נדה נח

נדה נח

מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

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

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: שְׁמוּאֵל הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה — אֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל כְּתָמִים.

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

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי — הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר ״קַרְקַע״, אֶלָּא לְרַב יִרְמְיָה — מַאי אִירְיָא קַרְקַע? אֲפִילּוּ גְּלִימָא נָמֵי! לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר.

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

לָא מִיבַּעְיָא גְּלִימָא, דְּלָא מִבְּדַק שַׁפִּיר, וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ קַרְקַע דְּמִבְּדַק שַׁפִּיר, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִגּוּפַהּ אָתְיָא — טָהוֹר.

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

עַל עֲקֵבָהּ וְעַל רֹאשׁ גּוּדָלָהּ טְמֵאָה וְכוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא עֲקֵבָהּ, עֲבִיד דְּנָגַע בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם, אֶלָּא רֹאשׁ גּוּדָלָהּ מַאי טַעְמָא? וְכִי תֵּימָא זִימְנִין דְּנָגַע בַּעֲקֵבָהּ, וּמִי מְחַזְּקִינַן טוּמְאָה מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם?

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

וְהָתַנְיָא: הָיְתָה לָהּ מַכָּה בְּצַוָּארָהּ, שֶׁתּוּכַל לִתְלוֹת — תּוֹלָה, עַל כְּתֵפָהּ, שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִתְלוֹת — אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה.

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

וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים ״שֶׁמָּא בְּיָדָהּ נְטָלַתּוּ וֶהֱבִיאַתּוּ לְשָׁם״! אֶלָּא שָׁאנֵי רֹאשׁ גּוּדָלָהּ, דְּבַהֲדֵי דְּפָסְעָה עֲבִיד דְּמִתְרְמֵי.

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

וְלָא מְחַזְּקִינַן טוּמְאָה מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם? וְהָתַנְיָא: נִמְצֵאת עַל קִשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתֶיהָ — טְמֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּדַיִם עַסְקָנִיּוֹת הֵן.

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

מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן: בָּדְקָה בְּחַד יְדָא, וְנָגְעָה בְּאִידַּךְ יְדָא? לָא, שָׁאנֵי יְדַהּ, דְּכוּלַּהּ עֲבִידָא דְּנָגְעָה.

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

עַל שׁוֹקָהּ וְעַל פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ, מִבִּפְנִים וְכוּ׳. מִבִּפְנִים — עַד הֵיכָא? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: עַד מָקוֹם חֲבָק.

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

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מְקוֹם חֲבָק כְּלִפְנִים אוֹ כְּלַחוּץ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַב קַטִּינָא: עַד מְקוֹם חֲבָק, וַחֲבָק עַצְמוֹ כְּלִפְנִים. רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּהֶדְיָא, אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: עַד מָקוֹם חֲבָק, וַחֲבָק עַצְמוֹ כְּלִפְנִים.

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

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: ״כְּשֵׁיר״ מַהוּ? ״כְּשׁוּרָה״ מַהוּ? ״טִיפִּין טִיפִּין״ מַהוּ? ״לְרוֹחַב יְרֵכָהּ״ מַהוּ?

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

תָּא שְׁמַע: עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ, סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָמֵא. עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ — מַאי לַָאו כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? לָא, דִּלְמָא דַּעֲבִיד כִּרְצוּעָה.

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

הַהִיא אִיתְּתָא דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח לַהּ דְּמָא בְּמַשְׁתִּיתָא, אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי, אֲמַר לַהּ: תֵּיזִיל וְתֵיתֵי.

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

וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין שׁוֹנִין בִּטְהָרוֹת! כִּי אָמְרִינַן אֵין שׁוֹנִין — לְקוּלָּא, אֲבָל לְחוּמְרָא — שׁוֹנִין.

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

הָיְתָה פּוֹשַׁטְתּוֹ וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: דָּבָר זֶה הוֹרֵיתִי בָּעִיר רוֹמִי לְאִיסּוּר, וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי אֵצֶל חֲכָמִים שֶׁבַּדָּרוֹם אָמְרוּ לִי: יָפֶה הוֹרֵיתָהּ.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֲרוּכָּה שֶׁלָּבְשָׁה חֲלוּקָהּ שֶׁל קְצָרָה, וּקְצָרָה שֶׁלָּבְשָׁה חֲלוּקָהּ שֶׁל אֲרוּכָּה — אִם מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה שֶׁל אֲרוּכָּה, שְׁתֵּיהֶן טְמֵאוֹת. וְאִם לָאו, אֲרוּכָּה טְהוֹרָה וּקְצָרָה טְמֵאָה.

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

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: בָּדְקָה חֲלוּקָהּ וְהִשְׁאִילַתּוּ לַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ, הִיא טְהוֹרָה וַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ תּוֹלָה בָּהּ. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: וּלְעִנְיַן דִּינָא תְּנַן, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה — הִיא טְהוֹרָה וַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ טְמֵאָה.

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

מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעַסְּקוּ בְּצִפּוֹר אֶחָד, וְאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא כְּסֶלַע דָּם, וְנִמְצָא כְּסֶלַע עַל זוֹ וּכְסֶלַע עַל זוֹ — שְׁתֵּיהֶן טְמֵאוֹת? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאִיכָּא סֶלַע יַתִּירָא.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לָבְשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלוּקוֹת הַבְּדוּקִין לָהּ, אִם יְכוֹלָה לִתְלוֹת — תּוֹלָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּתַּחְתּוֹן. אֵין יְכוֹלָה לִתְלוֹת — אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ בָּעֶלְיוֹן.

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

כֵּיצַד? עָבְרָה בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים — תּוֹלָה אֲפִילּוּ בַּתַּחְתּוֹן; לֹא עָבְרָה בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים — אַף בָּעֶלְיוֹן אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה.

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

מַתְנִי’ וְתוֹלָה בְּכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁהִיא יְכוֹלָה לִתְלוֹת. שָׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף, נִתְעַסְּקָה בִּכְתָמִים, אוֹ שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה בְּצַד הָעֲסוּקִין בָּהֶן, הָרְגָה מַאֲכוֹלֶת — הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָּהּ.

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

עַד כַּמָּה תּוֹלָה? רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: עַד כִּגְרִיס שֶׁל פּוֹל, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָרְגָה. וְתוֹלָה בִּבְנָהּ אוֹ בְּבַעְלָהּ אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ מַכָּה, וְהִיא יְכוֹלָה לְהִגָּלֵעַ וּלְהוֹצִיא דָּם — הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה.

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

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁבָּאת לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמְרָה לוֹ: רָאִיתִי כֶּתֶם. אָמַר לָהּ: שֶׁמָּא מַכָּה הָיְתָה בִּיךְ? אָמְרָה לוֹ: הֵן. וְחָיְתָה, אָמַר לָהּ: שֶׁמָּא יְכוֹלָה לְהִגָּלֵעַ וּלְהוֹצִיא דָּם? אָמְרָה לוֹ: הֵן. וְטִהֲרָהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

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

רָאָה תַּלְמִידָיו מִסְתַּכְּלִין זֶה בָּזֶה, אָמַר לָהֶם: מָה הַדָּבָר קָשֶׁה בְּעֵינֵיכֶם? שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הַדָּבָר לְהַחְמִיר אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִשָּׁה כִּי תִהְיֶה זָבָה דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ — ״דָּם״ וְלֹא כֶּתֶם.

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

עֵד שֶׁהוּא נָתוּן תַּחַת הַכַּר, וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם — עָגוֹל טָהוֹר, מָשׁוּךְ טָמֵא; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק.

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

גְּמָ’ תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה וְתָלָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּקִילוֹר, וְרַבִּי תָּלָה בִּשְׂרַף שִׁקְמָה.

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

אוֹ שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה. יָשְׁבָה — אִין, לֹא יָשְׁבָה — לָא.

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

תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: עָבְרָה בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים, סָפֵק נִיתַּז עָלֶיהָ סָפֵק לֹא נִיתַּז עָלֶיהָ — תּוֹלָה, סָפֵק עָבְרָה סָפֵק לֹא עָבְרָה — טְמֵאָה.

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

הָרְגָה מַאֲכוֹלֶת. הָרְגָה — אִין, לֹא הָרְגָה — לָא. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הָרְגָה — תּוֹלָה, לֹא הָרְגָה — אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ תּוֹלָה.

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

אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: לִדְבָרַי — אֵין קֵץ, וּלְדִבְרֵי חֲבֵרַי — אֵין סוֹף.

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

לִדְבָרַי אֵין קֵץ — שֶׁאֵין לְךָ אִשָּׁה שֶׁטְּהוֹרָה לְבַעְלָהּ, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ כׇּל מִטָּה וּמִטָּה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ כַּמָּה טִיפֵּי דַּם מַאֲכוֹלֶת.

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

לְדִבְרֵי חֲבֵרַי אֵין סוֹף — שֶׁאֵין לְךָ אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְהוֹרָה לְבַעְלָהּ, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ כׇּל סָדִין וְסָדִין שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כַּמָּה טִיפֵּי דָּם.

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

אֲבָל נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס מִדְּבָרַי וּמִדִּבְרֵיהֶם, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: עַד כַּמָּה הִיא תּוֹלָה? עַד כִּגְרִיס שֶׁל פּוֹל. וְלִדְבָרָיו אָנוּ מוֹדִים. וּלְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי תּוֹלָה, עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תּוֹלָה בְּפִשְׁפֵּשׁ, וְעַד כְּתוֹרְמוֹס.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פִּשְׁפֵּשׁ זֶה, אׇרְכּוֹ כְּרׇחְבּוֹ, וְטַעְמוֹ כְּרֵיחוֹ. בְּרִית כְּרוּתָה לוֹ, שֶׁכׇּל הַמּוֹלְלוֹ מֵרִיחַ בּוֹ. אׇרְכּוֹ כְּרׇחְבּוֹ — לְעִנְיַן כְּתָמִים;

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

טַעְמוֹ כְּרֵיחוֹ — לְעִנְיַן תְּרוּמָה. דִּתְנַן: אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַם טַעַם פִּשְׁפֵּשׁ בְּפִיו, הֲרֵי זֶה יִפְלוֹט. מְנָא יָדַע? טַעְמוֹ כְּרֵיחוֹ. וְאַכַּתִּי מְנָא יָדַע? בְּרִית כְּרוּתָה לוֹ, שֶׁכׇּל הַמּוֹלְלוֹ מֵרִיחַ בּוֹ.

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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ חֲזִירִים, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִכְתָמִים. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: וְהָא דְּרוֹקֶרֶת כְּעִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ חֲזִירִים דָּמְיָא.

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

עַד כַּמָּה הִיא תּוֹלָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כִּגְרִיס — אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה, פָּחוֹת מִכִּגְרִיס — תּוֹלָה, וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: כִּגְרִיס — תּוֹלָה, יָתֵר מִכִּגְרִיס — אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה.

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

לֵימָא, בְּעַד וְעַד בִּכְלָל קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַב הוּנָא סָבַר: עַד וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל, וְרַב חִסְדָּא סָבַר: עַד וְעַד בִּכְלָל?

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

אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא: אִיכָּא עַד וְעַד בִּכְלָל, וְאִיכָּא עַד וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל, וְהָכָא לְחוּמְרָא, וְהָכָא לְחוּמְרָא.

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

וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר לָךְ: בְּעָלְמָא אֵימָא לָךְ לְחוּמְרָא אָמְרִינַן, לְקוּלָּא לָא אָמְרִינַן. וְהָכָא כִּדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: כׇּל שִׁעוּרֵי חֲכָמִים לְהַחְמִיר, חוּץ מִכִּגְרִיס שֶׁל כְּתָמִים לְהָקֵל.

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

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא בְּאַפֵּי נַפְשַׁהּ: רַב הוּנָא אָמַר — כִּגְרִיס כְּיָתֵר מִכִּגְרִיס, וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר — כִּגְרִיס כְּפָחוֹת מִכִּגְרִיס, וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בְּ״עַד וְעַד״ דְּהָכָא, כִּדְאָמְרִינַן. מֵיתִיבִי:

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