Niddah 60b — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said: Both this and that are -

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and it is not difficult! ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

Here -

with regard to the impurity of the pure objects that she touched

retroactively,

we suspend [judgment] on the one sitting over the stain, since we do not thereby cause her loss, for in any event the pure objects that she touched retroactively have already become impure because of the stain that was known to have been upon her.

Here -

with regard to impurity

in the future,

we do not suspend [judgment] on her, so as not to cause her loss.

Thus far the explanation of the words of the baraita.

In any event, there is a difficulty

for Rabbi Judah bar Liva’i, who said that even according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel one does not suspend [judgment] on a stain because of a stain, whereas in the baraita it is proven that at least according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel one does suspend [judgment] on a stain because of a stain!?

Ravina said: It is not difficult.

This is what he is saying: She lent her garment to a gentile woman

who saw [blood],

the owner of a stain -

this woman suspends [judgment] on her,

meaning that the “stain” mentioned in the baraita does not refer to the woman on whom the suspension is made, but rather to the stain before us, concerning which they are discussing on whom to suspend [judgment]. It is possible to suspend [judgment] on a gentile woman.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But “‘

or on one sitting over

the impurity of

the stain’”

it teaches,

and it is explicit that it is speaking of a woman who is already sitting in impurity because of another stain, and on her they suspend [judgment for] the stain that was found.

And the Gemara answers that the sentence “on one sitting over the stain” should be divided into two: “on one sitting over” - “the stain.”

And

this is what he is saying:

she lent her garment to a gentile woman,

or to one sitting over pure blood,

meaning that “sitting over” as stated in the baraita means sitting over pure blood.

The owner of a stain suspends [judgment] on her,

and the meaning of “the stain” stated in the baraita is that the “stain” that we found is suspended on the “one sitting over” it.

We learned in the Mishna:

Three who wore

one garment, or who sat on one bench, and blood was found upon it—all of them are impure. If they sat on a stone bench, Rabbi Neḥemiah declares [them] pure.

For Rabbi Neḥemiah was

saying: Any object that does not receive impurity does not receive stains.

Rav Mattana said: What is the reason of Rabbi Neḥemiah? For it is written: “And she shall be acquitted -

she shall sit on the ground.””

Once she sat on the ground -

she was acquitted.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Rabbi Neḥemiah would declare [her] pure even

if the blood was found

on the back of an earthenware vessel.

For an earthenware vessel receives impurity only through contact within it, and not from its outside.

And we are astonished:

Is it obvious!?

And we answer:

Lest you say: Let us decree

stain-impurity upon blood found on

the outside

of an earthenware vessel,

on account of

blood found within

it -

it teaches us

that they did not decree [this].

Abaye said: Rabbi Neḥemiah would declare [her] pure

from stain-impurity

in pieces of cloth,

pieces of woven fabric,

that do not contain three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths,

which are fit neither for the poor nor for the wealthy,

and they do not receive impurity.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav Mattana expounded in the name of Rav: The halakha is according to Rabbi Neḥemiah.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Rav Naḥman said to him: Father taught: An incident came before the Sages, and they declared them impure -

and

if

you said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Neḥemiah?

And the Gemara explains:

What is it,

the incident from which the objection arises?

As it was taught: Two women who were grinding at a hand mill,

and one stood before the other,

and blood was found beneath

the woman

inside,

who was closer to the mill -

both are impure,

for it is common that the outer woman presses herself in order to approach the mill and passes over and enters the place of the inner woman, and it is possible that the blood came from her.

If the blood was found

beneath

the woman

outside -

the outer woman is impure, and the inner woman is pure,

for the inner woman does not move backward, and it is impossible that the blood came from her.

If the blood was found

between them -

both are impure,

for it is common that the inner woman moves slightly backward without pushing the outer woman, and therefore we are concerned for both of them.

There was an incident, and blood was found on the lip of a bathtub, and on an olive leaf when they were heating the oven, and the matter came before the Sages -

and they declared them impure.

And an olive leaf does not receive impurity, and nevertheless they declared impure the stain found upon it. And since the tanna stated, “and the matter came before the Sages,” it implies that many disagree with Rabbi Neḥemiah, and the halakha is according to the majority.

And the Gemara answers:

It is a dispute between tannaim.

That is, there is only one tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Neḥemiah, and the Rabbis agree with him; and since he alone is the author of the statement, there is no necessity to rule according to him even though many agree with him.

As it was taught: Rabbi Yaakov declares [it] impure, and Rabbi Neḥemiah declares [it] pure, and the Sages ruled according to Rabbi Neḥemiah.

Mishna:

Three women

who were pure

who were sleeping in one bed, and blood was found beneath one of them -

all of them are impure,

since they are equal, it is impossible to suspend [the stain] on one and declare the others pure.

If one of them examined herself and was found impure -

she is impure and both of them are pure 31 .

And

likewise

they suspend [the stain] one on another

in additional cases in which the three are not equal in their law; for example, one is pregnant, and her nature is to be removed from blood, so she suspends [the stain] on the one who is not pregnant.

And if

all of them

were not fit to see [blood],

for example, they were all pregnant -

we regard them as though they were fit [to see blood]

and all of them are impure. For what difference is there if they are equal to one another in that all of them are capable of blood, and what difference is there if all of them are removed from [the possibility of seeing blood]? In the end, we have no reason to suspend the stain on one of them.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Three women who were sleeping in one bed, and blood was found beneath one of them—all of them are impure.

If one of them examined herself and was found impure—she is impure and both of them are pure.

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: And this is when she examined herself

immediately after the blood was found,

within “

the measure of a menstrual interval,

which is an extremely short measure of time.

He follows the view of Bar Padda, who said:

A woman had intercourse and afterward wiped herself and found blood, and it is not known whether the blood emerged at the time of intercourse, so that she had intercourse in a prohibited manner, or whether the blood emerged after he withdrew. The Sages established several periods of time after intercourse, and the law changes from period to period with regard to the concern that perhaps she had intercourse while she was a menstruant.

And Bar Padda said that the same law applies if she was occupied with pure objects and withdrew from them, and afterward found blood, and it is not known whether she was impure at the time she touched the pure objects: the law of the pure objects changes in each of the three periods of time stated with regard to one who finds blood after intercourse. And therefore -

a.

Whenever her husband brings a sin-offering,

when she found the blood during the shortest period of time after intercourse, called “the measure of a menstrual interval,” which is the time it takes for the blood to flow from the outer chamber outward, then the finding of blood after intercourse is treated as though it certainly occurred at the time of intercourse, and she brings a sin-offering like a woman who knows with certainty that she had intercourse during her menstruation—the same law applies if she found blood after withdrawing from the pure objects during this short period of time:

her pure objects are impure

with certainty, and the teruma that she touched is burned.

b. She found the blood later, within the time in which she could descend from the bed and wash her face

her husband brings an uncertain-guilt offering.

And as for one who finds blood after she touched pure objects,

her pure objects are suspended,

for their status is uncertain: they are neither eaten nor burned.

c. The blood was found after the second period of time and onward

her husband is exempt.

And with regard to one who touched pure objects,

her pure objects are pure 35 .

And Rabbi Oshaya said: Even if

the one who touched pure objects found the blood within the first period of time, which in the case of one who had intercourse

her husband brings a sin-offering -

her pure objects are suspended 37 .

And Rabbi Oshaya explains his words:

Granted, there

in the case of a woman who had intercourse, she is certainly impure when the blood is found within the measure of an immediate interval, for although no blood emerged from her at the time of intercourse,

perhaps -

the sexual organ held it back from emerging,

and therefore it emerged afterward, within “the measure of a menstrual interval.” [

But]

here,

where she did not have intercourse but only withdrew from the pure objects,

if it is so that it was blood -

what held it back

from emerging earlier? It should have emerged while she was touching the pure objects; therefore, even when it is found within the measure of a menstrual interval, we do not declare [the objects] certainly impure.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Rabbi Oshaya's parable

which distinguishes between blood found after intercourse and blood found after she withdrew from the pure objects

—to what is the matter comparable?

To a child and an old man who were walking on the road.

As long as they were on the road—

the child

waited for the old man, who walked slowly, and

was slow to come.

They entered the city,

the child separated from the old man, and from then on—

the child hastened to come.

So too here: at the time of intercourse, the organ holds the blood back from emerging. But at a time when the organ does not hold it back, the blood emerges immediately.

And Abaye said: Rabbi Oshaya's parable—to what is the matter comparable—

to a person who places a finger in the eye.

As long as the finger is in the eye—

the tear is slow to come.

He removed the finger—

the tear hastens to come 39 .

We learned in the Mishna:

And they attribute one to the other.

The Sages taught: How do they attribute one to the other?

A woman

who is pregnant and one who is not pregnant

between whom a stain was found, and it is not known from whom it came,

the pregnant woman attributes it to the one who is not pregnant.

For it is the nature of a pregnant woman to be removed from blood, and it is more reasonable that the blood came from the woman who is not pregnant.

A nursing woman and one who is not nursing—

the nursing woman attributes it to the one who is not nursing,

because the nursing woman is removed from blood.

An old woman and one who is not old—

the old woman attributes it to the one who is not old,

because the old woman is removed from blood.

A virgin ['a virgin of blood'—

one who has not yet seen blood at any time]

and one who is not a virgin—

the virgin attributes it to the one who is not a virgin.

For all four of these women are presumed to be removed from blood, and it is more reasonable that the blood did not come from them.

If both were pregnant, both were nursing, both were old, or both were virgins—

this is what we learned,