Niddah 21

השרוני נידון ככרמלי חי ולא מזוג חדש ולא ישן

For the purposes of the examination of blood, the wine of the Sharon region in Eretz Yisrael has the same status as undiluted Carmelite wine and not diluted Carmelite wine, new Carmelite wine and not old Carmelite wine.

אמר רב יצחק בר אבודימי וכולן אין בודקין אותן אלא בכוס טבריא פשוט מאי טעמא אמר אביי של כל העולם כולו מחזיק לוג עושין אותו ממנה שני לוגין עושין אותו ממאתים כוס טבריא פשוט אפילו מחזיק שני לוגין עושין אותו ממנה ואיידי דקליש ידיע ביה טפי

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: And in all cases of blood that has the color of diluted wine, one examines blood only with a simple Tiberian cup. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Abaye says: Containers are designed according to a universal standard, such that a cup that can contain a log of wine, one fashions it from material weighing one hundred dinars, whereas a cup that can contain two log, one fashions it from material weighing two hundred dinars. By contrast, in the case of a simple Tiberian cup, even one that can contain two log, one fashions it from material weighing one hundred dinars. And since the material from which the cup is made is weak, it is more transparent and therefore the redness of the wine inside is more noticeable. Consequently, one must compare the blood to wine in a cup of this kind.

הדרן עלך כל היד

מתני׳ המפלת חתיכה אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה רבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך טמאה

MISHNA: In the case of a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, if there is blood that emerges with it, the woman is ritually impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. And if not, she is pure, as she is neither a menstruating woman nor a woman after childbirth. Rabbi Yehuda says: In both this case, where blood emerged, and that case, where no blood emerged, the woman is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman, as there was certainly undetected blood that emerged with the flesh.

המפלת כמין קליפה כמין שערה כמין עפר כמין יבחושין אדומים תטיל למים אם נמוחו טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

In the case of a woman who discharges an item similar to a shell, or similar to a hair, or similar to soil, or similar to mosquitoes, if such items are red, she should cast them into water to ascertain their nature: If they dissolved, it is blood, and the woman is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman; and if not, she is pure.

המפלת כמין דגים חגבים שקצים ורמשים אם יש עמהם דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

In the case of a woman who discharges an item similar to fish or to grasshoppers, repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, if there is blood that emerges with them, the woman is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. And if not, she is pure.

המפלת מין בהמה חיה ועוף בין טמאין בין טהורין אם זכר תשב לזכר ואם נקבה תשב לנקבה

With regard to a woman who discharges tissue in the form of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, whether it had the form of a non-kosher species or a kosher species, if it was a male fetus, then she observes the periods of impurity, seven days, and purity, thirty-three days, established in the Torah (see Leviticus 12:2–5) for a woman who gives birth to a male. And if the fetus was a female, the woman observes the periods of impurity, fourteen days, and purity, sixty-six days, established in the Torah for a woman who gives birth to a female.

ואם אין ידוע תשב לזכר ולנקבה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים כל שאין בו מצורת אדם אינו ולד

And if the sex of the fetus is unknown, she observes the strictures that apply to a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female. Accordingly, she is prohibited from engaging in intercourse for fourteen days, but after that, she will be permitted to engage in intercourse despite a discharge of uterine blood until thirty-three days pass after the seven days she would have been prohibited if the fetus were male. The prohibition to enter the Temple will continue until eighty days have passed from the discharge of the fetus. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Any fetus that is not of human form is not regarded as an offspring with regard to observance of these periods, and she is permitted to engage in intercourse provided that she does not experience a discharge of uterine blood.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא טימא רבי יהודה אלא בחתיכה של ארבעת מיני דמים אבל של שאר מיני דמים טהורה

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a woman discharges an amorphous piece of tissue and no blood emerges with it, the Rabbis say that she is pure, whereas Rabbi Yehuda says that she is impure. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Rabbi Yehuda deemed the woman impure, despite the fact that no blood emerged, only in the case of a piece of tissue that has the appearance of one of the four types of ritually impure blood, as in such a case the piece has the status of blood. But if it has the appearance of other types of blood, the woman is pure.

ורבי יוחנן אמר של ארבעת מיני דמים דברי הכל טמאה של שאר מיני דמים דברי הכל טהורה

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says there is a different explanation of the dispute: If a woman discharges a piece of tissue that has the appearance of one of the four types of ritually impure blood, everyone, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, agrees that she is impure. Likewise, if it has the appearance of other types of blood, everyone agrees that she is pure.

לא נחלקו אלא שהפילה ואינה יודעת מה הפילה רבי יהודה סבר זיל בתר רוב חתיכות ורוב חתיכות של (מיני) ארבעת מיני דמים הויין ורבנן סברי לא אמרינן רוב חתיכות של ארבעת מיני דמים

They disagree only with regard to a case where the woman discharged an amorphous piece of tissue, and she herself does not know exactly what was the appearance of the piece of tissue that she discharged, e.g., if it was lost. Rabbi Yehuda holds: Follow the majority of discharges of amorphous pieces of tissue, and the majority of pieces of tissue are of the appearance of one of the four types of impure blood. And the Rabbis hold: We do not say that the majority of pieces of flesh have the appearance of one of the four types of impure blood.

איני והא כי אתא רב הושעיא מנהרדעא אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה המפלת חתיכה אדומה שחורה ירוקה ולבנה אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה רבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך טמאה קשיא לשמואל בחדא ולרבי יוחנן בתרתי

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Hoshaya came from Neharde’a, he came and brought a baraita with him that states: In the case of a woman who discharges a piece of tissue that is red, black, green, or white, if there is blood that emerges with it, the woman is impure, and if not, she is pure. Rabbi Yehuda says: Both in this case, where blood emerged, and in that case, where no blood emerged, the woman is impure. This baraita poses a difficulty to the statement of Shmuel with regard to one aspect of his opinion, and it poses a difficulty to the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to two aspects of his opinion.

לשמואל בחדא דאמר שמואל לא טימא רבי יהודה אלא בחתיכה של ארבעת מיני דמים והא קתני ירוקה ולבנה ופליג רבי יהודה

The Gemara elaborates: It poses a difficulty to the statement of Shmuel with regard to one aspect of his opinion, as Shmuel said that Rabbi Yehuda deemed the woman impure only in the case of a piece of tissue that has the appearance of one of the four types of impure blood, and yet the baraita teaches that according to the Rabbis the woman is pure if the piece of tissue is green or white, which are not among the four colors of ritually impure blood, and that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with their opinion.

וכי תימא כי פליג רבי יהודה אאדומה ושחורה ואירוקה ולבנה לא אלא ירוקה ולבנה למאן קתני לה

And if you would say that when Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis, it is with regard to the case of a red or black piece of tissue, as these are among the four colors of ritually impure blood, but with regard to the case of a green or white piece he does not disagree with them, i.e., he concedes that the woman is pure, this cannot be correct. The Gemara explains why that explanation of the baraita is not possible: But if so, for the sake of clarifying whose opinion does the baraita teach the case of a green or white piece of tissue?

אילימא רבנן השתא אדומה ושחורה מטהרי רבנן ירוקה ולבנה מיבעיא אלא לאו לרבי יהודה ופליג

If we say that it comes to clarify the opinion of the Rabbis, that is unnecessary: Now that in a case of a red or black piece of tissue, which are among the four colors of ritually impure blood, the Rabbis deem the woman pure, is it necessary to state that they deem her pure in a case of a green or white piece? Rather, is it not coming to clarify the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, teaching that the Rabbis deem the woman pure in this case, but Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with them and deems her impure? This contradicts the explanation of Shmuel.

ותו לרבי יוחנן דאמר של ארבעת מיני דמים דברי הכל טמאה הא קתני אדומה ושחורה ופליגי רבנן

And furthermore, the baraita poses an additional difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, in addition to the first difficulty explained above, as he said that if the piece of tissue has the appearance of one of the four types of ritually impure blood then everyone agrees that the woman is impure, and yet the baraita teaches the case of a red or black piece and states that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and deem the woman pure.

וכי תימא כי פליגי רבנן אירוקה ולבנה אבל אאדומה ושחורה לא אלא אדומה ושחורה למאן קתני לה

And if you would say that when the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, it is with regard to the case of a green or white piece of tissue, but in the case of a red or black piece they do not disagree with him, as they concede that the woman is impure; but if that is so, then for the sake of clarifying whose opinion does the baraita teach the case of a red or black piece?

אילימא רבי יהודה השתא ירוקה ולבנה טמאה אדומה ושחורה מיבעיא אלא לאו רבנן ופליגי

If we say that it comes to clarify the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this is unnecessary: Now that Rabbi Yehuda holds that in a case of a green or white piece the woman is impure, despite the fact that they are not among the four colors of ritually impure blood, is it necessary to state that she is impure in a case of a red or black piece? Rather, is it not coming to clarify the opinion of the Rabbis, teaching that Rabbi Yehuda deems the woman impure in this case, but the Rabbis disagree with him and maintain that she is pure?

אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק באפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם קמיפלגי ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא קשתה שנים ולשלישי הפילה ואינה יודעת מה הפילה

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says there is a different explanation of the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda: They disagree with regard to whether or not opening of the womb is possible without a discharge of blood. And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman experienced difficulty in labor during which blood emerged on two consecutive days, and on the third day she discharged, but she does not know what she discharged, i.e., whether it was a stillborn human fetus, and whether blood emerged during the miscarriage,

הרי זו ספק לידה ספק זיבה מביאה קרבן ואינו נאכל

it is uncertain whether that woman has the status of one who gave birth, and it is uncertain whether she has the status of a woman who experiences an irregular discharge of blood from the uterus [ziva]. Therefore, she brings an offering, like any woman after childbirth or after ziva, but the offering is not eaten by the priests. The reason is that perhaps she neither gave birth nor experienced ziva, and is therefore exempt from bringing an offering. Consequently, her bird sin offering is disqualified, and is forbidden in consumption, as a bird offering is killed by pinching its neck, which is not the valid manner of slaughtering a non-sacred bird.

רבי יהושע אומר מביאה קרבן ונאכל שאי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם

Rabbi Yehoshua says: The woman brings an offering, and it is eaten. The reason is that she is certainly either a woman after childbirth or a zava, as opening of the womb is not possible without a discharge of blood. The tanna’im in the baraita disagree about whether opening of the womb is possible without a discharge of blood. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak maintains that this is also the issue in dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis in the mishna.

לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא טימא רבי יהודה אלא בחתיכה של ארבעה מיני דמים אבל של שאר מיני דמים טהורה

§ Some say another version of the above discussion. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Rabbi Yehuda deemed the woman impure, despite the fact that no blood emerged, only in the case of a piece of tissue that has the appearance of one of the four types of ritually impure blood, but if it has the appearance of other types of blood, the woman is pure.

איני והא כי אתא רב הושעיא מנהרדעא אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה המפלת חתיכה אדומה ושחורה ירוקה ולבנה אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה ורבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך טמאה

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Hoshaya came from Neharde’a, he came and brought a baraita with him that states: In the case of a woman who discharges a piece of tissue that is red, or black, green, or white, if there is blood that emerges with it, the woman is impure, and if not, she is pure. And Rabbi Yehuda says: In both this case, where blood emerged, and that case, where no blood emerged, the woman is impure.

קתני אדומה ושחורה ירוקה ולבנה ופליג רבי יהודה

The Gemara concludes its challenge: The baraita teaches both a case where the piece of tissue is red or black, and a case where it is not one of the four types of impure blood but it is green or white, i.e., in all of these cases the Rabbis hold that the woman is pure, and yet Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with their opinion.

וכי תימא כי פליג רבי יהודה אאדומה ושחורה אבל ירוקה ולבנה לא אלא ירוקה ולבנה מאן קתני לה

And if you would say that when Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis, it is with regard to the case of a red or black piece of tissue, but with regard to the case of a green or white piece he does not disagree with them, as he concedes that the woman is pure; but if that is so, for the sake of clarifying whose opinion does the baraita teach the case of a green or white piece of tissue?

אילימא לרבנן השתא אדומה ושחורה קא מטהרי רבנן ירוקה ולבנה מיבעיא אלא לאו לרבי יהודה ופליג

If we say that it comes to clarify the opinion of the Rabbis, that is unnecessary: Now that in the case of a red or black piece of tissue the Rabbis deem the woman pure, is it necessary to state that they deem her pure in a case of a green or white piece? Rather, is it not coming to clarify the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, teaching that the Rabbis deem the woman pure in this case, but Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with them and deems her impure? This contradicts the explanation of Shmuel.

אלא אמר רב יהודה באפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם קמיפלגי ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא קשתה שנים ולשלישי הפילה ואינה יודעת מה הפילה הרי זו ספק לידה ספק זיבה מביאה קרבן ואינו נאכל

Rather, Rav Yehuda says there is a different explanation of the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda: They disagree with regard to whether or not opening of the womb is possible without a discharge of blood. And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman experienced difficulty in labor during which blood emerged on two consecutive days, and on the third day she discharged, but she does not know what she discharged, it is uncertain whether she has the status of a woman who gave birth, and it is uncertain whether she has the status of a woman who experienced ziva. Therefore she brings an offering, but it is not eaten by the priests.

רבי יהושע אומר מביאה קרבן ונאכל לפי שאי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם

Rabbi Yehoshua says: The woman brings an offering, and it is eaten. The reason is that she is certainly either a woman after childbirth or a zava, as opening of the womb is not possible without a discharge of blood. This is also the matter in dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda.

תנו רבנן המפלת חתיכה סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר וכן היה רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר כדבריו קורעה אם יש דם בתוכה טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir, and likewise Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya would say in accordance with his statement: A Sage who is presented with this piece of tissue should tear it to examine it. If there is blood inside it, the woman is ritually impure, and if not, she is pure.

כרבנן ועדיפא מדרבנן כרבנן דאמרי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם ועדיפא מדרבנן דאינהו סברי עמה אין בתוכה לא וסומכוס סבר אפילו בתוכה

The Gemara compares this baraita to the ruling of the mishna: This statement is basically in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in the mishna, but it is more far-reaching, i.e., more stringent, than that ruling of the Rabbis. It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as they say that opening of the womb is possible without a discharge of blood, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that opening of the womb is impossible without a discharge of blood. But the ruling of the baraita is more far-reaching than that ruling of the Rabbis, as they hold that if blood emerges with the piece of tissue, then yes, the woman is impure, but if blood is found inside the piece of tissue, she is not impure; and Sumakhos holds that even if blood is found inside the piece, the woman is impure.

ותניא אידך המפלת חתיכה רבי אחא אומר קורעה אם תוכה מאדים טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

And it is taught in another baraita with regard to a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, that Rabbi Aḥa says: One tears it open, and if its interior looks red, even if it contains no blood, the woman is impure; and if it does not have a red appearance, she is pure.

כסומכוס ועדיפא מסומכוס

The Gemara compares this baraita to the aforementioned opinion of Sumakhos: This ruling of Rabbi Aḥa is basically in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, as Rabbi Aḥa also requires that the interior of the piece of tissue must be examined to see if there is blood on the inside, but it is more far-reaching than the opinion of Sumakhos, as Rabbi Aḥa deems the woman impure even if the piece of tissue merely looks red on the inside but does not contain blood.

ותניא אידך המפלת חתיכה רבי בנימין אומר קורעה אם יש בה עצם אמו טמאה לידה אמר רב חסדא ובחתיכה לבנה וכן כי אתא זוגא דמן חדייב אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה המפלת חתיכה לבנה קורעה אם יש בה עצם אמו טמאה לידה

And it is taught in another baraita with regard to a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, that Rabbi Binyamin says one tears it open to examine it. If it contains a bone, it is considered a fetus, and its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman who gave birth. Rav Ḥisda says: And this applies in the case of a white piece of flesh; only in such a situation does the existence of a bone render it a fetus. And likewise, when a pair of Torah scholars came from Ḥadyab, they came and brought a baraita with them: In the case of a woman who discharges a white piece of tissue, one tears it open to examine it, and if it contains a bone, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman who gave birth.

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי המפלת חתיכה קורעה אם יש בה דם אגור טמאה ואם לאו טהורה כסומכוס וקילא מכולהו

Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: With regard to a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, one tears it open to examine it. If it contains a quantity of accumulated blood, the woman is impure; and if not, she is pure. The Gemara comments: This is basically in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, that blood found inside the piece of tissue renders the woman impure, but it is more lenient than all the previous opinions, i.e., Sumakhos and Rabbi Aḥa, as according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai the woman is rendered impure only if there is a quantity of accumulated blood.

בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא הרואה דם בשפופרת מהו בבשרה אמר רחמנא ולא בשפופרת או דלמא האי בבשרה מיבעי ליה שמטמאה מבפנים כבחוץ

§ Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: In the case of a woman who inserted a tube into her vagina and sees blood, i.e., she found blood in the tube, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yirmeya clarified his question: Since it is stated: “And if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days” (Leviticus 15:19), perhaps the Merciful One states in this verse that the woman is impure only if the blood is discharged through “her flesh” and not through a tube. Or perhaps this term: “In her flesh,” is necessary to teach the halakha that a woman becomes impure by finding blood inside her vagina just as she becomes impure by experiencing bleeding outside her vagina, i.e., once the blood enters the vaginal canal from the uterus the woman is ritually impure.

אמר ליה בבשרה אמר רחמנא ולא בשפופרת דאי בבשרה מבעי ליה שמטמאה מבפנים כבחוץ אם כן נימא קרא בבשר מאי בבשרה שמע מינה תרתי

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: The Merciful One states: “In her flesh,” meaning that the woman is impure only if the blood is discharged through “her flesh” and not through a tube. As, if the term “in her flesh” is necessary to teach that a woman becomes impure by finding blood inside her vagina just as by seeing blood outside her vagina, if so, let the verse say: In the flesh. What is the significance of the fact that the verse states: “In her flesh”? Conclude two conclusions from the term, both that a woman becomes impure by the presence of blood inside her vagina, and that a woman who experiences bleeding that emerged through a tube is ritually pure.

והא אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי המפלת חתיכה קורעה אם יש בה דם אגור טמאה ואם לאו טהורה

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: With regard to a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, one tears it open to examine it; if it contains a quantity of accumulated blood, the woman is impure, and if not, she is pure? If a woman who sees blood that emerged inside a piece of tissue becomes impure, the same should apply to a woman who sees blood that emerged through a tube.

הכי השתא התם דרכה של אשה לראות דם בחתיכה הכא אין דרכה של אשה לראות דם בשפופרת

The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to a piece of tissue, the woman is impure, as it is the manner of a woman to see blood inside such a piece of tissue. Therefore, this blood fulfills the condition stated in the verse: “In her flesh.” By contrast, here, in the case of a tube, the woman should not be impure, as it is not the manner of a woman to see blood that emerged through a tube.

לימא שפופרת תנאי היא דתניא המפלת חתיכה אף על פי שמלאה דם אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה רבי אליעזר אומר בבשרה ולא בשפיר ולא בחתיכה

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the halakha in the case of a tube is subject to a dispute between tanna’im? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, even though the piece is full of blood, if there is blood on the outside that emerges with it, the woman is impure; and if not, she is pure. Rabbi Eliezer says: The term “in her flesh” teaches that a woman is rendered impure only by blood that emerges through direct contact with her flesh, and not by blood that emerges in a gestational sac, nor by blood that emerges in an amorphous piece of tissue.

רבי אליעזר היינו תנא קמא אימא שרבי אליעזר אומר בבשרה ולא בשפיר ולא בחתיכה

The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita and asks: Isn’t the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer identical to that of the first tanna? The first tanna also says that a woman does not become impure due to blood found in a piece of tissue. Rather, the entire baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and one must say that the baraita should read as follows: Even if the piece of tissue is full of blood the woman is pure, as Rabbi Eliezer says that the term “in her flesh” teaches that a woman is rendered impure only by blood that emerges through direct contact with her flesh, and not by blood that emerges in a gestational sac, nor by blood that emerges in a piece of tissue.

וחכמים אומרים אין זה דם נדה אלא דם חתיכה תנא קמא נמי טהורי מטהר אלא דפלי פלויי איכא בינייהו

The baraita continues: And the Rabbis say: If there is blood in the piece of tissue, this is not menstrual blood, but rather the blood of the piece of tissue. The Gemara asks: Doesn’t the first tanna also deem the woman pure? What is the difference between the opinion of the Rabbis and that of the first tanna? The Gemara answers: Rather, the difference between the opinion of the first tanna and that of the Rabbis is with regard to a case where the piece of tissue is cracked, and its blood comes in direct contact with the woman’s body.

תנא קמא סבר בבשרה ולא בשפיר ולא בחתיכה והוא הדין לשפופרת והני מילי היכא דשיעא אבל פלי פלויי טמאה מאי טעמיה בבשרה קרינא ביה

The first tanna holds that the term “in her flesh” teaches that a woman is rendered impure only by blood that emerges through direct contact with her flesh, and not by blood that emerges in a gestational sac, nor by blood that emerges in a piece of tissue. And the same is true with regard to blood that emerges through a tube. But this statement applies only in a case where the piece of tissue is smooth, but if it is cracked, the woman is impure. What is the reason for this exception? Since the blood comes in direct contact with the woman’s flesh, we read the term “in her flesh” with regard to it, i.e., it fulfills that condition.

ואתו רבנן למימר אף על גב דפלי פלויי אין זה דם נדה אלא דם חתיכה הא דם נדה ודאי טמא ואפילו בשפופרת נמי

And the Rabbis come to say: Even though the piece of tissue is cracked, the woman is pure, as this is not menstrual blood but rather the blood of the piece of tissue. It can be inferred from here that if the blood is menstrual blood, the woman is certainly impure, and this is true even if the blood emerges through a tube. Accordingly, the halakha in the case of a tube is subject to a dispute between tanna’im.

אמר אביי בשפופרת כולי עלמא לא פליגי דטהורה

Abaye says that this suggestion should be rejected: In the case of a tube, everyone agrees that the woman is pure, as derived from the term “in her flesh.”