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

Daf Yomi

December 20, 2019 | 讻状讘 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Niddah 58

Rav Ashi understand Shmuel differently. The gemara gives explanations for where on the body one could find blood and assume or not assume it came from the uterus. What is one finds in the strand on the weaving loom? If one wants to check if it is possible it came from there, should one redo the act and see if it is possible or not – would that be a good test? When was the halacha taught regarding the cloth that one sleeps with? What if two women wore the same garment – does it depend on their height or if the first woman checked before lending it to her friend? Who pays the laundry bill? If one can find something else to attribute the blood to, the woman will remain pure. In which cases can one assume it came from somewhere else and in which not? Can women be slaughterers? What is the size by which one can assume that the woman killed a louse? Is it only in a case where she knows she killed a louse or not? The size is “until the size of a split bean” – is that until but not including or until and including that size?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诪讚专讘谞谉


by rabbinic law. Accordingly, Shmuel agrees that if she examined the ground, found it clean, sat upon it, and later found blood, even if she did not sense that she emitted blood she is impure by rabbinic law.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讘诇 讻转诪讬诐


Rav Ashi said: Shmuel said this woman is pure even by rabbinic law, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, as we learned in a mishna (59b) that Rabbi Ne岣mya says: Any item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, e.g., the ground, is not susceptible to ritual impurity due to blood stains. This is because the decree of impurity of blood stains was limited to items susceptible to ritual impurity. According to Rav Ashi, all the sources cited above that indicate she is impure even if she did not sense an emission are referring to cases where the stain was found on an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 拽专拽注 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 拽专拽注 讗驻讬诇讜 讙诇讬诪讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专


The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Ashi with regard to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, that is why Shmuel says the woman examined the ground beneath her, as the ground is not susceptible to ritual impurity. But according to the opinion of Rav Yirmeya, why does Shmuel refer specifically to the ground? The same halakha should apply even if she sat on a cloak and did not sense an emission of blood. The Gemara answers that Shmuel is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary.


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讙诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 诪讘讚拽 砖驻讬专 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专拽注 讚诪讘讚拽 砖驻讬专 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讬讗 讟讛讜专


The Gemara elaborates: It is not necessary to state that if a woman examined a cloak, found it pure, sat upon it, and then saw a blood stain on it, she is pure. The reason is that it is not easy to examine a cloak well, due to its creases, and therefore there is room to say the stain on the cloak came from the outside world, i.e., from some external factor. Rather, even in the case of the ground, which one can examine well and therefore there is room to say the stain on the ground must have come from her body when she sat upon it, Shmuel teaches that the blood is nevertheless ritually pure.


注诇 注拽讘讛 讜注诇 专讗砖 讙讜讚诇讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 注拽讘讛 注讘讬讚 讚谞讙注 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讗诇讗 专讗砖 讙讜讚诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞讙注 讘注拽讘讛 讜诪讬 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐


搂 The mishna teaches: If a stain was discovered on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, although it is not adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. The Gemara comments: Granted, when blood is found on her heel she is impure, as it is wont to touch that place, her vagina, when she kneels. But if the blood is discovered on the tip of her large toe, what is the reason she is thereby rendered impure? And if you would say the reason is that sometimes the tip of one large toe might touch her heel, i.e., the heel of the other foot, do we presume that ritual impurity travels from place to place? Since that is not presumed, the stain on the large toe of one foot cannot be presumed to come from the heel of the other foot.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 诪讻讛 讘爪讜讗专讛 砖转讜讻诇 诇转诇讜转 转讜诇讛 注诇 讻转驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇转诇讜转 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛


The Gemara cites the source of this principle. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If a woman had a wound on her neck in an area where she can attribute the blood she found adjacent to her vagina to that wound, she may attribute the blood to the wound and she is pure. But if the wound was on her shoulder, which is a place where she cannot attribute the blood she found adjacent to her vagina to that wound, she may not attribute it to the wound, and she is ritually impure.


讜讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诪讗 讘讬讚讛 谞讟诇转讜 讜讛讘讬讗转讜 诇砖诐 讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 专讗砖 讙讜讚诇讛 讚讘讛讚讬 讚驻住注讛 注讘讬讚 讚诪转专诪讬


The Gemara explains the proof from the baraita: And it is clear from this baraita that we do not say that perhaps she took blood from her wounded shoulder in her hand and brought it there, near her vagina. Rather, this is the reason for the ruling of the mishna: The tip of her large toe is different, as when she walks it might happen that the tip of this toe is positioned under her vagina and blood drips onto it from there. For this reason she is rendered impure by a stain on that toe.


讜诇讗 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞诪爪讗转 注诇 拽砖专讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讛 讟诪讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讚讬诐 注住拽谞讬讜转 讛谉


The Gemara asks: And do we not presume that ritual impurity travels from place to place? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If blood was found on the joints of her fingers on the back of her hand she is impure, despite the fact that blood from her source is not usually found on that part of her hand because hands are active?


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讚拽讛 讘讞讚 讬讚讗 讜谞讙注讛 讘讗讬讚讱 讬讚讗 诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讬讚讛 讚讻讜诇讛 注讘讬讚讗 讚谞讙注讛


The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What is the reason for this halakha? Is it not due to the fact that we say she examined with one hand and then touched the back of the other hand? If so, this indicates that ritual impurity is presumed to travel from place to place. The Gemara answers: No, the reason she is impure when blood is found on the back of her hand is that her hand is different, as with regard to the entire hand, including the back, it might happen that it touched the vagina,as one鈥檚 hands are active.


注诇 砖讜拽讛 讜注诇 驻专住讜转讬讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诪讘驻谞讬诐 注讚 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 注讚 诪拽讜诐 讞讘拽


搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where the stain was discovered on her leg or on her feet, if it was on the inner side she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. If it was on the outer side of the leg or foot she is ritually pure. The Gemara asks: With regard to the term: On the inner side, until where does it extend? The students of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: Until the place of the joint [mekom 岣vak] of the thigh and shin, the ligaments on the inside of the kneecap.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪拽讜诐 讞讘拽 讻诇驻谞讬诐 讗讜 讻诇讞讜抓 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 注讚 诪拽讜诐 讞讘拽 讜讞讘拽 注爪诪讜 讻诇驻谞讬诐 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 注讚 诪拽讜诐 讞讘拽 讜讞讘拽 注爪诪讜 讻诇驻谞讬诐


In this regard, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the place of the joint itself considered as part of the inner side or as part of the outer side? Come and hear, as Rav Ketina explicitly teaches: The inner side extends until the place of the joint, and the joint itself is considered as part of the inner side. The Gemara adds that Rav 岣yya, son of Rav Avya, teaches it explicitly that the students of the school of Rabbi Yannai themselves said: The inner side extends until the place of the joint, and the joint itself is considered as part of the inner side.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻砖讬专 诪讛讜 讻砖讜专讛 诪讛讜 讟讬驻讬谉 讟讬驻讬谉 诪讛讜 诇专讜讞讘 讬专讻讛 诪讛讜


Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If the stain on a woman鈥檚 body was in the shape of a bracelet, what is the halakha? Likewise, if it was in the shape of a straight line, what is the halakha? If it was not in a single defined shape but was a series of drops, what is the halakha? Furthermore, if the stain extended along the width of her thigh, what is the halakha? Is there a concern in these cases that the blood might have come from her uterus?


转讗 砖诪注 注诇 讘砖专讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗 住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗 注诇 讘砖专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讚注讘讬讚 讻专爪讜注讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: If a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is impure. What, is it not that the case of blood found on her flesh is referring to a case like this, i.e., those cases mentioned by Rabbi Yirmeya, and therefore she is impure? The Gemara answers: There is no proof from here, as perhaps the baraita is referring to a stain shaped like a strip along the length of her thigh, as this is the usual form of a stain from the vagina.


讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 诇讛 讚诪讗 讘诪砖转讬转讗 讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛 转讬讝讬诇 讜转讬转讬


The Gemara relates that there was a certain woman who discovered blood in the warp on the loom where she was weaving. She was concerned that while she was weaving, the threads of the warp might have come between her legs and been stained. She came before Rabbi Yannai to inquire about the status of this blood. Rabbi Yannai said to her: Let her go and come, i.e., she should go and weave in her usual manner. Since this involves a repetitive action, it will soon become clear whether the threads stretch between her legs.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 砖讜谞讬谉 讘讟讛专讜转 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬谉 砖讜谞讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讗讘诇 诇讞讜诪专讗 砖讜谞讬谉


The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one does not rely on repeated actions with regard to ritually pure items? Since the second action might not precisely mimic the first it cannot be relied upon to determine ritual-purity status. The Gemara answers that when we say one does not rely on repeated actions it is only in cases where it would lead to a leniency. But if it leads to a stringency, as in this case where the woman is currently pure, since the blood was not found on her body or her garments one does rely on repeated actions. If the repeated action indicates that the threads of the warp come between her legs while weaving, she is impure.


讛讬转讛 驻讜砖讟转讜 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讘专 讝讛 讛讜专讬转讬 讘注讬专 专讜诪讬 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讘讚专讜诐 讗诪专讜 诇讬 讬驻讛 讛讜专讬转讛


搂 The mishna teaches: If it was a robe that she would remove and cover herself with at night, no matter where on the robe the stain is found, she is ritually impure because the robe moves while the woman is asleep, and therefore the blood could have originated in the uterus. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: With regard to this matter of blood found on a robe worn at night, I issued a prohibitive ruling in the city of Rome. And when I came to the Sages in the south of Eretz Yisrael they said to me: You issued a proper ruling.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗专讜讻讛 砖诇讘砖讛 讞诇讜拽讛 砖诇 拽爪专讛 讜拽爪专讛 砖诇讘砖讛 讞诇讜拽讛 砖诇 讗专讜讻讛 讗诐 诪讙讬注 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛转讜专驻讛 砖诇 讗专讜讻讛 砖转讬讛谉 讟诪讗讜转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗专讜讻讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜拽爪专讛 讟诪讗讛


With regard to blood discovered on a robe, the Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a tall woman who wore the robe of a short woman without first examining it to see if it was clean of stains, and likewise a short woman who wore the robe of a tall woman, if a stain was subsequently found on the robe and it is unknown from which woman it came, the halakha is as follows: If the location of the stain reaches adjacent to the vagina of the tall woman they are both ritually impure. The reason is that in this case it certainly reached that area of the short woman. And if it does not reach adjacent to the vagina of the tall woman, the tall woman is pure, as the stain is definitely not from her, and the short woman is impure.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘讚拽讛 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讛砖讗讬诇转讜 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞讘讬专转讛 转讜诇讛 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜诇注谞讬谉 讚讬谞讗 转谞谉 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞讘讬专转讛 讟诪讗讛


It is taught in another baraita: If a woman examined her robe and did not find a stain, and then lent it to another woman, after which a stain was discovered on the robe, what is the halakha? She, the woman who lent the robe, is pure, and the other woman, the one who borrowed the robe, may attribute the stain to the woman who lent the robe to her, i.e., she may say that she does not rely on the lender鈥檚 examination. Rav Sheshet said in explanation of this baraita: And we learn this ruling that the borrower can say she does not rely on the lender only with regard to the matter of a monetary judgment as to which of the women must pay for the laundering of the robe. But with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, she, the lender, is pure, and the other woman, the borrower, is impure.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖谞转注住拽讜 讘爪驻讜专 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讻住诇注 讚诐 讜谞诪爪讗 讻住诇注 注诇 讝讜 讜讻住诇注 注诇 讝讜 砖转讬讛谉 讟诪讗讜转 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 住诇注 讬转讬专讛


The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to two women who were occupied with one slaughtered bird, and the bird contained only an amount of blood capable of producing a stain as big as a sela coin, and blood the size of a sela was found on this woman and blood the size of a sela was found on that woman, they are both impure, despite the fact that the blood of one of them can be attributed to the bird. Likewise, in the case of Rav Sheshet the lender should be impure as well, as she might not have examined the robe properly. The Gemara answers: There it is different, as there is an additional sela.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘砖讛 砖诇砖讛 讞诇讜拽讜转 讛讘讚讜拽讬谉 诇讛 讗诐 讬讻讜诇讛 诇转诇讜转 转讜诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讞转讜谉 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讛 诇转诇讜转 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇讬讜谉


The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a woman who wore three robes, one on top of the other, that had been examined by her for blood stains, and she subsequently found a stain on one of the robes, if she can attribute the blood on the robe to an external source, she may attribute it to that source, and she is pure. And this is the halakha even if the stain was on the lower robe, closest to her skin. But if she cannot reasonably attribute the blood to an external factor she may not attribute it to an external factor, and she is impure, and this is the halakha even if the stain was on the upper robe.


讻讬爪讚 注讘专讛 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 讟讘讞讬诐 转讜诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讞转讜谉 诇讗 注讘专讛 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 讟讘讞讬诐 讗祝 讘注诇讬讜谉 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛


The baraita elaborates: How so? If she passed through a marketplace of butchers, where blood could have sprayed on her clothes, she may attribute a stain on her garment to the butchers and she is pure, even if the stain was on the lower robe. If she did not pass through a marketplace of butchers or anywhere else with a lot of blood, then even if the stain was on the upper robe she may not attribute the blood to an external source and she is impure.


诪转谞讬壮 讜转讜诇讛 讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讬讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇转诇讜转 砖讞讟讛 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 谞转注住拽讛 讘讻转诪讬诐 讗讜 砖讬砖讘讛 讘爪讚 讛注住讜拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讛专讙讛 诪讗讻讜诇转 讛专讬 讝讜 转讜诇讛 讘讛


MISHNA: And a woman who discovers a blood stain on her body or her garment may attribute its existence to any matter to which she can attribute it: If she slaughtered a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird; or if she was occupied with the removal of blood stains from the garments of other women or from her own garment, from any source, such as blood that originated from a wound elsewhere on her body or even her own menstrual blood from a prior menstrual cycle; or if she sat alongside others who were occupied with removing blood stains; or if she killed a louse; in all of these cases, that woman may attribute the blood stain to it.


注讚 讻诪讛 转讜诇讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 注讚 讻讙专讬住 砖诇 驻讜诇 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛专讙讛 讜转讜诇讛 讘讘谞讛 讗讜 讘讘注诇讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 诪讻讛 讜讛讬讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讙诇注 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讚诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转讜诇讛


How large a stain may a woman attribute to a louse? Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: It can be up to the area of a split bean. And she may attribute the stain to a louse even if she does not remember that she killed it. And she may attribute the blood stain to her son or to her husband in a case where one of them is near her and has a wound. Furthermore, if the woman herself has a wound, even if the wound scabbed over and is no longer bleeding, but it can reopen and bleed, that woman may attribute the blood stain to that wound.


诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讘讗转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讗讬转讬 讻转诐 讗诪专 诇讛 砖诪讗 诪讻讛 讛讬转讛 讘讬讱 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讛谉 讜讞讬转讛 讗诪专 诇讛 砖诪讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讙诇注 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讚诐 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讛谉 讜讟讛专讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


There was an incident involving one woman who came before Rabbi Akiva. She said to him: I saw a blood stain. Rabbi Akiva said to her: Perhaps there was a wound on your body? She said to him: Yes, there was a wound and it healed. He said to her: Was it perhaps a wound that could reopen and bleed? She said to him: Yes it was. And Rabbi Akiva deemed her ritually pure.


专讗讛 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 诪住转讻诇讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讛 讛讚讘专 拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讻诐 砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讚讘专 诇讛讞诪讬专 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗砖讛 讻讬 转讛讬讛 讝讘讛 讚诐 讬讛讬讛 讝讘讛 讘讘砖专讛 讚诐 讜诇讗 讻转诐


Rabbi Akiva saw his students looking at each other, wondering why he ruled leniently in this case. Rabbi Akiva said to them: What in this matter is difficult in your eyes? The reason I ruled this way is that the Sages did not state the matter of the impurity of blood stains in order to be stringent; rather, they instituted this impurity in order to be lenient, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh shall be blood鈥 (Leviticus 15:19), from which it is derived that by Torah law, 鈥渂lood鈥 deems her impure, but not a stain. Impurity from a blood stain was instituted by the Sages, and they rule leniently in any case where the stain can be attributed to another source.


注讚 砖讛讜讗 谞转讜谉 转讞转 讛讻专 讜谞诪爪讗 注诇讬讜 讚诐 注讙讜诇 讟讛讜专 诪砖讜讱 讟诪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽


With regard to an examination cloth that was placed beneath the pillow and blood was found on the cloth, and it is unclear whether it is the blood of an examination or the blood of a louse that was crushed beneath it, if the stain is round the woman is ritually pure, as an examination to determine whether a woman is menstruating would not leave a round stain. If the stain is elongated the woman is ritually impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok.


讙诪壮 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讜转诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘拽讬诇讜专 讜专讘讬 转诇讛 讘砖专祝 砖拽诪讛


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a woman who discovers a blood stain on her body or her garment may attribute its existence to any matter to which she can attribute it. The Gemara notes: We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: An incident occurred involving a blood stain found on a woman鈥檚 garment, and Rabbi Meir attributed it to an eye salve [bekilor] that the woman had previously handled, and likewise, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi attributed a stain to the sap of a sycamore tree the woman had touched.


讗讜 砖讬砖讘讛 讬砖讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讬砖讘讛 诇讗


搂 The mishna teaches: Or if she was occupied with the removal of blood stains from the garments of other women or from her own garment, from any source, such as blood that originated from a wound elsewhere on her body or even her own menstrual blood from a prior menstrual cycle; or if she sat alongside others who were occupied with removing blood stains. The Gemara infers: If she knows for certain that she sat alongside those occupied with removing blood stains, yes, she may attribute blood to this source. But if she does not know for certain that she sat alongside those who were removing blood stains, but knows only that she was in the same area as they were, she may not attribute blood to this source.


转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讘专讛 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 讟讘讞讬诐 住驻拽 谞讬转讝 注诇讬讛 住驻拽 诇讗 谞讬转讝 注诇讬讛 转讜诇讛 住驻拽 注讘专讛 住驻拽 诇讗 注讘专讛 讟诪讗讛


Again the Gemara comments: We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: If a woman passed through a marketplace of butchers and it is uncertain whether blood from the marketplace sprayed on her or whether it did not spray on her, she may attribute a stain to the butchers. But if she is uncertain whether she passed by the marketplace or whether she did not pass by, she is deemed impure and may not attribute it to that source. In this case as well, only if she is certain that she was in a circumstance to which she can attribute the blood may she attribute it to that cause.


讛专讙讛 诪讗讻讜诇转 讛专讙讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛专讙讛 诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讙讛 转讜诇讛 诇讗 讛专讙讛 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 转讜诇讛


搂 The mishna teaches that if she killed a louse she may attribute the blood stain to it. The Gemara infers: If she killed a louse, yes, she may attribute blood to it, but if she did not kill a louse she may not attribute blood to it. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers that it is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman killed a louse before finding blood, she may attribute blood to it. If she did not kill a louse she may not attribute blood to it; this is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case she may attribute blood to a louse.


讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讚讘专讬 讗讬谉 拽抓 讜诇讚讘专讬 讞讘专讬 讗讬谉 住讜祝


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said there is a difficulty with regard to both his opinion and that of the Rabbis: According to my statement, that a woman may attribute a stain only to a creature she actually killed, there is no limit; and according to the statement of my colleagues, who rule that she may attribute a stain to a louse even if she had not killed one, there is no end.


诇讚讘专讬 讗讬谉 拽抓 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讗砖讛 砖讟讛讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 诪讟讛 讜诪讟讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讻诪讛 讟讬驻讬 讚诐 诪讗讻讜诇转


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explains: According to my statement, there is no limit to the size of the stain she found, as she is impure even if it is as small as a mustard seed. Consequently, you have no woman who is pure to her husband, as you have no bed of any sort on which there are not several drops of blood of a louse. Since I rule that a woman may attribute blood to a louse only if she previously killed one, all women will be in a state of impurity to their husbands.


诇讚讘专讬 讞讘专讬 讗讬谉 住讜祝 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 住讚讬谉 讜住讚讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讻诪讛 讟讬驻讬 讚诐


By contrast, according to the statement of my colleagues there is no end to the advantage their ruling provides to women, because if their ruling is accepted you have no woman who is not pure to her husband, as you have no sheet of any sort on which there are not several blood drops, and every woman can attribute all these drops to a louse, even if she had not killed one.


讗讘诇 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 诪讚讘专讬 讜诪讚讘专讬讛诐 砖讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 转讜诇讛 注讚 讻讙专讬住 砖诇 驻讜诇 讜诇讚讘专讬讜 讗谞讜 诪讜讚讬诐 讜诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 转讜诇讛 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转讜诇讛 讘驻砖驻砖 讜注讚 讻转讜专诪讜住


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel continues: But the statement of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus appears to be more correct than my statement and their statement, as Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus would say: How large a stain may a woman attribute to a louse? It can be up to the area of a split bean. And therefore we concede to his opinion and accept his statement. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that a woman may attribute blood to a louse whether or not she killed one, how large can the stain be? After all, some stains are far bigger than those produced by a louse. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: She may attribute a stain to a bedbug, which has more blood than a louse, and this applies to any stain whose size is up to the width of a lupine seed.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻砖驻砖 讝讛 讗专讻讜 讻专讞讘讜 讜讟注诪讜 讻专讬讞讜 讘专讬转 讻专讜转讛 诇讜 砖讻诇 讛诪讜诇诇讜 诪专讬讞 讘讜 讗专讻讜 讻专讞讘讜 诇注谞讬谉 讻转诪讬诐


The Gemara continues to discuss the matter of the bedbug. The Sages taught in a baraita: This bedbug, its length is equal to its width, and its taste is like its foul smell. A covenant is made with it, i.e., it is a law of nature, that anyone who squeezes it will smell its foul odor. The Gemara explains with regard to which halakhot these characteristics of the bedbug were mentioned. The fact that its length is equal to its width was stated with regard to the matter of stains, i.e., if a stain is found whose length is the same as its width, one may attribute it to the blood of a bedbug even if the stain is larger than the area of a split bean.


讟注诪讜 讻专讬讞讜 诇注谞讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讚转谞谉 讗讜 砖讟注诐 讟注诐 驻砖驻砖 讘驻讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬驻诇讜讟 诪谞讗 讬讚注 讟注诪讜 讻专讬讞讜 讜讗讻转讬 诪谞讗 讬讚注 讘专讬转 讻专讜转讛 诇讜 砖讻诇 讛诪讜诇诇讜 诪专讬讞 讘讜


The statement that its taste is like its foul smell is applicable with regard to the matter of the partaking of teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 8:2): Or if he tasted the taste of a bedbug in his mouth, which is prohibited for consumption, this person must spit out the contents of his mouth, despite the fact that it is generally prohibited to waste teruma. How does he know that there is a bedbug in his mouth? He knows because its taste is like its foul smell. And still, how does he know the smell of a bedbug? In answer to this question the baraita explains that one does not err with regard to the smell of the bedbug, as a covenant is made with it that anyone who squeezes it will smell its foul odor, and therefore it is a well-known smell.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 注讬专 砖讬砖 讘讛 讞讝讬专讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讻转诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讛讗 讚讚讜拽专转 讻注讬专 砖讬砖 讘讛 讞讝讬专讬诐 讚诪讬讗


The mishna teaches that a woman may attribute a blood stain as having come from another entity and remain pure. In this regard Rav Ashi says: In the case of a town in which there are pigs, one need not be concerned for stains found on the body or clothes of a woman living there. Since pigs wander the streets and often have stains of blood on them, and their living areas attract bugs of all kinds, any blood stain found on a woman can be attributed to the pigs. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: And this town of Dukeret, where there are many slaughterhouses, garbage heaps, and bugs, is considered like a town in which there are pigs.


注讚 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 转讜诇讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讙专讬住 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪讻讙专讬住 转讜诇讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻讙专讬住 转讜诇讛 讬转专 诪讻讙专讬住 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛


搂 The mishna teaches: How large a stain may a woman attribute to a louse? Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: It can be up to the area of a split bean. The Gemara notes that the meaning of the statement of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus is a matter of dispute among the Sages. Rav Huna says: If the stain was the size of a split bean she may not attribute it to the blood of a louse; if it was less than the size of a split bean she may attribute it to the blood of a louse. And Rav 岣sda says: Even if it was the size of a split bean she may still attribute it to the blood of a louse; but if the stain was more than the size of a split bean she may not attribute it to the blood of a louse.


诇讬诪讗 讘注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 住讘专 注讚 讜诇讗 注讚 讘讻诇诇 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 住讘专 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these Sages disagree with regard to the matter of: Up to and including. As Rav Huna maintains that the term: Up to, means: Up to the measure but not including the measure, and since Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus said that a stain can be up to the area of a split bean, this does not include the size of a bean itself. And Rav 岣sda maintains that the term means: Up to and including the measure.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬讻讗 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇 讜讗讬讻讗 注讚 讜诇讗 注讚 讘讻诇诇 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗


The Gemara responds: Rav Huna could say to you that there are instances where the term means up to and including the measure, and there are instances where it means up to and not including the measure. And both here, where it means up to and not including the measure, it is intended as a stringency, as in the statement of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus; and there, where it means up to and including the measure, it is likewise intended as a stringency.


讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讻讗 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻诇 砖注讜专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛讞诪讬专 讞讜抓 诪讻讙专讬住 砖诇 讻转诪讬诐 诇讛拽诇


And Rav 岣sda could say to you that in general I will say to you that when it leads to a stringency, we say that the term: Up to, means up to and including the measure, whereas if it leads to a leniency we do not say so. And here, with regard to stains, I interpret the term in this manner despite the fact that it entails a leniency, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu. As Rabbi Abbahu says: All measures of the Sages must be interpreted stringently, except for the measure of a split bean as a standard for stains of blood found on a woman鈥檚 clothing, which is interpreted leniently. Therefore, even if the stain is exactly the size of a bean the woman remains pure.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讻讙专讬住 讻讬转专 诪讻讙专讬住 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻讙专讬住 讻驻讞讜转 诪讻讙专讬住 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘注讚 讜注讚 讚讛讻讗 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬转讬讘讬


Some say this halakha as a distinct matter, not specifically as an explanation of the mishna: Rav Huna says the area of a split bean is considered the same as the area of greater than a split bean. And Rav 岣sda says the area of a split bean is considered the same as the area of less than a split bean. And these two amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to the matter of up to, whether it means including or not including the measure itself, as discussed in this case here, with regard to stains. The Gemara raises an objection:


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

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 58

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 58

诪讚专讘谞谉


by rabbinic law. Accordingly, Shmuel agrees that if she examined the ground, found it clean, sat upon it, and later found blood, even if she did not sense that she emitted blood she is impure by rabbinic law.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讘诇 讻转诪讬诐


Rav Ashi said: Shmuel said this woman is pure even by rabbinic law, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, as we learned in a mishna (59b) that Rabbi Ne岣mya says: Any item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, e.g., the ground, is not susceptible to ritual impurity due to blood stains. This is because the decree of impurity of blood stains was limited to items susceptible to ritual impurity. According to Rav Ashi, all the sources cited above that indicate she is impure even if she did not sense an emission are referring to cases where the stain was found on an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 拽专拽注 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 拽专拽注 讗驻讬诇讜 讙诇讬诪讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专


The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Ashi with regard to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, that is why Shmuel says the woman examined the ground beneath her, as the ground is not susceptible to ritual impurity. But according to the opinion of Rav Yirmeya, why does Shmuel refer specifically to the ground? The same halakha should apply even if she sat on a cloak and did not sense an emission of blood. The Gemara answers that Shmuel is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary.


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讙诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 诪讘讚拽 砖驻讬专 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专拽注 讚诪讘讚拽 砖驻讬专 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讬讗 讟讛讜专


The Gemara elaborates: It is not necessary to state that if a woman examined a cloak, found it pure, sat upon it, and then saw a blood stain on it, she is pure. The reason is that it is not easy to examine a cloak well, due to its creases, and therefore there is room to say the stain on the cloak came from the outside world, i.e., from some external factor. Rather, even in the case of the ground, which one can examine well and therefore there is room to say the stain on the ground must have come from her body when she sat upon it, Shmuel teaches that the blood is nevertheless ritually pure.


注诇 注拽讘讛 讜注诇 专讗砖 讙讜讚诇讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 注拽讘讛 注讘讬讚 讚谞讙注 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讗诇讗 专讗砖 讙讜讚诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞讙注 讘注拽讘讛 讜诪讬 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐


搂 The mishna teaches: If a stain was discovered on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, although it is not adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. The Gemara comments: Granted, when blood is found on her heel she is impure, as it is wont to touch that place, her vagina, when she kneels. But if the blood is discovered on the tip of her large toe, what is the reason she is thereby rendered impure? And if you would say the reason is that sometimes the tip of one large toe might touch her heel, i.e., the heel of the other foot, do we presume that ritual impurity travels from place to place? Since that is not presumed, the stain on the large toe of one foot cannot be presumed to come from the heel of the other foot.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 诪讻讛 讘爪讜讗专讛 砖转讜讻诇 诇转诇讜转 转讜诇讛 注诇 讻转驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇转诇讜转 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛


The Gemara cites the source of this principle. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If a woman had a wound on her neck in an area where she can attribute the blood she found adjacent to her vagina to that wound, she may attribute the blood to the wound and she is pure. But if the wound was on her shoulder, which is a place where she cannot attribute the blood she found adjacent to her vagina to that wound, she may not attribute it to the wound, and she is ritually impure.


讜讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诪讗 讘讬讚讛 谞讟诇转讜 讜讛讘讬讗转讜 诇砖诐 讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 专讗砖 讙讜讚诇讛 讚讘讛讚讬 讚驻住注讛 注讘讬讚 讚诪转专诪讬


The Gemara explains the proof from the baraita: And it is clear from this baraita that we do not say that perhaps she took blood from her wounded shoulder in her hand and brought it there, near her vagina. Rather, this is the reason for the ruling of the mishna: The tip of her large toe is different, as when she walks it might happen that the tip of this toe is positioned under her vagina and blood drips onto it from there. For this reason she is rendered impure by a stain on that toe.


讜诇讗 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞诪爪讗转 注诇 拽砖专讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讛 讟诪讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讚讬诐 注住拽谞讬讜转 讛谉


The Gemara asks: And do we not presume that ritual impurity travels from place to place? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If blood was found on the joints of her fingers on the back of her hand she is impure, despite the fact that blood from her source is not usually found on that part of her hand because hands are active?


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讚拽讛 讘讞讚 讬讚讗 讜谞讙注讛 讘讗讬讚讱 讬讚讗 诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讬讚讛 讚讻讜诇讛 注讘讬讚讗 讚谞讙注讛


The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What is the reason for this halakha? Is it not due to the fact that we say she examined with one hand and then touched the back of the other hand? If so, this indicates that ritual impurity is presumed to travel from place to place. The Gemara answers: No, the reason she is impure when blood is found on the back of her hand is that her hand is different, as with regard to the entire hand, including the back, it might happen that it touched the vagina,as one鈥檚 hands are active.


注诇 砖讜拽讛 讜注诇 驻专住讜转讬讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诪讘驻谞讬诐 注讚 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 注讚 诪拽讜诐 讞讘拽


搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where the stain was discovered on her leg or on her feet, if it was on the inner side she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. If it was on the outer side of the leg or foot she is ritually pure. The Gemara asks: With regard to the term: On the inner side, until where does it extend? The students of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: Until the place of the joint [mekom 岣vak] of the thigh and shin, the ligaments on the inside of the kneecap.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪拽讜诐 讞讘拽 讻诇驻谞讬诐 讗讜 讻诇讞讜抓 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 注讚 诪拽讜诐 讞讘拽 讜讞讘拽 注爪诪讜 讻诇驻谞讬诐 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 注讚 诪拽讜诐 讞讘拽 讜讞讘拽 注爪诪讜 讻诇驻谞讬诐


In this regard, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the place of the joint itself considered as part of the inner side or as part of the outer side? Come and hear, as Rav Ketina explicitly teaches: The inner side extends until the place of the joint, and the joint itself is considered as part of the inner side. The Gemara adds that Rav 岣yya, son of Rav Avya, teaches it explicitly that the students of the school of Rabbi Yannai themselves said: The inner side extends until the place of the joint, and the joint itself is considered as part of the inner side.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻砖讬专 诪讛讜 讻砖讜专讛 诪讛讜 讟讬驻讬谉 讟讬驻讬谉 诪讛讜 诇专讜讞讘 讬专讻讛 诪讛讜


Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If the stain on a woman鈥檚 body was in the shape of a bracelet, what is the halakha? Likewise, if it was in the shape of a straight line, what is the halakha? If it was not in a single defined shape but was a series of drops, what is the halakha? Furthermore, if the stain extended along the width of her thigh, what is the halakha? Is there a concern in these cases that the blood might have come from her uterus?


转讗 砖诪注 注诇 讘砖专讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗 住驻拽 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗 注诇 讘砖专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讚注讘讬讚 讻专爪讜注讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: If a stain is discovered on her flesh and there is uncertainty whether it is impure or pure, it is impure. What, is it not that the case of blood found on her flesh is referring to a case like this, i.e., those cases mentioned by Rabbi Yirmeya, and therefore she is impure? The Gemara answers: There is no proof from here, as perhaps the baraita is referring to a stain shaped like a strip along the length of her thigh, as this is the usual form of a stain from the vagina.


讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 诇讛 讚诪讗 讘诪砖转讬转讗 讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛 转讬讝讬诇 讜转讬转讬


The Gemara relates that there was a certain woman who discovered blood in the warp on the loom where she was weaving. She was concerned that while she was weaving, the threads of the warp might have come between her legs and been stained. She came before Rabbi Yannai to inquire about the status of this blood. Rabbi Yannai said to her: Let her go and come, i.e., she should go and weave in her usual manner. Since this involves a repetitive action, it will soon become clear whether the threads stretch between her legs.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 砖讜谞讬谉 讘讟讛专讜转 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬谉 砖讜谞讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讗讘诇 诇讞讜诪专讗 砖讜谞讬谉


The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one does not rely on repeated actions with regard to ritually pure items? Since the second action might not precisely mimic the first it cannot be relied upon to determine ritual-purity status. The Gemara answers that when we say one does not rely on repeated actions it is only in cases where it would lead to a leniency. But if it leads to a stringency, as in this case where the woman is currently pure, since the blood was not found on her body or her garments one does rely on repeated actions. If the repeated action indicates that the threads of the warp come between her legs while weaving, she is impure.


讛讬转讛 驻讜砖讟转讜 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讘专 讝讛 讛讜专讬转讬 讘注讬专 专讜诪讬 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讘讚专讜诐 讗诪专讜 诇讬 讬驻讛 讛讜专讬转讛


搂 The mishna teaches: If it was a robe that she would remove and cover herself with at night, no matter where on the robe the stain is found, she is ritually impure because the robe moves while the woman is asleep, and therefore the blood could have originated in the uterus. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: With regard to this matter of blood found on a robe worn at night, I issued a prohibitive ruling in the city of Rome. And when I came to the Sages in the south of Eretz Yisrael they said to me: You issued a proper ruling.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗专讜讻讛 砖诇讘砖讛 讞诇讜拽讛 砖诇 拽爪专讛 讜拽爪专讛 砖诇讘砖讛 讞诇讜拽讛 砖诇 讗专讜讻讛 讗诐 诪讙讬注 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛转讜专驻讛 砖诇 讗专讜讻讛 砖转讬讛谉 讟诪讗讜转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗专讜讻讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜拽爪专讛 讟诪讗讛


With regard to blood discovered on a robe, the Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a tall woman who wore the robe of a short woman without first examining it to see if it was clean of stains, and likewise a short woman who wore the robe of a tall woman, if a stain was subsequently found on the robe and it is unknown from which woman it came, the halakha is as follows: If the location of the stain reaches adjacent to the vagina of the tall woman they are both ritually impure. The reason is that in this case it certainly reached that area of the short woman. And if it does not reach adjacent to the vagina of the tall woman, the tall woman is pure, as the stain is definitely not from her, and the short woman is impure.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘讚拽讛 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讛砖讗讬诇转讜 诇讞讘讬专转讛 讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞讘讬专转讛 转讜诇讛 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜诇注谞讬谉 讚讬谞讗 转谞谉 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞讘讬专转讛 讟诪讗讛


It is taught in another baraita: If a woman examined her robe and did not find a stain, and then lent it to another woman, after which a stain was discovered on the robe, what is the halakha? She, the woman who lent the robe, is pure, and the other woman, the one who borrowed the robe, may attribute the stain to the woman who lent the robe to her, i.e., she may say that she does not rely on the lender鈥檚 examination. Rav Sheshet said in explanation of this baraita: And we learn this ruling that the borrower can say she does not rely on the lender only with regard to the matter of a monetary judgment as to which of the women must pay for the laundering of the robe. But with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, she, the lender, is pure, and the other woman, the borrower, is impure.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖谞转注住拽讜 讘爪驻讜专 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讻住诇注 讚诐 讜谞诪爪讗 讻住诇注 注诇 讝讜 讜讻住诇注 注诇 讝讜 砖转讬讛谉 讟诪讗讜转 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 住诇注 讬转讬专讛


The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to two women who were occupied with one slaughtered bird, and the bird contained only an amount of blood capable of producing a stain as big as a sela coin, and blood the size of a sela was found on this woman and blood the size of a sela was found on that woman, they are both impure, despite the fact that the blood of one of them can be attributed to the bird. Likewise, in the case of Rav Sheshet the lender should be impure as well, as she might not have examined the robe properly. The Gemara answers: There it is different, as there is an additional sela.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘砖讛 砖诇砖讛 讞诇讜拽讜转 讛讘讚讜拽讬谉 诇讛 讗诐 讬讻讜诇讛 诇转诇讜转 转讜诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讞转讜谉 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讛 诇转诇讜转 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇讬讜谉


The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a woman who wore three robes, one on top of the other, that had been examined by her for blood stains, and she subsequently found a stain on one of the robes, if she can attribute the blood on the robe to an external source, she may attribute it to that source, and she is pure. And this is the halakha even if the stain was on the lower robe, closest to her skin. But if she cannot reasonably attribute the blood to an external factor she may not attribute it to an external factor, and she is impure, and this is the halakha even if the stain was on the upper robe.


讻讬爪讚 注讘专讛 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 讟讘讞讬诐 转讜诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讞转讜谉 诇讗 注讘专讛 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 讟讘讞讬诐 讗祝 讘注诇讬讜谉 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛


The baraita elaborates: How so? If she passed through a marketplace of butchers, where blood could have sprayed on her clothes, she may attribute a stain on her garment to the butchers and she is pure, even if the stain was on the lower robe. If she did not pass through a marketplace of butchers or anywhere else with a lot of blood, then even if the stain was on the upper robe she may not attribute the blood to an external source and she is impure.


诪转谞讬壮 讜转讜诇讛 讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讬讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇转诇讜转 砖讞讟讛 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 谞转注住拽讛 讘讻转诪讬诐 讗讜 砖讬砖讘讛 讘爪讚 讛注住讜拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讛专讙讛 诪讗讻讜诇转 讛专讬 讝讜 转讜诇讛 讘讛


MISHNA: And a woman who discovers a blood stain on her body or her garment may attribute its existence to any matter to which she can attribute it: If she slaughtered a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird; or if she was occupied with the removal of blood stains from the garments of other women or from her own garment, from any source, such as blood that originated from a wound elsewhere on her body or even her own menstrual blood from a prior menstrual cycle; or if she sat alongside others who were occupied with removing blood stains; or if she killed a louse; in all of these cases, that woman may attribute the blood stain to it.


注讚 讻诪讛 转讜诇讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 注讚 讻讙专讬住 砖诇 驻讜诇 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛专讙讛 讜转讜诇讛 讘讘谞讛 讗讜 讘讘注诇讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 诪讻讛 讜讛讬讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讙诇注 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讚诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转讜诇讛


How large a stain may a woman attribute to a louse? Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: It can be up to the area of a split bean. And she may attribute the stain to a louse even if she does not remember that she killed it. And she may attribute the blood stain to her son or to her husband in a case where one of them is near her and has a wound. Furthermore, if the woman herself has a wound, even if the wound scabbed over and is no longer bleeding, but it can reopen and bleed, that woman may attribute the blood stain to that wound.


诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讘讗转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讗讬转讬 讻转诐 讗诪专 诇讛 砖诪讗 诪讻讛 讛讬转讛 讘讬讱 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讛谉 讜讞讬转讛 讗诪专 诇讛 砖诪讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讙诇注 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讚诐 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讛谉 讜讟讛专讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


There was an incident involving one woman who came before Rabbi Akiva. She said to him: I saw a blood stain. Rabbi Akiva said to her: Perhaps there was a wound on your body? She said to him: Yes, there was a wound and it healed. He said to her: Was it perhaps a wound that could reopen and bleed? She said to him: Yes it was. And Rabbi Akiva deemed her ritually pure.


专讗讛 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 诪住转讻诇讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讛 讛讚讘专 拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讻诐 砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讚讘专 诇讛讞诪讬专 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗砖讛 讻讬 转讛讬讛 讝讘讛 讚诐 讬讛讬讛 讝讘讛 讘讘砖专讛 讚诐 讜诇讗 讻转诐


Rabbi Akiva saw his students looking at each other, wondering why he ruled leniently in this case. Rabbi Akiva said to them: What in this matter is difficult in your eyes? The reason I ruled this way is that the Sages did not state the matter of the impurity of blood stains in order to be stringent; rather, they instituted this impurity in order to be lenient, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh shall be blood鈥 (Leviticus 15:19), from which it is derived that by Torah law, 鈥渂lood鈥 deems her impure, but not a stain. Impurity from a blood stain was instituted by the Sages, and they rule leniently in any case where the stain can be attributed to another source.


注讚 砖讛讜讗 谞转讜谉 转讞转 讛讻专 讜谞诪爪讗 注诇讬讜 讚诐 注讙讜诇 讟讛讜专 诪砖讜讱 讟诪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽


With regard to an examination cloth that was placed beneath the pillow and blood was found on the cloth, and it is unclear whether it is the blood of an examination or the blood of a louse that was crushed beneath it, if the stain is round the woman is ritually pure, as an examination to determine whether a woman is menstruating would not leave a round stain. If the stain is elongated the woman is ritually impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok.


讙诪壮 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讜转诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘拽讬诇讜专 讜专讘讬 转诇讛 讘砖专祝 砖拽诪讛


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a woman who discovers a blood stain on her body or her garment may attribute its existence to any matter to which she can attribute it. The Gemara notes: We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: An incident occurred involving a blood stain found on a woman鈥檚 garment, and Rabbi Meir attributed it to an eye salve [bekilor] that the woman had previously handled, and likewise, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi attributed a stain to the sap of a sycamore tree the woman had touched.


讗讜 砖讬砖讘讛 讬砖讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讬砖讘讛 诇讗


搂 The mishna teaches: Or if she was occupied with the removal of blood stains from the garments of other women or from her own garment, from any source, such as blood that originated from a wound elsewhere on her body or even her own menstrual blood from a prior menstrual cycle; or if she sat alongside others who were occupied with removing blood stains. The Gemara infers: If she knows for certain that she sat alongside those occupied with removing blood stains, yes, she may attribute blood to this source. But if she does not know for certain that she sat alongside those who were removing blood stains, but knows only that she was in the same area as they were, she may not attribute blood to this source.


转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讘专讛 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 讟讘讞讬诐 住驻拽 谞讬转讝 注诇讬讛 住驻拽 诇讗 谞讬转讝 注诇讬讛 转讜诇讛 住驻拽 注讘专讛 住驻拽 诇讗 注讘专讛 讟诪讗讛


Again the Gemara comments: We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: If a woman passed through a marketplace of butchers and it is uncertain whether blood from the marketplace sprayed on her or whether it did not spray on her, she may attribute a stain to the butchers. But if she is uncertain whether she passed by the marketplace or whether she did not pass by, she is deemed impure and may not attribute it to that source. In this case as well, only if she is certain that she was in a circumstance to which she can attribute the blood may she attribute it to that cause.


讛专讙讛 诪讗讻讜诇转 讛专讙讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛专讙讛 诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讙讛 转讜诇讛 诇讗 讛专讙讛 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 转讜诇讛


搂 The mishna teaches that if she killed a louse she may attribute the blood stain to it. The Gemara infers: If she killed a louse, yes, she may attribute blood to it, but if she did not kill a louse she may not attribute blood to it. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers that it is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman killed a louse before finding blood, she may attribute blood to it. If she did not kill a louse she may not attribute blood to it; this is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case she may attribute blood to a louse.


讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讚讘专讬 讗讬谉 拽抓 讜诇讚讘专讬 讞讘专讬 讗讬谉 住讜祝


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said there is a difficulty with regard to both his opinion and that of the Rabbis: According to my statement, that a woman may attribute a stain only to a creature she actually killed, there is no limit; and according to the statement of my colleagues, who rule that she may attribute a stain to a louse even if she had not killed one, there is no end.


诇讚讘专讬 讗讬谉 拽抓 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讗砖讛 砖讟讛讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 诪讟讛 讜诪讟讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讻诪讛 讟讬驻讬 讚诐 诪讗讻讜诇转


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explains: According to my statement, there is no limit to the size of the stain she found, as she is impure even if it is as small as a mustard seed. Consequently, you have no woman who is pure to her husband, as you have no bed of any sort on which there are not several drops of blood of a louse. Since I rule that a woman may attribute blood to a louse only if she previously killed one, all women will be in a state of impurity to their husbands.


诇讚讘专讬 讞讘专讬 讗讬谉 住讜祝 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 住讚讬谉 讜住讚讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讻诪讛 讟讬驻讬 讚诐


By contrast, according to the statement of my colleagues there is no end to the advantage their ruling provides to women, because if their ruling is accepted you have no woman who is not pure to her husband, as you have no sheet of any sort on which there are not several blood drops, and every woman can attribute all these drops to a louse, even if she had not killed one.


讗讘诇 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 诪讚讘专讬 讜诪讚讘专讬讛诐 砖讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 转讜诇讛 注讚 讻讙专讬住 砖诇 驻讜诇 讜诇讚讘专讬讜 讗谞讜 诪讜讚讬诐 讜诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 转讜诇讛 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转讜诇讛 讘驻砖驻砖 讜注讚 讻转讜专诪讜住


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel continues: But the statement of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus appears to be more correct than my statement and their statement, as Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus would say: How large a stain may a woman attribute to a louse? It can be up to the area of a split bean. And therefore we concede to his opinion and accept his statement. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that a woman may attribute blood to a louse whether or not she killed one, how large can the stain be? After all, some stains are far bigger than those produced by a louse. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: She may attribute a stain to a bedbug, which has more blood than a louse, and this applies to any stain whose size is up to the width of a lupine seed.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻砖驻砖 讝讛 讗专讻讜 讻专讞讘讜 讜讟注诪讜 讻专讬讞讜 讘专讬转 讻专讜转讛 诇讜 砖讻诇 讛诪讜诇诇讜 诪专讬讞 讘讜 讗专讻讜 讻专讞讘讜 诇注谞讬谉 讻转诪讬诐


The Gemara continues to discuss the matter of the bedbug. The Sages taught in a baraita: This bedbug, its length is equal to its width, and its taste is like its foul smell. A covenant is made with it, i.e., it is a law of nature, that anyone who squeezes it will smell its foul odor. The Gemara explains with regard to which halakhot these characteristics of the bedbug were mentioned. The fact that its length is equal to its width was stated with regard to the matter of stains, i.e., if a stain is found whose length is the same as its width, one may attribute it to the blood of a bedbug even if the stain is larger than the area of a split bean.


讟注诪讜 讻专讬讞讜 诇注谞讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讚转谞谉 讗讜 砖讟注诐 讟注诐 驻砖驻砖 讘驻讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬驻诇讜讟 诪谞讗 讬讚注 讟注诪讜 讻专讬讞讜 讜讗讻转讬 诪谞讗 讬讚注 讘专讬转 讻专讜转讛 诇讜 砖讻诇 讛诪讜诇诇讜 诪专讬讞 讘讜


The statement that its taste is like its foul smell is applicable with regard to the matter of the partaking of teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 8:2): Or if he tasted the taste of a bedbug in his mouth, which is prohibited for consumption, this person must spit out the contents of his mouth, despite the fact that it is generally prohibited to waste teruma. How does he know that there is a bedbug in his mouth? He knows because its taste is like its foul smell. And still, how does he know the smell of a bedbug? In answer to this question the baraita explains that one does not err with regard to the smell of the bedbug, as a covenant is made with it that anyone who squeezes it will smell its foul odor, and therefore it is a well-known smell.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 注讬专 砖讬砖 讘讛 讞讝讬专讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讻转诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讛讗 讚讚讜拽专转 讻注讬专 砖讬砖 讘讛 讞讝讬专讬诐 讚诪讬讗


The mishna teaches that a woman may attribute a blood stain as having come from another entity and remain pure. In this regard Rav Ashi says: In the case of a town in which there are pigs, one need not be concerned for stains found on the body or clothes of a woman living there. Since pigs wander the streets and often have stains of blood on them, and their living areas attract bugs of all kinds, any blood stain found on a woman can be attributed to the pigs. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: And this town of Dukeret, where there are many slaughterhouses, garbage heaps, and bugs, is considered like a town in which there are pigs.


注讚 讻诪讛 讛讬讗 转讜诇讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讙专讬住 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪讻讙专讬住 转讜诇讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻讙专讬住 转讜诇讛 讬转专 诪讻讙专讬住 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛


搂 The mishna teaches: How large a stain may a woman attribute to a louse? Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: It can be up to the area of a split bean. The Gemara notes that the meaning of the statement of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus is a matter of dispute among the Sages. Rav Huna says: If the stain was the size of a split bean she may not attribute it to the blood of a louse; if it was less than the size of a split bean she may attribute it to the blood of a louse. And Rav 岣sda says: Even if it was the size of a split bean she may still attribute it to the blood of a louse; but if the stain was more than the size of a split bean she may not attribute it to the blood of a louse.


诇讬诪讗 讘注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 住讘专 注讚 讜诇讗 注讚 讘讻诇诇 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 住讘专 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these Sages disagree with regard to the matter of: Up to and including. As Rav Huna maintains that the term: Up to, means: Up to the measure but not including the measure, and since Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus said that a stain can be up to the area of a split bean, this does not include the size of a bean itself. And Rav 岣sda maintains that the term means: Up to and including the measure.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬讻讗 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇 讜讗讬讻讗 注讚 讜诇讗 注讚 讘讻诇诇 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗


The Gemara responds: Rav Huna could say to you that there are instances where the term means up to and including the measure, and there are instances where it means up to and not including the measure. And both here, where it means up to and not including the measure, it is intended as a stringency, as in the statement of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus; and there, where it means up to and including the measure, it is likewise intended as a stringency.


讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讻讗 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻诇 砖注讜专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛讞诪讬专 讞讜抓 诪讻讙专讬住 砖诇 讻转诪讬诐 诇讛拽诇


And Rav 岣sda could say to you that in general I will say to you that when it leads to a stringency, we say that the term: Up to, means up to and including the measure, whereas if it leads to a leniency we do not say so. And here, with regard to stains, I interpret the term in this manner despite the fact that it entails a leniency, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu. As Rabbi Abbahu says: All measures of the Sages must be interpreted stringently, except for the measure of a split bean as a standard for stains of blood found on a woman鈥檚 clothing, which is interpreted leniently. Therefore, even if the stain is exactly the size of a bean the woman remains pure.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讻讙专讬住 讻讬转专 诪讻讙专讬住 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻讙专讬住 讻驻讞讜转 诪讻讙专讬住 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘注讚 讜注讚 讚讛讻讗 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬转讬讘讬


Some say this halakha as a distinct matter, not specifically as an explanation of the mishna: Rav Huna says the area of a split bean is considered the same as the area of greater than a split bean. And Rav 岣sda says the area of a split bean is considered the same as the area of less than a split bean. And these two amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to the matter of up to, whether it means including or not including the measure itself, as discussed in this case here, with regard to stains. The Gemara raises an objection:


Scroll To Top