “more,” whose source is uncertain, subject to the laws of a stain? Since it is a small amount, it should have the status of a stain smaller than a gris, which does not render her impure.

The Gemara explains:

The dilemma applies according to Rabbi Hanina, and the dilemma applies according to Rabbi Yannai,

who disputed the case in which a louse was found crushed in the “more” of the gris.

The dilemma according to Rabbi Hanina: Rabbi Hanina stated there that she is impure only because

the “more” in which the louse was crushed is included in the stain

when she had not handled

any other blood, and we saw the louse only when the stain was found; therefore, it too is included in the stain .

But here,

where we know that

she handled

bird blood—

she may attribute

the gris to it, and it turns out that the doubtful blood is smaller than a gris.

Or perhaps: Even according to Rabbi Yannai, who said

there

that she is pure, this matter applies—

where a louse was crushed in it,

as the fact that the louse is found on the blood proves that this blood came from it.

But where no louse was crushed in it, she may not attribute it, despite the fact that she had been handling other blood.

Ta shma: If she handled

red

blood—she

may not attribute to it

blood that is

black.

that was black.

She handled

a small amount—she

may not attribute to it

a stain whose size is

large.

What are the circumstances

in which it is necessary to teach us that a small amount cannot be attributed to a large amount?

Is it not a case such as this,

where the large amount exceeds what she handled by less than a gris, and the beraita teaches that one cannot deduct the blood she handled from the calculation and declare the remainder pure as a stain smaller than a gris?

And the Gemara rejects this:

No.

Here it is speaking

of a case where she handled a gris, and a stain was found on her

measuring

two gerisin and more.

The Gemara asks:

If so, what is the point,

as it is obvious that such a large stain cannot be permitted on account of having 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 a gris

of blood

of a bird

that she handled, and

place

it

in the middle

of the two other gerisin of blood. We would then say that there were two separate stains, neither of which was the size of a gris, and afterward the bird blood fell between those two stains and joined them into one stain. Thus, the stain before us is essentially three separate stains.

Go here—

with regard to one stain,

there is no requisite measure; go here

with regard to the second stain—

there is no requisite measure,

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

It teaches us

that we do not say this .

Rava said: If one type

of substance resembling blood was found on her, and she does not know how this stain came to be there, although it is clear that it is not blood —

she may attribute to it

even

several types

of blood-colored substances found on her, including stains whose shades differ from that of the colored substance.

Meytivi: If she handled red—

she may not attribute black to it,

and a stain may be attributed only to a substance resembling it, since it is possible that it came from that substance.

And the Gemara answers:

Handling

red

is different,

because once she knows that she handled a particular color, it is impossible to permit a stain of a different color on that basis. But in Rava’s case, she did not handle anything; rather, a colored substance was found on her without her knowing how that substance came to be on her body. It is certain that one substance splashed onto her without her noticing, and therefore it is possible that additional blood also splashed onto her without her noticing it. Consequently, all her stains are declared pure .

Some say otherwise: Rava said: If she handled one type

and knows that blood may have splashed during this activity—

she may attribute to it several types,

even if their shades differ from the shade of the substance she handled.

Meytivi: If she handled red—

she may not attribute black to it.

And the Gemara answers:

When Rava said

this, it was specifically

when she handled a hen, which contains several types of blood,

and every red appearance she finds could have been blood of that shade in the hen . But when she knows precisely the color of the blood with which she was handling, she may not attribute to it a stain of a different shade.

We learned in the Mishna:

There was an incident involving a woman

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

The Gemara asks:

But it was taught in a beraita: The Sages stated this 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 fundamental enactment concerning stains

was not made to be lenient with regard to Torah law

but

to be stringent with regard to Torah law,

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

the stains themselves

are merely a decree

of the Rabbis.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the cloth is placed

under the pillow and blood is found on it, if the stain is round, she is pure. But if its appearance is elongated, she is impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok.

They raised a dilemma before them: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, or not?

Ta shma: A stain

composed of several drops of blood, where each individual drop is smaller than the measure of a gris: If the appearance of the stain is

elongated,

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

they combine

to reach the measure of a gris and more, and the stain is judged as a whole rather than each drop separately.

However, if the stain is composed of

drops upon drops

whose shapes are round, the drops do not combine with one another. Since no individual drop is the size of a gris, she is pure .

The Gemara considers:

Who is

the tanna who taught this beraita?

If it is Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok,—

why do I need combination

in order to render an elongated stain impure?

Did he not say: An elongated stain,

even when its size is

any amount—

is impure!

It can be rendered impure on account of any single elongated drop, even without combining the drops into one stain.

Rather, is it not—

the Rabbis

who taught the beraita?

Learn from it: They disagree,

the Rabbis disagreeing with him and declaring even an elongated stain pure when it lacks the requisite measure. Therefore, it is impure only because all the elongated drops are combined into one large stain.

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

Actually,

it is Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok

who taught it.

And when Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said

that an elongated stain is impure whatever its size, he was referring to a stain found

on a checking cloth 84.

But with regard to a stain

found on her body or garment—

he did not

say this.

Ta shma: For Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok.

And from the fact that it is necessary to determine according to whose

halakha

it follows that they disagree

with him.

And the Gemara concludes:

This proves it.

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