Niddah 60

הרואה

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

ממאי דומיא דנדה מה נדה דקחזיא אף נכרית דקא חזיא

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.

אמר רב ששת כי ניים ושכיב רב אמרה להא שמעתא דתניא תולה בנכרית רבי מאיר אומר בנכרית הראויה לראות ואפילו רבי מאיר לא קאמר אלא בראויה לראות אבל רואה לא איצטריך

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.

אמר רבא ותסברא רבי מאיר לחומרא רבי מאיר לקולא

Rava said in response to Rav Sheshet’s 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.

דתניא אינה תולה בנכרית רבי מאיר אומר תולה ואלא קשיא הך תריץ הכי והיא שרואה רבי מאיר אומר בראויה לראות ואף על פי שאינה רואה

The Gemara provides the reason for Rava’s 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.

תנו רבנן תולה בשומרת יום כנגד יום בשני שלה

§ 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.

ובסופרת שבעה שלא טבלה לפיכך היא מתוקנת וחברתה מקולקלת דברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל רבי אומר אינה תולה לפיכך שתיהן מקולקלות

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.

ושוין שתולה בשומרת יום כנגד יום בראשון שלה

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.

וביושבת על דם טוהר ובבתולה שדמיה טהורין

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.

לפיכך דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל למה לי משום דרבי

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.

לפיכך דרבי למה לי מהו דתימא ההיא דאשתכח כתם גבה תתקלקל אידך לא תתקלקל קמשמע לן

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.

אמר רב חסדא טמא וטהור שהלכו בשני שבילין אחד טהור ואחד טמא באנו למחלוקת רבי ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל

§ With regard to the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rav Ḥisda 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.

מתקיף לה רב אדא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי התם אלא דתרוייהו כי הדדי נינהו הכא מאי נפקא לן מינה

Rav Adda objects to this suggestion of Rav Ḥisda, 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.

ורב חסדא סוף סוף איהי טבילה בעיא

And the Gemara asks: How would Rav Ḥisda respond to this claim? Rav Ḥisda 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.

איתמר אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא טמא וטהור ואפילו טהור ותלוי שהלכו בשני שבילין אחד טמא ואחד טהור תולה טמא בתלוי וטהור בטהור לדברי הכל

It was stated that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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’s objection, not in accordance with the suggestion of Rav Ḥisda.

בעא מיניה רבי יוחנן מרבי יהודה בר ליואי מהו לתלות כתם בכתם אליבא דרבי לא תבעי לך

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan clarifies his question: I am not raising this dilemma to you according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

השתא ומה התם דקא חזיא מגופה אמרת אינה תולה הכא דמעלמא קא אתי לא כל שכן

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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?

כי תבעי לך אליבא דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל התם הוא דקא חזיא מגופה תליא הכא דמעלמא קאתי לא תליא או דלמא לא שנא

Rather, when I raise this dilemma to you, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אמר ליה אין תולין מה טעם לפי שאין תולין

Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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 Yoḥanan 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.

איתיביה אין תולין כתם בכתם השאילה חלוקה לנכרית או ליושבת על הכתם הרי זו תולה בה

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

הא גופה קשיא רישא אמרת אין תולין סיפא אמרת תולין הא לא קשיא הא רבי והא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל

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 Yoḥanan 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.

איכא דאמרי הא והא רבי הא בראשון שלה הא בשני שלה

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’s 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.

רב אשי אמר הא והא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ולא קשיא

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.

כאן למפרע כאן להבא

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’s counting of pure days.

מכל מקום קשיא אמר רבינא לא קשיא הכי קאמר השאילה חלוקה לנכרית בעלת כתם הרי זו תולה בה

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.

והא או ליושבת על הכתם קתני הכי קאמר או ליושבת על דם טוהר בעלת כתם תולה בה

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.

שלש שלבשו כו׳ שהיה רבי נחמיה כו׳ אמר רב מתנה מאי טעמא דרבי נחמיה דכתיב ונקתה לארץ תשב כיון שישבה לארץ נקתה

§ 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 Neḥemya deems all three women ritually pure, as Rabbi Neḥemya 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 Neḥemya. Rav Mattana says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya? As it is written: “And her gates shall lament and mourn; and clean she shall sit upon the ground” (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.

אמר רב הונא אמר רבי חנינא מטהר היה רבי נחמיה אפילו באחורי כלי חרס פשיטא

Rav Huna says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Rabbi Neḥemya 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’t that obvious? Rabbi Neḥemya 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 Ḥanina add to that statement?

מהו דתימא ליגזור גבו אטו תוכו קא משמע לן

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 Ḥanina teaches us that there is no such decree.

אמר אביי מטהר היה רבי נחמיה במטלניות שאין בהן שלש על שלש דלא חזיין לא לעניים ולא לעשירים

Abaye says: Rabbi Neḥemya 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.

דרש רב חייא בר רב מתנה משמיה דרב הלכה כרבי נחמיה אמר ליה רב נחמן אבא תני מעשה בא לפני חכמים וטמאום ואת אמרת הלכה כרבי נחמיה

Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav Mattana taught in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Ḥiyya 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 Neḥemya. And yet you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya?

מאי היא דתניא שתי נשים שהיו טוחנות ברחיים של יד ונמצא דם תחת הפנימית שתיהן טמאות תחת החיצונה החיצונה טמאה והפנימית טהורה בינתים שתיהן טמאות

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.

היה מעשה ונמצא דם על שפתה של אמבטי ועל עלה של זית בשעה שמסיקות את התנור ובא מעשה לפני חכמים וטמאום

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 Neḥemya.

תנאי היא דתניא רבי יעקב מטמא ורבי נחמיה מטהר והורו חכמים כרבי נחמיה

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav Mattana answered: It is a dispute between tanna’im whether or not the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya. 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’akov deems her impure, but Rabbi Neḥemya deems her pure. And the Sages ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya.

מתני׳ שלש נשים שהיו ישנות במטה אחת ונמצא דם תחת אחת מהן כולן טמאות בדקה אחת מהן ונמצאת טמאה היא טמאה ושתיהן טהורות ותולות זו בזו ואם לא היו ראוין לראות רואין אותן כאילו הן ראויות

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.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר רב והוא שבדקה עצמה בשיעור וסת

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.

סבר לה כבר פדא דאמר כל שבעלה בחטאת טהרותיה טמאות

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’s 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.

בעלה באשם תלוי טהרותיה תלויות בעלה פטור טהרותיה טהורות

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.

ורבי אושעיא אמר אפילו בעלה בחטאת טהרותיה תלויות

And Rabbi Oshaya says: There is no connection between her husband’s 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.

בשלמא התם אימר שמש עכביה לדם [אבל] הכא אם איתא דהוי דם מאן עכביה

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?

אמר רבי ירמיה משל דרבי אושעיא למה הדבר דומה לילד וזקן שהיו מהלכין בדרך כל זמן שהיו בדרך ילד שוהא לבא נכנסו לעיר ילד ממהר לבא ואמר אביי משל דרבי אושעיא למה הדבר דומה לאדם שנותן אצבע בעין כל זמן שאצבע בעין דמעה שוהא לבא נטל האצבע דמעה ממהרת לבא

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.

ותולות זו בזו תנו רבנן כיצד תולות זו בזו עוברה ושאינה עוברה תולה עוברה בשאינה עוברה

§ 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.

מניקה ושאינה מניקה תולה מניקה בשאינה מניקה זקנה ושאינה זקנה תולה זקנה בשאינה זקנה בתולה ושאינה בתולה תולה בתולה בשאינה בתולה

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.

היו שתיהן עוברות שתיהן מניקות שתיהן זקנות שתיהן בתולות זו היא ששנינו לא היו ראויות לראות רואין

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