Niddah 60a (ס.) — the Talmud in English

Rav said:

They taught that one may attribute the stain to a gentile woman only

with regard to a gentile woman

who is an adult, whom we know to be a woman already

who sees

blood—that is, she had already seen blood at least once in the past.

From where—

that the beraita teaches “a gentile woman”

in a manner analogous to a menstruating woman: Just as a menstruating woman—

sees blood,

since the ritual impurity of a menstruating woman is caused only by seeing blood,

so too a gentile woman—

sees blood 18 .

Rav Sheshet said: “When Rav was dozing and lying down, he stated this teaching.” 19 .

As it is taught;

one may attribute the stain to a gentile woman,

and from the fact that the tanna of the beraita stated this without qualification or limitation regarding which gentile woman is meant, it follows that one may attribute the stain to any gentile woman.

Rabbi Meir says:

One may attribute the stain only

to a gentile woman who is capable of seeing blood,

who has reached the age at which she is expected to see blood, although it is not necessary that she actually have seen blood.

Rav Sheshet explains his objection:

Even Rabbi Meir,

who restricted attribution to a greater degree than the first tanna,

said—

only with regard to one who is capable of seeing blood; but one who actually sees blood

in practice—

need not be stated,

and this presents a difficulty for Rav, who said that one may attribute the stain only to a gentile woman who had seen blood.

The Gemara answers:

Rava said: And can you understand it so?

Does

Rabbi Meir say this stringently,

meaning that one may attribute the stain only to a woman capable of seeing blood, whereas the first tanna maintains that one may attribute it even to a gentile woman incapable of seeing blood?

But

Rabbi Meir

was stating a leniency

in that case.

As it is taught

in another beraita:

One may not attribute a stain to a gentile woman. Rabbi Meir says: One may attribute it.

But this

first beraita, which states that according to the first tanna one may attribute a stain to a gentile woman, still presents a difficulty?!

Explain it in this manner:

One must add to the words of the first tanna in both beraitot and explain that he means that one may attribute the stain to a gentile woman,

provided that she

had already

seen

blood in the past, before the stain was found.

Rabbi Meir says: One may attribute it to a woman capable of seeing blood, even though she has not seen blood.

The difficulty concerning Rav is thus resolved, since he held in accordance with the words of the first tanna, who required that the gentile woman have actually seen blood in the past in order for the stain to be attributed to her.

The Sages taught:

With regard to a woman who lent a garment to her ritually impure friend and, after it was returned, a stain was found on it—

She may attribute it to

her ritually impure friend, who has the impurity of a minor zava, whose law is that she must be

observing one day for one day,

and even if her friend was already

on

her

second day,

during which, if she remains pure for the entire day, she may immerse and become pure from the impurity of a minor zava. As a result of attributing the stain to her, she is prevented from becoming pure for one additional day.

And

she may likewise attribute it

to

her friend who is impure with the impurity of a major zava, who must

count seven

clean days in order to become pure, even if her friend had completed the seven clean days,

but had not immersed

yet. As a result of attributing the stain to her, she suffers a significant setback, since she must begin counting seven new clean days.

The reason for this is that her friend is impure while she is pure, and the blood is attributed to the impure woman.

Therefore, she—

is restored to an unblemished status. And her friend—

is placed in a compromised status; these are the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rabbi says: She may not attribute the stain

to her friend, since doing so compromises her by extending the duration of her impurity.

Therefore—

both are placed in a compromised status,

since it is impossible to compromise one woman and restore the other to an unblemished status.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi agree

that

she may attribute the stain to

a minor zava who is

observing one day for one day

if she found the stain

on

the

first day of her count,

that is, on the day on which the blood emerged, since attributing the stain to her does not compromise her: in any event, she is impure on the following day.

And

they likewise agree that she may attribute the stain

to

a woman who gave birth within forty days of giving birth to a male or eighty days of giving birth to a female, during which she is

sitting over pure blood

and is not impure even if she sees blood, and therefore is not compromised by the stain. They also agree that she may attribute the stain

to a virgin

who has intercourse,

whose blood

is the blood of virginity, which is

pure 23 .

The Gemara discusses this:

“Therefore, she

is restored to an unblemished status and her friend is placed in a compromised status,”

which

said

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

why do I need this?

Is it not obvious that once he has said that she may attribute the stain to her friend, the first woman is pure and her friend is placed in a compromised status?!

The Gemara answers:

Because of Rabbi,

for Rabbi does need the phrase “therefore,” and consequently the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel were also formulated in that language.

The Gemara explains:

“Therefore” according to Rabbi—

why do I need this?

Lest you say:

Only

the woman on whose garment the stain was found

will be compromised,

whereas

the other

will not be compromised,

and the stain will be attributed to the woman on whose garment it was found;

it teaches us

that both are compromised.

Rav Hisda said: A ritually impure person and a pure person who walked along two paths,

one path

being pure and

one path

being impure,

and it is unknown who walked along which path—

we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Just as Rabbi, who maintains that the stain is not attributed to the impure woman, likewise maintains here that the impure person is not assumed to have walked along the impure path. And just as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that the stain is attributed to the impure woman and the pure woman retains her pure status, likewise here the impure person is assumed to have walked along the impure path, and the pure person retains his pure status.

Rav Adda raised an objection to this: Rabbi stated his ruling there only—

because both are equivalent to one another,

for the woman observing one day for one day is also discussing her second day, and since she can immerse and become pure after waiting one hour, she has an established status of purity; therefore, the stain is not attributed to her.

But

here—

what practical consequence is there

for the impure person

from it,

if the impurity is attributed to him? In any event, he is impure?!

The Gemara answers:

And Rav Hisda

said:

Ultimately,

the woman observing one day for one day on her second day—

she herself requires immersion,

and as long as she has not immersed, she remains impure and does not have an established status of purity. Nevertheless, Rabbi said that the stain is not attributed to her. The same applies to an impure and a pure person who walked along two paths: the impurity is not attributed to the impure person.

It was stated

in accordance with Rav Adda: Even according to Rabbi, the impure person is assumed to have walked along the impure path:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: An impure person and a pure person, and even a pure person and

a person of uncertain status

possibly impure],

who walked along two paths, one impure and one pure—

the impure person is attributed to the person of uncertain status, and the pure person to the pure person, according to everyone!

Rabbi Yohanan asked Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai: What is the ruling regarding attributing a stain

of a garment that was lent to a woman who was impure

with

the impurity of

a stain,

whose entire impurity is only a matter of uncertainty, and it is not clear to us that she saw blood now?

Rabbi Yohanan explained his uncertainty:

According to Rabbi—

you need not ask 25 .

Now, if there,

in the case of a woman observing one day for one day,

who certainly sees

blood

from her body,

you say that she may not attribute it

to the woman observing one day for one day—

here,

in the case of a woman who lent her garment to a woman impure through the impurity of a stain, where there is room to say

that the stain came from elsewhere,

and she is in fact entirely pure—

all the more so

she may not attribute it to her friend.

If you need to ask—

it is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

who maintains that one may attribute a stain to a woman observing one day for one day.

The sides of the uncertainty are:

There,

in the case of a woman observing one day for one day, where the blood is attributed to her,

it

is

because she sees

blood, the woman observing one day for one day,

from her body—

and therefore

the stain is attributed

to her.

But

here,

where it is possible

that the stain came from elsewhere,

the stain—say

it is not attributed

to her.

Or perhaps there is no difference?

He said to him: One does not attribute it

according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rabbi Yohanan asked him:

What is the reason?

And he answered:

Because

we have it as an established principle

that one does not attribute a stain,

since she does not have an established status of being one who sees blood. There is reason to say that the earlier stain, on account of which she became impure with the impurity of a stain, came to her from elsewhere.

He raised an objection to him: One does not attribute one stain to another stain.

But if she

lent her garment to a gentile woman or to a woman sitting over a stain—

she may attribute the stain to her.

The explanation of the objection is:

This

beraita

itself is difficult!

In the first clause you said that one does not attribute

a stain to another stain;

in the latter clause you said that one does attribute

a stain to a woman sitting over a stain?!

To reconcile the beraita, one must say:

This is not difficult; this

first clause, which states that one does not attribute the stain, is the view of

Rabbi, and this

latter clause, which states that one does attribute the stain, is the view of

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

and two different opinions were taught in the beraita.

Some say

another resolution for resolving the beraita:

Both this and that—

Rabbi.

This case

in which the stain is attributed to the woman whose stain it is—

on

the fifth day,

her first day

after seeing the first stain, since it is possible to attribute it to her, as on that day she is impure in any event, and an additional stain does not add another day to her period of impurity.

This case

in which the stain is not attributed to her—it is

on

the fifth day,

her second day

after seeing the stain, for if the stain were attributed to her, she would become impure for an additional day.