Niddah 59b (נט:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

A woman who is relieving herself

and urinates,

and sees blood,

but it is not known whether the blood came from the source, or whether she has a wound in that place and the blood from the wound emerged together with the urine.

Rabbi Meir says: If

she relieved herself while

standing—

she is impure; but if she was sitting—

she is pure.

[The rationale for this will be explained in the Gemara.]

Rabbi Yosei says: Whether

she was standing

or whether

she was sitting—

she is pure.

2.

A man and a woman who relieved themselves into a bowl, and blood was found on the water

in the bowl, and it is not known whether the blood came from the man or from the woman; and even if the blood came from the woman, it is not known whether it came from the source or from a wound.

Rabbi Yosei—

declares her pure.

For even if it should be established that the blood came from the woman, his view is that blood that emerges during urination does not render her impure even when she is standing.

And Rabbi Shimon—

declares her impure.

Because he disagrees and maintains the view of Rabbi Meir, that a woman who sees blood while relieving herself is impure; nor may she be declared pure on account of the man who urinated, with the possibility that the blood came from him, because

a man is not ordinarily prone to emit blood; rather, the presumption concerning blood is that it came from the woman.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the rationale of Rabbi Meir, who declares a woman pure when she relieves herself while sitting, attributing the blood to a wound she has in that place, whereas when she is standing he determines that the blood came from the source and declares her impure:

What is different about standing

that he declares her impure?—

For we say: The urine returned

[went back]

to the source

1, and brought

from it

blood.

If so,

the same should apply when she is sitting: Let us say, “The urine returned to the source and brought blood!”

Shmuel said:

The case of a woman sitting whom Rabbi Yosei declared pure is one

where she is producing a forceful stream,

with her urine issuing in a stream; because of the force of the stream, it does not return to the source, and such a stream can occur only when she is sitting. But when she is standing, the urine necessarily trickles and does not issue in a stream; we therefore fear that it returned to the source and brought blood out of it .

The Gemara asks:

The same should apply to one producing a forceful stream—

How do we know with certainty that the blood emerged together with the urine, such that the force of the stream prevents the possibility that blood emerged from the source?

Perhaps after the water had ended,

and she had stopped urinating,

blood came,

and at that time there was no urine at all , so blood could have emerged from the source?

It answers:

Rabbi Abba said:

Our Mishna is speaking

of a woman sitting on the edge of the bowl and producing a forceful stream into the bowl

in its middle,

and blood was found inside the bowl.

The location of the blood proves that it arrived together with the urine.

For if it is so that it came after the water had ended,

blood from the source—

it should have been found on the edge of the bowl

in the case of this blood,

to be found,

since the blood itself does not issue in a stream; how, then, did it reach the middle of the bowl if not because the urine carried it there?

Shmuel said—and some say that Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who declared even a standing woman pure

. Rabbi Abba likewise instructed Kala

[the name of a sage]:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

We learned in the Mishna:

A man and a woman

who relieved themselves into a bowl, and blood was found on the water: Rabbi Yosei declares her pure, and Rabbi Shimon declares her impure.

They raised a dilemma: If a man and a woman are standing,—

what did Rabbi Meir say?

For the reason Rabbi Yosei declared her pure is that even blood that certainly emerged from the woman does not render her impure, as explained in the first clause of the Mishna; Rabbi Meir disagreed with him there and declares her impure.

However, it may be said

that when Rabbi Meir said

that a standing woman is impure, this applies specifically

in the

first clause, where there is only

one uncertainty,

the entire uncertainty being whether the blood came from the source or from a wound,

but in the case of a compound uncertainty,

where a man also urinated, creating an additional uncertainty—perhaps the blood did not come from the woman—

he does not declare her impure.

Or perhaps there is no difference?

Resh Lakish said: It is—

the same.

Rabbi Meir declares her impure even when a man and a woman are standing.

Resh Lakish explains:

From where

is there proof that Rabbi Meir held this way?—

From the fact that it did not teach

in the latter clause of the Mishna, “A man and a woman who relieved themselves into a bowl:

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei declare her pure,”

and the Mishna omitted Rabbi Meir’s name. It is proven that only Rabbi Yosei declares her pure.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

that Rabbi Meir declares her impure even in a case of compound uncertainty, why did the Mishna teach in the first clause that a standing woman is impure?

Now, if Rabbi Meir declares her impure in a case of compound uncertainty,—

is it necessary to state that he does so in a case of a single uncertainty?

It answers: The first clause was stated in order

to inform you of the strength of Rabbi Yosei’s position—

that he declares her pure even in a case of a single uncertainty.

Had only the latter clause been written, one might have erred and said that Rabbi Yosei declared her pure only in a case of compound uncertainty; the first clause teaches that a single uncertainty is sufficient for him to declare her pure. And in connection with Rabbi Yosei’s ruling, the first clause also mentioned the view of Rabbi Meir, who disagreed with him.

The Gemara asks:

And rather than having them disagree in a case of a single uncertainty

in order

to inform you of the strength of Rabbi Yosei’s position,

let them disagree in a case of compound uncertainty,

in order

to inform you of the strength of Rabbi Meir’s position,

that he declares her impure; surely declaring her impure in a case of compound uncertainty is a greater novelty than doing so in a case of a single uncertainty?!

It answers:

The strength of the lenient ruling is preferable to him.

And Rabbi Yohanan

disagreed with Resh Lakish and

said: When Rabbi Meir said

that she is impure, he was referring

to a single uncertainty. But in a case of compound uncertainty,

he did not say so;

Rabbi Meir concedes that where there is also an uncertainty whether the blood came from the man, the woman is pure

. The Gemara asks:

If so, let it teach

in the latter clause, where a man and a woman were relieving themselves in a bowl:

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei declare her pure.

Why did the Mishna omit Rabbi Yosei’s name and state only that Rabbi Meir declares her pure?

It answers:

Indeed, that is so;

it should have taught it that way. However,

since it concluded with Rabbi Yosei—

having taught the law in the first clause, that he declares her pure even in a case of a single uncertainty—it continued and

opened

the latter clause

with Rabbi Yosei.

Once it mentioned Rabbi Yosei first, it did not mention Rabbi Meir as well.

The Gemara discusses Rabbi Yosei’s ruling in the latter clause:

And Rabbi Yosei,

since

he declares her pure in a case of a single uncertainty—

then

in a case of compound uncertainty,

is it necessary to state it!?

Why, then, was this clause necessary?

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say: This applies only

to the case in which Rabbi Yosei declares her pure—namely, specifically to ritually pure objects that she had already touched, so that

after the fact

the pure objects are not rendered impure, since we attribute the blood to a wound located at the place of the urine;

but initially

we are concerned that perhaps the blood came from the source, and

she should not

touch ritually pure objects.

It teaches us that, from the otherwise superfluous clause of the Mishna, we learn that Rabbi Yosei did not entertain this concern even initially, and even in a case of a single uncertainty

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: A man and a woman who performed their needs into a vessel, and blood was found on the water —

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: A man and a woman who attended to their needs into a bowl, and blood was found on the water—

.

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: A man and a woman who relieved themselves into a bowl, and blood was found on the water— Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei declare her pure, and Rabbi Shimon declares her impure.

Thus, in a case where the man also urinated, Rabbi Meir likewise declares her pure, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s view.

We learned in the Mishna: “And Rabbi Shimon declares her impure, because a man is not ordinarily prone to emit blood; rather, the presumption concerning blood is that it came from the woman.”

They raised a dilemma: A woman sitting

[in a case where there was no man who also urinated]—

what did Rabbi Shimon say?

Does it mean that

when Rabbi Shimon said

—

it was with regard to a standing woman, for the world presses upon her, and there is uncertainty that the urine may have reached the source and brought blood out of it; Rabbi Shimon therefore held like Rabbi Meir, who declared a standing woman impure.

But a sitting woman,

whom Rabbi Meir declared pure—

no,

Rabbi Shimon likewise did not declare her impure.

Or perhaps there is no difference?

Come and hear: As it was taught in a baraita: A sitting woman—

attributes

the blood to a wound, and she is pure.

standing -

does not attribute it

and is impure,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: Whether

sitting,

or whether

standing -

she attributes it to her.

Rabbi Shimon says: Whether

sitting

or whether

standing -

she does not attribute it to her.

The Gemara raises an additional uncertainty concerning the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,

They raised a dilemma before them: If a man and a woman are sitting

and they urinated into the same vessel, and blood was found in it -

what did Rabbi Shimon say to me?

Does

when Rabbi Shimon said

that she is impure even when a man also urinated, this apply specifically when she is

standing -

because the world presses upon her,

and therefore he ruled stringently concerning her even when there are two uncertainties [the concern regarding a woman who is standing, because “the world presses upon her,” is so strong that one does not take into consideration the uncertainty that perhaps the blood came from a wound rather than from the urinary tract].

And when she is sitting

he deemed her impure only when there is no man, since

it is one uncertainty

and perhaps the blood came from a wound.

But when

she is sitting and a man also urinated, and there is

a compound uncertainty -

he did not say so.

Or perhaps it makes no difference?

Ta shma: [The intent is not to cite a source, but to establish the answer from his statement]:

Since Rabbi Shimon said, “The presumption is that blood comes from the woman,”

there is no compound uncertainty. Therefore -

it makes no difference whether they are standing or whether they are sitting;

she is impure .

Mishna:

A pure Jewish woman who

lent her garment to a gentile woman or to a

Jewish woman who is

a menstruating woman,

and found in it, after it had been returned to her , a stain -

she may attribute it to her,

as the stain came from the woman who borrowed it, and the woman who lent it remains pure.

This law applies specifically when she lent the garment to someone for whom the stain has no practical consequence. But

three women

who are pure

who wore one garment, or who sat on one bench, and blood was found on it -

all of them are impure,

because it is impossible to declare one pure and the other impure, since the uncertainty concerning each of them is equal .

This entire law of the impurity of stains applies when the stain was found on an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity. But if

they sat on a stone bench, or on the marble platform of a bathhouse,

even if only one woman sat there -

Rabbi Neḥemya declares her pure.

For Rabbi Neḥemya would say: Any object that is not susceptible to ritual impurity -

does not receive

[they did not decree the impurity of]

stains 15 .

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If she lent her garment to a gentile woman - she may attribute the stain to her .