Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 13, 2019 | ื˜ืดื• ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ืŸ ืชืฉืดืค

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Chagigah is lovingly sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family, who are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas!

Niddah 21

The gemara talks about pieces that are discharged from a woman’s body -if there is no blood alongside them, are they impure? Is it possible for the uterus to open without blood coming out?

PlayPlay

ืชื•ื›ืŸ ื–ื” ืชื•ืจื’ื ื’ื ืœ: ืขื‘ืจื™ืช

ื”ืฉืจื•ื ื™ ื ื™ื“ื•ืŸ ื›ื›ืจืžืœื™ ื—ื™ ื•ืœื ืžื–ื•ื’ ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ืœื ื™ืฉืŸ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื“ื™ืžื™ ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืืœื ื‘ื›ื•ืก ื˜ื‘ืจื™ื ืคืฉื•ื˜ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื ื›ื•ืœื• ืžื—ื–ื™ืง ืœื•ื’ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžืžื ื” ืฉื ื™ ืœื•ื’ื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžืžืืชื™ื ื›ื•ืก ื˜ื‘ืจื™ื ืคืฉื•ื˜ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื—ื–ื™ืง ืฉื ื™ ืœื•ื’ื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืงืœื™ืฉ ื™ื“ื™ืข ื‘ื™ื” ื˜ืคื™

Rav Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื“

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืื ื™ืฉ ืขืžื” ื“ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื˜ืžืื”

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.

ื”ืžืคืœืช ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืงืœื™ืคื” ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืฉืขืจื” ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืขืคืจ ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ื—ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื“ื•ืžื™ื ืชื˜ื™ืœ ืœืžื™ื ืื ื ืžื•ื—ื• ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

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.

ื”ืžืคืœืช ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื“ื’ื™ื ื—ื’ื‘ื™ื ืฉืงืฆื™ื ื•ืจืžืฉื™ื ืื ื™ืฉ ืขืžื”ื ื“ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

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.

ื”ืžืคืœืช ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื—ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ืฃ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื ื–ื›ืจ ืชืฉื‘ ืœื–ื›ืจ ื•ืื ื ืงื‘ื” ืชืฉื‘ ืœื ืงื‘ื”

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 12:2โ€“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.

ื•ืื ืื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืข ืชืฉื‘ ืœื–ื›ืจ ื•ืœื ืงื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืžืฆื•ืจืช ืื“ื ืื™ื ื• ื•ืœื“

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ื˜ื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืœื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืจื‘ืขืช ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืฉืœ ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืœ ืืจื‘ืขืช ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื˜ืžืื” ืฉืœ ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืœื ื ื—ืœืงื• ืืœื ืฉื”ืคื™ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ื“ืขืช ืžื” ื”ืคื™ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช ื•ืจื•ื‘ ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช ืฉืœ (ืžื™ื ื™) ืืจื‘ืขืช ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื”ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืืจื‘ืขืช ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื

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.

ืื™ื ื™ ื•ื”ื ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืžื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืืชื ื•ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืื“ื•ืžื” ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืื ื™ืฉ ืขืžื” ื“ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื˜ืžืื” ืงืฉื™ื ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื—ื“ื ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Hoshaya came from Nehardeโ€™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 Yoแธฅanan with regard to two aspects of his opinion.

ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื—ื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ื˜ื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืœื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืจื‘ืขืช ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

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.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื•ืื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืœื ืืœื ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืœืžืืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”

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?

ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืฉืชื ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ืžื˜ื”ืจื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืœื ืœืื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืคืœื™ื’

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.

ื•ืชื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืœ ืืจื‘ืขืช ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื˜ืžืื” ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ

And furthermore, the baraita poses an additional difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืื‘ืœ ืืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ืœื ืืœื ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ืœืžืืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”

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?

ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ื˜ืžืื” ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืœื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™

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?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืืคืฉืจ ืœืคืชื™ื—ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ื“ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื•ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืงืฉืชื” ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืœืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื”ืคื™ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ื“ืขืช ืžื” ื”ืคื™ืœื”

Rather, Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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 tannaโ€™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,

ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืกืคืง ืœื™ื“ื” ืกืคืง ื–ื™ื‘ื” ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื•ื ืื›ืœ ืฉืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืคืชื™ื—ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ื“ื

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 tannaโ€™im in the baraita disagree about whether opening of the womb is possible without a discharge of blood. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak maintains that this is also the issue in dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis in the mishna.

ืœื™ืฉื ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ื˜ื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืœื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืฉืœ ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

ยง 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.

ืื™ื ื™ ื•ื”ื ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืžื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืืชื ื•ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืื ื™ืฉ ืขืžื” ื“ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื˜ืžืื”

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Hoshaya came from Nehardeโ€™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.

ืงืชื ื™ ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

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.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืœื ืืœื ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืžืืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”

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?

ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืฉืชื ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ืงื ืžื˜ื”ืจื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืœื ืœืื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืคืœื™ื’

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.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืืคืฉืจ ืœืคืชื™ื—ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ื“ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื•ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืงืฉืชื” ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืœืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื”ืคื™ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ื“ืขืช ืžื” ื”ืคื™ืœื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืกืคืง ืœื™ื“ื” ืกืคืง ื–ื™ื‘ื” ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ

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 tannaโ€™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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื•ื ืื›ืœ ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืคืชื™ื—ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ื“ื

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื•ืจืขื” ืื ื™ืฉ ื“ื ื‘ืชื•ื›ื” ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

ยง 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.

ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืขื“ื™ืคื ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืคืชื™ื—ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ื“ื ื•ืขื“ื™ืคื ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืื™ื ื”ื• ืกื‘ืจื™ ืขืžื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืชื•ื›ื” ืœื ื•ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืกื‘ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืชื•ื›ื”

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.

ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ืื•ืžืจ ืงื•ืจืขื” ืื ืชื•ื›ื” ืžืื“ื™ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

And it is taught in another baraita with regard to a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, that Rabbi Aแธฅa 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.

ื›ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ื•ืขื“ื™ืคื ืžืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก

The Gemara compares this baraita to the aforementioned opinion of Sumakhos: This ruling of Rabbi Aแธฅa is basically in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, as Rabbi Aแธฅa 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 Aแธฅa deems the woman impure even if the piece of tissue merely looks red on the inside but does not contain blood.

ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื•ืจืขื” ืื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ืขืฆื ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื•ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืœื‘ื ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื›ื™ ืืชื ื–ื•ื’ื ื“ืžืŸ ื—ื“ื™ื™ื‘ ืืชื ื•ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืœื‘ื ื” ืงื•ืจืขื” ืื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ืขืฆื ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื”

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 แธคisda 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 แธคadyab, 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืงื•ืจืขื” ืื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื“ื ืื’ื•ืจ ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื›ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ื•ืงื™ืœื ืžื›ื•ืœื”ื•

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: 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 Aแธฅa, as according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai the woman is rendered impure only if there is a quantity of accumulated blood.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื”ืจื•ืื” ื“ื ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ืžื”ื• ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื”ืื™ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื˜ืžืื” ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ื›ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ

ยง 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: โ€œAnd if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven daysโ€ (Leviticus 15:19), perhaps the Merciful One states in this verse that the woman is impure only if the blood is discharged through โ€œher fleshโ€ and not through a tube. Or perhaps this term: โ€œIn her flesh,โ€ 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ื“ืื™ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื˜ืžืื” ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ื›ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื™ืžื ืงืจื ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ ืžืื™ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: The Merciful One states: โ€œIn her flesh,โ€ meaning that the woman is impure only if the blood is discharged through โ€œher fleshโ€ and not through a tube. As, if the term โ€œin her fleshโ€ 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: โ€œIn her fleshโ€? 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.

ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืงื•ืจืขื” ืื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื“ื ืื’ื•ืจ ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

The Gemara asks: But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: 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.

ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื”ืชื ื“ืจื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื” ืœืจืื•ืช ื“ื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ื”ื›ื ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื” ืœืจืื•ืช ื“ื ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช

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: โ€œIn her flesh.โ€ 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.

ืœื™ืžื ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืžืœืื” ื“ื ืื ื™ืฉ ืขืžื” ื“ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืคื™ืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื”

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the halakha in the case of a tube is subject to a dispute between tannaโ€™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 โ€œin her fleshโ€ 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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืชื ื ืงืžื ืื™ืžื ืฉืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืคื™ืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื”

The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita and asks: Isnโ€™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 โ€œin her fleshโ€ 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.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื“ื ื ื“ื” ืืœื ื“ื ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืชื ื ืงืžื ื ืžื™ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ ืžื˜ื”ืจ ืืœื ื“ืคืœื™ ืคืœื•ื™ื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

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: Doesnโ€™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 womanโ€™s body.

ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืคื™ืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ื•ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืฉื™ืขื ืื‘ืœ ืคืœื™ ืคืœื•ื™ื™ ื˜ืžืื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื”

The first tanna holds that the term โ€œin her fleshโ€ 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 womanโ€™s flesh, we read the term โ€œin her fleshโ€ with regard to it, i.e., it fulfills that condition.

ื•ืืชื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืคืœื™ ืคืœื•ื™ื™ ืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื“ื ื ื“ื” ืืœื ื“ื ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ื”ื ื“ื ื ื“ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ื˜ืžื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ื ืžื™

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 tannaโ€™im.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

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 โ€œin her flesh.โ€

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Chagigah is lovingly sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family, who are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas!

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 21

ื”ืฉืจื•ื ื™ ื ื™ื“ื•ืŸ ื›ื›ืจืžืœื™ ื—ื™ ื•ืœื ืžื–ื•ื’ ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ืœื ื™ืฉืŸ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื“ื™ืžื™ ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืืœื ื‘ื›ื•ืก ื˜ื‘ืจื™ื ืคืฉื•ื˜ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื ื›ื•ืœื• ืžื—ื–ื™ืง ืœื•ื’ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžืžื ื” ืฉื ื™ ืœื•ื’ื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžืžืืชื™ื ื›ื•ืก ื˜ื‘ืจื™ื ืคืฉื•ื˜ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื—ื–ื™ืง ืฉื ื™ ืœื•ื’ื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžืžื ื” ื•ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืงืœื™ืฉ ื™ื“ื™ืข ื‘ื™ื” ื˜ืคื™

Rav Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื“

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืื ื™ืฉ ืขืžื” ื“ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื˜ืžืื”

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.

ื”ืžืคืœืช ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืงืœื™ืคื” ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืฉืขืจื” ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืขืคืจ ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ื—ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื“ื•ืžื™ื ืชื˜ื™ืœ ืœืžื™ื ืื ื ืžื•ื—ื• ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

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.

ื”ืžืคืœืช ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื“ื’ื™ื ื—ื’ื‘ื™ื ืฉืงืฆื™ื ื•ืจืžืฉื™ื ืื ื™ืฉ ืขืžื”ื ื“ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

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.

ื”ืžืคืœืช ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื—ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ืฃ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื ื–ื›ืจ ืชืฉื‘ ืœื–ื›ืจ ื•ืื ื ืงื‘ื” ืชืฉื‘ ืœื ืงื‘ื”

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 12:2โ€“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.

ื•ืื ืื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื•ืข ืชืฉื‘ ืœื–ื›ืจ ื•ืœื ืงื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืžืฆื•ืจืช ืื“ื ืื™ื ื• ื•ืœื“

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ื˜ื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืœื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืจื‘ืขืช ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืฉืœ ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืœ ืืจื‘ืขืช ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื˜ืžืื” ืฉืœ ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืœื ื ื—ืœืงื• ืืœื ืฉื”ืคื™ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ื“ืขืช ืžื” ื”ืคื™ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช ื•ืจื•ื‘ ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช ืฉืœ (ืžื™ื ื™) ืืจื‘ืขืช ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื”ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืืจื‘ืขืช ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื

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.

ืื™ื ื™ ื•ื”ื ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืžื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืืชื ื•ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืื“ื•ืžื” ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืื ื™ืฉ ืขืžื” ื“ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื˜ืžืื” ืงืฉื™ื ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื—ื“ื ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Hoshaya came from Nehardeโ€™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 Yoแธฅanan with regard to two aspects of his opinion.

ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื—ื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ื˜ื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืœื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืจื‘ืขืช ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

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.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื•ืื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืœื ืืœื ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืœืžืืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”

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?

ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืฉืชื ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ืžื˜ื”ืจื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืœื ืœืื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืคืœื™ื’

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.

ื•ืชื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืœ ืืจื‘ืขืช ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื˜ืžืื” ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ

And furthermore, the baraita poses an additional difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืื‘ืœ ืืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ืœื ืืœื ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ืœืžืืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”

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?

ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ื˜ืžืื” ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืœื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™

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?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืืคืฉืจ ืœืคืชื™ื—ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ื“ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื•ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืงืฉืชื” ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืœืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื”ืคื™ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ื“ืขืช ืžื” ื”ืคื™ืœื”

Rather, Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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 tannaโ€™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,

ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืกืคืง ืœื™ื“ื” ืกืคืง ื–ื™ื‘ื” ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื•ื ืื›ืœ ืฉืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืคืชื™ื—ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ื“ื

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 tannaโ€™im in the baraita disagree about whether opening of the womb is possible without a discharge of blood. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak maintains that this is also the issue in dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis in the mishna.

ืœื™ืฉื ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ื˜ื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืœื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืฉืœ ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

ยง 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.

ืื™ื ื™ ื•ื”ื ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืžื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืืชื ื•ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืื ื™ืฉ ืขืžื” ื“ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื˜ืžืื”

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Hoshaya came from Nehardeโ€™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.

ืงืชื ื™ ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ื•ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

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.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืœื ืืœื ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืžืืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”

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?

ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืฉืชื ืื“ื•ืžื” ื•ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ืงื ืžื˜ื”ืจื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื™ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืœื ืœืื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืคืœื™ื’

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.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืืคืฉืจ ืœืคืชื™ื—ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ื“ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื•ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืงืฉืชื” ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืœืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื”ืคื™ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ื“ืขืช ืžื” ื”ืคื™ืœื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืกืคืง ืœื™ื“ื” ืกืคืง ื–ื™ื‘ื” ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ

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 tannaโ€™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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื•ื ืื›ืœ ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืคืชื™ื—ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ื“ื

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื•ืจืขื” ืื ื™ืฉ ื“ื ื‘ืชื•ื›ื” ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

ยง 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.

ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืขื“ื™ืคื ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืคืชื™ื—ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ื“ื ื•ืขื“ื™ืคื ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืื™ื ื”ื• ืกื‘ืจื™ ืขืžื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืชื•ื›ื” ืœื ื•ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืกื‘ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืชื•ื›ื”

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.

ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ืื•ืžืจ ืงื•ืจืขื” ืื ืชื•ื›ื” ืžืื“ื™ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

And it is taught in another baraita with regard to a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, that Rabbi Aแธฅa 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.

ื›ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ื•ืขื“ื™ืคื ืžืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก

The Gemara compares this baraita to the aforementioned opinion of Sumakhos: This ruling of Rabbi Aแธฅa is basically in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, as Rabbi Aแธฅa 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 Aแธฅa deems the woman impure even if the piece of tissue merely looks red on the inside but does not contain blood.

ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื•ืจืขื” ืื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ืขืฆื ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื•ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืœื‘ื ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื›ื™ ืืชื ื–ื•ื’ื ื“ืžืŸ ื—ื“ื™ื™ื‘ ืืชื ื•ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืœื‘ื ื” ืงื•ืจืขื” ืื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ืขืฆื ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื”

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 แธคisda 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 แธคadyab, 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืงื•ืจืขื” ืื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื“ื ืื’ื•ืจ ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื›ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ื•ืงื™ืœื ืžื›ื•ืœื”ื•

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: 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 Aแธฅa, as according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai the woman is rendered impure only if there is a quantity of accumulated blood.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื”ืจื•ืื” ื“ื ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ืžื”ื• ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื”ืื™ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื˜ืžืื” ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ื›ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ

ยง 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: โ€œAnd if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven daysโ€ (Leviticus 15:19), perhaps the Merciful One states in this verse that the woman is impure only if the blood is discharged through โ€œher fleshโ€ and not through a tube. Or perhaps this term: โ€œIn her flesh,โ€ 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ื“ืื™ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื˜ืžืื” ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ื›ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื™ืžื ืงืจื ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ ืžืื™ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: The Merciful One states: โ€œIn her flesh,โ€ meaning that the woman is impure only if the blood is discharged through โ€œher fleshโ€ and not through a tube. As, if the term โ€œin her fleshโ€ 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: โ€œIn her fleshโ€? 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.

ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืงื•ืจืขื” ืื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื“ื ืื’ื•ืจ ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

The Gemara asks: But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: 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.

ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื”ืชื ื“ืจื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื” ืœืจืื•ืช ื“ื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ื”ื›ื ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื” ืœืจืื•ืช ื“ื ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช

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: โ€œIn her flesh.โ€ 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.

ืœื™ืžื ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžืคืœืช ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืžืœืื” ื“ื ืื ื™ืฉ ืขืžื” ื“ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืคื™ืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื”

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the halakha in the case of a tube is subject to a dispute between tannaโ€™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 โ€œin her fleshโ€ 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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืชื ื ืงืžื ืื™ืžื ืฉืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืคื™ืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื”

The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita and asks: Isnโ€™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 โ€œin her fleshโ€ 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.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื“ื ื ื“ื” ืืœื ื“ื ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืชื ื ืงืžื ื ืžื™ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ ืžื˜ื”ืจ ืืœื ื“ืคืœื™ ืคืœื•ื™ื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

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: Doesnโ€™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 womanโ€™s body.

ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืคื™ืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ื•ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืฉื™ืขื ืื‘ืœ ืคืœื™ ืคืœื•ื™ื™ ื˜ืžืื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื”

The first tanna holds that the term โ€œin her fleshโ€ 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 womanโ€™s flesh, we read the term โ€œin her fleshโ€ with regard to it, i.e., it fulfills that condition.

ื•ืืชื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืคืœื™ ืคืœื•ื™ื™ ืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื“ื ื ื“ื” ืืœื ื“ื ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ื”ื ื“ื ื ื“ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ื˜ืžื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ื ืžื™

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 tannaโ€™im.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ืฉืคื•ืคืจืช ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

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 โ€œin her flesh.โ€

Scroll To Top