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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 22, 2019 | 讻状讚 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Niddah 60

In which cases can one attribute her stain to someone else? If one lends her clothes to a non-Jew? Upon what is that dependent? There is a concept 鈥 we attribute the problem to one who is already in a problematic situation. To what extent does this apply 鈥 even if it makes the problematic situation worse, i.e. she is in the middle of her seven clean days? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rashbag differ on this issue. Would they differ also in a case where a pure and impure person walked on two paths 鈥 one pure and one impure 鈥 can we assume the impure person took the impure path? Can one attribute the stain to a woman who was impure from seeing a stain? Is a stain seen on an item that is not susceptible to impurities render the woman impure? If three women slept in one bed and find blood, if one checks and finds blood, can we attribute it to her? What if one of the women were pregnant, nursing, young or old?


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

讛专讜讗讛

who is of age and already seeing a flow of menstrual blood, i.e., she has had a flow of menstrual blood.

诪诪讗讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞讚讛 诪讛 谞讚讛 讚拽讞讝讬讗 讗祝 谞讻专讬转 讚拽讗 讞讝讬讗

The Gemara explains: From where does Rav know that this is referring to a gentile woman who once experienced a flow of blood? He infers from the mishna that the gentile woman it mentions is similar to a menstruating woman: Just as a menstruating woman is one who sees, i.e., who has already experienced bleeding, so too, the mishna is referring to an adult gentile woman who already sees menstrual blood.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚转谞讬讗 转讜诇讛 讘谞讻专讬转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘谞讻专讬转 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇专讗讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇专讗讜转 讗讘诇 专讜讗讛 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱

Rav Sheshet says: I say that when Rav was dozing or sleeping he said that halakha, i.e., it is an error. As it is taught in a baraita: If a woman loaned her garment to a gentile and subsequently found a blood stain on it, she attributes the stain to the gentile woman. This tanna deems it permitted for her to attribute the blood to any gentile woman, regardless of her age or her likelihood of bleeding. Rabbi Meir disagrees and says: This applies specifically to a gentile woman who is fit to see menstrual blood. And the Gemara adds that even Rabbi Meir says only that the gentile woman must be fit to see menstrual blood, but he too agrees that it is not necessary for her to be seeing blood at that time. She does not have to have actually experienced bleeding at some point.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讞讜诪专讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇拽讜诇讗

Rava said in response to Rav Sheshet鈥檚 challenge: And how can you understand that Rabbi Meir is coming to be stringent? Rav Sheshet maintains that according to the first tanna of the baraita she can attribute the blood stain to any gentile, whereas Rabbi Meir rules stringently that she may attribute it only to a gentile who is fit to experience bleeding. This is incorrect, as Rabbi Meir is actually coming to be lenient. In other words, the first tanna is more stringent, as he deems it permitted for her to attribute the blood stain only to a gentile woman who had experienced a menstrual flow at least once. By contrast, Rabbi Meir rules that she may attribute the stain to a gentile woman who is old enough to experience bleeding, even if she has never experienced a menstrual flow.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛 讘谞讻专讬转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 转讜诇讛 讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讱 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讜讛讬讗 砖专讜讗讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇专讗讜转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 专讜讗讛

The Gemara provides the reason for Rava鈥檚 opinion. As it is taught in a baraita: A woman who loaned her garment to a gentile woman and subsequently finds a blood stain on it may not attribute the stain to the gentile woman. Rabbi Meir says that she may attribute the blood stain to the gentile woman. But if so, the first baraita, which states that according to the first tanna she may attribute the blood stain to any gentile woman, is difficult. You must answer like this: According to the first tanna she may attribute the blood to any gentile woman provided that she sees, i.e., that she once experienced bleeding. By contrast, Rabbi Meir says a more lenient opinion, that she may attribute it to the gentile woman provided that she is fit to see menstrual blood, and this is the halakha even though she has not actually seen menstrual blood yet.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转讜诇讛 讘砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讘砖谞讬 砖诇讛

The Sages taught a baraita with regard to a woman who loaned her garment to another woman who was a lesser zava: The lender may attribute the blood stain on the loaned garment to a woman who observes a clean day for each day she experiences a discharge, if the blood is found on her second day, i.e., the day after she had a discharge, despite the fact that she does not have a presumptive status of seeing blood. It is nevertheless considered that her uterus is open and the likelihood is that she will experience bleeding.

讜讘住讜驻专转 砖讘注讛 砖诇讗 讟讘诇讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讛讬讗 诪转讜拽谞转 讜讞讘专转讛 诪拽讜诇拽诇转 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛 诇驻讬讻讱 砖转讬讛谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讜转

And likewise, she may also attribute the blood stain if she loaned her garment to a woman counting seven clean days who did not immerse in a ritual bath, and who will now have to count another seven clean days. Therefore, the status of the one who loaned the garment is fixed, and the status of the other woman is ruined and she must begin her counting again; this is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: She may not attribute the blood flow to either of these women. Therefore, the statuses of both the woman who loaned the garment and the one who borrowed it are ruined, in that both women are deemed impure.

讜砖讜讬谉 砖转讜诇讛 讘砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讘专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讛

The baraita continues: And both Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agree that a woman who lends her garment may attribute any blood stain found on it to a woman who observes a day for a day if it is on her first day of the discharge. In this case the status of the woman who borrowed the garment is no more ruined than it was already, as either way she can become pure on the following day.

讜讘讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专 讜讘讘转讜诇讛 砖讚诪讬讛 讟讛讜专讬谉

And they also agree in a case where the woman who borrowed the garment was a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity. During these days, attributing the blood to her does not ruin her status, as any blood she emits is pure and does not affect her status. And similarly, the lender may attribute the blood stain to a virgin who engages in intercourse for the first time, as her blood is pure, as there is an assumption that it is hymenal bleeding rather than menstrual blood.

诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the clause starting with: Therefore, mentioned by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? It is obvious that the status of only one woman is ruined, so what information does this observation add? The Gemara answers that this clause does not add any new information; rather, the baraita taught it because of the use of the similar clause beginning with: Therefore, stated by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the latter part of the baraita.

诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讛讬讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讻转诐 讙讘讛 转转拽诇拽诇 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 转转拽诇拽诇 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara persists: But why do I need the clause starting with: Therefore, in the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? That too is apparently superfluous. The Gemara explains: It is necessary, lest you say that the status of the woman who has the blood stain found with her when she is wearing the garment, should be ruined, whereas the status of the other woman should not be ruined, as the garment was not with her when the blood stain was discovered. Therefore, the baraita teaches us the clause beginning with: Therefore, to stress that both women are impure.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讟诪讗 讜讟讛讜专 砖讛诇讻讜 讘砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讟讛讜专 讜讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

搂 With regard to the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rav 岣sda says: In a case of two individuals, one of whom was ritually impure and the other of whom was pure, who walked on two paths, one of which was pure and the other one impure due to a corpse buried there, and neither remembers which path he took, and afterward they handled items of ritual purity, e.g., the portion of produce designated for the priest [teruma] or consecrated items, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, if one of the two individuals was already impure it can be assumed that he was the one who walked along the ritually impure path, and the other individual remains pure. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi claims that there is no assumption that the one who was pure retains that state, as it is equally possible that he walked along the ritually impure path.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讚讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇谉 诪讬谞讛

Rav Adda objects to this suggestion of Rav 岣sda, claiming that one cannot compare the two cases. It is possible that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states his halakha only there, with regard to a woman who observes a day for a day, as she can immerse in a ritual bath at any time, and therefore both women are like each other, i.e., both have a presumption of ritual purity. But here, in the case of the two individuals walking on two paths, what practical difference does it make to the one who was previously impure if he remains ritually impure? Since there is no change of status, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would agree in that case that it can be assumed that the individual who was previously impure was the one who walked on the impure path.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗讬讛讬 讟讘讬诇讛 讘注讬讗

And the Gemara asks: How would Rav 岣sda respond to this claim? Rav 岣sda would answer that a woman who observes a day for a day is also not fully pure, as ultimately she requires immersion in a ritual bath to complete her purification, and yet Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi still rejects the attribution of the blood flow to her. Accordingly, the two cases are comparable and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not assume that the individual who was already impure was the one who walked along the path that was impure.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟诪讗 讜讟讛讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讟讛讜专 讜转诇讜讬 砖讛诇讻讜 讘砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 讟讛讜专 转讜诇讛 讟诪讗 讘转诇讜讬 讜讟讛讜专 讘讟讛讜专 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

It was stated that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: In a case of two individuals, one of whom was ritually impure and the other of whom was pure, or even where one was pure and the other was impure due to uncertainty, who walked on two different paths, one of which was impure and the other one pure, and neither remembers which path he took, one may attribute by assuming that the impure path was the one traversed by the individual who was impure due to uncertainty, and the pure path was traversed by the one who was ritually pure. And everyone agrees with this ruling, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in this case. This statement is in accordance with Rav Adda鈥檚 objection, not in accordance with the suggestion of Rav 岣sda.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 诇讬讜讗讬 诪讛讜 诇转诇讜转 讻转诐 讘讻转诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诇讗 转讘注讬 诇讱

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai: What is the halakha with regard to attributing a blood stain to a woman who is already impure due to having seen a blood stain? Rabbi Yo岣nan clarifies his question: I am not raising this dilemma to you according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚拽讗 讞讝讬讗 诪讙讜驻讛 讗诪专转 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛 讛讻讗 讚诪注诇诪讗 拽讗 讗转讬 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan explains why his dilemma does not apply according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Now, and if there, where one loaned her garment to a woman who observes a clean day for a day, which is a case where she sees a discharge from her body, and yet you said that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the other woman may not attribute the blood stain to her, then here, in the case of a woman who is impure merely due to having seen a blood stain, where her impurity came from a source external to her, is it not all the more so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not permit one to attribute the blood stain to her?

讻讬 转讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讞讝讬讗 诪讙讜驻讛 转诇讬讗 讛讻讗 讚诪注诇诪讗 拽讗转讬 诇讗 转诇讬讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rather, when I raise this dilemma to you, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yo岣nan clarifies the dilemma: Perhaps it is only there, in the case where she loaned her garment to a woman who observes a day for a day, where she sees the discharge from her body, that the lender may attribute the blood stain to her, whereas here, where it is possible that the stain came from a source external to her, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would not permit the lender to attribute this new blood stain to her. Or perhaps it is no different, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would rule leniently in both cases.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 诪讛 讟注诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: She may not attribute this blood stain to a woman who was already impure due to having seen a blood stain, and both women are ritually impure. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai: What is the reason that she may not attribute the blood stain to her? Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai answered: It is because in this case one may not attribute the new blood stain to that other woman, as her previous stain might have come from an external cause.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讻转诐 讘讻转诐 讛砖讗讬诇讛 讞诇讜拽讛 诇谞讻专讬转 讗讜 诇讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讛讻转诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转讜诇讛 讘讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai from the following baraita: A woman who loans her garment to another and subsequently finds a blood stain on it may not attribute the blood stain to a woman who was impure due to having previously seen a blood stain. But if she loaned her garment to a gentile woman or to a woman who was observing days of impurity due to having seen a blood stain, she may attribute the blood stain found on the garment to that other woman.

讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 住讬驻讗 讗诪专转 转讜诇讬谉 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讜讛讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

Before explaining the objection, the Gemara first analyzes the baraita. This baraita itself is difficult. In the first clause you said that a woman who loans her garment to another and subsequently finds a blood stain on it may not attribute the blood stain to a woman who was impure due to having previously seen a blood stain, whereas in the latter clause you said that she may attribute the blood stain to such a woman. Rabbi Yo岣nan explains this contradiction: This is not difficult. This first clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and that latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讛讗 讘专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讛 讛讗 讘砖谞讬 砖诇讛

There are those who say an alternative resolution of the contradiction: Both this clause and that clause are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The difference is that this latter clause, where she may attribute the blood stain to the other woman, is referring to a case where the blood stain was found on that woman鈥檚 first day, when she had just found the blood stain and is impure for that day. Since she is in any case impure for that day, she is not adversely affected by having the new stain attributed to her. The case where the blood stain may not be attributed to the other woman is a case where the blood stain in question was found on her second day, i.e., the day after she found the blood stain, when she is not impure but merely requires immersion. The lender may not attribute the new blood stain to her, as that would render her ritually impure for an extra day.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rav Ashi said yet another resolution of the baraita: Both this first clause and that latter clause are in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and it is not difficult.

讻讗谉 诇诪驻专注 讻讗谉 诇讛讘讗

Here, in the latter clause of the baraita, when she may attribute the stain to a woman who had seen a blood stain, it is referring to rendering that woman impure retroactively with regard to the status of pure items that she had already touched before the stain was found on the garment she borrowed. This attribution of the blood stain to the woman who was already impure due to seeing a blood stain does not harm her impure status in any way, as items she had previously touched were already considered impure. There, in the beginning of the baraita, where the ruling is that the lender may not attribute the blood stain to a woman who was already impure, it is referring to her own status with regard to the future. With regard to the future, one may not attribute the stain to woman who had already seen a blood stain, as this attribution would ruin that woman鈥檚 counting of pure days.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛砖讗讬诇讛 讞诇讜拽讛 诇谞讻专讬转 讘注诇转 讻转诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转讜诇讛 讘讛

The Gemara returns to the objection: The baraita has been resolved, but in any case everyone agrees that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel she may attribute the stain to a woman who had previously seen a blood stain. This presents a difficulty to the answer of Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai, i.e., that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel one may not attribute the blood stain in such a case. Ravina said: It is not difficult, as this is what the baraita is saying in its latter clause: If she loaned her garment to a gentile woman, then with regard to defining the lender as one who had seen a blood stain, the lender may attribute the stain to the gentile woman. If so, it cannot be inferred from the baraita that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel one may attribute a blood stain to another woman who was already impure due to a blood stain.

讜讛讗 讗讜 诇讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讛讻转诐 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 诇讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专 讘注诇转 讻转诐 转讜诇讛 讘讛

The Gemara raises an objection: But the tanna of the baraita teaches: Or to a woman who was observing days of impurity due to having seen a blood stain, i.e., it mentions another woman who was already impure due to having seen a blood stain. Ravina explains that this is what the tanna is saying: If she loaned the garment to a gentile woman or to a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, then with regard to defining the lender as a woman who saw a blood stain, she may attribute the stain to the gentile or to the woman observing the days of ritually pure blood, and the lender remains pure.

砖诇砖 砖诇讘砖讜 讻讜壮 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞拽转讛 诇讗专抓 转砖讘 讻讬讜谉 砖讬砖讘讛 诇讗专抓 谞拽转讛

搂 The mishna teaches: In a case of three women who wore one garment, etc. If they sat on a stone bench or on the bench of a bathhouse, Rabbi Ne岣mya deems all three women ritually pure, as Rabbi Ne岣mya would say: Any item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity is not susceptible to ritual impurity due to blood stains. The Gemara clarifies the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya. Rav Mattana says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya? As it is written: 鈥淎nd her gates shall lament and mourn; and clean she shall sit upon the ground鈥 (Isaiah 3:26). This teaches that once she sits on the ground, which is not susceptible to ritual impurity, she shall be clean, i.e., pure.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讟讛专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬 讞专住 驻砖讬讟讗

Rav Huna says that Rabbi 岣nina says: Rabbi Ne岣mya would deem her ritually pure even if she sat on the exterior of an inverted earthenware vessel. Since an earthenware vessel becomes impure only if an impure item enters its airspace, its exterior is not susceptible to ritual impurity and therefore it does not render a woman who sees a blood stain on it ritually impure. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Rabbi Ne岣mya himself said that she does not become impure if a blood stain is found on an item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity. What does Rabbi 岣nina add to that statement?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讙讘讜 讗讟讜 转讜讻讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: This observation is necessary, lest you say: Let the Sages decree that she becomes impure from a blood stain found on the exterior of an earthenware vessel, due to its similarity to a blood stain found on the interior, which would render her impure. Therefore, Rabbi 岣nina teaches us that there is no such decree.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讟讛专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讘诪讟诇谞讬讜转 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讗 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜诇讗 诇注砖讬专讬诐

Abaye says: Rabbi Ne岣mya would deem her ritually pure if she saw blood stains on small rags that do not have an area of three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, as these rags are suitable for use neither for the poor nor for the wealthy.

讚专砖 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪转谞讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讘讗 转谞讬 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讟诪讗讜诐 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

Rav 岣yya bar Rav Mattana taught in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya. Rav Na岣an said to Rav 岣yya bar Rav Mattana: Father teaches the following baraita: An incident of this kind came before the Sages, involving two women who found a blood stain on an item that was not susceptible to ritual impurity, and the Sages deemed both women ritually impure, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Ne岣mya. And yet you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya?

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讟讜讞谞讜转 讘专讞讬讬诐 砖诇 讬讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讚诐 转讞转 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 砖转讬讛谉 讟诪讗讜转 转讞转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讟讛讜专讛 讘讬谞转讬诐 砖转讬讛谉 讟诪讗讜转

The Gemara inquires: What is that incident in question? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to two women who were grinding with a hand mill and were standing next to each other, and blood was found beneath the woman on the inside, i.e., the woman standing closest to the mill, they are both ritually impure. The reason is that the woman standing further away pushes in to get closer to the mill, and therefore the blood stain could be from either of them. But if blood was found beneath the woman on the outside, i.e., the woman standing further from the mill, the woman on the outside is impure and the woman on the inside is pure. If the blood was found between them, they are both impure.

讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜谞诪爪讗 讚诐 注诇 砖驻转讛 砖诇 讗诪讘讟讬 讜注诇 注诇讛 砖诇 讝讬转 讘砖注讛 砖诪住讬拽讜转 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讟诪讗讜诐

The baraita continues: There was an incident and blood was found on the edge of a bathtub, and in another case a blood stain was found on an olive leaf at the time that the women were kindling the oven. And the incident came before the Sages and they deemed both women ritually impure. Since an olive leaf is not susceptible to ritual impurity, this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诪讟讛专 讜讛讜专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav Mattana answered: It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m whether or not the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya. As it is taught in a baraita: If a blood stain is found on an item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov deems her impure, but Rabbi Ne岣mya deems her pure. And the Sages ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讬砖谞讜转 讘诪讟讛 讗讞转 讜谞诪爪讗 讚诐 转讞转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转 讘讚拽讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜砖转讬讛谉 讟讛讜专讜转 讜转讜诇讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 讜讗诐 诇讗 讛讬讜 专讗讜讬谉 诇专讗讜转 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 专讗讜讬讜转

MISHNA: In a case of three women who were sleeping in one bed and blood was discovered beneath one of them, all of them are ritually impure. If when the blood was discovered one of them examined herself and discovered that she was impure due to menstruation, she is impure and the other two are pure. And if none of them examined themselves, or if all of them examined themselves and were pure, they attribute the blood to each other, i.e., if one of them is unfit to menstruate, e.g., she is pregnant, she may attribute the blood to the other women who are fit to menstruate. And if all three women were not fit to see the flow of blood, e.g., they each belonged to one of the categories listed in the mishna on 7a, one considers them as though they were fit, and all three are impure, because the blood must have originated from one of them.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讛讜讗 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讘砖讬注讜专 讜住转

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one of the women examined herself when the blood was discovered and found that she was impure due to menstruation, she is impure and the other two are pure. In this regard, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The other two women may attribute the blood to the one who examined herself only when she examined herself within the brief period of time needed for the onset of menstruation. But if she checked herself after this time, although she is impure, the other women are also impure, due to uncertainty.

住讘专 诇讛 讻讘专 驻讚讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 砖讘注诇讛 讘讞讟讗转 讟讛专讜转讬讛 讟诪讗讜转

The Gemara explains: Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of bar Padda, who said: There are three time periods with regard to defining a woman鈥檚 ritual-purity status if she sees blood after engaging in intercourse. The shortest is the period of time required for the onset of menstruation, i.e., for menstrual bleeding to begin. The next shortest is the time it would take the woman to get out of bed after intercourse and wash her private parts. The longest period is any time longer than that. If a woman finds blood after intercourse within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, she must have been impure during intercourse. With regard to any woman whose husband would be liable to bring a sin offering if he had engaged in intercourse with her, because she found the blood within that short period, if she had not been engaging in intercourse, but rather had been preparing food in a state of ritual purity, and then she found blood within that short period, all the pure items that she touched are ritually impure.

讘注诇讛 讘讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讟讛专讜转讬讛 转诇讜讬讜转 讘注诇讛 驻讟讜专 讟讛专讜转讬讛 讟讛讜专讜转

By contrast, with regard to any woman whose husband would be liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he had engaged in intercourse with her, as it is uncertain whether he violated a transgression for which he would be liable to bring a sin offering, if she had not been engaging in intercourse, but rather had been preparing food in a state of ritual purity and then found blood within that same time period, the status of all the pure items she touched is suspended, as their status is uncertain. They are not burned but they may not be eaten either. Finally, with regard to any woman whose husband would be exempt from bringing any offering, i.e., where she finds blood after a longer time period, if she had not been engaging in intercourse, but rather had been preparing food in a state of ritual purity, and then found the blood after a longer time period, all the pure items she touched remain pure.

讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇讛 讘讞讟讗转 讟讛专讜转讬讛 转诇讜讬讜转

And Rabbi Oshaya says: There is no connection between her husband鈥檚 obligation to bring an offering and the ritual-purity status of the items she handled. Even if her husband is liable to bring a sin offering, i.e., when she discovered the blood within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, the status of all the pure items she touched before she discovered the blood is suspended, as their status is uncertain.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗讬诪专 砖诪砖 注讻讘讬讛 诇讚诐 [讗讘诇] 讛讻讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讬 讚诐 诪讗谉 注讻讘讬讛

Rabbi Oshaya explains his reasoning. Granted, there, in the case of intercourse, where the husband must bring an offering, one can say that the male organ prevented the blood from emerging from her body, and therefore it is clear that she was impure beforehand. But here, in the case of preparing food in a state of ritual purity, if it is so that there was blood coming out of her while she was preparing the food, what prevented the blood from emerging from her body?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪砖诇 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讬诇讚 讜讝拽谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜 讘讚专讱 讬诇讚 砖讜讛讗 诇讘讗 谞讻谞住讜 诇注讬专 讬诇讚 诪诪讛专 诇讘讗 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖诇 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讗讚诐 砖谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 讚诪注讛 砖讜讛讗 诇讘讗 谞讟诇 讛讗爪讘注 讚诪注讛 诪诪讛专转 诇讘讗

Rabbi Yirmeya says a parable in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya: To what is this matter comparable? To a child and an old man who are walking along the road. As long as they are on the road, the child delays his arrival, i.e., he walks at the pace of the old man. But once they enter the city, the child hastens his arrival, and runs on ahead. Similarly, as soon as the couple has finished engaging in intercourse, the blood comes quickly, but the blood is hindered from coming out during intercourse. And Abaye also says a parable in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya: To what is this matter comparable? To a man who puts his finger in his eye. As long as his finger is in his eye, the tears delay their arrival and remain in the eye. But as soon as he has removed his finger the tears hasten their arrival.

讜转讜诇讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 转讜诇讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 注讜讘专讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 注讜讘专讛 转讜诇讛 注讜讘专讛 讘砖讗讬谞讛 注讜讘专讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And with regard to three women who were sleeping in one bed and blood was discovered beneath one of them, that if one of them is unfit to menstruate they attribute the blood to each other, i.e., to the women who are fit to menstruate. In this regard, the Sages taught in a baraita: How do they attribute the blood to one another? If one of the women is pregnant and one is not pregnant, the pregnant woman may attribute the blood to the woman who is not pregnant.

诪谞讬拽讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 诪谞讬拽讛 转讜诇讛 诪谞讬拽讛 讘砖讗讬谞讛 诪谞讬拽讛 讝拽谞讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 讝拽谞讛 转讜诇讛 讝拽谞讛 讘砖讗讬谞讛 讝拽谞讛 讘转讜诇讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 讘转讜诇讛 转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讛 讘砖讗讬谞讛 讘转讜诇讛

If one of the women is nursing and the other is not nursing, the nursing woman may attribute the blood to the woman who is not nursing. If one of the women is old and no longer experiences bleeding regularly, and the other one is not old, the old woman may attribute the blood to the woman who is not old. Likewise, if one of the women is a virgin, in this context, one who has not yet experienced bleeding due to her youth, and the other woman is not a virgin, in this context, one who has experienced bleeding, the virgin may attribute the blood to the woman who is not a virgin.

讛讬讜 砖转讬讛谉 注讜讘专讜转 砖转讬讛谉 诪谞讬拽讜转 砖转讬讛谉 讝拽谞讜转 砖转讬讛谉 讘转讜诇讜转 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 专讗讜讬讜转 诇专讗讜转 专讜讗讬谉

The baraita continues: If both women are pregnant, or both women are nursing, or both women are old, or both women are virgins, in this case the halakha is as we learned in the mishna: If both women were not fit to see menstrual blood, and yet blood is found beneath them on the bed, one considers them

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 60

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 60

讛专讜讗讛

who is of age and already seeing a flow of menstrual blood, i.e., she has had a flow of menstrual blood.

诪诪讗讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞讚讛 诪讛 谞讚讛 讚拽讞讝讬讗 讗祝 谞讻专讬转 讚拽讗 讞讝讬讗

The Gemara explains: From where does Rav know that this is referring to a gentile woman who once experienced a flow of blood? He infers from the mishna that the gentile woman it mentions is similar to a menstruating woman: Just as a menstruating woman is one who sees, i.e., who has already experienced bleeding, so too, the mishna is referring to an adult gentile woman who already sees menstrual blood.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻讬 谞讬讬诐 讜砖讻讬讘 专讘 讗诪专讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚转谞讬讗 转讜诇讛 讘谞讻专讬转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘谞讻专讬转 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇专讗讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇专讗讜转 讗讘诇 专讜讗讛 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱

Rav Sheshet says: I say that when Rav was dozing or sleeping he said that halakha, i.e., it is an error. As it is taught in a baraita: If a woman loaned her garment to a gentile and subsequently found a blood stain on it, she attributes the stain to the gentile woman. This tanna deems it permitted for her to attribute the blood to any gentile woman, regardless of her age or her likelihood of bleeding. Rabbi Meir disagrees and says: This applies specifically to a gentile woman who is fit to see menstrual blood. And the Gemara adds that even Rabbi Meir says only that the gentile woman must be fit to see menstrual blood, but he too agrees that it is not necessary for her to be seeing blood at that time. She does not have to have actually experienced bleeding at some point.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讞讜诪专讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇拽讜诇讗

Rava said in response to Rav Sheshet鈥檚 challenge: And how can you understand that Rabbi Meir is coming to be stringent? Rav Sheshet maintains that according to the first tanna of the baraita she can attribute the blood stain to any gentile, whereas Rabbi Meir rules stringently that she may attribute it only to a gentile who is fit to experience bleeding. This is incorrect, as Rabbi Meir is actually coming to be lenient. In other words, the first tanna is more stringent, as he deems it permitted for her to attribute the blood stain only to a gentile woman who had experienced a menstrual flow at least once. By contrast, Rabbi Meir rules that she may attribute the stain to a gentile woman who is old enough to experience bleeding, even if she has never experienced a menstrual flow.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛 讘谞讻专讬转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 转讜诇讛 讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讱 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讜讛讬讗 砖专讜讗讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇专讗讜转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 专讜讗讛

The Gemara provides the reason for Rava鈥檚 opinion. As it is taught in a baraita: A woman who loaned her garment to a gentile woman and subsequently finds a blood stain on it may not attribute the stain to the gentile woman. Rabbi Meir says that she may attribute the blood stain to the gentile woman. But if so, the first baraita, which states that according to the first tanna she may attribute the blood stain to any gentile woman, is difficult. You must answer like this: According to the first tanna she may attribute the blood to any gentile woman provided that she sees, i.e., that she once experienced bleeding. By contrast, Rabbi Meir says a more lenient opinion, that she may attribute it to the gentile woman provided that she is fit to see menstrual blood, and this is the halakha even though she has not actually seen menstrual blood yet.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转讜诇讛 讘砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讘砖谞讬 砖诇讛

The Sages taught a baraita with regard to a woman who loaned her garment to another woman who was a lesser zava: The lender may attribute the blood stain on the loaned garment to a woman who observes a clean day for each day she experiences a discharge, if the blood is found on her second day, i.e., the day after she had a discharge, despite the fact that she does not have a presumptive status of seeing blood. It is nevertheless considered that her uterus is open and the likelihood is that she will experience bleeding.

讜讘住讜驻专转 砖讘注讛 砖诇讗 讟讘诇讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讛讬讗 诪转讜拽谞转 讜讞讘专转讛 诪拽讜诇拽诇转 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛 诇驻讬讻讱 砖转讬讛谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇讜转

And likewise, she may also attribute the blood stain if she loaned her garment to a woman counting seven clean days who did not immerse in a ritual bath, and who will now have to count another seven clean days. Therefore, the status of the one who loaned the garment is fixed, and the status of the other woman is ruined and she must begin her counting again; this is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: She may not attribute the blood flow to either of these women. Therefore, the statuses of both the woman who loaned the garment and the one who borrowed it are ruined, in that both women are deemed impure.

讜砖讜讬谉 砖转讜诇讛 讘砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讘专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讛

The baraita continues: And both Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agree that a woman who lends her garment may attribute any blood stain found on it to a woman who observes a day for a day if it is on her first day of the discharge. In this case the status of the woman who borrowed the garment is no more ruined than it was already, as either way she can become pure on the following day.

讜讘讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专 讜讘讘转讜诇讛 砖讚诪讬讛 讟讛讜专讬谉

And they also agree in a case where the woman who borrowed the garment was a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity. During these days, attributing the blood to her does not ruin her status, as any blood she emits is pure and does not affect her status. And similarly, the lender may attribute the blood stain to a virgin who engages in intercourse for the first time, as her blood is pure, as there is an assumption that it is hymenal bleeding rather than menstrual blood.

诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the clause starting with: Therefore, mentioned by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? It is obvious that the status of only one woman is ruined, so what information does this observation add? The Gemara answers that this clause does not add any new information; rather, the baraita taught it because of the use of the similar clause beginning with: Therefore, stated by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the latter part of the baraita.

诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讛讬讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讻转诐 讙讘讛 转转拽诇拽诇 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 转转拽诇拽诇 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara persists: But why do I need the clause starting with: Therefore, in the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? That too is apparently superfluous. The Gemara explains: It is necessary, lest you say that the status of the woman who has the blood stain found with her when she is wearing the garment, should be ruined, whereas the status of the other woman should not be ruined, as the garment was not with her when the blood stain was discovered. Therefore, the baraita teaches us the clause beginning with: Therefore, to stress that both women are impure.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讟诪讗 讜讟讛讜专 砖讛诇讻讜 讘砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讟讛讜专 讜讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

搂 With regard to the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rav 岣sda says: In a case of two individuals, one of whom was ritually impure and the other of whom was pure, who walked on two paths, one of which was pure and the other one impure due to a corpse buried there, and neither remembers which path he took, and afterward they handled items of ritual purity, e.g., the portion of produce designated for the priest [teruma] or consecrated items, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, if one of the two individuals was already impure it can be assumed that he was the one who walked along the ritually impure path, and the other individual remains pure. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi claims that there is no assumption that the one who was pure retains that state, as it is equally possible that he walked along the ritually impure path.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讚讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇谉 诪讬谞讛

Rav Adda objects to this suggestion of Rav 岣sda, claiming that one cannot compare the two cases. It is possible that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states his halakha only there, with regard to a woman who observes a day for a day, as she can immerse in a ritual bath at any time, and therefore both women are like each other, i.e., both have a presumption of ritual purity. But here, in the case of the two individuals walking on two paths, what practical difference does it make to the one who was previously impure if he remains ritually impure? Since there is no change of status, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would agree in that case that it can be assumed that the individual who was previously impure was the one who walked on the impure path.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗讬讛讬 讟讘讬诇讛 讘注讬讗

And the Gemara asks: How would Rav 岣sda respond to this claim? Rav 岣sda would answer that a woman who observes a day for a day is also not fully pure, as ultimately she requires immersion in a ritual bath to complete her purification, and yet Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi still rejects the attribution of the blood flow to her. Accordingly, the two cases are comparable and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not assume that the individual who was already impure was the one who walked along the path that was impure.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟诪讗 讜讟讛讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讟讛讜专 讜转诇讜讬 砖讛诇讻讜 讘砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 讟讛讜专 转讜诇讛 讟诪讗 讘转诇讜讬 讜讟讛讜专 讘讟讛讜专 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

It was stated that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: In a case of two individuals, one of whom was ritually impure and the other of whom was pure, or even where one was pure and the other was impure due to uncertainty, who walked on two different paths, one of which was impure and the other one pure, and neither remembers which path he took, one may attribute by assuming that the impure path was the one traversed by the individual who was impure due to uncertainty, and the pure path was traversed by the one who was ritually pure. And everyone agrees with this ruling, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in this case. This statement is in accordance with Rav Adda鈥檚 objection, not in accordance with the suggestion of Rav 岣sda.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 诇讬讜讗讬 诪讛讜 诇转诇讜转 讻转诐 讘讻转诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诇讗 转讘注讬 诇讱

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai: What is the halakha with regard to attributing a blood stain to a woman who is already impure due to having seen a blood stain? Rabbi Yo岣nan clarifies his question: I am not raising this dilemma to you according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚拽讗 讞讝讬讗 诪讙讜驻讛 讗诪专转 讗讬谞讛 转讜诇讛 讛讻讗 讚诪注诇诪讗 拽讗 讗转讬 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan explains why his dilemma does not apply according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Now, and if there, where one loaned her garment to a woman who observes a clean day for a day, which is a case where she sees a discharge from her body, and yet you said that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the other woman may not attribute the blood stain to her, then here, in the case of a woman who is impure merely due to having seen a blood stain, where her impurity came from a source external to her, is it not all the more so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not permit one to attribute the blood stain to her?

讻讬 转讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讞讝讬讗 诪讙讜驻讛 转诇讬讗 讛讻讗 讚诪注诇诪讗 拽讗转讬 诇讗 转诇讬讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rather, when I raise this dilemma to you, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yo岣nan clarifies the dilemma: Perhaps it is only there, in the case where she loaned her garment to a woman who observes a day for a day, where she sees the discharge from her body, that the lender may attribute the blood stain to her, whereas here, where it is possible that the stain came from a source external to her, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would not permit the lender to attribute this new blood stain to her. Or perhaps it is no different, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would rule leniently in both cases.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 诪讛 讟注诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: She may not attribute this blood stain to a woman who was already impure due to having seen a blood stain, and both women are ritually impure. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai: What is the reason that she may not attribute the blood stain to her? Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai answered: It is because in this case one may not attribute the new blood stain to that other woman, as her previous stain might have come from an external cause.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讻转诐 讘讻转诐 讛砖讗讬诇讛 讞诇讜拽讛 诇谞讻专讬转 讗讜 诇讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讛讻转诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转讜诇讛 讘讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai from the following baraita: A woman who loans her garment to another and subsequently finds a blood stain on it may not attribute the blood stain to a woman who was impure due to having previously seen a blood stain. But if she loaned her garment to a gentile woman or to a woman who was observing days of impurity due to having seen a blood stain, she may attribute the blood stain found on the garment to that other woman.

讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 住讬驻讗 讗诪专转 转讜诇讬谉 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讜讛讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

Before explaining the objection, the Gemara first analyzes the baraita. This baraita itself is difficult. In the first clause you said that a woman who loans her garment to another and subsequently finds a blood stain on it may not attribute the blood stain to a woman who was impure due to having previously seen a blood stain, whereas in the latter clause you said that she may attribute the blood stain to such a woman. Rabbi Yo岣nan explains this contradiction: This is not difficult. This first clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and that latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讛讗 讘专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讛 讛讗 讘砖谞讬 砖诇讛

There are those who say an alternative resolution of the contradiction: Both this clause and that clause are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The difference is that this latter clause, where she may attribute the blood stain to the other woman, is referring to a case where the blood stain was found on that woman鈥檚 first day, when she had just found the blood stain and is impure for that day. Since she is in any case impure for that day, she is not adversely affected by having the new stain attributed to her. The case where the blood stain may not be attributed to the other woman is a case where the blood stain in question was found on her second day, i.e., the day after she found the blood stain, when she is not impure but merely requires immersion. The lender may not attribute the new blood stain to her, as that would render her ritually impure for an extra day.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rav Ashi said yet another resolution of the baraita: Both this first clause and that latter clause are in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and it is not difficult.

讻讗谉 诇诪驻专注 讻讗谉 诇讛讘讗

Here, in the latter clause of the baraita, when she may attribute the stain to a woman who had seen a blood stain, it is referring to rendering that woman impure retroactively with regard to the status of pure items that she had already touched before the stain was found on the garment she borrowed. This attribution of the blood stain to the woman who was already impure due to seeing a blood stain does not harm her impure status in any way, as items she had previously touched were already considered impure. There, in the beginning of the baraita, where the ruling is that the lender may not attribute the blood stain to a woman who was already impure, it is referring to her own status with regard to the future. With regard to the future, one may not attribute the stain to woman who had already seen a blood stain, as this attribution would ruin that woman鈥檚 counting of pure days.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛砖讗讬诇讛 讞诇讜拽讛 诇谞讻专讬转 讘注诇转 讻转诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转讜诇讛 讘讛

The Gemara returns to the objection: The baraita has been resolved, but in any case everyone agrees that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel she may attribute the stain to a woman who had previously seen a blood stain. This presents a difficulty to the answer of Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai, i.e., that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel one may not attribute the blood stain in such a case. Ravina said: It is not difficult, as this is what the baraita is saying in its latter clause: If she loaned her garment to a gentile woman, then with regard to defining the lender as one who had seen a blood stain, the lender may attribute the stain to the gentile woman. If so, it cannot be inferred from the baraita that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel one may attribute a blood stain to another woman who was already impure due to a blood stain.

讜讛讗 讗讜 诇讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讛讻转诐 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 诇讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专 讘注诇转 讻转诐 转讜诇讛 讘讛

The Gemara raises an objection: But the tanna of the baraita teaches: Or to a woman who was observing days of impurity due to having seen a blood stain, i.e., it mentions another woman who was already impure due to having seen a blood stain. Ravina explains that this is what the tanna is saying: If she loaned the garment to a gentile woman or to a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, then with regard to defining the lender as a woman who saw a blood stain, she may attribute the stain to the gentile or to the woman observing the days of ritually pure blood, and the lender remains pure.

砖诇砖 砖诇讘砖讜 讻讜壮 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞拽转讛 诇讗专抓 转砖讘 讻讬讜谉 砖讬砖讘讛 诇讗专抓 谞拽转讛

搂 The mishna teaches: In a case of three women who wore one garment, etc. If they sat on a stone bench or on the bench of a bathhouse, Rabbi Ne岣mya deems all three women ritually pure, as Rabbi Ne岣mya would say: Any item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity is not susceptible to ritual impurity due to blood stains. The Gemara clarifies the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya. Rav Mattana says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya? As it is written: 鈥淎nd her gates shall lament and mourn; and clean she shall sit upon the ground鈥 (Isaiah 3:26). This teaches that once she sits on the ground, which is not susceptible to ritual impurity, she shall be clean, i.e., pure.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讟讛专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞讜专讬 讻诇讬 讞专住 驻砖讬讟讗

Rav Huna says that Rabbi 岣nina says: Rabbi Ne岣mya would deem her ritually pure even if she sat on the exterior of an inverted earthenware vessel. Since an earthenware vessel becomes impure only if an impure item enters its airspace, its exterior is not susceptible to ritual impurity and therefore it does not render a woman who sees a blood stain on it ritually impure. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Rabbi Ne岣mya himself said that she does not become impure if a blood stain is found on an item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity. What does Rabbi 岣nina add to that statement?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讙讘讜 讗讟讜 转讜讻讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: This observation is necessary, lest you say: Let the Sages decree that she becomes impure from a blood stain found on the exterior of an earthenware vessel, due to its similarity to a blood stain found on the interior, which would render her impure. Therefore, Rabbi 岣nina teaches us that there is no such decree.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讟讛专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讘诪讟诇谞讬讜转 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讗 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜诇讗 诇注砖讬专讬诐

Abaye says: Rabbi Ne岣mya would deem her ritually pure if she saw blood stains on small rags that do not have an area of three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, as these rags are suitable for use neither for the poor nor for the wealthy.

讚专砖 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪转谞讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讘讗 转谞讬 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讟诪讗讜诐 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

Rav 岣yya bar Rav Mattana taught in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya. Rav Na岣an said to Rav 岣yya bar Rav Mattana: Father teaches the following baraita: An incident of this kind came before the Sages, involving two women who found a blood stain on an item that was not susceptible to ritual impurity, and the Sages deemed both women ritually impure, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Ne岣mya. And yet you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya?

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讟讜讞谞讜转 讘专讞讬讬诐 砖诇 讬讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讚诐 转讞转 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 砖转讬讛谉 讟诪讗讜转 转讞转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讟讛讜专讛 讘讬谞转讬诐 砖转讬讛谉 讟诪讗讜转

The Gemara inquires: What is that incident in question? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to two women who were grinding with a hand mill and were standing next to each other, and blood was found beneath the woman on the inside, i.e., the woman standing closest to the mill, they are both ritually impure. The reason is that the woman standing further away pushes in to get closer to the mill, and therefore the blood stain could be from either of them. But if blood was found beneath the woman on the outside, i.e., the woman standing further from the mill, the woman on the outside is impure and the woman on the inside is pure. If the blood was found between them, they are both impure.

讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜谞诪爪讗 讚诐 注诇 砖驻转讛 砖诇 讗诪讘讟讬 讜注诇 注诇讛 砖诇 讝讬转 讘砖注讛 砖诪住讬拽讜转 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讟诪讗讜诐

The baraita continues: There was an incident and blood was found on the edge of a bathtub, and in another case a blood stain was found on an olive leaf at the time that the women were kindling the oven. And the incident came before the Sages and they deemed both women ritually impure. Since an olive leaf is not susceptible to ritual impurity, this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诪讟讛专 讜讛讜专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav Mattana answered: It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m whether or not the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya. As it is taught in a baraita: If a blood stain is found on an item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov deems her impure, but Rabbi Ne岣mya deems her pure. And the Sages ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讬砖谞讜转 讘诪讟讛 讗讞转 讜谞诪爪讗 讚诐 转讞转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转 讘讚拽讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜砖转讬讛谉 讟讛讜专讜转 讜转讜诇讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 讜讗诐 诇讗 讛讬讜 专讗讜讬谉 诇专讗讜转 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 专讗讜讬讜转

MISHNA: In a case of three women who were sleeping in one bed and blood was discovered beneath one of them, all of them are ritually impure. If when the blood was discovered one of them examined herself and discovered that she was impure due to menstruation, she is impure and the other two are pure. And if none of them examined themselves, or if all of them examined themselves and were pure, they attribute the blood to each other, i.e., if one of them is unfit to menstruate, e.g., she is pregnant, she may attribute the blood to the other women who are fit to menstruate. And if all three women were not fit to see the flow of blood, e.g., they each belonged to one of the categories listed in the mishna on 7a, one considers them as though they were fit, and all three are impure, because the blood must have originated from one of them.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讛讜讗 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讘砖讬注讜专 讜住转

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one of the women examined herself when the blood was discovered and found that she was impure due to menstruation, she is impure and the other two are pure. In this regard, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The other two women may attribute the blood to the one who examined herself only when she examined herself within the brief period of time needed for the onset of menstruation. But if she checked herself after this time, although she is impure, the other women are also impure, due to uncertainty.

住讘专 诇讛 讻讘专 驻讚讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 砖讘注诇讛 讘讞讟讗转 讟讛专讜转讬讛 讟诪讗讜转

The Gemara explains: Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of bar Padda, who said: There are three time periods with regard to defining a woman鈥檚 ritual-purity status if she sees blood after engaging in intercourse. The shortest is the period of time required for the onset of menstruation, i.e., for menstrual bleeding to begin. The next shortest is the time it would take the woman to get out of bed after intercourse and wash her private parts. The longest period is any time longer than that. If a woman finds blood after intercourse within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, she must have been impure during intercourse. With regard to any woman whose husband would be liable to bring a sin offering if he had engaged in intercourse with her, because she found the blood within that short period, if she had not been engaging in intercourse, but rather had been preparing food in a state of ritual purity, and then she found blood within that short period, all the pure items that she touched are ritually impure.

讘注诇讛 讘讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讟讛专讜转讬讛 转诇讜讬讜转 讘注诇讛 驻讟讜专 讟讛专讜转讬讛 讟讛讜专讜转

By contrast, with regard to any woman whose husband would be liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he had engaged in intercourse with her, as it is uncertain whether he violated a transgression for which he would be liable to bring a sin offering, if she had not been engaging in intercourse, but rather had been preparing food in a state of ritual purity and then found blood within that same time period, the status of all the pure items she touched is suspended, as their status is uncertain. They are not burned but they may not be eaten either. Finally, with regard to any woman whose husband would be exempt from bringing any offering, i.e., where she finds blood after a longer time period, if she had not been engaging in intercourse, but rather had been preparing food in a state of ritual purity, and then found the blood after a longer time period, all the pure items she touched remain pure.

讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇讛 讘讞讟讗转 讟讛专讜转讬讛 转诇讜讬讜转

And Rabbi Oshaya says: There is no connection between her husband鈥檚 obligation to bring an offering and the ritual-purity status of the items she handled. Even if her husband is liable to bring a sin offering, i.e., when she discovered the blood within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, the status of all the pure items she touched before she discovered the blood is suspended, as their status is uncertain.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗讬诪专 砖诪砖 注讻讘讬讛 诇讚诐 [讗讘诇] 讛讻讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讜讬 讚诐 诪讗谉 注讻讘讬讛

Rabbi Oshaya explains his reasoning. Granted, there, in the case of intercourse, where the husband must bring an offering, one can say that the male organ prevented the blood from emerging from her body, and therefore it is clear that she was impure beforehand. But here, in the case of preparing food in a state of ritual purity, if it is so that there was blood coming out of her while she was preparing the food, what prevented the blood from emerging from her body?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪砖诇 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讬诇讚 讜讝拽谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜 讘讚专讱 讬诇讚 砖讜讛讗 诇讘讗 谞讻谞住讜 诇注讬专 讬诇讚 诪诪讛专 诇讘讗 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖诇 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讗讚诐 砖谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 讚诪注讛 砖讜讛讗 诇讘讗 谞讟诇 讛讗爪讘注 讚诪注讛 诪诪讛专转 诇讘讗

Rabbi Yirmeya says a parable in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya: To what is this matter comparable? To a child and an old man who are walking along the road. As long as they are on the road, the child delays his arrival, i.e., he walks at the pace of the old man. But once they enter the city, the child hastens his arrival, and runs on ahead. Similarly, as soon as the couple has finished engaging in intercourse, the blood comes quickly, but the blood is hindered from coming out during intercourse. And Abaye also says a parable in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya: To what is this matter comparable? To a man who puts his finger in his eye. As long as his finger is in his eye, the tears delay their arrival and remain in the eye. But as soon as he has removed his finger the tears hasten their arrival.

讜转讜诇讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 转讜诇讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 注讜讘专讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 注讜讘专讛 转讜诇讛 注讜讘专讛 讘砖讗讬谞讛 注讜讘专讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And with regard to three women who were sleeping in one bed and blood was discovered beneath one of them, that if one of them is unfit to menstruate they attribute the blood to each other, i.e., to the women who are fit to menstruate. In this regard, the Sages taught in a baraita: How do they attribute the blood to one another? If one of the women is pregnant and one is not pregnant, the pregnant woman may attribute the blood to the woman who is not pregnant.

诪谞讬拽讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 诪谞讬拽讛 转讜诇讛 诪谞讬拽讛 讘砖讗讬谞讛 诪谞讬拽讛 讝拽谞讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 讝拽谞讛 转讜诇讛 讝拽谞讛 讘砖讗讬谞讛 讝拽谞讛 讘转讜诇讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 讘转讜诇讛 转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讛 讘砖讗讬谞讛 讘转讜诇讛

If one of the women is nursing and the other is not nursing, the nursing woman may attribute the blood to the woman who is not nursing. If one of the women is old and no longer experiences bleeding regularly, and the other one is not old, the old woman may attribute the blood to the woman who is not old. Likewise, if one of the women is a virgin, in this context, one who has not yet experienced bleeding due to her youth, and the other woman is not a virgin, in this context, one who has experienced bleeding, the virgin may attribute the blood to the woman who is not a virgin.

讛讬讜 砖转讬讛谉 注讜讘专讜转 砖转讬讛谉 诪谞讬拽讜转 砖转讬讛谉 讝拽谞讜转 砖转讬讛谉 讘转讜诇讜转 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 专讗讜讬讜转 诇专讗讜转 专讜讗讬谉

The baraita continues: If both women are pregnant, or both women are nursing, or both women are old, or both women are virgins, in this case the halakha is as we learned in the mishna: If both women were not fit to see menstrual blood, and yet blood is found beneath them on the bed, one considers them

Scroll To Top