Niddah 59b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

A woman who is performing her needs

and urinating,

and sees blood,

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

Rabbi Meir says: If

she performed her needs while she was

standing —

she is impure, but if she was sitting —

she is pure. [

And its reason will be explained in the Gemara.]

Rabbi Yosei says: Whether

standing

or whether

sitting —

she is pure.

2.

A man and a woman who performed their needs into a vessel, and blood was found on the water

in the vessel, 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 pure.

For even if it should be clarified that the blood came from the woman, his view is that blood that emerged during urination, even while standing, does not render impure.

And Rabbi Shimon —

declares impure.

Because he disagrees and holds like Rabbi Meir, that a woman who saw blood at the time of performing her needs is impure; and one cannot declare her pure because of the man who urinated, and perhaps the blood came from him, because

it is not the way of a man to emit blood; rather, the presumption regarding blood is that it is from the woman.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the reason of Rabbi Meir, who declares pure a woman who performs her needs while sitting and attributes the blood to a wound that 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 [

turned back]

to the source,

and brought

from it

blood?

If so,

with sitting as well, let us say: The urine returned to the source and brought blood!

Shmuel said:

The sitting concerning which Rabbi Yosei declared her pure is speaking

of a woman who spurts,

such that her urine pours out in a stream, and because of the stream it does not return to the source; and this stream can occur only when she is sitting. But when she is standing, where the urine necessarily dribbled and did not stream, we worry that it returned to the source and extracted blood from it .

And the Gemara asks:

A woman who spurts as well —

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

Perhaps after the water had finished,

and she had stopped urinating, then

blood came,

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

And it answers:

Rabbi Abba said:

Our Mishna is speaking

of one sitting on the edge of the vessel and spurting into the vessel

in its middle,

and blood was found inside the vessel.

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

for if it were the case that it came after the water had finished,

blood from the source —

it should have been

for this blood

to be found

on the edge of the vessel, for the blood itself does not stream, and how did it reach the middle of the vessel if not that the urine carried it along with it?

Shmuel said, and some say that Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is like Rabbi Yosei, who declared even one standing pure .

And likewise Rabbi Abba instructed Kala [

the name of a sage],

the halakha is like Rabbi Yosei.

We learned in the Mishna:

A man and a woman

who performed their needs into the vessel and blood was found on the water; Rabbi Yosei declares pure and Rabbi Shimon declares impure.

They raised a dilemma before them: A man and a woman are standing —

what did Rabbi Meir say?

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

However, it is possible to say

that when Rabbi Meir said

that one standing is impure, this is specifically

in

the first clause, where there is only

a

single uncertainty,

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

but in a compound uncertainty,

where a man also urinated, and another uncertainty is added, that perhaps the blood is not from the woman —

he does not declare her impure.

Or perhaps it is no different?

Resh Lakish said: It is —

it is.

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

And Resh Lakish explains:

From where

is the proof that Rabbi Meir held this way? —

From the fact that he did not teach

in the latter clause of the Mishna, “a man and a woman who performed their needs into the vessel,”

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei declare pure, and the Mishna omitted Rabbi Meir’s name; it is proven that only Rabbi Yosei declares pure.

And the Gemara asks:

If so,

that Rabbi Meir declares impure even in a compound uncertainty, why did it teach us in the first clause that a woman who is standing is impure?

For

now, if Rabbi Meir declares impure in a compound uncertainty —

is it necessary to ask about a single uncertainty?

And it answers: The first clause was stated in order

to inform you of the strength of Rabbi Yosei —

that even in a single uncertainty he declares pure,

for if only the latter clause had been written, one could err and say that Rabbi Yosei declared pure only in a place of compound uncertainty; the first clause teaches that one uncertainty is sufficient to declare her pure. And incidentally to Rabbi Yosei’s words, Rabbi Meir’s method, which disagreed with him, was also mentioned in the first clause.

And the Gemara asks:

And rather than their disagreeing about a single uncertainty,

in order

to inform you of the strength of Rabbi Yosei,

let them disagree about a compound uncertainty

in order

to inform you of the strength of Rabbi Meir,

who declares impure; for it is a greater novelty to declare impure in a compound uncertainty than in a single uncertainty?!

And it answers:

The power of the permissive ruling is preferable to him.

And Rabbi Yohanan

disagreed with Resh Lakish and

said: When Rabbi Meir said

that she is impure —

it is in a single uncertainty. But in a compound uncertainty —

he did not say so,

and Rabbi Meir admits that where there is also an uncertainty that the blood came from the man, the woman is pure .

And the Gemara asks:

If so, let it teach

in the latter clause, where a man and a woman were performing their needs in a vessel:

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei declare pure, and why did the Mishna omit Rabbi Yosei’s name and write only that Rabbi Meir declares pure?

And it answers:

Indeed, so it is

that it should have written this way. But

since it concluded with Rabbi Yosei —

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

opened

the latter clause

with Rabbi Yosei,

and since it put Rabbi Yosei first, it again did not mention Rabbi Meir.

And the Gemara discusses Rabbi Yosei’s words in the latter clause:

And Rabbi Yosei,

after all,

declares pure in a single uncertainty —

and if so,

in a compound uncertainty —

is it necessary to ask?!

And why was it necessary to teach it?

And the Gemara answers:

What might you have said: These words

that Rabbi Yosei declares pure — this is specifically concerning pure things that she had already touched, where

after the fact

the pure things are not rendered impure, and we attribute the blood to a wound that was located at the place of the urine,

but initially

we worry lest the blood came from the source — and

she should not

touch pure things.

It teaches us this,

from the extra Mishna, that even initially Rabbi Yosei was not concerned, and even in 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 —

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei declare pure, and Rabbi Shimon declares impure.

.

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

We learned in the Mishna: “And Rabbi Shimon declares impure, for it is not the way of a man to emit blood; rather, the presumption regarding blood is that it is from the woman.”

They raised a dilemma before them: A woman sitting [

in a case where there was not also a man who urinated] —

what did Rabbi Shimon say?

Is it that

when Rabbi Shimon said —

it is when she is standing, for the world presses upon her,

and there is uncertainty that perhaps the water reaches the source and extracts blood from it, and Rabbi Shimon held like Rabbi Meir, who declared her impure when standing.

But when she is sitting

whom Rabbi Meir declared pure —

he did not

declare her impure as well, Rabbi Shimon.

Or perhaps it is no different?

Come and hear: For it was taught in a beraita, A woman sitting —

she attributes

that the blood came from a wound, and she is pure.

the blood to a wound, and she is pure.

standing -

does not attribute it

and she is impure,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yose says: whether in this case

sitting,

or whether in this case

standing -

she attributes it.

Rabbi Shimon says: whether in this case

sitting

or whether in this case

standing -

she does not attribute it.

And the Gemara raises an additional uncertainty concerning the view of Rabbi Shimon,

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

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

what did Rabbi Shimon say to me?

Does it mean that

when Rabbi Shimon said

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

standing -

for the world presses upon her,

and therefore he was stringent with her even in the presence of two uncertainties, [for the concern regarding a woman who is standing, because “the world presses upon her,” is so strong that one does not take into account the uncertainty whether the blood came from a wound rather than from the urine] -

but when she is sitting

he declared her impure only when there is no man,

for 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 there is no difference?

Come and hear: [the intention is not to bring a source, but a proof from his words]:

since Rabbi Shimon said, “There is a presumption that blood comes from the woman,”

there is no compound uncertainty. Therefore -

there is no difference whether they are standing or whether they are sitting;

she is impure .

Mishna:

A pure Israelite woman who

lent her garment to a gentile woman or to a

Israelite

menstruant, and found in it, after the garment had been returned to her ,

a stain -

she attributes it to her,

for the stain came from the borrower, and the lender remains in her state of purity.

This law applies specifically when she lent it to one for whom the stain’s impurity has no practical consequence. But

three women

who are pure

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

all of them are impure,

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

This entire law of impurity of stains applies when she found the stain upon something that is susceptible to impurity. But if

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

and even if only one woman sat there -

Rabbi Nehemiah declares her pure.

For Rabbi Nehemiah would say: Everything that is not susceptible to impurity -

does not receive

[they did not decree impurity of]

stains 15 .

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: She lent her garment to a gentile woman - she attributes it to her .