Niddah 19

ואינה יודעת מה הפילה רבי יהודה סבר זיל בתר רוב חתיכות ורוב חתיכות של ארבע מיני דמים הויין ורבנן סברי זיל בתר רוב חתיכות לא אמרינן

and she herself does not know exactly what the appearance of the piece of flesh that she miscarried was, e.g., if it was lost. In this case Rabbi Yehuda holds: Follow the majority of miscarriages of amorphous pieces of flesh, and the majority of pieces of flesh have the appearance of one of the four types of impure blood. And the Rabbis hold: We do not say: Follow the majority of miscarriages of amorphous pieces of flesh. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s mention of three cases is meant to exclude this statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who rules that the woman is definitely impure based on a majority.

מתני׳ חמשה דמים טמאים באשה האדום והשחור וכקרן כרכום וכמימי אדמה וכמזוג בית שמאי אומרים אף כמימי תלתן וכמימי בשר צלי ובית הלל מטהרים הירוק עקביא בן מהללאל מטמא וחכמים מטהרין

MISHNA: There are five distinct colors of ritually impure blood in a woman: Red, and black, and like the bright color of the crocus [karkom] flower, and like water that inundates red earth, and like diluted wine. Beit Shammai say: Even blood like the water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked, and like the liquid that drips from roast meat, are ritually impure, and Beit Hillel deem blood of those colors ritually pure. With regard to blood that is green, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems it impure and the Rabbis deem it pure.

אמר רבי מאיר אם אינו מטמא משום כתם מטמא משום משקה רבי יוסי אומר לא כך ולא כך

Rabbi Meir said: Even if the green blood does not transmit impurity due to the halakhot of a blood stain or the blood of a menstruating woman, it is blood in that it renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to its status as one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yosei says: Neither in this sense, as the blood of a menstruating woman according to Akavya ben Mahalalel, nor in that sense, as a liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity according to Rabbi Meir, is green blood considered blood.

איזהו אדום כדם המכה שחור כחרת עמוק מכן טמא דיהה מכן טהור וכקרן כרכום כברור שבו

The mishna asks: What is the red color that is impure? It is as red as the blood that flows from a wound. What is the black color that is impure? It is blood as black as ḥeret. If the black is deeper than that, the blood is ritually impure; if the black is lighter than that, the blood is ritually pure. And what is the color that is like the bright color of the crocus flower that is impure? It is like the brightest part in the flower, which is harvested to produce the orange-colored spice saffron.

וכמימי אדמה מבקעת בית כרם ומיצף מים וכמזוג שני חלקים מים ואחד יין מן היין השרוני

And what is the color that is like water that inundates red earth that is impure? It is specifically earth from the Beit Kerem Valley and specifically when one inundates the earth with enough water until it pools on the surface. And what is the color that is like diluted wine that is impure? It is specifically when the dilution consists of two parts water and one part wine, and specifically when it is from the wine of the Sharon region in Eretz Yisrael.

גמ׳ מנלן דאיכא דם טהור באשה דלמא כל דם דאתי מינה טמא

GEMARA: The fact that the mishna discusses the colors of ritually impure blood in a woman indicates that there is blood that is not impure. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that there is pure blood in a woman? Perhaps any type of blood that emerges from a woman is impure?

אמר רבי חמא בר יוסף אמר רבי אושעיא אמר קרא כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט בין דם לדם בין דם טהור לדם טמא

Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef says that Rabbi Oshaya says: The verse states with regard to those who come before the court: “If there arise a matter too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between leprous mark and leprous mark, even matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise, and get up unto the place that the Lord your God shall choose” (Deuteronomy 17:8). When the verse states: “Between blood and blood,” it means between pure blood and impure blood, which demonstrates that there must be types of pure blood that are emitted by a woman.

אלא מעתה בין נגע לנגע הכי נמי בין נגע טמא לנגע טהור וכי תימא הכי נמי נגע טהור מי איכא וכי תימא כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא ההוא בוהק מקרי

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, then does the other expression in the verse: “Between leprous mark and leprous mark,” also mean: Between a pure leprous mark and an impure leprous mark? And if you would say that indeed, this is what it means, is there a type of pure leprous mark? And if you would say that there is in fact a pure leprous mark, according to the verse: “Then the priest shall look; and behold, if the leprosy has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce pure the one that has the leprous mark; it is all turned white: He is pure” (Leviticus 13:13), that mark is not classified as a leprous mark; rather, it is called a paleness, as a leprous mark is by definition impure.

אלא בין נגעי אדם לנגעי בתים ולנגעי בגדים וכולן טמאין הכא נמי בין דם נדה לדם זיבה וכולן טמאין

Rather, the phrase “between leprous mark and leprous mark” must mean the following: Between the leprous marks that afflict man (see Leviticus 13:1–46) and the leprous marks of houses (see Leviticus 14:33–53) and the leprous marks of garments (see Leviticus 13:47–59), as different halakhot pertain to these categories of leprous marks, and yet they are all ritually impure. Therefore, here too, when the verse states: “Between blood and blood,” it means: Between the blood of a menstruating woman and the blood of a discharge [ziva], and they are all ritually impure. If so, this verse cannot be cited as proof that there is a type of blood emitted by a woman that is pure.

האי מאי בשלמא התם איכא לאפלוגי בנגעי אדם ובפלוגתא דרבי יהושע ורבנן

The Gemara questions this interpretation: This verse serves as the source for the areas of halakha for which a rebellious elder is liable to receive the death penalty for publicly ruling in contradiction to a decision of the Sanhedrin, as it states: “And the man who does presumptuously, in not listening to the priest that stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or to the judge, that man shall die; and you shall exterminate the evil from Israel” (Deuteronomy 17:12). With this in mind, the Gemara asks: What is this explanation? Granted, there, with regard to leprous marks, even if all the leprous marks are impure, one can disagree with the Sanhedrin with regard to the leprous marks that afflict man, and therefore the rebellious elder could potentially disagree with the court with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis.

דתנן אם בהרת קודם לשער לבן טמא ואם שער לבן קודם לבהרת טהור ספק טמא ורבי יהושע אומר כהה ואמר רבה כהה וטהור

As we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 4:11): If the snow-white leprous mark [baheret], which is one sign of leprosy, preceded the white hair, which is another sign, he is ritually impure, as stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 13:3). And if the white hair preceded the baheret he is pure, as this is not considered a sign of impurity. If there is uncertainty as to which came first, he is impure. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is dull [keha]. And Rabba says, explaining the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua: In the case of uncertainty, the leprous mark is deemed as though it is of a dull shade, and therefore the person is ritually pure.

בנגעי בתים כי הא פלוגתא דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון ורבנן דתנן רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר לעולם אין הבית טמא עד שיראה כשני גריסין על שני אבנים בשני כותלים בקרן זוית ארכו כשני גריסין ורחבו כגריס

Likewise, with regard to the leprous marks of houses one can find a case where the rebellious elder might dispute the ruling of the Sanhedrin, such as that dispute between Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 12:3): Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: A house is never deemed impure with leprosy unless the leprous mark will be seen to be the size of two split beans, and it is found on two stones on two walls in a corner between two walls. The length of the mark is that of two split beans, and its width is that of one split bean.

מאי טעמא דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון כתיב קיר וכתיב קירות איזהו קיר שהוא כשני קירות הוי אומר זה קרן זוית

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? The word “wall” is written in the verse, and the word “walls” is written in the same verse: “And he shall see the leprous mark…in the walls of the house with hollow streaks, greenish or reddish, and their appearance is lower than the wall” (Leviticus 14:37). Which is one wall that is like two walls? You must say: This is a corner between two walls.

בנגעי בגדים בפלוגתא דרבי יונתן בן אבטולמוס ורבנן דתניא רבי יונתן בן אבטולמוס אומר מנין לפריחת בגדים שהיא טהורה

Similarly, with regard to the leprous marks on garments, it is possible that the rebellious elder disputed the ruling of the Sanhedrin with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos and the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos says: From where is it derived with regard to a case where there is a spread of leprosy in garments that culminates with the garment’s being completely covered with leprous marks, that the garment is pure, just as the halakha is with regard to a leprous mark that fully covers a person?

נאמר קרחת וגבחת בבגדים ונאמר קרחת וגבחת באדם

It is derived via a verbal analogy: A bareness within [karaḥat] and a bareness without [gabbaḥat] are stated with regard to leprosy of garments: “And the priest shall look, after that the mark is washed; and, behold, if the mark has not changed its color, and the mark has not spread, it is impure; you shall burn it in the fire; it is a fret, whether the bareness be within or without” (Leviticus 13:55); and a bald head [karaḥat] and a bald forehead [gabbaḥat] are stated with regard to leprosy of a person: “But if there is in the bald head, or the bald forehead, a reddish-white mark, it is leprosy breaking out in his bald head, or his bald forehead” (Leviticus 13:42).

מה להלן פרח בכולו טהור אף כאן נמי פרח בכולו טהור

Just as there, with regard to a person, if the leprosy spread to his entire body he is pure, as the verse states: “Then the priest shall look; and behold, if the leprosy has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce pure the one who has the leprous mark; it is all turned white: He is pure” (Leviticus 13:13), so too here, with regard to garments, if the leprosy spread to the entire garment it is pure.

אלא הכא אי דם טהור ליכא במאי פליגי

The Gemara concludes: But here, concerning the phrase “between blood and blood,” if there is no type of pure blood at all, with regard to what issue could the rebellious elder disagree with the Sanhedrin? It must be that this verse is alluding to the fact that there is a type of blood of a woman that is pure.

וממאי דהני טהורין והני טמאין אמר רבי אבהו דאמר קרא ויראו מואב את המים אדמים כדם למימרא דדם אדום הוא אימא אדום ותו לא

§ Once it has been established that there are types of blood that are pure and other types that are impure, the Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that those types of blood that are not listed in the mishna are pure, and these ones that are mentioned in the mishna are impure? Rabbi Abbahu said that the verse states: “And the sun shone upon the water, and the Moabites saw the water some way off as red as blood” (II Kings 3:22), which indicates that blood is red. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that blood is red? If so, one can say that only blood that is red like the blood of a wound is ritually impure, and no more colors of blood are impure.

אמר רבי אבהו אמר קרא דמיה דמיה הרי כאן ארבעה

Rabbi Abbahu said in response: The verse states, with regard to a menstruating woman: “And she shall be purified from the source of her blood [dameha]” (Leviticus 12:7). The plural form of the word blood, dameha, indicates at least two types of blood. And another verse states: “And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness, he has made naked her source, and she has uncovered the source of her blood [dameha]; both of them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 20:18). The use of the plural form of blood once again indicates another two types, which means that there are four types of blood stated here.

והא אנן חמשה תנן אמר רבי חנינא שחור אדום הוא אלא שלקה

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that there are five types of impure blood in a woman, whereas the verses indicate that there are only four? Rabbi Ḥanina says: The black blood mentioned in the mishna is actually red, but its color has faded, which is why it looks black. Therefore, although the mishna lists five kinds of blood, there are only four basic types.

תניא נמי הכי שחור כחרת עמוק מכן טמא דיהה אפילו ככחול טהור ושחור זה לא מתחלתו הוא משחיר אלא כשנעקר הוא משחיר משל לדם מכה לכשנעקר הוא משחיר

This opinion, that black blood is actually red blood, is also taught in a baraita: The black color of blood that is impure is blood as black as ḥeret. If the black is deeper than that, the blood is ritually impure; if the black is lighter than that, even if it is still as dark as blue, the blood is ritually pure. And this black blood does not blacken from its outset, when it is inside the body; rather, it blackens only when it is removed from the body. This is comparable to the blood of a wound, which is initially red, but when it is removed from the body it blackens.

בית שמאי אומרים אף כמימי תלתן ולית להו לבית שמאי דמיה דמיה הרי כאן ארבעה

§ The mishna states that Beit Shammai say: Even blood like the water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked, and like the liquid that drips from roast meat, are ritually impure. The Gemara asks: But do Beit Shammai not accept the exposition of Rabbi Abbahu that the two mentions of the plural form of blood: “Dameha” (Leviticus 12:7), and “Dameha” (Leviticus 20:18), indicate that there are four types of blood here?

איבעית אימא לית להו ואיבעית אימא אית להו מי לא אמר רבי חנינא שחור אדום הוא אלא שלקה הכי נמי מלקא הוא דלקי

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Beit Shammai do not accept this opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, and they maintain that there are more than four types of blood in a woman. And if you wish, say instead that Beit Shammai do accept Rabbi Abbahu’s exposition, and the apparent contradiction can be resolved as follows: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina say with regard to the black blood mentioned in the mishna that it is not an additional type, as it is actually red but its color has faded? So too, with regard to the colors of blood mentioned by Beit Shammai, that of water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked, and that of the liquid that drips from roast meat, one can say that these are not additional types of blood. Rather, they too were initially red but their color faded.

ובית הלל מטהרין היינו תנא קמא

§ The mishna states: And Beit Hillel deem blood of those colors, i.e., the color of water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked or of the liquid that drips from roast meat, ritually pure. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this opinion of Beit Hillel identical to the opinion of the first tanna?

איכא בינייהו

The Gemara explains: There is a practical difference between them

לתלות

with regard to whether to leave in abeyance, i.e., to treat as uncertain, blood the color of water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked, or the color of the liquid that drips from roast meat. According to the first tanna of the mishna there are five types of blood that are definitely impure, whereas other types, such as those mentioned by Beit Shammai, are deemed impure due to uncertainty. By contrast, Beit Hillel maintain that blood of these colors is entirely pure.

הירוק עקביא בן מהללאל מטמא ולית ליה לעקביא דמיה דמיה הרי כאן ארבעה

§ The mishna states: Blood that is green, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems it impure. The Gemara asks: But does Akavya ben Mahalalel not accept the exposition of Rabbi Abbahu that the two verses: “Dameha” (Leviticus 12:7), and: “Dameha” (Leviticus 20:18), indicate that there are four types of blood here?

איבעית אימא לית ליה ואיבעית אימא אית ליה מי לא אמר רבי חנינא שחור אדום הוא אלא שלקה הכא נמי מלקא הוא דלקי

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Akavya ben Mahalalel does not accept this opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as he maintains that there are more than four types of blood in a woman. And if you wish, say instead that Akavya ben Mahalalel accepts Rabbi Abbahu’s exposition, and the apparent contradiction can be resolved as follows: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina say, with regard to the black blood mentioned in the mishna, that it is actually red but its color has faded? Here too, with regard to the green mentioned by Akavya ben Mahalalel, one can say that it was initially red but its color faded and turned green.

וחכמים מטהרין היינו תנא קמא איכא בינייהו לתלות

§ The mishna states with regard to blood that is green: And the Rabbis deem it pure. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this opinion of the Rabbis identical to the opinion of the first tanna? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to whether to leave in abeyance blood that is green. According to the first tanna of the mishna there are five types of blood that are definitely impure, whereas other types, such as green, are impure due to uncertainty. By contrast, the Rabbis maintain that green blood is entirely pure.

אמר רבי מאיר אם אינו מטמא משום כתם כו׳

§ The mishna states that Rabbi Meir said: Even if the green blood does not transmit impurity due to the halakhot of a blood stain or the blood of a menstruating woman, it is blood in that it renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to its status as one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible.

אמר רבי יוחנן ירד רבי מאיר לשיטת עקביא בן מהללאל וטימא והכי קאמר להו לרבנן נהי דהיכא דקא משכחת כתם ירוק אמנא לא מטמאיתו היכא דקחזיא דם ירוק מגופה תטמא

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Meir accepted the opinion of Akavya ben Mahalalel and deemed green blood impure as blood of a menstruating woman. And as for his statement in the mishna, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Granted that in a case where a woman finds a green stain on an article of clothing you do not deem her ritually impure, as its greenness is an indication that it did not come from her body. But in a case where she actually sees green blood come from her body, she shall be impure.

אי הכי אם אינו מטמא משום כתם מטמא משום משקה משום רואה מבעיא ליה

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this interpretation: If so, why did Rabbi Meir say: Even if it does not transmit impurity due to the halakhot of a blood stain, it renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to its status as a liquid? According to the above explanation, he should have said: If the woman saw the emission of this blood, she is impure as a menstruating woman.

אלא הכי קאמר להו נהי היכא דקא חזיא דם ירוק מעיקרא לא מטמאיתו היכא דחזיא דם אדום והדר חזיא דם ירוק תטמא מידי דהוה אמשקה זב וזבה

Rather, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Granted that in a case where the woman sees green blood from the outset you do not deem her ritually impure, but in a case where she sees red blood and then sees green blood, she shall be impure. This is just as it is with regard to the halakha of the fluids of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] and a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava]. All fluids emitted by a zav or zava, such as saliva and urine, are impure. Likewise, green blood that is emitted by this woman who has already emitted red blood should be impure.

ורבנן דומיא דרוק מה רוק שמתעגל ויוצא אף כל שמתעגל ויוצא לאפוקי האי דאין מתעגל ויוצא אי הכי שפיר קאמרי ליה רבנן לרבי מאיר

The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis respond to this? The Gemara answers: They maintain that the impure fluids of a menstruating woman are only those that are similar to saliva: Just as when saliva leaves one’s mouth it is first gathered together and then expelled from the body, so too, all impure fluids are those that are gathered together and then expelled. This definition serves to exclude this green blood, which is not gathered together and expelled. The Gemara asks: If so, the Rabbis spoke well to Rabbi Meir, i.e., their answer is convincing. Why does Rabbi Meir deem green blood impure?

אלא הכי קאמר להו להוי כמשקה להכשיר את הזרעים ורבנן בעי דם חללים וליכא אי הכי שפיר קאמרי ליה רבנן לרבי מאיר

Rather, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Let green blood be at least like one of the seven liquids that render seeds upon which they fall susceptible to ritual impurity. Why is green blood deemed pure even with regard to this matter? And the Rabbis disagree because they require that every type of blood that renders food susceptible to ritual impurity be like that mentioned in the verse: “And drink the blood of the slain” (Numbers 23:24), i.e., the blood that flows at the time of death; and green blood is not the type that flows at the time of death. Therefore, it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara again asks: If so, the Rabbis spoke well to Rabbi Meir. Why does he disagree with them?

אלא הכי קאמר להו אלפוה בגזרה שוה כתיב הכא שלחיך פרדס רמונים וכתיב התם ושלח מים על פני חוצות

Rather, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Learn this halakha that green blood renders food susceptible to ritual impurity from the following verbal analogy: It is written here, in a description of the beloved woman that alludes to her menstrual blood: “Your shoots [shelaḥayikh] are an orchard of pomegranates” (Song of Songs 4:13), and it is written there: “Who gives rain upon the earth, and sends [veshole’aḥ] waters upon the fields” (Job 5:10). This verbal analogy indicates that menstrual blood is similar to water in that both render food susceptible to ritual impurity.

ורבנן אדם דן קל וחומר מעצמו ואין אדם דן גזרה שוה מעצמו

And the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir, as they do not have a tradition that this is an accepted verbal analogy, and there is a principle that although a person may derive an a fortiori inference on his own, i.e., even though he was not taught that particular logical argument by his teachers, a person may not derive a verbal analogy on his own, but only if he received it by tradition.

רבי יוסי אומר לא כך וכו׳ היינו תנא קמא הא קא משמע לן מאן תנא קמא רבי יוסי וכל האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם

§ The mishna states that Rabbi Yosei says: Neither in this sense, as the blood of a menstruating woman according to Akavya ben Mahalalel, nor in that sense, as a liquid that renders food susceptible according to Rabbi Meir, is green blood considered blood. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t this the same as the opinion of the first tanna? The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is teaching us: Who is the first tanna? Rabbi Yosei. And the reason Rabbi Yosei’s name is mentioned is due to the principle that anyone who reports a statement in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world.

איזהו אדום כדם המכה מאי כדם המכה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כדם שור שחוט

§ The mishna states: What is the red color of blood that is impure? It is as red as the blood that flows from a wound. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: As the blood that flows from a wound? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Like the blood of a slaughtered ox.

ולימא כדם שחיטה אי אמר כדם שחיטה הוה אמינא ככולה שחיטה קא משמע לן כדם המכה כתחילת הכאה של סכין

The Gemara inquires: But if so, let the tanna of the mishna say explicitly that it is as red as the blood of slaughter. The Gemara explains: If the tanna had said that it is as red as the blood of slaughter, I would say that it means as red as the blood that flows throughout the entire slaughter, and it would apply to the shades of all blood emitted during the process. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that it is as red as the blood that flows from a wound, i.e., as the blood that flows at the beginning of the slitting with the slaughtering knife.

עולא אמר כדם צפור חיה איבעיא להו חיה לאפוקי שחוט או דלמא לאפוקי כחוש תיקו

The Gemara cites other definitions of the color described in the mishna as: Red as the blood that flows from a wound. Ulla says: It is red like the blood that flows from a living bird that was wounded. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Ulla specified that the bird is living, did he mean that it was not dead, to exclude the blood of a slaughtered bird? Or perhaps he meant that the bird was healthy, to exclude the blood of a weak bird. No answer was found, and therefore the Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

זעירי אמר רבי חנינא כדם מאכולת של ראש מיתיבי הרגה מאכולת הרי זה תולה בה מאי לאו דכוליה גופה לא דראשה

The Gemara cites another definition: Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is red like the blood that comes from a squashed head louse. The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna that discusses a stain found on a woman’s garment (58b): If a woman killed a louse and subsequently found a blood stain on her garment or body, this woman may attribute the stain to that louse, and she remains pure. The Gemara explains the objection: What, is it not correct to say that this is referring to a louse from all parts of her body, not just the head, as claimed by Rabbi Ḥanina? If so, the color of impure blood is like the color of the blood of a louse from anywhere on the body. The Gemara answers: No; this halakha is referring specifically to a louse that was on her head.

אמי ורדינאה אמר רבי אבהו כדם אצבע קטנה של יד שנגפה וחייתה וחזרה ונגפה ולא של כל אדם אלא של בחור שלא נשא אשה ועד כמה עד בן עשרים

The Gemara cites yet another definition of the color described in the mishna as: Red as the blood that flows from a wound. The Sage Ami of Vardina says that Rabbi Abbahu says: It is red as the blood that flows from the smallest finger of the hand, which was wounded and later healed and was subsequently wounded again. And this is not referring to the finger of any person, but specifically to the finger of a young man who has not yet married a woman. And furthermore, this does not mean any young man; rather, until what age must he be? Until twenty years old.

מיתיבי תולה בבנה ובבעלה בשלמא בבנה משכחת לה אלא בעלה היכי משכחת לה

The Gemara raises an objection from the aforementioned mishna (58b): If the woman’s husband or son suffered an injury, she may attribute a blood stain she finds on her garment to her son or to her husband, and she remains pure. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Granted, with regard to the ruling that she may attribute it to her son, you can find a case where this meets all the requirements specified by Rabbi Abbahu, i.e., he could be younger than twenty and unmarried. But with regard to the ruling that she may attribute it to her husband, how can you find a case where her husband is unmarried?

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כגון שנכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It is possible in a case where this woman entered the marriage canopy but has not yet engaged in intercourse with her husband. In such a situation, although he is her husband he is physically akin to an unmarried young man. Therefore, she can attribute the blood stain to his wound.

רב נחמן אמר כדם הקזה מיתיבי מעשה ותלה רבי מאיר

Rav Naḥman says: This red is like the blood spilled in the process of bloodletting. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An incident occurred involving a blood stain found on a woman’s garment, and Rabbi Meir attributed