Niddah 60b (ס:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said: Here and here it is -

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and there is no difficulty!

Here -

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

retroactively, one may suspend the impurity upon the woman sitting on the stain, since this does not cause her any loss. For in any event, the pure items that she touched retroactively had already become impure because of the stain known to have been on her.

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

from this point onward,

one may not suspend it upon her, so as not to cause her a loss.

This concludes the explanation of the words of the beraita.

In any event, there is a difficulty

for Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai, who said that even according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel one may not suspend one stain upon another stain, whereas the beraita proves that at least according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel one may suspend one stain upon another stain!?

Ravina said: There is no difficulty.

This is what it is saying: If she lent her garment to a gentile woman

who had seen blood,

a woman with a stain -

she may suspend the impurity upon her.

That is, the “stain” mentioned in the beraita does not refer to the woman upon whom the impurity is suspended. Rather, it means that the stain before us, whose attribution is under discussion, may be attributed to the gentile woman.

The Gemara asks:

But it teaches: “

or upon one sitting on

the impurity of

the stain

as it states,”

and it is explicit that this refers to a woman who is already sitting in a state of impurity because of another stain, and the newly found stain is attributed to her.

The Gemara answers that the phrase “upon one sitting on the stain” should be divided into two: “upon one sitting on” - “the stain.”

And

this is what it is saying: If she lent her garment to a gentile woman,

or

to one sitting over pure blood,

that is, the meaning of “sitting on” in the beraita is sitting over pure blood,

a woman with a stain may suspend the impurity upon her,

and the meaning of “the stain” in the beraita is that the “stain” we found is attributed to the “woman sitting over” it.

We learned in the Mishna:

Three women 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 Neḥemya declares her pure.

For Rabbi Neḥemya

would say: Anything that is not susceptible to impurity is not susceptible to stains.

Rav Mattana said: What is the reason for Rabbi Neḥemya's ruling? For it is written: “And she shall be acquitted;

she shall sit on the ground.”

Once she sat on the ground -

she is acquitted.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Rabbi Neḥemya would declare her pure even

if the blood was found

on the outside of an earthenware vessel.

This is because an earthenware vessel becomes impure only through contact with its interior, and not through contact with its exterior.

The Gemara objects:

Is that obvious!?

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say: Let us decree

stain impurity upon blood found on

the exterior

of an earthenware vessel

due to

blood found in

its interior -

it teaches us

that no such decree was issued.

Abaye said: Rabbi Neḥemya would declare pure

from stain impurity

small scraps of cloth,

pieces of fabric,

that are not three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths,

as they are not fit for either the poor or the wealthy,

and are not susceptible to impurity.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav Mattana expounded in Rav's name: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya.

The Gemara objects:

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

and

if

you say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya?

The Gemara explains:

What is it

the incident from which the objection arises?

As it is taught in a beraita: Two women who were grinding at a hand mill

and stood one before the other,

and blood was found beneath

the

inner

woman, the one closer to the mill,

both are impure,

because it is common for the outer woman to press herself forward in order to approach the mill, passing into the place of the inner woman, and the blood may have come from her.

If the blood was found

beneath

the

outer woman -

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

because 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,

because it is common for the inner woman to move slightly backward without pushing the outer woman, and therefore both are suspected.

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

and they declared them impure.

An olive leaf is not susceptible to impurity, and nevertheless they declared the stain found upon it impure. Since the tanna stated, “and the matter came before the Sages,” this implies that many authorities dispute Rabbi Neḥemya, and the halakha follows the majority.

The Gemara answers:

It is a dispute between tannaim.

That is, only one tanna disputes Rabbi Neḥemya, while the Rabbis agree with him. Since the statement was made by a single authority, there is no necessity to rule in accordance with him, even though many authorities agree with him.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Ya'akov declares her impure, Rabbi Neḥemya declares her pure, and the Sages issued a ruling in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya.

Mishna:

Three women

who were pure

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

all of them are impure,

because they are equally situated, and it is impossible to attribute the stain to one of them and thereby declare the others pure.

If one of them examined herself and was found impure -

she is impure and the other two are pure 31 .

And

so

they may attribute the stain to one another

in other cases where the three are not equal in their legal status. For example, if one is pregnant, and it is her nature to be free of blood, the stain is attributed to the one who is not pregnant.

And if

all of them

were not fit to see blood,

for example, if all of them were pregnant -

we view them as though they were fit to see blood,

and all of them are impure. What difference is there whether they are equal because all are capable of seeing blood, or whether they are all in a state that prevents them from seeing blood? In the end, we have no reason to attribute the stain to 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 the other two are pure.

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

immediately after the blood was found,

within

the measure of a menstrual period,

which is an extremely brief interval.

He follows the view of Bar Padda, who said:

A woman had intercourse and afterward wiped herself and found blood, and it is unknown whether the blood emerged during intercourse, meaning that she had intercourse while prohibited, or whether it emerged after he withdrew. The Sages established several time periods following intercourse, and the law changes from one period to another with regard to the concern that she had intercourse while in a state of nida.

Bar Padda said that the same applies if a woman was handling pure items, withdrew from them, and afterward found blood, and it is unknown whether she was impure when she touched the pure items: The status of the pure items changes according to each of the three time periods stated concerning a woman who finds blood after intercourse. Therefore -

a.

Whenever her husband brings a sin-offering,

when she found the blood during the shortest period after intercourse, called “the measure of a menstrual period,” which is the time required for the blood to flow from the inner chamber to the outside, the discovery of blood after intercourse is treated as though it certainly occurred during intercourse, and she brings a sin-offering like a woman who knows with certainty that she had intercourse while in a state of nida - similarly, if she found blood after withdrawing from the pure items during this brief period,

her pure items are certainly impure

and the teruma that she touched is burned.

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

her husband brings an offering for uncertain transgression.

As for a woman who finds blood after touching pure items,

her pure items have uncertain status,

as their status is uncertain: They may not be eaten, but they are not burned.

c. If the blood was found after the second period had elapsed,

her husband is exempt.

And with regard to a woman who touched pure items,

her pure items are pure 35 .

And Rabbi Oshaya said: Even if

the woman who touched the pure items found the blood during the first period, the period in which a woman who had intercourse

brings a sin-offering -

her pure items have uncertain status 37 .

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 brief interval, for although no blood emerged from her at the time of intercourse,

perhaps -

the organ obstructed the blood

from emerging, and therefore it emerged afterward, within “the measure of a menstrual period.”

But

here,

where she did not have intercourse but merely withdrew from the pure items,

if it was in fact blood -

what prevented it

from emerging earlier? It should have emerged while she was touching the pure items. Therefore, even when it is found within the measure of a menstrual period, we do not declare the items certainly impure.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: The parable of Rabbi Oshaya—

who distinguishes between blood found after intercourse and blood found after she withdrew from the ritually pure objects—is

analogous to what?

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

As long as they were on the road—

the child

waited for the old man, who walked slowly, and

was delayed in arriving.

When they entered the city,

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

the child hurried to arrive.

So too here: At the time of intercourse, the shamash obstructs the blood from emerging. But when the shamash is no longer obstructing it, the blood emerges immediately.

And Abaye said: The parable of Rabbi Oshaya is analogous to what—

to a person who places his finger in his eye.

As long as the finger is in the eye—

the tear is delayed in coming.

When he removes the finger—

the tear hastens to come 39 .

We learned in the Mishna:

And they attribute it to one another.

The Sages taught: How do they attribute it to one another?

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 the likelihood of bleeding, 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 a nursing woman is removed from the likelihood of bleeding.

An elderly woman and one who is not elderly—

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

because an elderly woman is removed from the likelihood of bleeding.

A virgin ['

a “virgin of blood”—one who has never yet seen blood]

and one who is not a virgin—

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

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

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

this is what we learned,