נדה יט

נדה יט

וְאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת מָה הִפִּילָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: זִיל בָּתַר רוֹב חֲתִיכוֹת, וְרוֹב חֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁל אַרְבַּע מִינֵי דָּמִים הָוְיָין. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: זִיל בָּתַר רוֹב חֲתִיכוֹת לָא אָמְרִינַן.

and she herself does not know exactly what the appearance of the piece of flesh that she miscarried was, e.g., if it was lost. In this case Rabbi Yehuda holds: Follow the majority of miscarriages of amorphous pieces of flesh, and the majority of pieces of flesh have the appearance of one of the four types of impure blood. And the Rabbis hold: We do not say: Follow the majority of miscarriages of amorphous pieces of flesh. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s mention of three cases is meant to exclude this statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who rules that the woman is definitely impure based on a majority.

מַתְנִי’ חֲמִשָּׁה דָּמִים טְמֵאִים בָּאִשָּׁה, הָאָדוֹם, וְהַשָּׁחוֹר, וּכְקֶרֶן כַּרְכּוֹם, וּכְמֵימֵי אֲדָמָה, וְכַמָּזוּג. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַף כְּמֵימֵי תִלְתָּן, וּכְמֵימֵי בָּשָׂר צָלִי, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִים. הַיָּרוֹק — עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל מְטַמֵּא, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין.

MISHNA: There are five distinct colors of ritually impure blood in a woman: Red, and black, and like the bright color of the crocus [karkom] flower, and like water that inundates red earth, and like diluted wine. Beit Shammai say: Even blood like the water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked, and like the liquid that drips from roast meat, are ritually impure, and Beit Hillel deem blood of those colors ritually pure. With regard to blood that is green, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems it impure and the Rabbis deem it pure.

אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם, מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם מַשְׁקֶה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֹא כָּךְ וְלֹא כָּךְ.

Rabbi Meir said: Even if the green blood does not transmit impurity due to the halakhot of a blood stain or the blood of a menstruating woman, it is blood in that it renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to its status as one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yosei says: Neither in this sense, as the blood of a menstruating woman according to Akavya ben Mahalalel, nor in that sense, as a liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity according to Rabbi Meir, is green blood considered blood.

אֵיזֶהוּ אָדוֹם — כְּדַם הַמַּכָּה; שָׁחוֹר — כְּחֶרֶת; עָמוֹק מִכֵּן — טָמֵא, דֵּיהֶה מִכֵּן — טָהוֹר; וּכְקֶרֶן כַּרְכּוֹם — כַּבָּרוּר שֶׁבּוֹ;

The mishna asks: What is the red color that is impure? It is as red as the blood that flows from a wound. What is the black color that is impure? It is blood as black as ḥeret. If the black is deeper than that, the blood is ritually impure; if the black is lighter than that, the blood is ritually pure. And what is the color that is like the bright color of the crocus flower that is impure? It is like the brightest part in the flower, which is harvested to produce the orange-colored spice saffron.

וּכְמֵימֵי אֲדָמָה — מִבִּקְעַת בֵּית כֶּרֶם, וּמֵיצֵף מַיִם; וְכַמָּזוּג — שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים מַיִם וְאֶחָד יַיִן מִן הַיַּיִן הַשָּׁרוֹנִי.

And what is the color that is like water that inundates red earth that is impure? It is specifically earth from the Beit Kerem Valley and specifically when one inundates the earth with enough water until it pools on the surface. And what is the color that is like diluted wine that is impure? It is specifically when the dilution consists of two parts water and one part wine, and specifically when it is from the wine of the Sharon region in Eretz Yisrael.

גְּמָ’ מְנָלַן דְּאִיכָּא דָּם טָהוֹר בָּאִשָּׁה? דִּלְמָא כֹּל דָּם דְּאָתֵי מִינַּהּ טָמֵא!

GEMARA: The fact that the mishna discusses the colors of ritually impure blood in a woman indicates that there is blood that is not impure. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that there is pure blood in a woman? Perhaps any type of blood that emerges from a woman is impure?

אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, אֲמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט בֵּין דָּם לְדָם״, בֵּין דָּם טָהוֹר לְדָם טָמֵא.

Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosef says that Rabbi Oshaya says: The verse states with regard to those who come before the court: “If there arise a matter too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between leprous mark and leprous mark, even matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise, and get up unto the place that the Lord your God shall choose” (Deuteronomy 17:8). When the verse states: “Between blood and blood,” it means between pure blood and impure blood, which demonstrates that there must be types of pure blood that are emitted by a woman.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בֵּין נֶגַע לָנֶגַע, הָכִי נָמֵי בֵּין נֶגַע טָמֵא לְנֶגַע טָהוֹר? וְכִי תֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי — נֶגַע טָהוֹר מִי אִיכָּא? וְכִי תֵימָא ״כֻּלּוֹ הָפַךְ לָבָן טָהוֹר הוּא״ — הָהוּא ״בּוֹהַק״ מִקְּרֵי!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, then does the other expression in the verse: “Between leprous mark and leprous mark,” also mean: Between a pure leprous mark and an impure leprous mark? And if you would say that indeed, this is what it means, is there a type of pure leprous mark? And if you would say that there is in fact a pure leprous mark, according to the verse: “Then the priest shall look; and behold, if the leprosy has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce pure the one that has the leprous mark; it is all turned white: He is pure” (Leviticus 13:13), that mark is not classified as a leprous mark; rather, it is called a paleness, as a leprous mark is by definition impure.

אֶלָּא: בֵּין נִגְעֵי אָדָם לְנִגְעֵי בָתִּים וּלְנִגְעֵי בְגָדִים, וְכוּלָּן טְמֵאִין. הָכָא נָמֵי: בֵּין דַּם נִדָּה לְדַם זִיבָה, וְכוּלָּן טְמֵאִין!

Rather, the phrase “between leprous mark and leprous mark” must mean the following: Between the leprous marks that afflict man (see Leviticus 13:1–46) and the leprous marks of houses (see Leviticus 14:33–53) and the leprous marks of garments (see Leviticus 13:47–59), as different halakhot pertain to these categories of leprous marks, and yet they are all ritually impure. Therefore, here too, when the verse states: “Between blood and blood,” it means: Between the blood of a menstruating woman and the blood of a discharge [ziva], and they are all ritually impure. If so, this verse cannot be cited as proof that there is a type of blood emitted by a woman that is pure.

הַאי מַאי? בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, אִיכָּא לְאִפְּלוֹגֵי [זָקֵן מַמְרֵא וְרַבָּנַן] בְּנִגְעֵי אָדָם, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבָּנַן.

The Gemara questions this interpretation: This verse serves as the source for the areas of halakha for which a rebellious elder is liable to receive the death penalty for publicly ruling in contradiction to a decision of the Sanhedrin, as it states: “And the man who does presumptuously, in not listening to the priest that stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or to the judge, that man shall die; and you shall exterminate the evil from Israel” (Deuteronomy 17:12). With this in mind, the Gemara asks: What is this explanation? Granted, there, with regard to leprous marks, even if all the leprous marks are impure, one can disagree with the Sanhedrin with regard to the leprous marks that afflict man, and therefore the rebellious elder could potentially disagree with the court with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis.

דִּתְנַן: אִם בַּהֶרֶת קוֹדֵם לְשֵׂעָר לָבָן — טָמֵא, וְאִם שֵׂעָר לָבָן קוֹדֵם לַבַּהֶרֶת — טָהוֹר, סָפֵק — טָמֵא, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כֵּהָה. וְאָמַר רַבָּה: כֵּהָה וְטָהוֹר.

As we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 4:11): If the snow-white leprous mark [baheret], which is one sign of leprosy, preceded the white hair, which is another sign, he is ritually impure, as stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 13:3). And if the white hair preceded the baheret he is pure, as this is not considered a sign of impurity. If there is uncertainty as to which came first, he is impure. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is dull [keha]. And Rabba says, explaining the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua: In the case of uncertainty, the leprous mark is deemed as though it is of a dull shade, and therefore the person is ritually pure.

בְּנִגְעֵי בָתִּים — כִּי הָא פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבָּנַן, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵין הַבַּיִת טָמֵא עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה כִּשְׁנֵי גְרִיסִין עַל שְׁנֵי אֲבָנִים בִּשְׁנֵי כְּותָלִים בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית, אׇרְכּוֹ כִּשְׁנֵי גְרִיסִין וְרׇחְבּוֹ כִּגְרִיס.

Likewise, with regard to the leprous marks of houses one can find a case where the rebellious elder might dispute the ruling of the Sanhedrin, such as that dispute between Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 12:3): Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: A house is never deemed impure with leprosy unless the leprous mark will be seen to be the size of two split beans, and it is found on two stones on two walls in a corner between two walls. The length of the mark is that of two split beans, and its width is that of one split bean.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? כְּתִיב ״קִיר״ וּכְתִיב ״קִירוֹת״ — אֵיזֶהוּ קִיר שֶׁהוּא כִּשְׁנֵי קִירוֹת? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה קֶרֶן זָוִית.

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? The word “wall” is written in the verse, and the word “walls” is written in the same verse: “And he shall see the leprous mark…in the walls of the house with hollow streaks, greenish or reddish, and their appearance is lower than the wall” (Leviticus 14:37). Which is one wall that is like two walls? You must say: This is a corner between two walls.

בְּנִגְעֵי בְגָדִים — בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן אַבְטוּלְמוֹס וְרַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן אַבְטוּלְמוֹס אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לִפְרִיחַת בְּגָדִים שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה?

Similarly, with regard to the leprous marks on garments, it is possible that the rebellious elder disputed the ruling of the Sanhedrin with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos and the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos says: From where is it derived with regard to a case where there is a spread of leprosy in garments that culminates with the garment’s being completely covered with leprous marks, that the garment is pure, just as the halakha is with regard to a leprous mark that fully covers a person?

נֶאֱמַר ״קָרַחַת״ וְ״גַבַּחַת״ בַּבְּגָדִים, וְנֶאֱמַר ״קֵרַחַת״ וְ״גַבַּחַת״ בָּאָדָם.

It is derived via a verbal analogy: A bareness within [karaḥat] and a bareness without [gabbaḥat] are stated with regard to leprosy of garments: “And the priest shall look, after that the mark is washed; and, behold, if the mark has not changed its color, and the mark has not spread, it is impure; you shall burn it in the fire; it is a fret, whether the bareness be within or without” (Leviticus 13:55); and a bald head [karaḥat] and a bald forehead [gabbaḥat] are stated with regard to leprosy of a person: “But if there is in the bald head, or the bald forehead, a reddish-white mark, it is leprosy breaking out in his bald head, or his bald forehead” (Leviticus 13:42).

מָה לְהַלָּן פָּרַח בְּכוּלּוֹ טָהוֹר, אַף כָּאן נָמֵי פָּרַח בְּכוּלּוֹ טָהוֹר.

Just as there, with regard to a person, if the leprosy spread to his entire body he is pure, as the verse states: “Then the priest shall look; and behold, if the leprosy has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce pure the one who has the leprous mark; it is all turned white: He is pure” (Leviticus 13:13), so too here, with regard to garments, if the leprosy spread to the entire garment it is pure.

אֶלָּא הָכָא, אִי דָּם טָהוֹר לֵיכָּא, בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי?

The Gemara concludes: But here, concerning the phrase “between blood and blood,” if there is no type of pure blood at all, with regard to what issue could the rebellious elder disagree with the Sanhedrin? It must be that this verse is alluding to the fact that there is a type of blood of a woman that is pure.

וּמִמַּאי דְּהָנֵי טְהוֹרִין, וְהָנֵי טְמֵאִין? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיִּרְאוּ מוֹאָב אֶת הַמַּיִם אֲדוּמִּים כַּדָּם״, לְמֵימְרָא דְּדָם אָדוֹם הוּא? אֵימָא אָדוֹם, וְתוּ לָא!

§ Once it has been established that there are types of blood that are pure and other types that are impure, the Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that those types of blood that are not listed in the mishna are pure, and these ones that are mentioned in the mishna are impure? Rabbi Abbahu said that the verse states: “And the sun shone upon the water, and the Moabites saw the water some way off as red as blood” (II Kings 3:22), which indicates that blood is red. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that blood is red? If so, one can say that only blood that is red like the blood of a wound is ritually impure, and no more colors of blood are impure.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אָמַר קְרָא ״דָּמֶיהָ״ ״דָּמֶיהָ״, הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבָּעָה.

Rabbi Abbahu said in response: The verse states, with regard to a menstruating woman: “And she shall be purified from the source of her blood [dameha]” (Leviticus 12:7). The plural form of the word blood, dameha, indicates at least two types of blood. And another verse states: “And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness, he has made naked her source, and she has uncovered the source of her blood [dameha]; both of them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 20:18). The use of the plural form of blood once again indicates another two types, which means that there are four types of blood stated here.

וְהָא אֲנַן ״חֲמִשָּׁה״ תְּנַן! אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שָׁחוֹר — אָדוֹם הוּא, אֶלָּא שֶׁלָּקָה.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that there are five types of impure blood in a woman, whereas the verses indicate that there are only four? Rabbi Ḥanina says: The black blood mentioned in the mishna is actually red, but its color has faded, which is why it looks black. Therefore, although the mishna lists five kinds of blood, there are only four basic types.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: שָׁחוֹר — כְּחֶרֶת; עָמוֹק מִכֵּן — טָמֵא, דֵּיהֶה אֲפִילּוּ כִּכְחוֹל — טָהוֹר. וְשָׁחוֹר זֶה לֹא מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ הוּא מַשְׁחִיר, אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁנֶּעֱקָר הוּא מַשְׁחִיר. מָשָׁל לְדַם מַכָּה: לִכְשֶׁנֶּעֱקָר הוּא מַשְׁחִיר.

This opinion, that black blood is actually red blood, is also taught in a baraita: The black color of blood that is impure is blood as black as ḥeret. If the black is deeper than that, the blood is ritually impure; if the black is lighter than that, even if it is still as dark as blue, the blood is ritually pure. And this black blood does not blacken from its outset, when it is inside the body; rather, it blackens only when it is removed from the body. This is comparable to the blood of a wound, which is initially red, but when it is removed from the body it blackens.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַף כְּמֵימֵי תִלְתָּן. וְלֵית לְהוּ לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי ״דָּמֶיהָ״ ״דָּמֶיהָ״ — הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבָּעָה?

§ The mishna states that Beit Shammai say: Even blood like the water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked, and like the liquid that drips from roast meat, are ritually impure. The Gemara asks: But do Beit Shammai not accept the exposition of Rabbi Abbahu that the two mentions of the plural form of blood: “Dameha” (Leviticus 12:7), and “Dameha” (Leviticus 20:18), indicate that there are four types of blood here?

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לֵית לְהוּ, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִית לְהוּ. מִי לָא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שָׁחוֹר — אָדוֹם הוּא, אֶלָּא שֶׁלָּקָה? הָכִי נָמֵי, מִלְקָא הוּא דְּלָקֵי.

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Beit Shammai do not accept this opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, and they maintain that there are more than four types of blood in a woman. And if you wish, say instead that Beit Shammai do accept Rabbi Abbahu’s exposition, and the apparent contradiction can be resolved as follows: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina say with regard to the black blood mentioned in the mishna that it is not an additional type, as it is actually red but its color has faded? So too, with regard to the colors of blood mentioned by Beit Shammai, that of water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked, and that of the liquid that drips from roast meat, one can say that these are not additional types of blood. Rather, they too were initially red but their color faded.

וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא!

§ The mishna states: And Beit Hillel deem blood of those colors, i.e., the color of water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked or of the liquid that drips from roast meat, ritually pure. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this opinion of Beit Hillel identical to the opinion of the first tanna?

אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ

The Gemara explains: There is a practical difference between them

לִתְלוֹת.

with regard to whether to leave in abeyance, i.e., to treat as uncertain, blood the color of water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked, or the color of the liquid that drips from roast meat. According to the first tanna of the mishna there are five types of blood that are definitely impure, whereas other types, such as those mentioned by Beit Shammai, are deemed impure due to uncertainty. By contrast, Beit Hillel maintain that blood of these colors is entirely pure.

הַיָּרוֹק, עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל מְטַמֵּא. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לַעֲקַבְיָא ״דָּמֶיהָ״ ״דָּמֶיהָ״ — הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבָּעָה?

§ The mishna states: Blood that is green, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems it impure. The Gemara asks: But does Akavya ben Mahalalel not accept the exposition of Rabbi Abbahu that the two verses: “Dameha” (Leviticus 12:7), and: “Dameha” (Leviticus 20:18), indicate that there are four types of blood here?

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לֵית לֵיהּ, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִית לֵיהּ, מִי לָא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שָׁחוֹר — אָדוֹם הוּא, אֶלָּא שֶׁלָּקָה? הָכָא נָמֵי, מִלְקָא הוּא דְּלָקֵי.

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Akavya ben Mahalalel does not accept this opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as he maintains that there are more than four types of blood in a woman. And if you wish, say instead that Akavya ben Mahalalel accepts Rabbi Abbahu’s exposition, and the apparent contradiction can be resolved as follows: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina say, with regard to the black blood mentioned in the mishna, that it is actually red but its color has faded? Here too, with regard to the green mentioned by Akavya ben Mahalalel, one can say that it was initially red but its color faded and turned green.

וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין. הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ לִתְלוֹת.

§ The mishna states with regard to blood that is green: And the Rabbis deem it pure. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this opinion of the Rabbis identical to the opinion of the first tanna? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to whether to leave in abeyance blood that is green. According to the first tanna of the mishna there are five types of blood that are definitely impure, whereas other types, such as green, are impure due to uncertainty. By contrast, the Rabbis maintain that green blood is entirely pure.

אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: ״אִם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם״ כּוּ׳.

§ The mishna states that Rabbi Meir said: Even if the green blood does not transmit impurity due to the halakhot of a blood stain or the blood of a menstruating woman, it is blood in that it renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to its status as one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יָרַד רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְשִׁיטַת עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל, וְטִימֵּא. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן: נְהִי דְּהֵיכָא דְּקָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ כֶּתֶם יָרוֹק אַמָּנָא לָא מְטַמְּאִיתוּ, הֵיכָא דְּקָחָזְיָא דַּם יָרוֹק מִגּוּפַהּ — תְּטַמֵּא.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Meir accepted the opinion of Akavya ben Mahalalel and deemed green blood impure as blood of a menstruating woman. And as for his statement in the mishna, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Granted that in a case where a woman finds a green stain on an article of clothing you do not deem her ritually impure, as its greenness is an indication that it did not come from her body. But in a case where she actually sees green blood come from her body, she shall be impure.

אִי הָכִי, אִם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם, מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם מַשְׁקֶה? מִשּׁוּם רוֹאָה מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ!

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this interpretation: If so, why did Rabbi Meir say: Even if it does not transmit impurity due to the halakhot of a blood stain, it renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to its status as a liquid? According to the above explanation, he should have said: If the woman saw the emission of this blood, she is impure as a menstruating woman.

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: נְהִי הֵיכָא דְּקָא חָזְיָא דָּם יָרוֹק מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא מְטַמְּאִיתוּ, הֵיכָא דְּחָזְיָא דַּם אָדוֹם וַהֲדַר חָזְיָא דָּם יָרוֹק — תְּטַמֵּא, מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַמַּשְׁקֶה זָב וְזָבָה.

Rather, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Granted that in a case where the woman sees green blood from the outset you do not deem her ritually impure, but in a case where she sees red blood and then sees green blood, she shall be impure. This is just as it is with regard to the halakha of the fluids of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] and a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava]. All fluids emitted by a zav or zava, such as saliva and urine, are impure. Likewise, green blood that is emitted by this woman who has already emitted red blood should be impure.

וְרַבָּנַן, דּוּמְיָא דְּרוֹק: מָה רוֹק שֶׁמִּתְעַגֵּל וְיוֹצֵא, אַף כֹּל שֶׁמִּתְעַגֵּל וְיוֹצֵא, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הַאי דְּאֵין מִתְעַגֵּל וְיוֹצֵא. אִי הָכִי, שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis respond to this? The Gemara answers: They maintain that the impure fluids of a menstruating woman are only those that are similar to saliva: Just as when saliva leaves one’s mouth it is first gathered together and then expelled from the body, so too, all impure fluids are those that are gathered together and then expelled. This definition serves to exclude this green blood, which is not gathered together and expelled. The Gemara asks: If so, the Rabbis spoke well to Rabbi Meir, i.e., their answer is convincing. Why does Rabbi Meir deem green blood impure?

אֶלָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לֶהֱוֵי כְּמַשְׁקֶה לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים. וְרַבָּנַן בָּעֵי ״דַּם חֲלָלִים״, וְלֵיכָּא. אִי הָכִי, שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר!

Rather, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Let green blood be at least like one of the seven liquids that render seeds upon which they fall susceptible to ritual impurity. Why is green blood deemed pure even with regard to this matter? And the Rabbis disagree because they require that every type of blood that renders food susceptible to ritual impurity be like that mentioned in the verse: “And drink the blood of the slain” (Numbers 23:24), i.e., the blood that flows at the time of death; and green blood is not the type that flows at the time of death. Therefore, it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara again asks: If so, the Rabbis spoke well to Rabbi Meir. Why does he disagree with them?

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: אַלְּפוּהָ בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״שְׁלָחַיִךְ פַּרְדֵּס רִמּוֹנִים״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וְשֹׁלֵחַ מַיִם עַל פְּנֵי חוּצוֹת״.

Rather, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Learn this halakha that green blood renders food susceptible to ritual impurity from the following verbal analogy: It is written here, in a description of the beloved woman that alludes to her menstrual blood: “Your shoots [shelaḥayikh] are an orchard of pomegranates” (Song of Songs 4:13), and it is written there: “Who gives rain upon the earth, and sends [veshole’aḥ] waters upon the fields” (Job 5:10). This verbal analogy indicates that menstrual blood is similar to water in that both render food susceptible to ritual impurity.

וְרַבָּנַן? אָדָם דָּן קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵעַצְמוֹ, וְאֵין אָדָם דָּן גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה מֵעַצְמוֹ.

And the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir, as they do not have a tradition that this is an accepted verbal analogy, and there is a principle that although a person may derive an a fortiori inference on his own, i.e., even though he was not taught that particular logical argument by his teachers, a person may not derive a verbal analogy on his own, but only if he received it by tradition.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֹא כָּךְ וְכוּ׳. הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: מַאן תַּנָּא קַמָּא? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְכׇל הָאוֹמֵר דָּבָר בְּשֵׁם אוֹמְרוֹ מֵבִיא גְּאוּלָּה לָעוֹלָם.

§ The mishna states that Rabbi Yosei says: Neither in this sense, as the blood of a menstruating woman according to Akavya ben Mahalalel, nor in that sense, as a liquid that renders food susceptible according to Rabbi Meir, is green blood considered blood. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t this the same as the opinion of the first tanna? The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is teaching us: Who is the first tanna? Rabbi Yosei. And the reason Rabbi Yosei’s name is mentioned is due to the principle that anyone who reports a statement in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world.

אֵיזֶהוּ אָדוֹם — כְּדַם הַמַּכָּה. מַאי ״כְּדַם הַמַּכָּה״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּדַם שׁוֹר שָׁחוּט.

§ The mishna states: What is the red color of blood that is impure? It is as red as the blood that flows from a wound. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: As the blood that flows from a wound? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Like the blood of a slaughtered ox.

וְלֵימָא ״כְּדַם שְׁחִיטָה״! אִי אָמַר ״כְּדַם שְׁחִיטָה״ — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא כְּכוּלַּהּ שְׁחִיטָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״כְּדַם הַמַּכָּה״ — כִּתְחִילַּת הַכָּאָה שֶׁל סַכִּין.

The Gemara inquires: But if so, let the tanna of the mishna say explicitly that it is as red as the blood of slaughter. The Gemara explains: If the tanna had said that it is as red as the blood of slaughter, I would say that it means as red as the blood that flows throughout the entire slaughter, and it would apply to the shades of all blood emitted during the process. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that it is as red as the blood that flows from a wound, i.e., as the blood that flows at the beginning of the slitting with the slaughtering knife.

עוּלָּא אָמַר: כְּדַם צִפּוֹר חַיָּה. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: חַיָּה — לְאַפּוֹקֵי שָׁחוּט, אוֹ דִּלְמָא לְאַפּוֹקֵי כָּחוּשׁ? תֵּיקוּ.

The Gemara cites other definitions of the color described in the mishna as: Red as the blood that flows from a wound. Ulla says: It is red like the blood that flows from a living bird that was wounded. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Ulla specified that the bird is living, did he mean that it was not dead, to exclude the blood of a slaughtered bird? Or perhaps he meant that the bird was healthy, to exclude the blood of a weak bird. No answer was found, and therefore the Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כְּדַם מַאֲכוֹלֶת שֶׁל רֹאשׁ. מֵיתִיבִי: הָרְגָה מַאֲכוֹלֶת — הֲרֵי זֹה תּוֹלָה בָּהּ. מַאי לַָאו דְּכוּלֵּיהּ גּוּפַהּ? לָא, דְּרֵאשַׁהּ.

The Gemara cites another definition: Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is red like the blood that comes from a squashed head louse. The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna that discusses a stain found on a woman’s garment (58b): If a woman killed a louse and subsequently found a blood stain on her garment or body, this woman may attribute the stain to that louse, and she remains pure. The Gemara explains the objection: What, is it not correct to say that this is referring to a louse from all parts of her body, not just the head, as claimed by Rabbi Ḥanina? If so, the color of impure blood is like the color of the blood of a louse from anywhere on the body. The Gemara answers: No; this halakha is referring specifically to a louse that was on her head.

אַמֵּי וַרְדִּינָאָה, אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: כְּדַם אֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה שֶׁל יָד, שֶׁנִּגְּפָה וְחָיְיתָה וְחָזְרָה וְנִגְּפָה. וְלֹא שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם, אֶלָּא שֶׁל בָּחוּר שֶׁלֹּא נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה. וְעַד כַּמָּה? עַד בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים.

The Gemara cites yet another definition of the color described in the mishna as: Red as the blood that flows from a wound. The Sage Ami of Vardina says that Rabbi Abbahu says: It is red as the blood that flows from the smallest finger of the hand, which was wounded and later healed and was subsequently wounded again. And this is not referring to the finger of any person, but specifically to the finger of a young man who has not yet married a woman. And furthermore, this does not mean any young man; rather, until what age must he be? Until twenty years old.

מֵיתִיבִי: תּוֹלֶה בִּבְנָהּ וּבְבַעְלָהּ? בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּבְנָהּ — מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, אֶלָּא בַּעְלָהּ — הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

The Gemara raises an objection from the aforementioned mishna (58b): If the woman’s husband or son suffered an injury, she may attribute a blood stain she finds on her garment to her son or to her husband, and she remains pure. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Granted, with regard to the ruling that she may attribute it to her son, you can find a case where this meets all the requirements specified by Rabbi Abbahu, i.e., he could be younger than twenty and unmarried. But with regard to the ruling that she may attribute it to her husband, how can you find a case where her husband is unmarried?

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחוּפָּה, וְלֹא נִבְעֲלָה.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It is possible in a case where this woman entered the marriage canopy but has not yet engaged in intercourse with her husband. In such a situation, although he is her husband he is physically akin to an unmarried young man. Therefore, she can attribute the blood stain to his wound.

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: כְּדַם הַקָּזָה. מֵיתִיבִי: מַעֲשֶׂה וְתָלָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר

Rav Naḥman says: This red is like the blood spilled in the process of bloodletting. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An incident occurred involving a blood stain found on a woman’s garment, and Rabbi Meir attributed