Niddah 60a — the Talmud in English

Rav said:

The ruling that one may attribute the bloodstain to a gentile woman applies only to

a gentile woman

who is an adult, and it is known to us that she has already reached womanhood.

Who sees

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

From where—that when the beraita says “a gentile woman,” it means one comparable to a menstruating woman:

that it states “a gentile woman”

in the same way as a menstruating woman: Just as a menstruating woman

sees blood,

because menstrual impurity is caused only by seeing blood,

so too a gentile woman

sees blood.

Rav Sheshet said: “Rav must have said this teaching while dozing and lying down.”

As it is taught in a beraita:

One may attribute the blood to a gentile woman,

and from the fact that the tannaitic sage stated the ruling without qualification or specifying which gentile woman is meant, it follows that one may attribute it to any gentile woman.

Rabbi Meir says:

One may attribute it only

to a gentile woman who is capable of seeing blood,

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

Rav Sheshet explains his objection:

Even Rabbi Meir,

who imposed a stricter limitation on attributing the blood to a gentile woman than did the first tannaitic opinion,

did not say—

except that she must be capable of seeing blood; but if she actually sees blood,

in practice,

it is unnecessary to state this,

and this poses a difficulty for Rav, who said that one may attribute the blood only to a gentile woman who has actually seen blood.

The Gemara answers:

Rava said: Can you understand it that way?

Is it possible that

Rabbi Meir is stating a stricter ruling,

saying that one may attribute the blood only to a woman capable of seeing blood, whereas the first tannaitic opinion holds that one may attribute it even to a gentile woman who is incapable of seeing blood?

But

Rabbi Meir

is stating a more lenient ruling,

he says.

As it is taught

in another beraita:

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

But then this presents a difficulty with the first beraita,

which states that the first tannaitic opinion permits attributing the blood to a gentile woman!

Explain it in this way:

The statement of the first tannaitic opinion in both beraitot must be supplemented and understood as saying that one may attribute the blood to a gentile woman,

provided that she

has already

seen

blood in the past, before the bloodstain 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 agrees with the first tannaitic opinion that, in order to attribute the blood to the gentile woman, she must actually have seen blood in the past.

The Sages taught:

If a woman lends her garment to another woman who is impure, and a bloodstain is found on it after the garment is returned—

She may attribute it to

her impure companion, who has the impurity of a woman experiencing a minor discharge. The law of such a woman is that she must be

one who observes one day for one day,

and even if her companion is already

on

her

second day,

during which, if she remains pure throughout the day, she may immerse and become pure from the impurity of a woman experiencing a minor discharge, nevertheless the bloodstain may be attributed to her. As a result, she is prevented from becoming pure for one additional day.

And

she may likewise attribute it

to

her companion who is impure with the impurity of a woman experiencing a major discharge, who must

count seven

clean days in order to become pure, even if her companion has completed her seven clean days, but

has not yet immersed,

and as a result of attributing the bloodstain to her, she suffers a significant setback, since she must count seven new clean days.

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

Therefore, she—

is considered to have suffered no setback. And her companion—

is considered to have suffered the setback. This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rabbi says: She may not attribute the blood

to her companion, since doing so causes her companion a setback by extending the days of her impurity.

Therefore—

both suffer a setback,

since it is impossible to cause one woman a setback while benefiting the other.

And they agree,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi,

that she may attribute it to

a woman experiencing a minor discharge who is

observing one day for one day,

if she found the bloodstain

on

the

first day of her count,

that is, on the day on which the blood was discharged, because attributing the bloodstain to her does not cause her a setback: In any event, she will be impure on the following day.

And

they likewise agree that she may attribute the bloodstain

to

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

observes the period of pure blood,

and is not impure even if she sees blood, so the bloodstain will not cause her a setback. They also agree that the blood may be attributed

to a virgin

who has intercourse,

whose

blood is the blood of virginity and is

pure.

И обсуждает Гемара:

The Gemara discusses this:

“Therefore

she is considered to have suffered no setback, while her companion suffered the setback,”

that

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

said—

why do I need this?

Once he has said that she may attribute the blood to her companion, it is obvious that she remains pure and that her companion suffers the setback!

The Gemara answers:

Because of Rabbi,

the phrase “therefore” is necessary in Rabbi’s statement, and, along with it, the same wording was also taught regarding Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

The Gemara explains:

“Therefore” in Rabbi’s statement—

why do I need it?

It might have been said:

Only

the woman on whose garment the bloodstain was found—

suffers a setback,

whereas

the other woman—

does not suffer a setback,

since the bloodstain is attributed to the woman on whose garment it was found.

It teaches us

that both women suffer a setback.

Rav Ḥisda said: In the case of an impure person and a pure person who walked along two paths,

one path being

one pure and

one path being

one impure,

and it is unknown who walked along which path,

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

Just as Rabbi, who holds that the blood is not attributed to the impure woman, likewise holds that the impure person is not presumed to have walked along the impure path. And just as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the blood is attributed to the impure woman, leaving the pure woman in her state of purity, so too here, the impure person is presumed to have walked along the impure path, leaving the pure person in a state of purity.

Rav Adda raises an objection: Rabbi stated his ruling there only—

because the two cases are alike,

since the woman observing one day for one day is also on her second day; and because she can immerse and become pure after waiting one hour, she has a presumption of purity. Therefore, the blood is not attributed to her.

But

here—

what practical difference does it make

to the impure person

himself,

if the path is attributed to him, since in any event he is impure?!

The Gemara answers:

And Rav Ḥisda

said:

Ultimately,

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

she herself requires immersion.

As long as she has not immersed, she remains impure and does not have a presumption of purity, yet Rabbi nevertheless said that the blood is not attributed to her. The same applies to an impure and a pure person who walked along two paths: The impure person is not presumed to have walked along the impure path.

It was stated

in accordance with Rav Adda: Even according to Rabbi, the impure person may be presumed to have walked along the impure path:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: In the case of an impure person and a pure person, and even a pure person and

one of uncertain status

[whose impurity is uncertain],

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 Yoḥanan asked Rabbi Yehuda bar Levai: What is the law regarding attributing a bloodstain

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

with

the impurity of

a bloodstain,

whose entire impurity is only uncertain, since it is not clear to us that she saw blood now?

Rabbi Yoḥanan explained his uncertainty:

According to Rabbi—

you need not ask the question.

For now, consider: Just as there,

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

who sees

certainly 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 because of a bloodstain, where there is room to say

that the blood came from outside

and that she is in fact entirely pure—

all the more so

she may not attribute the blood to her companion.

The question arises—

according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

who holds that blood may be attributed to a woman observing one day for one day.

The alternatives 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

the blood

from her body—

and therefore

it is attributed

.

But

here,

where it is possible

that the bloodstain came from outside

—say

that it is not attributed

to her.

Or perhaps there is no difference?

He said to him: The blood may not be attributed

according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rabbi Yoḥanan asked him:

What is the reason?

He answered:

Because

we have received as an established tradition

that the blood may not be attributed,

since she does not have the status of a woman who sees blood. It is possible to say that the earlier bloodstain, because of which she became impure with the impurity of a bloodstain, came to her from outside.

They raise an objection from a source: One may not attribute one bloodstain to another bloodstain.

But if she

lent her garment to a gentile woman, or to a woman who is impure because of a bloodstain—

she may attribute the blood to her.

The explanation of the objection is:

This

beraita

itself is difficult!

At first it says that one may not attribute

a bloodstain

and later it says that one may attribute it

to a woman who is impure because of a bloodstain?!

To reconcile the beraita, one must say:

This is not difficult; this

first statement, which says that one may not attribute the blood, is the opinion of

Rabbi, and this

second statement, which says that one may attribute it, is the opinion of

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Thus, two different approaches were taught in the beraita.

There are those who say another answer in settling the beraita:

another resolution of the beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

both this and that—

Rabbi.

This,

they attribute the stain to the woman who has the stain, is

on

the fifth day

of hers, from seeing the first stain, for then it is possible to attribute it to her, since on that day she is in any event impure, and an additional stain does not add days of impurity for her.

with regard to seeing the first stain. At that time, it is possible to attribute the stain to her, since on that day she is in any event impure, and an additional stain does not add days of impurity for her.

This,

to which they do not attribute it, is

on

the fifth day

of hers, from seeing the stain, for if we attribute the stain to her, she becomes impure for one additional day.

with regard to seeing the stain, because if the stain were attributed to her, she would become impure for one additional day.